I'm still deciding whether to pay money to see this. On the one hand, I'm offended by the commercial nature of this film because I feel like it's exploiting a tragedy to make a buck. On the other, I'm curious to see how the big screen version compares to the haunting immediacy of the real life tragedy.

I think some events are so powerful in life that they can't be transferred well to the Big Screen without producing a dud. And as horrible and depressing and shattering as 9/11 was, it also meant the most gripping TV ever produced. People leaping from skyscrapers in real time tends to draw eyeballs. (I feel dirty for saying that.) So, by comparision, how can a 9/11 movie not be a dud?

A decent analogy might be the movie, "Miracle," about the '80 Olympic team. I thought that would suck, but it was pretty intense for me.

What do the rest of you fuks think?

yes, its sick.

but you didnt even mention the propoganda angle. i damn well guarantee that its going to be a flag waiving, fuck everyone but the US, type movie.

this movie really discusts me (without even seeing it).

yes, its sick.

but you didnt even mention the propoganda angle. i damn well guarantee that its going to be a flag waiving, fuck everyone but the US, type movie.

this movie really discusts me (without even seeing it).

Diddy,
What would the non-"flag waiving, fuck everyone but the US, type movie" of this event be like? What should it be like?

Is it even possible to tell this story in a tasteful way? The director is Paul Greengrass, the same guy who did "Bloody Sunday," which supposedly was tastefully done.

FYI, for those interested:
http://www.united93movie.com/index.php

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2153251,00.html

i would want it to be a movie where i wouldnt come out wanting to drop the bomb on iraq.

in all honesty, i dont know if i can answer the question.

1) theyre going to make the people overly heroic. those people that downed the plane in pennsylvania are heroes, no doubt. but, to me, its a heroic sense that could never translate to a movie. they did it to die. not too much commercial about that. theirs no way to put it on film without cheepening it.

so what do you do about the most compelling plotline of the movie? imo, you have to distance it. i wouldnt portray that flight at all, and perhaps just talk about it from the distance (ala the news). but then whats the point of making a movie about it- none.

2- how do you depict the terrorists? like it or not, these terrorists had a reason for doing it. so do you give a voice to the terrorists? in one sense, this movie has to be an american story, and when discussing perhaps our greatest national tragedy, is it appropriate to mention the counterpoints to our policies in the ME and israel?

but if you dont give the terrorists a voice, we get back to the idea where the movie is just "raw raw america!", which i've already said i'm against.

basically, i've got a lot of ambivalence towards this topic. its a subject i dont feel should be broached. not yet.

I have mixed feelings, I think the men and women who died should be remembered in whatever way their families feel is appropriate. From all that I read the families have consented to the film, so who I am I to say what is right or wrong, too soon or too late if the families want the message to be heard.

With that said 9/11 seems like yesterday to me for many reasons, so I am not sure if I am personally ready. That day changed me into who I am now.

My biggest issue with the flim is they are donating 10% of the first weekends box office to charity, I think it should be 10% of all profit from now until the last DVD is bought.

i would want it to be a movie where i wouldnt come out wanting to drop the bomb on iraq.

in all honesty, i dont know if i can answer the question.

1) theyre going to make the people overly heroic. those people that downed the plane in pennsylvania are heroes, no doubt. but, to me, its a heroic sense that could never translate to a movie. they did it to die. not too much commercial about that. theirs no way to put it on film without cheepening it.

so what do you do about the most compelling plotline of the movie? imo, you have to distance it. i wouldnt portray that flight at all, and perhaps just talk about it from the distance (ala the news). but then whats the point of making a movie about it- none.

2- how do you depict the terrorists? like it or not, these terrorists had a reason for doing it. so do you give a voice to the terrorists? in one sense, this movie has to be an american story, and when discussing perhaps our greatest national tragedy, is it appropriate to mention the counterpoints to our policies in the ME and israel?

but if you dont give the terrorists a voice, we get back to the idea where the movie is just "raw raw america!", which i've already said i'm against.

basically, i've got a lot of ambivalence towards this topic. its a subject i dont feel should be broached. not yet.


If it's a story about the heroism of the passengers, then perhaps you don't need to give a voice to the terrorists. U93 seems to be a story of what the passengers, not the terroists, confronted and overcame. I haven't seen "Munich," but I suspect you'd favor a similar treatment--in which both sides have an equal voice. If you're interested in presenting the sacrifices and conviction of the hijackers, maybe that's best in a different movie.

Is balance necessary to an historical account? I'm trying to think of a good historical movie that didn't give equal voice. "Glory" gave equal voice to the black and the white union soldiers, so no... "Platoon," maybe? But the the conflict wasn't America v. Vietnam, so much as it was innocence and integrity (Alias and Charlie Sheen's character) v. corruption of authority (Tom Berenger, Kevin Dillon, et al.) The "Last Emperor"? I don't even remember what that was about. I've never seen "Gone With the Wind" because I'm not gay or Taymelo.

I'm babbling. Bedtime.

family's clearance is important (but is it really all families?). but i think it goes beyond that.

i know what you mean about it being like it was yesterday. i still remember that day perfectly, and its my memory of it. what happens if i see the movie? does my version get replaced with some watered down, cheap hollywood rendition? no thank you.

and i could care less about donating proceeds to charity. that sounds like lip service to me. give all profits to charity (what charity?) then its a different story.

I don't know what Charity and you correct about it being lip service but I think if you are going do a PR stunt like that you can't restrict it to a single weekend.

