PDA

View Full Version : Flight 93 Trailer



KronoRed
01-06-2006, 05:37 PM
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/flight93/med.html

I'm not sure about this, dunno if it's been long enough for movies about it yet.:(

creek14
01-06-2006, 05:44 PM
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/flight93/med.html

I'm not sure about this, dunno if it's been long enough for movies about it yet.:(
It will never be long enough for movies about it.

I have problems with Pearl Harbor movies. And I didn't even live through that. No matter how old you think I am.

Unassisted
01-06-2006, 10:14 PM
I saw the trailer earlier today. I was intrigued by the concept. I hope it's well made.

marcshoe
01-06-2006, 10:40 PM
Huh-uh.

I've lived ever since with the idea that I may have put someone on this flight or the United flight that went down in New York (as a United reservationist), and while there are aspects that need to be relived, this is more than I can handle.

Falls City Beer
01-06-2006, 10:55 PM
Pointless. Tasteless.

Caveat Emperor
01-07-2006, 12:08 AM
It was bound to happen sooner or later.

I've got the under on 5 years until a "Katrina" movie gets made.

GAC
01-07-2006, 05:35 AM
I was watching TV the other night, but wasn't really paying much attention, and they were reviewing an upcoming movie to be released that trys to do a "psychological" profile of the terrorists and portrays them (whether intentional or unintentional I don't know), in a sympathetic light. Is this the movie by chance?

StillFunkyB
01-07-2006, 06:16 AM
I was watching TV the other night, but wasn't really paying much attention, and they were reviewing an upcoming movie to be released that trys to do a "psychological" profile of the terrorists and portrays them (whether intentional or unintentional I don't know), in a sympathetic light. Is this the movie by chance?

There isn't one single ounce of sympathy coming from me. I don't think this movie is a good idea.

Aceking
01-08-2006, 05:15 PM
http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/popculture/

I think Greengrass is a very good director, and he makes films that aren't emotionally manipulative. I trust it not to be just a 2-dimensional patriotic fest.

That said, I don't think I want to see it. I know what happened to those poor people. I don't think I want it rubbed in my face.

RFS62
01-08-2006, 05:25 PM
Profiteering from this is very sad.

marcshoe
01-08-2006, 05:54 PM
I was watching TV the other night, but wasn't really paying much attention, and they were reviewing an upcoming movie to be released that trys to do a "psychological" profile of the terrorists and portrays them (whether intentional or unintentional I don't know), in a sympathetic light. Is this the movie by chance?

That may have been "Munich". I heard a radio interview with the writer in which he was asked to respond to the criticism that he was showing at least one of the terrrorists as having doubts about the effectiveness of what he was doing. People criticizing this said they all were True Believers; the writer says he talked to a specific source who indicated otherwise.

I hope, at least that this is what you heard about, not the Flight 93 movie. But who knows.

beb30
01-08-2006, 06:24 PM
Some of you who dont want to see it i really dont understand, Yes its a terrible thing that happened, but does that not mean we shouldn't have things such as movies and documentaries to remind us? Why cant we honor those on flight 93 that saved possibly thousands of others lives? It angers me to feel that some of you have a problem with having a movie like this coming out. Its simple if you dont like it, you dont have to go see it. I'm sure the box office will show other wise when this comes out and will show the American people do want to see it.

Falls City Beer
01-08-2006, 06:56 PM
Some of you who dont want to see it i really dont understand, Yes its a terrible thing that happened, but does that not mean we shouldn't have things such as movies and documentaries to remind us? Why cant we honor those on flight 93 that saved possibly thousands of others lives? It angers me to feel that some of you have a problem with having a movie like this coming out. Its simple if you dont like it, you dont have to go see it. I'm sure the box office will show other wise when this comes out and will show the American people do want to see it.

A documentary is one thing, a movie/dramatization is another. And no one's saying they can't make the movie or shouldn't be allowed.

Unassisted
01-08-2006, 07:10 PM
For me, the litmus test would be this... Are the victims' families mostly satisfied with the finished product? If the answer is "yes" then IMO, we honor the victims' memories by seeing the film and enlightening ourselves about who they were and what they went through. If the movie is truthful, it will help us understand the situation more than we did before we saw it, and that's a good thing.

Redsland
01-08-2006, 07:21 PM
If the movie is truthful, it will help us understand the situation more than we did before we saw it, and that's a good thing.
How is that possible, though? We already have the transcripts of the cell phone calls from inside the cabin and we already have the transcripts of the cockpit voice recorder. We already "know" everything we can possibly know about what happened in that plane. Everything else is conjecture.

For example, how many passengers will be portrayed as bumrushing the cockpit? Any number larger than three is pure conjecture. Will they be portrayed as succesfully gaining access to the cockpit? Because the voice recorder suggests they didn't get in. What role will the surviving stewardess have in the attempt to retake the plane? Any role at all will be pure conjecture. And so on.

Viewers will "learn" as much from this as they did from "JFK."

beb30
01-08-2006, 07:38 PM
How is that possible, though? We already have the transcripts of the cell phone calls from inside the cabin and we already have the transcripts of the cockpit voice recorder. We already "know" everything we can possibly know about what happened in that plane. Everything else is conjecture.

For example, how many passengers will be portrayed as bumrushing the cockpit? Any number larger than three is pure conjecture. Will they be portrayed as succesfully gaining access to the cockpit? Because the voice recorder suggests they didn't get in. What role will the surviving stewardess have in the attempt to retake the plane? Any role at all will be pure conjecture. And so on.

Viewers will "learn" as much from this as they did from "JFK."

Well however they do it ill be there opening night to see how its done.

