United 93

[rook]

I guarentee that the people who made this don't think of it as a popcorn flick, they see it as a tribute to the brave individuals who were on Flight 93.
.

Are you sure about that? "Guarentee" is a big word. I'm kind of a jaded guy when it comes to industry decisions but my experience would suggest that they DON'T think of this film as a tribute. They MARKET it as a tribute and think of it as a MONEY MAKER.

That said, IMHO I do not think that it's too soon to make a film. It would have been fine for them to make a film the next day. No one owns that event. It is a story that is part of all our histories. And it is a story that SHOULD be told, often and by many different people.

It's not disrespectful to anyone to tell this story. It is important that it is told. It would be disrespectful NOT to tell this story.

But yeah, this trailer looks like sh*t, like most hollywood films these days.

-rook

 

[abraham]

Film is an art, and the artists who make it (all of us) have to follow their hearts on what they choose to make, because every body of work they do, becomes a part of them and who they are as artists. Viewers have to make a choice on what to watch for a similar reason. Both the filmmakers and the viewers know what they are getting themselves into.
I don't even know if I will choose to see this- but I do know that it is not my place, nor anyones to tell artists what they can and cannot make. Save the criticism for when you see the film or choose not to see it.

Word. We speak as though we are the individual authority. I always do it too -- including here. But really, I want to tell myself to shut the hell up. It's done. It's finished. And it is art, regardless.

And movies are more than entertainment -- regardless of the industry decisions, and how certain (or most) people view them. Regardless, even, of how producers produce them. And if you dont believe that at least to a tiny tiny degree, then...I dunno...haha, what the hell are you doing here? I don't mean any disrespect at all, because when i first read that I did agree. But if all I am doing is entertaining some bloke with some goobers on his lap then I don't want to do this. and that is some idealistic bullsh*t i am talking, but hell, why not. if you're gonna make a movie that is worth anything at all, i feel like it is more than entertainment.

 

[capitalP]

Watching the trailer, it looks extra cheesy, it doesn't come of as a tribute film, it comes off as a money maker... maybe I'm reading too much from the trailer, so I'll wait for when it comes on HBO

 

[Chris Stearns]

I just saw the trailer on cnn, followed by a short discussion with two people who lost family members on flight 93.

They were very supportive of the film, and stated that all the victims' famillies were consulted and signed off on the story.

They also showed the trailer to some folks in the street and their reaction was "too soon," & "I can't believe they did that."

It seems that the producers have covered their asses pretty well in terms of at least presenting something close to the "official" truth and not offending the people closest to the victims. There doesn't seem to be any stars in the cast (at least Nicolas Cage isn't running down the isle), and I'm sure that the families and 911 charities will be getting a sizable chunk of the box office.

Even so, I really have no interest in seeing this. I'd read the book.

 

[FlintMI]

if this stuff helps get "ground zero" moving forward, I'm all for it. 4 years later and it looks just like it did in March 2002. Politics always gets in the way. That's a shame. And Tacky-Patacki is running for President? Please.

Lastly, this movie does illustrate that even on the actual day of 9/11, people fought back, which is why another 9/11 is very, very unlikely.

 

[ramsaur]

that does look like a good movie. i saw the doc. they made called flight 93 on TV (it was realy in school) anyways yeah i'm going to see that when it comes april 28

 

[Zim]

If you ask me it's to early to forget. The people on flight 93 were the first to fight in this war on terrorism. If it was my family I'd be happy about this film.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

If you ask me it's to early to forget. The people on flight 93 were the first to fight in this war on terrorism. If it was my family I'd be happy about this film.

It's not about forgetting! Hell, I think the news footage should continue to be aired on a regular basis...reminding us what those ignorant poo pooing cowards did to New York and D.C. & what they tried (though quite unsuccessfully) to do to our country and to our will.

We are too close to the occurrence itself to need help relating to it...especially by a scripted film(s). Our children and our children's children, on the other hand, will need a fictional account to establish an emotional link. The best comparison would be something like The Longest Day. It came out in '62 (damn near 20 years after the actual D-Day invasion)...or better yet Saving Private Ryan (54 years after the fact.) In these cases, the fictional story set against the factual background was not only appropriate, but quite necessary for us to relate on a higher level.

