quote: Director Paul Greengrass ("The Bourne Supremacy") has set an October start date for "Flight 93". Universal's $15 million film will be 90 minutes long and cover the flight in real time.
quote: "Flight 93" will be partly improvised with an ensemble cast, and Greengrass will use handheld cameras and other stylized techniques to give the film a gritty feel.
Imagine the happy ending tho...
Let's start taking bets...
A crowd of mourners, defiant and hopeful, gather on the charred field to gaze skyward while stirring music accompanies a speech about the valiant few who will live forever in crappy movie moments.
Does anyone else find this utterly abhorrent?
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
He should at least have taken a cue from Michael Bay and waited 60 years before capitalizing on a national tragedy.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
RIght. So, Moore - while doubtlessly employing a less than ethical documentary style, obviously passionately believes in his cause... which is worse, according to you, than the money-grubbing hollywood clowns who want to do this on the cheap for some quick bucks?
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Less than ethical? He lies and deliberately misleads the viewers of his propaganda so he can become one of those money-grubbing hollywood clowns, so yea, he is worse. At least the makers of this movie will strive for some accuracy. Moore got rich off the tradegy, why can't others?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strive for some accuracy? If you believe that you're more deluded about studio-mandated features than I imagined.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe they strive for some accuracy, the names will be right, dates, basic order of events, and I am sure the plane will crash in the end. Some things will be made up, like conversations between passengers to make the film more interesting, but I would believe most of the basic facts will be accurate. Why would they have to change much?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, it's an entirely fictional story, a callous marketing exercise that can bear no resemblence to what actually occured on that plane and cannot even approach the horror that those people must have lived through. It's a disgusting shallow money-making scam, that will no doubt have a wonderful, uplifting patriotic twist thrown on the end so everyone can feel good about invading Iraq.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do believe they strive for some accuracy, the names will be right, dates, basic order of events, and I am sure the plane will crash in the end.
By that standard, Gone With the Wind was a documentary.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see. So in other words you hate Bush and this is really about that hatred more than someone making a movie? You simply cannot have anything that might disagree with your point of view which is anti-Bush. Moore is a great patriot because he says what you like, and the makers of this movie are disgusting shallow money-makers because you think you know how the movie will go? I think they can have a resemblence to what actually occured on that plane, and can approach, as much as any medium can approach, the horror those people lived through. Band of Brothers is a good example of this, so is Saving Private Ryan.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Gone with the Wind was fiction. This movie is being based on what actually happened to real people.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vaudeville? I have no clue what you mean by that? You are speculating about something you cannot possibly know and are assuming that the makers of the movie are evil monsters just because you think that this movie might somehow support the war in Iraq.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, Gone with the Wind was fiction. This movie is being based on what actually happened to real people.
Are you suggesting that the Civil War did not happen? Or are you suggesting that this movie will include a more realistic portrayal of the lives of the people on that flight than Gone With the Wind did of the antebellum South?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gone With the Wind was ripped off from Vanity Fair. Not that that has anything to do with anything, but it was. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It will probably be crap, but only because most movies are crap, and I have a hard time following the action Greengrass movies because it's all shakey and confused.
But movies based on true stories don't have to be crap.
I think it's odd that we are supposed to assume that anything inspiring (even if it was somewhat inspiring in real life) becomes something shameful, merely by virtue of being inspiring.
For example, it's not abnormal to cry when you first hold your newborn baby, but it's shameful or embarrassing for a character in a movie to do it?
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Tom, I am suggesting that the civil war did not happen, that is exactly what I am doing...Please reset your sarcasm meters now The story of Gone with the Wind was fiction set in the time period of the Civil War. There is a difference between a fictional story set during Civil War and a movie about a nonfictional story. I am suggesting that this movie will depict a more accurate portrayal of what happened to the real people during the 90 minute flight. Gone with the Wind did not actually happen, nor was it based on actual people.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The story of Gone with the Wind was fiction set in the time period of the Civil War.
