Flight 93

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:55 pm

It was only a matter of time until a movie is made from the events on 9-11-2001

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/flight93/

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:07 pm

the flight that fought back, these people are true heros they gave their lives to save somebody else's. i'm going to see this movie for sure

Scott Gardener · Post by **Scott Gardener** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:19 pm

It will be hard to watch, but at the same time, I'm certainly intreagued. I remember the incident itself, and the eventual public release of what was learned about the flight. It's material that's better than most action movies, and it was real. Still, I would hope that it's done tastefully, in a way that honors the people of that fateful flight, instead of as a basic blockbuster action movie to make a buck.

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:46 pm

same here i hope they stay true to what really happened

Lone_Wolf · Post by **Lone_Wolf** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:49 pm

I'm not sure if I myself am ready to see a movie about that stuff...

And of course there's a part of me that doesn't want them to make money off it for fear of 420595023 other September 11 movies coming out as $200 million blockbusters to makes even more money off the subject. I'm just a bit touchy still, I suppose.

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:29 am

Scott Gardener wrote:It will be hard to watch, but at the same time, I'm certainly intreagued. I remember the incident itself, and the eventual public release of what was learned about the flight. It's material that's better than most action movies, and it was real. Still, I would hope that it's done tastefully, in a way that honors the people of that fateful flight, instead of as a basic blockbuster action movie to make a buck.

Yes, this will be hard to watch. Who knows if they will show the other planes going into the twin towers.

I think this film will only focus on Flight 93.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:22 am

I remember making a bet to somebody in the on 9/11/2001 in the 6th grade right after the twin tower incident, I beted that they will make a movie about it within the next 5 years.

Veruth · Post by **Veruth** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:44 am

Well, If the producers of this movie are smart, they will be careful, that or risk having pretty much an entire country mad at them.

Prowler · Post by **Prowler** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:06 pm

A movie based on tragic real life events not upsetting ANYONE? Unheard off, take the many Holocaust films based on suvivors tales, theres always at least one person upset at the way it's depicted.

Veruth · Post by **Veruth** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:23 pm

I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that if it's turned into some sort of stupid money making thing or something like that, there are going to be a whole lot of people mad. I agree that no matter what they do someone will be unhappy

Scott Gardener · Post by **Scott Gardener** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:44 pm

They waited just long enough to avoid being too close to the event itself. They figured that five years is about right for the American public to be just distanced enough from the event to have it fresh on their minds without being too fresh to consider seeing such a thing, or to blow it off as sensationalism no matter how tastefully it's done.

So far, there's been many references to 9/11, such as TV dramas mentioning that "since 9/11, we've had to step up security," but the only direct depiction of the 9/11 attacks themselves on TV or the movies I have found other than the news itself and the occasional recap is in Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Being extremely careful not to start any political debates, given the obvious bend of the movie, I will say the depiction itself was tastefully done--it was quick, and it was all audio, with a black screen.

vrikasatma · Post by **vrikasatma** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:29 am

Personally I think they should wait another five years, at least. They should wait until Bush is out of office, at the earliest.

Did anyone make a movie about Pearl Harbor five years after the fact? How about Jonestown? This was worse.

Set · Post by **Set** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:47 pm

...It's just a movie, I don't see what the big deal is.

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:02 pm

It's about the 9/11 terrorist attacks these passengers fought back against those Alkada bastards and crashed the plane into the ground before they got to DC

WE"RE COMING FOR YOU BIN LADDEN!!

Uniform Two Six · Post by **Uniform Two Six** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:23 pm

vrikasatma wrote: Did anyone make a movie about Pearl Harbor five years after the fact?

If memory serves, the first movie about Pearl Harbor was sometime in 1942. The United States lost no time in capitalizing on the propaganda value of the events of December 7th 1941. Different time -- Different country in many ways.

Anyway, I just finished watching United 93. Rather stunning. Very well done. Disturbing. I was astounded to see in the credits that something like a quarter of the ATC and U.S. Air Force personnel in the movie were portrayed by themselves.

I felt it was worth the $3 rental charge, and I'd recommend it, but I don't think I'll watch it again. Heartbreaking movie.

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:20 pm

Shadow Wulf wrote:I remember making a bet to somebody in the on 9/11/2001 in the 6th grade right after the twin tower incident, I beted that they will make a movie about it within the next 5 years.

Same here. Just like World Trade Center, I think it's pretty tasteless that somebody out there couldn't wait to make a movie about this.

MoonKit · Post by **MoonKit** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:57 am

Movies like this shouldnt be made until we are all elderly people. We remember what happened! This should come out when the next generation or two is around because they wont have experienced it. It'll all be new to them. But it'll be a reminder.

