"United 93"

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Disclaimer and Rules

1. First of all, I feel obliged to make a confession: I'm starting a thread on a movie I have not seen. My opinions are therefore not as grounded in facts and experience as they should be. Knowing that, take what I write with a grain of salt.
   
2. This thread is not for the discussion of whether or not Bush&Co. was behind 9/11. We already have a thread in the Senate regarding that claim (you should read the thread if only for post #7:D).

Disclaimer and Rules End

 

What's your opinions on this movie?

 

I can't go too deeply into the plot, as I haven't seen the movie, but I personally think it's way too early to start making movies and games (yes, there is at least one game planned) about the 9/11 attacks. Other critics attack the movie because:

• The German passenger, Christian Adam, is portrayed as a coward by Greengrass, allegedly because his still-living widow Silke did not wish to give Greengrass the cell-phone recordings her husbond made.
• It does not really offer any news insight into what happened on Flight 93.
• It covers up that Bush was behind 9/11 ("OMG Wutch Looze Change!1111") .

 

What's good about it, according to critics, is that it once again brings to light that Dubya and Cheney utterly failed to be there for their nation on 9/11. Also, the movie itself is not a Hollywood-style piece of action trash like 102 Minutes - it's a realistic portrayal of what happened on Flight 93 on 9/11. In short, it's honest.

 

But I still think it's way too early (only five years) to make it. It's inevitable, but too early.

 

Your thoughts?

 

United 93 On Amazon

[SkinWalker]

Personally, I won't be seeing this or any other 9/11 exploitation movie. Its best to just let some things go, some emotions to rest in peace. For much the same reason, I also didn't see Blackhawk Down. I knew someone that was there and really didn't want to see some Hollywood writers' and director's opinion of what reality is like.

[toms]

I saw it a while back and thought it was an interesting, but not amazing movie. Didn't really feel hollywoodised or exploitative.. felt more like one of those "drama documentaries" that are so popular these days.

 

I actually found the stuff on the ground to be much more interesting than the stuff in the air.. and a large part of the movie does take place in the various air traffic control rooms involved.

 

The german guy was portrayed as the token coward, which seems very harsh. However they didn't really get into ANY of the passengers names or much in the way of their backstory.. it was much more of a "as it happens" type situation.

 

All in all I'd say its worth watching, simply out of interest of what went on on the ground. But not worth rushing out to see.

 

Things seem to be speeding up in the media. Perviously it took a while before any entertainment was produced.. first the "heroic fiction", then the more sober examinations, then the backlash. But now we seem to skip to the heroic fiction pretty quick (eg: Rescue Me, 24) and already we are onto the more sober examinations.

 

I'm i;terested to see what World Trade Center is like.

[Good Sir Knight]

What's good about it, according to critics, is that it once again brings to light that Dubya and Cheney utterly failed to be there for their nation on 9/11.

 

Really? Bush was in office for about 8 months while Clinton pandered and stuck his head in the sand for 8 years.

 

 

 

Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

 

Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

 

Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and "detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas,” Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

 

 

Clinton could have had Bin Laden, instead he was just too scared of what his liberal friends would say.

[TK-8252]

I'm not a fan of Clinton, but to be fair, Bush passed up the opportunity to get Osama as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_in_Afghanistan#Background

 

He could have had the Taliban turn him over to a neutral country... but no, Bush DEMANDED that ALL of his requests MUST BE MET! NO NEGOTIATIONS!

 

And... still no Osama.

[Good Sir Knight]

I'm not a fan of Clinton, but to be fair, Bush passed up the opportunity to get Osama as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_in_Afghanistan#Background

 

He could have had the Taliban turn him over to a neutral country... but no, Bush DEMANDED that ALL of his requests MUST BE MET! NO NEGOTIATIONS!

 

And... still no Osama.

 

 

The United States government doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

 

Besides, why is it all about Bush 24/7?

 

Bush's demands were after 3000 Americans were murdered by Al Qaeda, honorable guests of the Taliban. Afganistan is one country that deserved a regime change.

 

Can't you admit that Clinton failed..and failed miserably in regards to Al Qaeda?

 

Clinton could have had Bin Laden...but he was too weak...too weak.

[Pho3nix]

I don't really wanna see it, just seems like American propaganda. Sort of like Armageddon and Independence Day. It glorifies Americans.

[TK-8252]

Why is it all about Bush 24/7?

 

Because he's the President?

 

Besides that was after 3000 Americans were murdered by Al Qaeda, honorable guests of the Taliban. Afganistan is one country that deserved a regime change.