And I strongly suspect, since we have no survivors of the crash in question, that more than a little of this film will be fictionalized. Would you disagree?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I would disagree. I am sure that some dialogue will have to be invented because there is no way to know exactly what everyone said, but it does sound like he wants to portray what actually happened on that flight. The only way to know for sure is for us to see the film first then determine if we think it is accurate or not. For now, with the limited knowledge that I have from reading about what Greengrass intends to do, I disagree that this film will be a total work of fiction, much like Gone with the Wind.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am sure that some dialogue will have to be invented because there is no way to know exactly what everyone said, but it does sound like he wants to portray what actually happened on that flight.
I feel compelled to point out that the director of King Arthur recently insisted that his was a meticulously researched historical film. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is wrong and should be nixed right NOW.
The only, ONLY way this could possibly turn out to be somewhat morally palatable is if the directors, actors, and crewmen refused to take a single penny-- even to cover their losses.
And even then, I'm still not sure if I'd welcome the fictionalizing of this event.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the sentiment, Scott R, but if Gibson can make millions on the Passion of the Christ, if Moore can make millions on Farenheit, then Greengrass should be allowed to do the same.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So in other words you hate Bush and this is really about that hatred more than someone making a movie?
You're not doing yourself a good service by throwing this out there, DarkKnight. I say that as someone who more often disagrees than agrees with Troubador on issues like this, FYI.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
If the movie is going to be entirely real-time and cover only the flight of the plane to its crash, it will be entirely fiction, except for parts seen or heard by people other than those on the plane.
How much of that can there possibly be? There's the goodbye scenes from the airport, and any conversations passengers or pilots had with people on the ground. That's all audio.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if they're going to go so far as to research the passenger lists and name characters after real victims. I'm trying to decide whether that would be more tasteless than the alternative. Either way, not very classy.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>if Gibson can make millions on the Passion of the Christ, if Moore can make millions on Farenheit, then Greengrass should be allowed to do the same.
Oh, sure. ALLOWED is fine.
I just think everyone in America should make very sure that the studios lose money on this project.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
" I do believe they strive for some accuracy, the names will be right, dates, basic order of events, and I am sure the plane will crash in the end."
"By that standard, Gone With the Wind was a documentary."
Tom, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, but when you're making a rebuttal could you try to be more specific in pointing out why the statement you quoted is wrong? By just saying what you said, your not helping him in any way figure out why he's wrong, and you're pretty much attacking him without saying anything solid for him to defend himself from.
I know I don't really have a place to be telling you this, but it's just something that bothers me about some of your posts.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tom, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, but when you're making a rebuttal could you try to be more specific in pointing out why the statement you quoted is wrong?
Hm. See, I'm genuinely trying to be nicer to people lately, at least when it comes to arguments, and so you bring up a valid concern. On the other hand, speaking in insightful parables is what I do; it's my whole schtick, y'know? *laugh* It's one of the few pleasures I actually take in argument. I suspect that if I made a serious attempt to explain in exhaustive length where someone's gone wrong each and every time I observed that they had, I'd wind up a neurotic mess, posting only occasionally to a pun challenge or Last Post thread and putting people's names in parentheses.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious. For those of you who are replying that this movie is cashing in on material that shouldn't be subjected to that treatment, would you advocate allowing a certain amount of time to pass before creating media based on such events, or never having it created at all?
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brettly10: ...No just because Gibson can exploit the religious fiction out there does not mean that someone else should exploit the victims of a recent terrorist attack...
You may want to reconsider calling the crucifixion of Jesus Christ "religious fiction". Just a thought...
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I don't think you should use the word "exploit" either. Gibson made an independent film in a dead language and did so in a gruesome, artistic, and highly unhollywoodish fashion. Thus, I don't think he made these films expecting to make loads of money. Rather than exploitation, I think The Passion of the Christ was both intended and recieved as a tribute to the source material.