In the History vs. Hollywood debate, I side with Hollywood. Because even if the depiction on screen isn't completely by the book, at least a new generation will "feel" on some level what it was like to live through the period playing out before their eyes. At least they will (hopefully) become intrigued enough to learn more factuality for themselves first hand by studying up on history.

As I said, though...we don't need to be aided in our emotional link to 9/11. Our generation is already linked to it first-hand.

 

[ExtremeSleuth]

It's not about forgetting! Hell, I think the news footage should continue to be aired on a regular basis...reminding us what those ignorant poo pooing cowards did to New York and D.C. & what they tried (though quite unsuccessfully) to do to our country and to our will.

We are too close to the occurrence itself to need help relating to it...especially by a scripted film(s). Our children and our children's children, on the other hand, will need a fictional account to establish an emotional link. The best comparison would be something like The Longest Day. It came out in '62 (damn near 20 years after the actual D-Day invasion)...or better yet Saving Private Ryan (54 years after the fact.) In these cases, the fictional story set against the factual background was not only appropriate, but quite necessary for us to relate on a higher level.

In the History vs. Hollywood debate, I side with Hollywood. Because even if the depiction on screen isn't completely by the book, at least a new generation will "feel" on some level what it was like to live through the period playing out before their eyes. At least they will (hopefully) become intrigued enough to learn more factuality for themselves first hand by studying up on history.

As I said, though...we don't need to be aided in our emotional link to 9/11. Our generation is already linked to it first-hand.

ya i agree with you Callaghan.

On a side note I don't think all of the families signed off on it.

 

[Zim]

It's not about forgetting! Hell, I think the news footage should continue to be aired on a regular basis...reminding us what those ignorant poo pooing cowards did to New York and D.C. & what they tried (though quite unsuccessfully) to do to our country and to our will.

We are too close to the occurrence itself to need help relating to it...especially by a scripted film(s). Our children and our children's children, on the other hand, will need a fictional account to establish an emotional link. The best comparison would be something like The Longest Day. It came out in '62 (damn near 20 years after the actual D-Day invasion)...or better yet Saving Private Ryan (54 years after the fact.) In these cases, the fictional story set against the factual background was not only appropriate, but quite necessary for us to relate on a higher level.

In the History vs. Hollywood debate, I side with Hollywood. Because even if the depiction on screen isn't completely by the book, at least a new generation will "feel" on some level what it was like to live through the period playing out before their eyes. At least they will (hopefully) become intrigued enough to learn more factuality for themselves first hand by studying up on history.

As I said, though...we don't need to be aided in our emotional link to 9/11. Our generation is already linked to it first-hand.

Maybe for some of us. But not all. I'm not so sure people know what we are up against and that if we don't keep alert it will happen again.
This movie is about what happened. We shouldn't hide it for fifty years. Beside it's a free country and people can make what they want and people can see what they want. I just saw "Why We Fight" and it used 9/11. Should it not be shown? I didn't agree with to much of that Ben & Jerry's crowd documentary.

 

[Daniel Skubal]

To address the question of "why books and not movies"... I think it's a matter of culture here. We look at movies for sources of entertainment, and unless they call it a documentary, the audience will not look at it as a tribute or factual story. They'll look at it as an escape from reality.

Books on the other hand are seen as more of a factual-based and for some reason we have a higher subconscious trust for the information in books. I mean, pretty much any text is seen as more credible and honest than film. Why? Not sure. But I mean, it's just as absurd to take the new york times and put that into a database and call it the written truth. I mean, that whole system is established based on gatekeeping, and what gets printed is determined by some guy's opinion of what will attract the most attention. I'm trying to avoid the politics of it here, but I think it's a valid point. Film ideally should be looked at just as a text, or vice versa, but it appears that our society views film as an entertainment source and text as an information source, which is why it's so difficult to wrap our brains around the justifcations of making this film. Do I agree with this engraining? No. But at the same time, I'm still afraid that this film will distastefully overdramatize these events.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

Maybe for some of us. But not all. I'm not so sure people know what we are up against and that if we don't keep alert it will happen again.
This movie is about what happened...