 

The war in Afghanistan has accomplished nothing. It's only worked against us. There was no regime change... they're still murdering people for being "infidels." (Remember that guy who was going to be executed for converting to Christianity?)

 

The Taliban and al-Qaeda just moved next door to Pakistan... which is taking them with open arms. Perhaps we need a regime change in Pakistan... their leader is a military dictator after all. Oh wait he's our friend. My bad.

 

We had two options after 9/11: invade Afghanistan and start a mess... and not capture Osama. Or we could have had the Taliban turn Osama over to a neutral country... and we wouldn't have had to lose American lives in Afghanistan, plus we'd have Osama tried for his crimes.

 

So it's either pretend to kick ass or actually get bin Laden... you choose.

 

Can't you admit that Clinton failed..and failed miserably in regards to Al Qaeda?

 

Clinton could have had Bin Laden...but he was too weak...too weak.

 

If you want someone to defend Clinton, get someone else to. I'm not going to.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Really? Bush was in office for about 8 months while Clinton pandered and stuck his head in the sand for 8 years.

Why is it that every time a Bush-supporter is forced into a corner, he yells "well, what about Kerry/Clinton?!". As if every Bush-hater supports Clinton 100%.

 

Why is it all about Bush 24/7?

What exactly is your problem here - that there´s no discussion on Clinton in a thread not about him, or that there are no threads about Clinton?

 

If you think there is too little discussion on Clinton, start a thread on him. Plain and simple.

[CapNColostomy]

I also didn't see Blackhawk Down. I knew someone that was there and really didn't want to see some Hollywood writers' and director's opinion of what reality is like.

 

In response to that, to my knowledge the main story arc of Black Hawk Down was based on Mark Bowdens book, and he spoke to the people involved. I know that they took liberties regarding some of the actions and characters, but I don't think that movie was really the gung-ho "yay America, kill the bad guys and win win win!!!" movie that some people make it out to be. In fact, there's a part during the documentary about the film where they mentioned a bootleg copy of the film being shown to some of the citizens of Mogadishu, and they were amazed that the film had been shot in Somalia (it was actually filmed in Morraco) without them noticing. I thought that went a long way toward showing the films realism. Of course, I wasn't there though. So...

 

Just out of curiousity, did the person you knew that was there see the film? if so, what did he/she think of it? I personally thought it was very well done, and I'd like it even if someone told me it was entirely fiction. Just from a fan of movies standpoint, I think it's really good. Maybe you should give it a watch from that perspective instead. You might like it. Or not.

 

Sorry, I know this is off topic. With regard to the topic, I'm not really interested in seeing this movie. I'm sure just out of morbid fascination, I eventually will. I don't really think it's so much too early to do it, but I just don't much care. I'm not trying to make lite of the 9/11 events, it's just that...well, it's still fresh enough in my head to where I don't really need to watch a guesstimation movie about it. The Oliver Stone picture with Nicholas Cage looks only slightly better, but only because it's supposedly based on fact, and not an attempt at Rambo IV. I like Oliver Stone flicks usually, but it has Nicholas Cage, and he stopped making good movies when they wrapped Raising Arizona.

[toms]

As the only guy who seems to actually have seen United '93 I should probably say that its not at all "Rambo" and I was actually pretty impressed with the way they went for realism over heroics. They also don't really go into any details about underlying causes, who might be at fault or anything like that..its simply an "as it (coulda) happened" fly on the wall sort of piece.

 

Whether they should be making the films at all is another matter, but if they are going to make films about it then United 93 seemed as good as you could hope for. It was certainly less hollywoodised than i expected.

The Nick Cage one looks more hollywoodised to me.. but maybe thats because it reminds me of "Rescue Me".. heroic new york firemen who survive. United 93 didn't really have any heroics.. just a last desperate move at the very end.

 

Black Hawk Down on the other hand is VERY rambo.. its a well made, fun film.. but its basically a propoganda piece for the US military.. every sinlge solidier is heroic, every single faceless enemy a monster, none of the good guys show fear or questin orders.

Like embedded reporters.. it does a great job of showing ONE side of the conflict. But it doesn't even attempt to show the other side.

[CapNColostomy]

Black Hawk Down on the other hand is VERY rambo.. its a well made, fun film.. but its basically a propoganda piece for the US military.. every sinlge solidier is heroic, every single faceless enemy a monster, none of the good guys show fear or questin orders.

