United 93 - Discussion about it...

This is meant for the Off Topic boards, not the Music and Movies. Please do not move it.

United 93 is a 2006 film chronicling, in real time, the events aboard United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. The film was made with the full cooperation of all the families of those onboard. [it is slated for release on April 28.

What do you guys think about this?

I personally don't think it should have been made this early, and that's that.

I think it's going to be one of those movies that everybody loves simply because it pulls their emotional strings and one that I won't like because it will be extremely boring.

I personally don't think it should be made at all. If you think about it, they are making a movie about how roughly 6,000 people died, for money for themselves. Wow. I know that they have done it for about every war, too, but I don't think it's right. The producers/supporters of the movie might argue that it "Helps us remember", but I don't think that any of us forgot, anyways. That's just personally what I think.

I personally don't think it should be made at all. If you think about it, they are making a movie about how roughly 6,000 people died, for money for themselves. Wow. I know that they have done it for about every war, too, but I don't think it's right. The producers/supporters of the movie might argue that it "Helps us remember", but I don't think that any of us forgot, anyways. That's just personally what I think.

Of course your point goes for ANY war movie that was EVER made...

But yeah, I understand completely what you're saying, we shouldn't be making attempts to remind us of how much 9-11 sucked.

I'd not bother watching it, because I'd find it very boring indeed. I don't mean any offense when I say this, but to me it's just another huge calamity that didn't really touch me. I suppose maybe if I knew someone who knows someone who died or something, then I'd be interested; if, on the other hand, I knew someone who died, I'd be angry that they're making a film about it this soon, because I'd see it as trying to milk the last interest out of something that I had strong feelings about.

As I say, though, I couldn't really care less, what with how things are.

I personally don't think it should be made at all. If you think about it, they are making a movie about how roughly 6,000 people died, for money for themselves. Wow. I know that they have done it for about every war, too, but I don't think it's right. The producers/supporters of the movie might argue that it "Helps us remember", but I don't think that any of us forgot, anyways. That's just personally what I think.

I completely disagree. While I don't know if I support the producers making money (maybe giving it to charity or something), I don't mind them making it. I believe that people in their apathetic mindsets HAVE forgotten and need to be reminded.

Just like I'm glad the Passion was made...we've been reminded of it so much that it has lost its meaning until something drastic brings it back into our minds.

Sorry to be the black sheep of the fold, here, but that's just my view.

But what needs to be brought to our attention?

We already know what happened, why should we be reminded of it?

I have no problem with it being made. People love movies based on tragic events. Heck, Titanic, the highest-grossing film of all time, was based on a tragedy that claimed the lives of nearly 1200 people. I have no doubts that there will be people protesting and boycotting this movie because they consider it a "sensitive subject" but that is to be expected. People are too quick to complain about any movie/game/music that is somewhat controversial.

But what needs to be brought to our attention?

 

We already know what happened, why should we be reminded of it?

Now that's just ignorant. Using that weak arguement, all documentaries, memorials, books, movies, songs, paintings, basically any form of art or media imaginable, that are centered around tragic events should be banned. Basically all of the History Channel would go off air and much of most libraries and museums would be cleared out. I don't know if you were just playing the devil's advocate, but that's just ridiculous.

I was against it until I saw the preview in theatres, where they interviewed the families of those that died and they actually took part in making the movie.

I still think it is too soon though, less than 5 years after it happened?

It's not like any Americans are going to be shown in a negative light in it. And if the victims families are fine with it, then I don't particularly care.

But what needs to be brought to our attention?

 

We already know what happened, why should we be reminded of it?

 

 

 

Now that's just ignorant. Using that weak arguement, all documentaries, memorials, books, movies, songs, paintings, basically any form of art or media imaginable, that are centered around tragic events should be banned. Basically all of the History Channel would go off air and much of most libraries and museums would be cleared out. I don't know if you were just playing the devil's advocate, but that's just ridiculous.

Whoa buddy, calm down. There is no need for personal attacks here.

All I'm saying is it is way too soon to release this movie. We don't really need to be reminded of it THIS soon. There are families still mourning over the losses, not many people are still mourning over the losses of Pear Harbor.

I heard a part of the money made from this movie was going to be sent to some type of charity. I forgot which one though.

But what needs to be brought to our attention?

 

We already know what happened, why should we be reminded of it?

 

 

 

Now that's just ignorant. Using that weak arguement, all documentaries, memorials, books, movies, songs, paintings, basically any form of art or media imaginable, that are centered around tragic events should be banned. Basically all of the History Channel would go off air and much of most libraries and museums would be cleared out. I don't know if you were just playing the devil's advocate, but that's just ridiculous.

I agree with purple. I don't know how to explain it, but 9/11 is differant than all other tragic events. War movies are more informative about what happened. We all know what happened on that flight. Terrorists used weapons to hijack a plane and kill thousands of people. It is ridiculous that people want to make money off of that.

I was against it until I saw the preview in theatres, where they interviewed the families of those that died and they actually took part in making the movie.

 

 

 

I still think it is too soon though, less than 5 years after it happened?

I have a hard time with the fact that it was made so soon. A lot of families may have taken part in making the movie, but out of the 3,000 people that died, I can't imagine the majority of friends and relatives are ready for such a massive reminder to the loss of their loved ones.

I know that I would personally hate this movie if it came out right now and I lost someone I knew in 9/11.

