quote: Paul Linfesty

---

I think the problem here is that the preview would have been unexpected.

---

I agree. It's a film that I want to see, but I want to be prepared for the emotions it will evoke. I still grieve and cry when I see the Towers fall.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-04-2006, 01:22 PM:
 
Here in NYC, anything dealing with the events on 9/11 will have a problem. Even with the audience knowing the release date of the films. Look Paramount has the Oliver Stone 9/11 picture coming soon too. That one deals with events in the city on that day with the Port Authority and Fire Department.

They are still having problems with who, what and when for the new buildings to go in the site of WTC.
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 04-04-2006, 02:21 PM:
 
Saw an article on this on the news tonight:

It stated that the relatives of the passengers onboard 'United 93' had given consent.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 04-05-2006, 09:55 AM:
 
The customer comes first, and if people complain sufficiently and validly then you have to do something about it. If the trailer was unexpected and in a cinema where the images are far more powerful than on TV you are going to get distressed people.

As for the film itself people have the choice not to watch it. We had so many problems with 'the Aristocrats' even though the tagline clearly mentioned unspeakable obscenity. Agree that all the profits should go to charity.
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 04-05-2006, 07:37 PM:
 
I do not like the idea of this movie being made for two reasons, so I’m fine with New Yorkers pulling the trailers.

1. I think it is too soon. I cannot help the feeling that there was some twisted race in Hollywood on who could be the first one to get a movie out, but not too soon otherwise it may be in poor taste. I think there should be some unwritten 10 year rule about movies regarding such a terrific event. This was only 4 ½ years ago, so “fresh in people’s minds” is a bit of an understatement. Plus, we are still gathering information about that day, so I think it is safe to say that they really jumped the gun. I am not trying to imply that we should hide from what happened or not visit the subject, but an industry known first and foremost for entertainment could have backed off this one for awhile longer. Even the tagline reeks of Hollywood.

2. It kind of bothers me that one flight gets the focus because it never hit a target. I completely agree that those responsible for what happened on flight 93 were heroes - there is no debating that - but I do think that it somehow devalues the people on those other three planes. Without getting into a long discussion of the order of events that day, the people on the other planes are not to be assumed cowards or sheep, which is sort of being implied by the attention paid to those aboard flight 93. To put it crudely, with the risk of offending some, I doubt the other three planes will have a feature length film titled after them because their story is not nearly as great.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 04-05-2006, 07:52 PM:
 
Isn't UIP making another 9/11 film? Sounds awful but they probably wouldn't want the plots to overlap much so there would be two distinct films.
 

---

Posted by Jason Winn (Member # 3568) on 04-05-2006, 07:53 PM:
 
I saw the trailer to this movie last week when I saw "Inside Man." By the way, it was at AMC. I was shocked when I saw the trailer. I can't believe they're making a movie about 9/11 this soon. I agree with Chad. I think they should've waited at least 10 years before they even considered making a movie about it. And when they do make the movie, they should've made it about the entire day, not just one flight. It should feature all 4 planes, with Flight 93 being the climactic ending to the movie. I, personally, probably won't watch this movie when it comes out, but I might catch it on cable someday.
 

---

Posted by Stephen LaPadula (Member # 3050) on 04-05-2006, 08:40 PM:
 
I have to say I am pleasantly surprised at the reactions of fellow techers.

I have 2 problems with the trailer. For one, its not like it was part of the preshow where people could choose not to see it, its shown after the lights go down and most people are settled. Making this movie was inevitable, and I've come to terms with that. the part that got me upset was showing two clips; one of a plane all but exploding into the south tower, and then a few seconds later one of the towers falling. This movie is about flight 93 right? or did I miss something? the movie is at least an hour and a half, why put those 2 clips in a 1:30 trailer?? And the poster is even more offensive: there is a plane flying over the statue of liberty with the twin towers on fire in the background: truly insensitive.

Everyone in NY knows where they were on that day; I was 3 blocks away in my Pace U dorm on the 17th fl, I had a clear view of it all. And for those like myself who lost a family member on that day, have those images thrown in your face is despicable.