Unassisted
01-08-2006, 11:04 PM
How is that possible, though? We already have the transcripts of the cell phone calls from inside the cabin and we already have the transcripts of the cockpit voice recorder. We already "know" everything we can possibly know about what happened in that plane. Everything else is conjecture.

For example, how many passengers will be portrayed as bumrushing the cockpit? Any number larger than three is pure conjecture. Will they be portrayed as succesfully gaining access to the cockpit? Because the voice recorder suggests they didn't get in. What role will the surviving stewardess have in the attempt to retake the plane? Any role at all will be pure conjecture. And so on.

Viewers will "learn" as much from this as they did from "JFK."I haven't read all of those transcripts, but you and the many folks who have will be watching carefully. I'm assuming that to be vetted by the families of the victims, the movie will be faithful to the transcripts.

I would use last year's ESPN Pete Rose movie as both a good and bad example of how this project can be helpful or hurtful. That movie helped me understand Pete's complex relationship with Tommy Gioiosa in a way that I hadn't before. I've read dozens of articles about Pete's foibles in that era, but the movie made clear to me in a way no article had, how Pete betrayed Gioiosa. The movie was also reviled around these parts for its portrayal of secondary characters in the story, probably owing to the writers and producers taking shortcuts for dramatic convenience. Overall, the schlocky, contrived elements of that film are the kind of thing that leads people to mistrust Hollywood's ability to do a story like this right. I understand that.

This movie will have plenty of well-known first-hand material to draw on which should be compelling in its own right, so there should be less need for dramatic license about the things that are known. The things you cited are known. Seeing actors deliver bits of those phone conversations on camera will be compelling cinema, and it will resonate with more people in ways that reading transcripts cannot.

What isn't known are the conversations that took place away from the phones and away from the cockpit voice recorders. That will be pure conjecture. I can understand that and that's the kind of thing I would be looking for the families of the victims to vet. If the screenwriter-generated conversations are true to the people they portray and they tie the known parts of the dialogue together effectively, is it so wrong that they are conjecture?

Redsland
01-08-2006, 11:20 PM
When the pretty blonde baby in 12B cries and the handsome, footbally man says "let's roll," repeat to yourself, "Back, and to the left. Back and to the left."

As for the Pete Rose movie, people like Hal McCoy, who know Pete personally and who were in the clubhouse at the time said that film was an amatuer hour schlock job. That and the Tom Sizemore casting are good enough for me.

RFS62
01-09-2006, 09:01 AM
When the pretty blonde baby in 12B cries and the handsome, footbally man says "let's roll," repeat to yourself, "Back, and to the left. Back and to the left."

As for the Pete Rose movie, people like Hal McCoy, who know Pete personally and who were in the clubhouse at the time said that film was an amatuer hour schlock job. That and the Tom Sizemore casting are good enough for me.



Exactly. This isn't about history. This is about money.

Sad, very sad.

RedFanAlways1966
01-09-2006, 09:10 AM
I do not like the idea of a movie being made about this or any of the other flights that crashed on 9-11. Unless the money made is given to a fund for the education of the victims children or an anti-terrorism fund, this does not sit well with me.

TRF
01-09-2006, 11:12 AM
A documentary is one thing, a movie/dramatization is another. And no one's saying they can't make the movie or shouldn't be allowed.

What did you think of Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? Will you see Munich? Have you ever seen the FX series Over There? How about Band of Brothers? Drama about history can be done, and done well, but timing when to do that is tricky. Over There pulls it off quite well, and I still get uncomfortable at times watching it.

I don't have a problem with a film depicting and dramatizing a historic event, but i'd like it to become history first, and not a recent event. 9/11 is still a recent event. There were war movies in WW II, but mostly that was to promote the war effort, and rarely was an actual event made into a film until after the war.. This is cashing in on a tragedy with the victims family member, their young children still alive. It's wrong. It's too soon.

beb30
01-10-2006, 10:22 PM
What did you think of Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? Will you see Munich? Have you ever seen the FX series Over There? How about Band of Brothers? Drama about history can be done, and done well, but timing when to do that is tricky. Over There pulls it off quite well, and I still get uncomfortable at times watching it.

I don't have a problem with a film depicting and dramatizing a historic event, but i'd like it to become history first, and not a recent event. 9/11 is still a recent event. There were war movies in WW II, but mostly that was to promote the war effort, and rarely was an actual event made into a film until after the war.. This is cashing in on a tragedy with the victims family member, their young children still alive. It's wrong. It's too soon.

What about platoon....it wasnt made to terribly after the war that it was about - vietnam......

RedFanAlways1966
01-10-2006, 10:42 PM
What about platoon....it wasnt made to terribly after the war that it was about - vietnam......

This and Saving Pvt. Ryan are movies about war. Flight 93 is not about war. It is about innocent people being murdered. War is not a good thing, but war movies have been made since movie theaters first opened. Ones like Platoon are in the fiction genre. But I tend to agree that it is not fair to those who experienced it and feel bad when seeing movies that involve Vietnam.

Schindler's List was made many years after the event. The Holocaust was (and still is to some degree) a subject that was very sensitive for many years. Some may deem this as respect for the victims and their families. It seems that time has caused people to be more open regarding the Holocaust. Time gives wounds a chance to heal. It seems to bring a bit more respect to the films that relate to horrible events.

It seems too early IMO. Unless all the parents and spouses agree to it, I think it is in bad taste relative to the families of the Flight 93 victims. Not to mention the other 2,800 or so families who also grieve b/c of 9-11... a mere 4+ years later.

TRF
01-11-2006, 01:02 PM
How about the F/X series over there or the new film Munich, which is a bit closer to Flight 93? Should Munich have been made? I think yes, and a film about 9/11 also should be made. But it is still too soon.