Truthfully, I think it is fantastic that films like Passion and Fahrenheit made lots of money. Both are idealistic projects that were not at all aimed at turning a huge profit. It is a good thing in an age of eyecandy films that directors can occassionally achieve box office success while simultaneously dedicating their efforts towards a cause other than profitability, whether it be political dissent or a religious tribute.
It is possible that these 9/11 movies are aimed at being a tribute too. I have my doubts, however. I also can't believe any director will have the guts to take an objective enough approach to these films that they won't come off as an overly patriotic reiteration of everything we've already heard many many times since 9/11.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Truthfully, I think it is fantastic that films like Passion and Fahrenheit made lots of money. Both are idealistic projects that were not at all aimed at turning a huge profit. It is a good thing in an age of eyecandy films that directors can occassionally achieve box office success while simultaneously dedicating their efforts towards a cause other than profitability, whether it be political dissent or a religious tribute.
I pretty much agree with Tres here. For either film: Even if you don't agree with the message or the way it was done or want to argue about its accuracy, at least it got some debate on the topic(s) going. I love stupid popcorn flicks too, but it's nice that people are seeing movies actually about something.
<snarky>And when Passion was out I was doing amatuer standup comedy. I had some GREAT jokes there.</snarky>
posted
We live in America, where we are free to do as we please. Freedom of Speach gives Michael Moore, Mel Gibson, and now this director to make their movies. They make them to speak their mind and perhaps this director feels he is paying a tribute to the victims.
You may disagree with his tactics or you might even agree, but the fact of the matter is he has the right to make his movie.
If you dont agree then dont watch it. I dont agree with Michael Moore and I never plan on watching his movie, but he had every right to film Fahrenheit 9/11 because he lives in America.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You may want to reconsider calling the crucifixion of Jesus Christ "religious fiction".
Because it's not religious fiction, or because calling it religious fiction might offend those who think it isn't?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I suspect that if I made a serious attempt to explain in exhaustive length where someone's gone wrong each and every time I observed that they had, I'd wind up a neurotic mess"
You don't really have to reply with exhaustive detail. You could've properly corrected DK in a couple of sentences if you wanted to, without the "insightful parable" Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see. So in other words you hate Bush and this is really about that hatred more than someone making a movie? You simply cannot have anything that might disagree with your point of view which is anti-Bush. Moore is a great patriot because he says what you like, and the makers of this movie are disgusting shallow money-makers because you think you know how the movie will go?
How the heck did this become about Bush?! (And let me insert my appreciation for how, in the space of a couple of posts, you worked your way to characterizing Troub as a Moore fan when he said nothing of the sort.) DK, can you carry on a conversation without riding that particular hobby horse?
Nobody denies that they have the right to do something like this, but I agree with those who think it's tacky. I would find it more acceptable after more years have passed, so that those who are still suffering can have some more healing. It also really seems more like TV Movie material than feature film fodder.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Icarus, appreciate the clarification!
quote:We live in America, where we are free to do as we please. Freedom of Speach gives Michael Moore, Mel Gibson, and now this director to make their movies. They make them to speak their mind and perhaps this director feels he is paying a tribute to the victims.
Except it's nothing to do with the director. The director doesn't find the story, and do all the hiring and firing - the producer does. And in this case they didn't mention the producer - they mentioned that it was a film that Paramount wants to do and that they've attached Greengrass to the project. Which means that the producer is probably some line-level Paramount flunky placed there purely as a numbers man.
It's not about vision, it's about Paramount milking the tragedy for overly zealous patriots.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which plane is this about? Sorry I don't remember the flight numbers. Is this one of the ones that crashed into the towers? The Pentagon? or crashed in that field?
Them using the names or not I think will depend entirely on whether or not the actual people allow them to. You'd have to ask Dag, or anyone on here who knows more than me on this, but I'm pretty sure they aren't purposefully allowed to use the names of real people and their life without first getting permission from the people.
I think it'd be extremely goofy to do the film with made up names for the people. Actually I think the whole point of the movie is rather stupid. It will be more fiction than not. If they use real names, how will the families feel when they see the person crying, knowing they will die, who has their mother's or father's or uncle's or whomever's name attached to it. Or if they see them resolute and fearless, but wondering if that was really how they felt, for they don't really know.
