I am slightly bothered by this set of films coming out.

As much as I think awareness is healthy--It seems mildly inappropriate.

For as long as I can remember there have been films on war, based on on war- but it always seemed to come much later after the horror and tragedy.


Newsweek reports that:
If movie trailers are supposed to cause a reaction, the preview for "United 93" more than succeeds. Featuring no voice-over and no famous actors, it begins with images of a beautiful morning and passengers boarding an airplane. It takes you a minute to realize what the movie's even about. That's when a plane hits the World Trade Center. The effect is visceral. When the trailer played before "Inside Man" last week at the famed Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, audience members began calling out, "Too soon!" In New York City, where 9/11 remains an open wound, the response was even more dramatic. The AMC Loews theater on Manhattan's Upper West Side took the rare step of pulling the trailer from its screens after several complaints. "One lady was crying," says one of the theater's managers, Kevin Adjodha. "She was saying we shouldn't have [played the trailer]. That this was wrong ... I don't think people are ready for this."


The films I am talking about are:
"United 93" is the first feature film to deal explicitly with the events of September 11, 2001, and is certain to ignite an emotional debate before and after it opens on April 28. Is it too soon? Should the film have been made at all? More to the point, will anyone want to see it? Other 9/11 projects are on the way as the fifth anniversary of the attacks approaches, most notably Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center," starring Nicolas Cage, opening Aug. 9. But as the harbinger, "United 93" will take most of the heat, whether it deserves it or not.

The real United 93 crashed in a Pennsylvania field after 40 passengers and crew fought back against the terrorists who had hijacked the plane. Writer-director Paul Greengrass ("The Bourne Supremacy") has gone to great lengths to be respectful in his depiction of what occurred, proceeding with the film only after securing the approval of every victim's family. "Was I surprised at the unanimity? Yes. Very. Usually there are one or two families who are more reluctant," Greengrass writes in an e-mail. "I was surprised and humbled at the extraordinary way the United 93 families have welcomed us into their lives and shared their experiences with us." His team's research was meticulous. "They even went so far as to ask what my mother had been wearing on the plane," says Carole O'Hare, whose 79-year-old mother, Hilda Marcin, died on the flight. "They were very open and honest with us, and they made us a part of this whole project." Universal, which is releasing the film, plans to donate 10 percent of its opening weekend gross to the Flight 93 National Memorial Fund. That hasn't stopped criticism that the studio is exploiting a national tragedy. O'Hare thinks that's unfair. "This story has to be told to honor the passengers and crew for what they did," she says. "But more than that, it raises awareness. Our ports aren't secure. Our borders aren't secure. Our airlines still aren't secure, and this is what happens when you're not secure. That's the message I want people to hear."

It's unclear whether Americans will pay $9.50 to hear it. The A&E cable movie "Flight 93" drew 5.9 million viewers in January, the highest-rated show in the channel's history. But movies are different. "I don't want anyone to go who doesn't want to have this experience," says Adam Fogelson, Universal's president of marketing. "But when I see what's on screen, I feel comfortable that a lot of people will." Audiences seem to be split on the issue. "I don't think that's a movie I really want to see," says Jackie Alvarez, 73, of San Ramon, Calif., after seeing the trailer. "It gave me the creeps. It's way too soon." But 17-year-old Antoine Richardson of Memphis, Tenn., is looking forward to it. "I don't think it's exploitative or too soon," he says. "It helps us remember." As if any of us could forget.

I am sure the movie will do well, but personally, I think it is still too soon for 9/11 movies. Wounds still have not healed, there is still a lot of pain and honestly I just get a sickening feeling of people profitting from such a tragic event.

I saw that one that was on A and E awhile back ago.

I think it's tacky. My stomach dropped when I saw the preview at the movies. My friend, who lost his brother on 9/11 actually got up to leave for a little. It's too early.

I watched Flight 93 on A&E and just sobbed through the entire movie. I'm surprised I even got through it. I'd have a hard time with a full-feature theatrical movie. It's too soon.

I hear Oliver Stone has a movie about 9/11 coming out later this year.

Here's the trailer for United 93, if anyone's interested.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/united93/hd/

I also watched Flight 93 and barely made it through.

I have no stories attatched to 9/11 no one close to me died, and no one in my family was touched by it, compared to the rest of the nation.
But it was the first real act of terrorism I had ever seen with my own eyes.
I read about wars in school, when the gulf War was engaged, I knew a few that went overseas-
But nothing really compares to what I witnessed-

I think it might be simialr to those that were watchign live, when kennedy was shot.