Like embedded reporters.. it does a great job of showing ONE side of the conflict. But it doesn't even attempt to show the other side.

 

How can it possibly do a great job of showing one side of the conflict and still not be an accurate presentation of the events that it's based on? The only thing you said there that was true was that it was a "well made, fun film." Granted they didn't spend as much time on the minor characters that were involved with the civil war in Somalia, as they did the American characters. They were present though, and not just as faceless monsters. The captured arms dealer, or the man that kept Ron Eldards character in custody had minor parts, but they did adequate jobs of telling "the other side" of the story without coming off as simply villanous. After I watched it, I actually felt sorry for the faceless monsters in Somalia. And apparently the people that crowded in to watch the bootlegged copy in Mogadishu thought it was a decent enough movie. They stood and cheered every time an American was killed in the film.

 

You don't seem to want to accept the fact that most of the things shown in that movie really happened. I do wish some of the the stuff that was left out of the film that actually happened had made it into the movie though. Like how some of the people in Aidids militia were using women as living shields, or the guy that went riding toward the American service men on the back of a cow, guns blazing only to have himself and the cow blown straight to hell, or the cannabalism of Cliff Wolcott and the other soldiers that were in the first downed helicopter, by Somali's who got the wrong idea when they heard the UN and US was there to help feed them apparently.

 

As for every single soldier being heroic, you say that as if it were a bad thing. Are you saying that the actual people involved were somehow not heroic, or just the characters that are based on them are?

 

"none of the good guys show fear or questin orders." Based on that statement alone, I have to wonder if you've even seen the film at all. There were numerous scenes that showed scared "good guys" and "good guys" questioning and even disobeying orders.

[Good Sir Knight]

Why is it that every time a Bush-supporter is forced into a corner, he yells "well, what about Kerry/Clinton?!". As if every Bush-hater supports Clinton 100%.

 

What exactly is your problem here - that there´s no discussion on Clinton in a thread not about him, or that there are no threads about Clinton?

 

Forced into a corner? Already declaring victory at the start of the debate?

 

What pains me is folks on the left center on Bush as being primarily at fault for 911.

 

It's as if Al Qaeda didn't exist before 911 to these people. I'll be the first to admit that there were intelligence failures during Bush's first 8 months but alot of that had to do with Clinton butchering our intelligence infrastructure and allowing Bin Laden to run free after both Sudan and Yemen tried to hand him over.

 

Clinton could have had him, instead he just cries at the funeral of murdered embassy workers. I'm sure Bin Laden got a kick out of that.

 

That's all, try not to be so defensive and show a little more context when you make accusations towards the American government. I think alot of the criticism leveled towards Bush really gives him more credit than he's worth, he doesn't control everything.

 

If you think there is too little discussion on Clinton, start a thread on him. Plain and simple.

 

Sure why not, just don't pretend like it's all Bush's fault. Oh wait..I forgot...everything is Bush's fault these days.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

What pains me is folks on the left center on Bush as being primarily at fault for 911.

There you go again. No one here has written he or she thinks Bush is at fault for 9/11.

 

That's all, try not to be so defensive and show a little more context when you make accusations towards the American government.

I simply don't see what you mean here.

[Nancy Allen``]

Well maybe if they make Jihad Victory: The Bombing of the Evil Empire, that would be a film some would like more.

 

Really it's obvious there would be films about September 11, and whether four or five years is too soon is a bit of a difficult one to answer. On the one hand they probably should never be made, or at the very least there are some types of films, like my sarcastic comment at the top, that should never be made. And given the tragedy any film would be difficult to sit through. On the other hand it has been thrown in our face so much that it has become a part of today's world. Every time there's some terrorist report they play the 9/11 card and show the twin towers in flames, people have attacked the issue to death blaming everyone except Al Qaeda for perpetrating or allowing it to happen. But on the film, United 93 and Oliver Stone's World Trade Centre do not have a whiff of exploitation or political manipulation. It does nothing to promote or decry military actions in the Middle East or cast blame for the tragedy, and for that alone the film makers deserve the utmost respect for wisely exercising the self control to not demonise Bush and America, or Bin Laden and terrorism. These are both as straight faced as they come, portraying what the film's focus is (the hijacking of Flight 93 and the passengers preventing it from being flown into the White House, or the rescue of John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno) as accurately as it possibly can. Some parts this is not easy, such as what exactly happens when the passengers fight to take control of the plane, but it certainly doesn't serve as a Rambo film or something that is to be celebrated. In such a film there would be an American traitor, someone resembling Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan perhaps, colloberating with the terrorists. The famous 'let's roll' phrase is not part of some big Patton inspired speach or a war cry as it might be in some other film, it is just a simple turn of phrase used by Todd Beamer.