Is it? Because it was posted earlier in this thread that the trailer indicated that a bomb was on board. Which wasn't "about what happened". If you want to remember, or know what we are up against...again, I would suggest:

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/flight/flight.html​

It is unbelievably emotional stuff. Portions of the flight are reenacted, and the surviving family members give first-hand accounts of conversations between themselves and the True American Heroes of Flight 93. Again, all proceeds go to the Flight 93 National Memorial Project, and not to a studio's bottom line.


As far as Why We Fight...
I said it before, I'll say it again - I'll stick to Frank Capra'a masterful Oscar-winning Why We Fight series (whose title has apparently been ripped off lately by some schmuck filmmaker.)



Edit:
Honestly, I had only watched the trailer once...and didn't remember seeing the bomb myself. So I went back and re-watched it, and sure as shi*...there it was

Why put this shot of one of them strapping an explosive onto himself in the bathroom in to the film? These extremist highjacker pussies didn't actually have a bomb...it was a bluff the whole time. They were attempting to control the passengers (before the brave men and women found out what their intentions were, that is.)

 

[Matt Grunau]

I don't think it's too soon for a movie. I don't think it's a bad idea for one either. The only thing that makes me a little "Ify" is when Hollywood (me using the last decade's worth of flicks as a yard stick [and i don't mean as a political litmus, more of a quality issue]) starts sniffing around around a subject like this. If it's done wrong (intentionally or not) it's going to do a disservice to a lot of people. Gotta be careful with a movie like this.

If it brings some awareness to people, good. If it is a reminder, even better. If the proceeds go to the rebuilding, better still.

Regardless of which side of the fence you lean (and that is by far the thing that is most influential to people for or against who I have talked with about it), if something like this can get people to understand this kind of thing is possible and maybe help guard against it, that's a good thing. If it's a tribute to those people on the plan and done well, that would be the best.

My own views on this subject are simple: PLEASE just do it right.


By the by, one of the major studios is currently filming in Huntington WV, about the Marshall University football players who died in a plan crash about 25 years ago, and I have the same "basic" thoughts on that.


This is not a political rant or discourse, so don't take it as one.

 

[Zim]

Yes I would agree that if your doing this type of movie you should not add to the movie.
I'd like to see Frank Capra's "Why WE Fight"

 

[Shaw]

Why put this shot of one of them strapping an explosive onto himself in the bathroom in to the film?

On the TV variant at least, it was a fake meant to keep the passengers in line. I don't think we know for sure if they had a fake or whether they just made claims.

 

[KMR]

Why put this shot of one of them strapping an explosive onto himself in the bathroom in to the film? These extremist highjacker pussies didn't actually have a bomb...it was a bluff the whole time. They were attempting to control the passengers (before the brave men and women found out what their intentions were, that is.)

If that's part of the story (that the hijackers had a fake bomb as an attempt to control the passengers) then why should it NOT be in the movie?!?

Not to mention, of course, that unfortunately we will never really know for sure what actually happened on any of those flights that day.

 

[SilverWolf]

I think he was saying that they "said" they had a bomb that does't mean they had a physical fake looking one.

 

[KMR]

I think he was saying that they "said" they had a bomb that does't mean they had a physical fake looking one.

Whether they had a real bomb, or a fake bomb, or no bomb at all, is something that will probably never be known. BUT, if what we do know is that the people on board were told that there was a bomb, is it not at least plausible that a fake bomb could have been used to help back that up?

 

[SilverWolf]

yes it is plausible but the key word you used is "could". Yes it's possible that they "could" have had a bomb , but do we have any reports of anyone seeing the bomb?
I'm not saying whether they did or didn't but if no one said they saw the bomb then lets not show shots of the bomb in the movie. We can show them saying they had one because that is substantiated by evidence but lets not go off of conjecture and then try and state that this is fact. Now if the movie is "based" on actual events as oppose to being true events then it doesn't matter.

 

[Evan S]

this thread is going to be locked soon I bet.