We live in a Media Age-
and in some ways I think that numbs you a bit, for what you see behind the camera, and what you see in your life- are often somewhat removing a layer of texture.
It is almost easier to watch things through a cameras eye, its more diasassociated.
But even with that in mind, I till can't believe there are several shows/movies coming out on the tragedy.
And call me crazy, but I could almost understand to put it into film, except when it comes down to it, someone has to charge to see these films.
And that to me is an even greater tragedy.

To charge 9.50 for someone to relive something so horrible?

If it was done simply to express an area in our life that we survived through as a nation, I might be more empathetic.
But deep down, someone is trying to make money off of it.

Well, I can tell you this; It's actually too late to complain that it's too soon to make any movies about the 9/11 attacks, because there were already at least three movies about them. Let's go through them shall we?



Rudy: The Rudy Giuliani Story (2003) (TV):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323849/

D.C. 9/11: Time of Crisis(2003) (TV):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0353042/

Tiger Cruise(2004)(TV):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0397113/


Of course, you've also got your share of Documentaries and Crock-umentaries, that make Michael Moore's propaganda piece about 9/11 look sane by comparison... many of which are straight-to-video homemade jobs by fanatics.
http://www.imdb.com/keyword/september-11-2001/?sort=alpha

Well, I can tell you this; It's actually too late to complain that it's too soon to make any movies about the 9/11 attacks, because there were already at least three movies about them. Let's go through them shall we?



Rudy: The Rudy Giuliani Story (2003) (TV):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323849/

D.C. 9/11: Time of Crisis(2003) (TV):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0353042/

Tiger Cruise(2004)(TV):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0397113/


Of course, you've also got your share of Documentaries and Crock-umentaries, that make Michael Moore's propaganda piece about 9/11 look sane by comparison... many of which are straight-to-video homemade jobs by fanatics.
http://www.imdb.com/keyword/september-11-2001/?sort=alpha

There was also a movie that came out just months after 9/11 called "The Guys," which starred Sigourney Weaver, and was about a firefighter who lost most of his crew on 9/11, and was responsible for writing all of their eulogies. That was a very touching, straight to DVD film.

Denis Leary's drama on FX, Resue Me, draws heavily on 9/11. He plays a firefighter in New York, and 9/11 serves as the backdrop.

I watched Flight 93 on A&E and just sobbed through the entire movie. I'm surprised I even got through it. I'd have a hard time with a full-feature theatrical movie. It's too soon.

I told myself I wasn't going to watch it, but I did anyway. I remember a scene where one of the hijackers exposed his suicide bomb-vest just before one of the times the plane started to dive. Assuming that this segment isn't pure speculation, I would expect the passengers to realize that if that were a real bomb, a sudden jolt like that would cause him to make it go off, thus convincing them that it's fake.


I hear Oliver Stone has a movie about 9/11 coming out later this year.
And from what's been going around, it's not a conspiaracy-oriented movie at all. Yet the fanatics who deny that the attacks were done by al-Qaida keep jumping on the IMDB board for that movie, as well as "United 93," and other movies about the attacks, shouting the same old ****-and-bull stories about 9/11 being an inside job, and calling those of us who aren't dumb enough to buy their propaganda "sheep," or "Bush-sheep."

:rolleyes: :crazy: ohno: :wallbang :bleah

To be honest with you, I don't know about any of you
But I don't want to relive 9/11 again
Because it would bring back painful memories of that fateful day
My brother & brother in law are firefighters
Still it would bring back memories that I don't ever want to relive again
Just is sad IMHO!

The trailer for United 93 was pulled from at least one NYC theater, so there are some folks that are a little upset about the film.

I think it might be a bit early.

Of course it would be nice of there was a 9/11 memorial built on the WTC site before the movies were made, but that's another thread I guess...

I also feel that it's too early for 9/11 films to come out, but this is Hollywood we're talking about, and I really don't think they could care any less than they already do about what most American's think. This is the same Hollywood who made movies about the Rwandan genocide (Hotel Rwanda, Sometimes In April), only 10 years after it happened, and who put out Vietnam films (The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, etc.) less than 10 years after that war ended.

I also feel that it's too early for 9/11 films to come out, but this is Hollywood we're talking about, and I really don't think they could care any less than they already do about what most American's think. This is the same Hollywood who made movies about the Rwandan genocide (Hotel Rwanda, Sometimes In April), only 10 years after it happened, and who put out Vietnam films (The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, etc.) less than 10 years after that war ended.