 

As for President Clinton, it is true he cut a lot of the military. I don't think he is to blame for September 11 however, nor did I see any blame cast in the films. The film portrays, accurately I believe, the confusion and the issue of red tape that surrounded the attacks and getting clearence to fly over the cities, rules of engagement and all that crap. It was very much the same story as what happened at Desert One. Since the arguement was brought up the first reports showed the Palestinions celebrating the attacks, so if America thought they were responsible then it is not unreasonable to assume that there was other confusion on that day. Besides which if every threat the government knew about was acted on, you would never fly, nor would there be any ships or trains running.

[toms]

Exactly. At least we didn't get bruce willis playing Todd Beamer or anything like that. Even the guys making mistakes in the air control towers are portrayed sympathetically.. as no one could have reasonably been expected to know the full facts of what was going on.

 

As for Bush and 9/11. I personally don't hold him responsible for 9/11 at all. I'm sure that with hindsight there are things that he, or clinton, or any number of people could have done that might have changed things. But no one has all the information, or the value of hindsight when making these decisions.

 

What I do hold against Bush is the way he reacted after 9/11, and used it to further his own interests. But then the Democrats are just as guilty because they tamely went along with anything he suggested.. rather than doing their job and performing some sort of oversight/scrutiny. Same goes for the British Government to some extent.. but they are paying the price if recent polls are to be believed.

 

But the films don't go into any of that...wisely...

[Nancy Allen``]

And to have cast a well known actor in the film would have been a great misstep, as it would be very easy for their role to overshadow the film. The Sentinal did this as well as because of Keither Sutherland we were watching, in a sense, Jack Bauer and 24. There it would have been okay, heck I watch some films for that reason, but it would have been horrendous here.

 

With how Bush reacted to 9/11, I would like to know what his opposers, what the democrats, would say they would have done, what their reaction would have been. But I can make you any type of wager you like that were something like it to happen with them in power how they would react would be vastly diffirent to how they say they would react, and part of that would be ignorance of what needs to go through the government and the proper channels before you can act. Besides which, I know as well as everyone else would that we had all of these top level politicians, military experts, stratergists, you name it going into the matter, and there would be those who would be doing so on behalf on one cause or another, whether it be to bring down Bush, expose him for planning 9/11, whatever. One trap we do not want to fall into is to come across as thinking we are smarter than they are.

 

Just a little on topic factoid you might find interesting. Tom Clancy was writing a novel that had the same plotline as September 11, where terrorists would hijack planes and fly them into buildings. His editor rejected it saying it was too farfetched. Well on the afternoon of the attacks he was interviewed and he said he was speaking to a friend of his in the military, and Tom asked if there were any security measures in place for something like a terrorist hijacking and kamikaze attack. His friend thought it over for a few moments before replying that there wasn't, but in the meeting he was going to have with other military experts the next week he was going to discuss that very idea. So going by this it would seem that it was something that was not planned for.

[toms]

There was a die hard rip off called Executive Decision about terrorists planning to crash a plane.. or something very similar to 9/11. I remember watching it years ago and thinking it was stupid and too far fetched.

 

But the simple fact of the matter is that any free country is going to be open to people commiting unexpected acts. Whether it be crashing planes, or making bombs out of household products and getting on a train, or going to a public place and shooting people, or deciding to crash a car into a crowd of people, or whatever.. you can't anticipate EVERYTHING that people might think of.. the only way to prevent such actions would be to make a totally controlled society (equilibium style).

 

So i don't blame them for not having a plan for something everyone thought was far fetched. And even if they'd had a plan its unlikely they'd have had time or warning to implement it.

 

I'm happy to accept the risks of living in a free country, versus the rewards it presents. Our ancestors seemed happy too as they kept fighting and dying for those freedoms.

 

There was a very interesting film a few years back called The Seige about terrorists setting off bombs in an american city.. however the interesting thing was that it showed that the best way to let the terrorists win was to make ill-thought out spur of the moment overreactions and make things worse. (it also had a completely STUPID twist at the end which ruined the whole film, but thats another matter).

 

But if the government starts trying to plan for every fictional possible terrorist attack that hollywood writers can make up then they'll never get anything done.. and the terrorists will still think of something else they haven't thought of eventually.