How will they feel, if real audio is piped into the film from phone calls made.
I've heard some of the audio, it was in that movie, I can't remember the name, that had a bunch of short films in it, each of which was 9 minutes 11 seconds and three frames long. I think there were 13 films, and put together they made up a whole movie. But in one of them, real audio was played from cell phone calls and answering machine messages. One of them, was a woman calling her husband, in a scared voice she told him that she loved him, and not to worry, but just to remember that she always loved him.
I don't usually cry at movies, I'm all about the "men don't cry" thing. The entire audience was in tears however, and I was no exception. That was artistic, and it was shortly after 9/11 had happened. It meant something.
This however, will be a writer's attempt to guess at what each person may or may not have done. They will create false names and create false people. Basically a tube in the sky full of fictional people. We know how it will end, you might as well call it Air Force One, or Flight Plan, or Red Eye, or any other movie about planes being hijacked or things happening on a plane involving drama.
My objection has nothing to do with the fact that it is too soon. My objection is that they are taking a real life situation with more emotional attachments to it than any other in recent American history, most likely the single most emotional event for living Americans, and they are slapping that emotional tie onto a fictional film and attempting to profit off it.
So far as I'm concerned, anyone involved with this film is scum, and they are whoring themselves out for the sake of profit, at the extreme expense of people who have already suffered too much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:each of which was 9 minutes 11 seconds and three frames long.
Three frames in 9 min 11s? Sounds more like a slide show than a movie!
I understand what you're saying, but I think in fifty or a hundred years, I would not find the idea offensive.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I couldn't find it on Amazon or elsewhere, but you can rent it at many Blockbusters, and I really recommend that many of you do so. I can't even describe this film. The directors come from all over the world, Burkina Faso, Afghanistan, Iran, Japan, America and elsewhere. One of them is about a bunch of little kids trying to capture Bin Laden to collect the rewardo.
Another is about a man in Japan who, after a war, thinks he is a snake.
Seemingly, from the descriptions you might not see the connection. But seeing all of them together, it's powerful. Certainly the most powerful piece I have seen in the last four years on the subject of 9/11.
THAT is the kind of movie that should be made. Not some whorey rip off.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus and Rakeesh... This is when it became about Bush. Troubadour said
quote: It's a disgusting shallow money-making scam, that will no doubt have a wonderful, uplifting patriotic twist thrown on the end so everyone can feel good about invading Iraq.
I made my comments about this being more about his admitted hatred of Bush than about anything else after he made that comment. Just so I am clear, we cannot make any kind of film showing what happened on 9/11, whether it be the attacks on the WTC, or Flight 93 because it will be a complete exploitation or because people might be seen as heroic? Flight 93 ended when a few ordinary people acted to do what they thought was right. Isn't that a story worth telling? Why shouldn't that story be told? Because you fear that this will give support to the Iraq war? I suppose the same people must be completely outraged at films like Midway and Tora Tora Tora? How about the 'military' films put out during WWII? Shouldn't they be banned because they might be seen as patriotic and uplifting? I would say let the film be made or else it is nothing but pure censorship for political reasons. If you don't like it, don't go see it.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I suppose the same people must be completely outraged at films like Midway and Tora Tora Tora? How about the 'military' films put out during WWII? Shouldn't they be banned because they might be seen as patriotic and uplifting?
So you're basically admitting that this amounts to war propaganda, then?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Tom, I am saying that during WWII there were propoganda films made to support that war, and to tell the stories of what was happening over there. This film is about Flight 93 and what happened on Flight 93, not the war on terror. So I am not admitting anything at all of the kind.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends entirely on how it is done. The Laramie Project, for example, was a non-exploitative movie about a tragic real life event. Even though I have some serious issues with the movie, I think it was well-done, well-intentioned, and not crass.
I hope Universal does at least as well on this movie.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