I have mixed feelings, I think the men and women who died should be remembered in whatever way their families feel is appropriate. From all that I read the families have consented to the film, so who I am I to say what is right or wrong, too soon or too late if the families want the message to be heard.

With that said 9/11 seems like yesterday to me for many reasons, so I am not sure if I am personally ready. That day changed me into who I am now.

My biggest issue with the flim is they donating 10% of the first weekends box office to charity, I think it should be 10% of all profit from now until the last DVD is bought.

I agree with you on the donation front. I'd feel more comfortable paying to see the film if I knew I wasn't just stuffing some fat cat's wallet. Maybe other people feel that way, too. If so, the studio could pull in more money by donating a larger percentage to charity.

I'm glad that the families seem to be behind it. Otherwise it would be a bit like sneaking into a wake and peeking inside the coffin. I wouldn't spend 8 bucks to feel like a scumbag.

I also agree that everything can't be overly rah rah, but in the same breath you have to be careful not come off as humanizing the terrorists or making them look sympathetic.

Before anyone jumps down my throat about the terrorists being human, you are right about that in the biological sense but they do not think like you or me. This is not coming from something I read in a book or seen on tv but from real anti-terrorist training. They are programmed be machine like, it is a mission not suicide.

what happens if i see the movie? does my version get replaced with some watered down, cheap hollywood rendition? no thank you.

If James Cameron were directing, then I wouldn't even consider seeing it. The last thing I want is Jack and Rose making out in the bathroom before charging the cockpit.

I also agree that everything can't be overly rah rah, but in the same breath you have to be careful not come off as humanizing the terrorists or making them look sympathetic.

Before anyone jumps down my throat about the terrorists being human, you are right about that in the biological sense but they do not think like you or me. This is not coming from something I read in a book or seen on tv but from real anti-terrorist training. They are programmed be machine like, it is a mission not suicide.

I'm a believer in absolute truth and natural law. I don't think what those hijackers did was honorable under any condition... seen from any perspective... spoken in any voice. I don't believe you have to be an American jingoist to hold that opinion. So I'm not too concerned about humanizing the terrrorists, even though I suppose Spielbergh would call that "balance".

Real you and I are on the same wave length as are probably several thousand others, but we both know some right wing group would have the movie killed if it were balanced.

I am a person who subscribes to the school of thought that there are 3 sides to every story, yours, theirs and the truth. We all precieve things differently so what you and I see as balance others see as anti american. I am not saying that tone of films should be curbed to avoid controversy, however the fact is it happens. So I guess if the message is that heroes did bringing down a plane and that message comes across then the film did it's job. That is not to say that I agree with that method of story telling or desire to see that.

I have zero interest in seeing this film. And i have zero interest in Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" coming out in the fall.

Watching the destruction live, speaking to my dad on the phone as the first tower collapsed, I've never heard my dad speak with such hate. It was surreal, and quite frankly those images are more than enough for a limetime, thank you very much.

I am a person who subscribes to the school of thought that there are 3 sides to every story, yours, theirs and the truth. We all precieve things differently so what you and I see as balance others see as anti american.

I guarantee this movie flops big time in Oz.

America is not the most popular nation in my neck of the woods and many people within my circle believe the USA got what it deserved.

"Chickens coming home to roost" is what my buddy said. (we'd watched Malcolm X the day before)

I don't agree, but his opinion is rather popular here.

"There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That’s a good religion."
-- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).

A little "balance" for the thread.

"There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That’s a good religion."
-- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).

I think it's a decent precept, so long as you send the right person to the cemetary, and not, say, 2,900 randoms.

Think they'll get into any of this stuff?

9/11 Loose Change (http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5626)

Short, excellent story that sums up and illuminates much of our discussion. A nice nightcap for anyone who participated.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140690/nav/tap1/


And this gem from The Onion.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47730

Hey, I'm not saying I agree with their beliefs or that killing anyone is a good thing to do.

Just providing some food for thought here, that's it.

I saw this today and thought it was pretty good.

Predictably, it focused on U93, not on the towers or on the Pentagon. They did show the 2nd plane hit the WTC (the CNN shot), but there were no close up shots--no people jumping out, etc. Same deal with the Pentagon: the CNN shot of smoke billowing out, but nothing close-up.

As far as I could tell, the three main settings for scenes were inside the FAA, inside NORAD--where the themes were disorder and the failure of beauracracy--and onboard United 93, where passengers exchanged banal comments for the first 25 minutes. Though of course the audience was on the edge of their seats.

From the sound of people in the theatre, the most emotional scene was when the passengers were making their last calls home. None of the passengers spoke to each other by name, but one did use the "Let's Roll" line.

The portrayal of the hijackers was fair. They were neither glorified for their conviction, nor demonized for their actions. Each hijacker had a unique personality: one was hesitant, one bloodthirsty,etc. So they weren't flat characters.

I haven't seen Munich, but I've heard the balance Spielberg shows for characters is the worst kind of cultural relativism. The closest thing to balance in U93 is one scene, which alternates b/t the passengers and the hijackers doing their own form of prayer. I wasn't offended by it though.

The film wasn't patriotic. Besides one shot of a "God Bless America" sign in the first couple minutes, this movie doesn't celebrate a country as much as it does the courage of the passengers. There are no American flags in this movie. All in all, I'm glad I saw it. Initially, I was worried that the movie version of 9/11 might cheapen my memory of it. But I found that the film isn't a substitute, so much as an amplification--and a good one at that.