In Hollywood, sequels are an easy way for stupid producers to make a quick buck (
we're looking at you, Michael Bay). In cable news, apparently sequels are an offensive and idiotic way to describe how we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11. That's right. We're looking at you, CNN. Because earlier today in a report on the dangers the world faces post 9/11, CNN offered this gem of a headline (see image below). Forget the fact that there have been major terrorist attacks in Indonesia, Moscow, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Madrid, Israel, Palestine, London, Glasgow, Spain, Iraq, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan since 9/11. Forget the fact that United States soldiers are dying every day (August 2009 was the deadliest month in Afghanistan since the war began). CNN wants to know: "Why no 9/11 sequel?"
Why no 9/11 sequel, CNN? Probably because
it wouldn't make money as it would be a terrorist attack and not a f#cking movie. I don't think we're going on a limb here when we say that any 9/11 sequel (or headline about said sequel) is a sure misfire...
even if it starred Megan Fox. And that's saying something.
