United 93
 

As you're all aware, this film was recently released. If you've been living under a rock, a quick recap: The film follows a variety of people on the day of 9/11. The majority of the film focuses on the flight United 93, on which the passengers fought back against the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting it's target. However, without a pilot anymore, the plane inevitably crashed.

I'm curious to see your opinions on the movie. Not on whether or not it is good, but the merit of making a movie like that.


Personally, not because I'm a Canadian, but from an honest opinion, I don't think it was a movie that needed to be made. I personally think that the grand majority of Americans just love to have their heroes, and this movie is Hollywood's desperate attempt to relieve their sales-slump by cashing in on that. I also think that it's a desperate attempt to keep 9/11 fresh and big and nigh-influential in the minds of many, instead of just letting it fall back into history text books and calendars.

I read that in the movie, the guys take out the Terrorist and seeing that they can't change the route from the Pentagon anymore, they decide to sacrifice themselves and crash the plane. Of course this wasn't what happened...

And yes, this movie wasn't needed. We already saw too much of 9/11, it was a great tragedy but it's over.

I think that it is a neat way for the government to say, "See, we weren't lying about it, we made a movie about it. Clap Clap Clap, lets all wave flags and lie down while our civil liberties get run the fuck over.

But the government didn't, necessarily, make the movie, unless they anonymously donated large wads of cash for the unknown actors's paychecks.

I won't see it, but not because it's too soon or whatnot. It's never too soon to make a buck if you can do it easily without force or fear in Hollywood. Didn't we have movies about Vietnam (Apocalypse Now came out 2-3 years after) and WWII much closer chronologically to the disasters they're based off of?

Well, these were less movies about the war and more using of the war as a backdrop to tell a story that may or may not have possibly happened in that setting. "United 93" is different in that it's trying to tell the story of a tragedy that did happen, having little to no way of knowing the majority of the details, and making a quick buck. It's not "USA A-OK" propaganda, or a tribute to the fallen, or anything noble or ignoble like that. It's just a sickening display of empty greed.

I admit I have little to add to the discussion here, I just wanted to say this sums up my view of the situation perfectly. Emphasis on the last sentence.

To be honest I don't see any of those as being necessarily exclusive.

Although U 93 is probably mostly the latter.

PS If you ever wanted to know why they keep making fuckin' Lara Croft movies.

I guess this explains Uwe Boll.

Oh good lord his next movie is apparently "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale"

WHY HAVEN'T WE STOPPED HIM YET?

Wow, that is exactly what I wanted to say, that's almost an absolute when it comes to hollywood though isn't it?

one of the things that make me hesitate (besides general disgust at the "it's too soon!" crowd) in joining in any condemnation of this film is the fact that most of the families actually involved in the flight have cleared it. to me, their opinions matter far more than any others in dealing with the "is it approptiate" theme as well as the "too soon" crowd. let the film makers make their money -- after all, that's how and why films are made. and with all the hype about the new new york memorial, perhaps it's high time for a reminder (as fictionalized as i'm sure much of it is) of what those passengers did.