Uniform Two Six · Post by **Uniform Two Six** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:00 pm

I disagree (and I'll probably get flamed for saying this). I think United 93 was tastefully done, and the majority of the families of the victims of Flight 93 (although admittedly not all of them) were okay with it and felt it was a good portrayal of thier lost loved ones. I'm paraphrasing someone else who's name escapes me at the moment, but 9/11 was a day in which the greatest depths of human depravity were displayed for the world to see. Yet, paradoxically it also showcased the very best of human nature as well. The word "hero" is so overused that it has become cliche, but I think that the passengers and crew of United flight 93 qualify. These were ordinary people like you and I who got onboard that plane with every expectation for the day to be uneventful, boring, and entirely forgettable. Instead they found themselves in the middle of one of the worst attacks upon the Unted States in sixty years. Although the flight was not saved and they all died, I think it's pretty clear that they managed to save many innocent lives (on the ground). In that sense, I feel that the whole episode was one of the painfully few bright points on a very dark day. I think that's worth a movie.

On the subject of commercialization of a tragedy, I suppose you could make the argument that it's insensitive. However, I think the filmmakers were very conscious about it and really did try to do a tasteful job. One other thing comes to mind, though: The attacks on September 11, 2001 were aimed at symbolic targets. What do you think the World Trade Center symbolized to Al Qaeda?

vrikasatma · Post by **vrikasatma** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:23 pm

It was a political attack, and not just a sentimental one. Sure, it brought about wringing emotions, but consider:

If Al Qaeda wanted to make a statement, they could have fueled up one of the mothballed airplanes they keep in the desert east of Los Angeles and flown it into Mt. Rushmore. Or the Statue of Liberty at night, when no-one's there. And if OBL had even the first millimeter of honour, he'd have turned himself in to authorities as soon as the planes crashed, in any case. Then Al Qaeda would have made their statement and nobody but the suicide guys would have had to have died. And if OBL had even the second millimeter of honour, he'd have made a personal apology and condolences to the survivors and families of those who died. I understand that terrorist groups pay the families of their suicide bombers, rather handsomely; one could think of that as trafficking in human bodies, or a reverse "bride price," or perhaps "we're sorry, does this help?"

But that's getting into a whole 'nother can of worms altogether.

The term I used that day was "life-raped." The people on those planes were forced into giving up their lives for a cause they didn't believe in, by men who had nothing but contempt for them.

Sure, I'll see Flight 93...someday. Just not now, not yet. It's too soon. To me, 9/11 wasn't five years ago, it was five hours ago. Probably won't see it until I'm in my 80s.

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:10 pm

The simplest way of putting it is that the only people too young to not remember 9/11 are too young to see this movie. We all remember what happened, and as MoonKit, said, a movie like this should have been for a generation that would not have known the significance. When a movie is released this early, it strikes me as either political prolefeed or an eager cash-in.

It sure did wonders for Bush's approval rating. Remember when he was the most hated president in history a few months ago?

Uniform Two Six · Post by **Uniform Two Six** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:16 pm

Don't worry. Bush will be again. He's talking about attacking into Pakistan to get Bin Laden if the Pakis don't get moving and we get good intel. He's also making noises about suspending the entire concept of the exclusionary rule so that we can try terrorists and use evidence obtained through "forceful interrogation techniques" (read: torture). What an idiot.

lupine · Post by **lupine** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:28 pm

Why does Hollywood always do this?! And while the wounds aree still healing too. As a Brit, I suppose I have a different view to the majority of you. Either way, I find movies like this, Totally objectionable. Yes.. it may tell the story of a plane full of heroes, but it is also a cash cow for hollywood movie execs. All revenue made by any film like this should go to any related charities that are working to aid the survivors and victims families of disasters such as 9-11

Uniform Two Six · Post by **Uniform Two Six** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:47 pm

I just don't see it as being offensive. It was more of a docu-drama than anything else. I didn't see it as being tremendously different from at least some of the stuff on the History Channel about 9/11. Even some of the dialogue on the plane came verbatim from the CVR and tapes of UA air-to-ground company communications. Really, the only dramatic license that I saw taken was in stuff of which there is no known recordings -- and that's exactly what the History Channel does. They made a guess of events which went unobserved. History Channel makes hand-over-fist on commercial air time. Is that wrong too? I understand this is an emotional event, but why is making a movie about it evil? I'm not trying to kick a dead horse here -- I honestly just don't get it.

lupine · Post by **lupine** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:52 pm

Not saying its EVIL, just find it all a bit insensitive and a bit immoral

THE PACK Message Boards

Flight 93

Flight 93

United

Re: United

Buying a Porsche 9/11 Carrera Turbo