Ever hear of a little movie shown in "Pulp Fiction" called "Nam's Angels, a.k.a. The Losers"(1970)?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066126/

It was a cheesy movie about some low-level Hell's Angles who rescue some Presidential advisor from the red armies of Indochina. This was made at a time when the war was still going on, the reds were successfully smearing our reputation, and every other movie and television show about Vietnam Veterans made them all look like half-crazed doped-up lunatics, and all unapologetic C.O.'s as blood-thirsty neo-fascist megalomaniacs, a trend that was fizzling out even before "First Blood" was released.

We're all full of it-- we are calling "United 93" an abomination, but I bet most us are going to be waiting hours outside a theater to watch it. This is film is going to be one of the highest grossing movies of 2006.

We're all full of it-- we are calling "United 93" an abomination, but I bet most us are going to be waiting hours outside a theater to watch it. This is film is going to be one of the highest grossing movies of 2006.
You're probably right, lol. Though if I see it, I'll probably have to be carried out of the theater. I cry anytime I read or watch anything sad about 9/11.

I tried reading an article to my husband the other day about 9/11, and what the victims trapped inside the WTC went through. I couldn't finish reading it.

We're all full of it-- we are calling "United 93" an abomination, but I bet most us are going to be waiting hours outside a theater to watch it. This is film is going to be one of the highest grossing movies of 2006.


I will not see it. It is way too soon and some of my memories do not need to be reopened.

I saw that one that was on A and E awhile back ago.
I did too. Very touching and thought-provoking "movie."

My feeling and opinion is, as long as the families of the victims are "fine" with it, then that is all that matters. No one has to go see the movie. No one has to watch it on t.v. I don't agree with the trailer. But where does one draw the line on what can be shown during a movie trailer and when? I don't agree with the trailer in that many are obviously not comfortable (nor will some ever be) ready to see that on a big screen. Should the theatres pull the trailer out? Should they post somewhere in the lobby what trailers will be shown?

We're all full of it-- we are calling "United 93" an abomination, but I bet most us are going to be waiting hours outside a theater to watch it. This is film is going to be one of the highest grossing movies of 2006.
I will not see it, nor do I know anyone who will.

I saw 'United 93' yesterday because I needed to get an idea of what America
went through that day, I wasn't glued to a tv set all day as most people were, I didn't have a set around. The only thing I felt was, more than sadness, was this intense rage and hate for the perpetrators of the hijacking.
It was right after 9/11 that I last had the same feelings. In the movie it completely disgusted me that these "human" slime would use the name of God to commit these sick, barbaric acts against innocent Americans.

Im a Canadian with no dirrect link to 9-11*, and even I think its too soon ( * Other than the eerie silence the next day as the sky over my town, dirrectly under the flight paths of 3 major airports , was completely empty for the first time i can EVER remember )

I think it's wayyyyyyyy too soon!!! I can't believe they are doing this. Imagine all of the people that lost loved ones? Would you want to be reminded of the death of one of your loved ones or friends constantly, when it has only been a few years??? I think it's very tacky. I don't even like to hear people discussing it on TV.

I truly have no interest in seeing this or the film Oliver Stone is supposed to make.

I'm going to go see it in about an hour. I feel like I'm ready.

http://lang.dailybulletin.com/opinions/cartoon/archive/0406/28/gordon450.gif

Im ready to see it

Ever hear of a little movie shown in "Pulp Fiction" called "Nam's Angels, a.k.a. The Losers"(1970)?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066126/

It was a cheesy movie about some low-level Hell's Angles who rescue some Presidential advisor from the red armies of Indochina. This was made at a time when the war was still going on, the reds were successfully smearing our reputation, and every other movie and television show about Vietnam Veterans made them all look like half-crazed doped-up lunatics, and all unapologetic C.O.'s as blood-thirsty neo-fascist megalomaniacs, a trend that was fizzling out even before "First Blood" was released.
People need to see it. Everyone has forgotten what happen on that horrible day.

I am sure the movie will do well, but personally, I think it is still too soon for 9/11 movies. Wounds still have not healed, there is still a lot of pain and honestly I just get a sickening feeling of people profitting from such a tragic event.
I feel that if the money goes to the victims of 911 than it isn't so bad. But I myself would see it. It's a part of history. And like was already said... people have forgottend what had happened.

I feel that if the money goes to the victims of 911 than it isn't so bad. But I myself would see it. It's a part of history. And like was already said... people have forgottend what had happened.

People have not forgotten what happened.

I'm tempted to see it but I'm not ready yet. I think I'll wait a few years and then buy the dvd....