Probably because it's not as recognisable in the West where the primary audience of this film is. Or that the Ka'bah is not as spectacular in structure as the St. Peter's Basilica for example. I mean in comparing the scale of these structures. In disaster movies, the bigger and more recognisable structure getting destroyed, the better it is. That's my theory.

(or something to do with the film's plot, I haven't seen it yet)

I'll return to pompous lurking now lol

I may see this when it comes out on DVD but I'm not sure. Most of the commercial was CGI and I'm not a big fan of that if you have real people in the movie. The plot seems slightly interesting, but the picture looks cheesy

Yes, yes it was, and I knew the first Wisconsin thing wasn't serious, but even during the serious moments, it was still so dang funny. I actually said, "Well, guess you can't move south like you planned to Dad." Oh and it IS for the scientific things.

I saw it last night. I thought the story line was good and most of the special effects were pretty good some of them plain sucked. They could've done better in that area at least.

i would have to disagree with that some of the special effects were a bit over kill.
also there were way too many close calls when they nearly died every few seconds but they survive then it happens again and almost die again too much good luck for me.

but other than that it was an okay movie.
i have my own thoughts on what will happen in 2012 anyway.