I'll have to see that preview though like you did to make up my mind I guess... :P

I heard a part of the money made from this movie was going to be sent to some type of charity. I forgot which one though.

I doubt it :?

There was already a made for TV film of this done a year or two back, i dont see the big deal about the timescale of release. I do worry that the film will just be clicḫ̩̉̉ to the max American hero type film which can only cause more racial tension between the portrayed "evil" Muslim terrorists and the "hero" Christian Americans.

There was already a made for TV film of this done a year or two back, i dont see the big deal about the timescale of release. I do worry that the film will just be clicḫ̩̉̉ to the max American hero type film which can only cause more racial tension between the portrayed "evil" Muslim terrorists and the "hero" Christian Americans.

Yet you don't worry that a movie is coming out less than 5 years after 3,000 people died and the relatives and friends of those lost still mourn very powerfully every year? I can't imagine this is going to be wasy for a large number of people and it seems like waiting longer would have been more respectful to those lost, and those who lost.

Did someone say "Help us remember?"

Like we're going to smegging forget. :?

I do worry that the film will just be clicḫ̩̉̉ to the max American hero type film which can only cause more racial tension between the portrayed "evil" Muslim terrorists and the "hero" Christian Americans.

Don't worry, I don't think Mel Gibson had anything to do with this one.

There was already a made for TV film of this done a year or two back, i dont see the big deal about the timescale of release. I do worry that the film will just be clicḫ̩̉̉ to the max American hero type film which can only cause more racial tension between the portrayed "evil" Muslim terrorists and the "hero" Christian Americans.

 

 

 

Yet you don't worry that a movie is coming out less than 5 years after 3,000 people died and the relatives and friends of those lost still mourn very powerfully every year? I can't imagine this is going to be wasy for a large number of people and it seems like waiting longer would have been more respectful to those lost, and those who lost.

What about other disaster and war movies. There was a Pearl Harbour movie in 1953. Films about vietnam were released while it was still going on? 5 years is more than enough time to release a movie.

What exactly are they going to do for it? I mean, asuming it would last an hour and 30mins or so. I mean... to tell the truth there isn't 'alot' to tell unlike some war movies. You know, some movies are based on entire wars, which generaly have a lot of things going on in them to keep the audience entertained. However, this was a plane crashing into buildings. Now don't jump on me, it was a horific event but looking at it from a pure entertainment view, it's not going to have much in it, unless its a documentry.

I don't know though. I don't think it is too early to release it, but I just don't think that a movie about 9/11 is exactly an amazing idea... we realy don't need to remember about it, and especialy not from a movie.

There was already a made for TV film of this done a year or two back, i dont see the big deal about the timescale of release. I do worry that the film will just be clicḫ̩̉̉ to the max American hero type film which can only cause more racial tension between the portrayed "evil" Muslim terrorists and the "hero" Christian Americans.

 

 

 

Yet you don't worry that a movie is coming out less than 5 years after 3,000 people died and the relatives and friends of those lost still mourn very powerfully every year? I can't imagine this is going to be wasy for a large number of people and it seems like waiting longer would have been more respectful to those lost, and those who lost.

 

 

 

What about other disaster and war movies. There was a Pearl Harbour movie in 1953. Films about vietnam were released while it was still going on? 5 years is more than enough time to release a movie.

That argument is irrelevant. If I was there then you can be sure I wouldn't like that either.

You think 5 years is enough, I don't. That's just the way it is.

How is my argument irrelevant? There are countless movies based on other tragic events which were released soon after. How is 9/11 any different?

I cited Pearl Harbour as what i felt was a good example of this. The death toll reached 2,400 (almost as much as 9/11) and 21 ships of the U.S. Pacific fleet were damaged or destroyed. The film December 7th was released in 1943, less than 2 years after the event, and won an Oscar in 1944.

I also want to add that every single family member of those that died on the flight have given their full approval to the film, why cant you?

Now we've got the best chance to keep it as correct as possible. If you'd make this in lets say 50 to 100 years it would be less accurate.

American hero Oliver Stone is releasing a movie about the WTC this year as well. World Trade Centur.

Oh, and I don't really think this is going to be something for "entertainment" purposes.

How is my argument irrelevant? There are countless movies based on other tragic events which were released soon after. How is 9/11 any different?

 

 

 

I cited Pearl Harbour as what i felt was a good example of this. The death toll reached 2,400 (almost as much as 9/11) and 21 ships of the U.S. Pacific fleet were damaged or destroyed. The film December 7th was released in 1943, less than 2 years after the event, and won an Oscar in 1944.

 

 

 

I also want to add that every single family member of those that died on the flight have given their full approval to the film, why cant you?

I very clearly said why it was irrelevant, but I'll repeat it: if I was alive during those times, I would not have supported them either.

I also would like to add that this past year I was involved in a theatrical tribute to 9/11 - so it's not just bringing it up I don't like. I don't like the idea of 5 years in making a cinematic presentation that has way too much potential to go Hollywood. I know several people who get very torn up by thinking about 9/11, and they don't like the movie coming out. This isn't a situation where lots of facts are going to prove me wrong or make me change my opinion... it's just how I feel, and it's different than you. When I see the movie, if it's not too Hollywood and I think it's a proper tribute and not a feature film, I might change my mind.

Until then, I'm skeptical.