For the record, the Regal theatres in NY also took off the trailer.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-05-2006, 08:47 PM:
 
What's interesting is back in Feb. of this year. The cable channel A&E ran their TV Movie about the doomed United Flight 93. That airing became their most watched program with 5.9 million viewers. Every film is going to have a marketing problem. There looks like there are viewers interested in to see what happened. And that was only the second film about that day. The first film released was "The Guys" (2002), about a NYFD fire captain who lost eight men in the collapse of the World Trade Center. You would have to live here to fully understand what it was like on that day and how the city operated during this time. It was not like you saw on the news.

USA Today
 

---

Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 04-05-2006, 09:54 PM:
 
Caleb, it's Paramount Pictures that is releasing a 9/11 movie. It's titled 'World Trade Center.' Scheduled for August release.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-05-2006, 11:17 PM:
 
I haven't seen the trailer, but I think seeing it in a theater would be a very unsettling experience if it includes footage of the towers falling or anything similar. Showing it in a theater, in what's basically an advertisement, is wrong. No matter how well-intentioned the movie may be, this trailer sounds gratuitous.
 

---

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 04-06-2006, 01:34 AM:
 
i saw this trailer on Munich and said "thats bullshit" outloud at the line "from the director of "The Bourne Supremacy"... I'm sure at least a handfull of people heard me, but it really upset me. It still upsets me because all I see on this thing are the attached dollar signs. Later I found out that Greengrass also directed Bloody Sunday, which kind of makes sense that he would tackle this story too...

9/11 for me, while very real and emotional, happened inside a 32" television. The pitch black scene in Farenheit 9/11, with all of the sounds and screams and sirens all around was so much more intense an experience in the theater, so I'm expecting this movie to affect me similarly or even more so.
 

---

Posted by Gregory Brannon (Member # 405) on 04-06-2006, 09:48 AM:
 
I agree that it seems too soon to have a theatrical motion picture on this subject or even a TV movie. I'm still debating on whether I intend on seeing this movie.

However, after reading a lot of the post and media interviews of people being shocked and disturbed by the trailer. I'm starting to wonder if Universal didn't do a good job of getting the Teaser trailer attached to more movies months ago to prepare people that there is a movie about 911 coming out.

I remember seeing the teaser trailer in early February and even though it's not as intense as the new trailer it to some degree it conveys the tone of the movie. To me it sounds as if the final trailer that came out with "Inside Man" was many peoples first time seeing or hearing about this movie. Which I imagine the adult audience that sees Inside Man is one that properly does not follow the movie industry as us thus knowing about all of the upcoming films. And that audience is probably one that see a movie once every 2 or 3 months.

I guess to Universal defense they haven't had many adult oriented movies earlier this year to attach the teaser trailer with. However, seeing that this is a sensitive subject matter they could have done more months in advance to prepare the media and audience for this film.

I remember Speilberg, doing pre-release press on Saving Private Ryan and Munich to prepare people for what they were going to see. Without Universal taking steps such as this, I can see how others would feel that Universal is being insensitive or money hungry. Despite the fact that it is now just coming out that the families consented and that they are donating 10% of the opening weekend earnings to the 9/11 Memorial Fund.

Lastly, if I'm not mistaken, I think I read that the AMC theater that pulled the trailer will instead the Making of United 93 on their pre-show feature. However I think that feature is already included on all of AMC theatres pre-show feature. So I'm not sure if any accolades should be given as if they are doing a noble thing.
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 04-06-2006, 01:05 PM:
 
Actually, UIP as a joint venture of Universal and Paramount, will be handling distribution for both United 93 and Oliver Stone's 9/11 film.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-06-2006, 01:41 PM:
 
With one exception (see below), I don't have a problem with the trailer the way it is. To me, the attack itself was what's offensive and insensitive and evil to the highest degree and then some. Showing what happened serves as a reminder of what we're facing. Though I understand why folks who lost loved ones would be disturbed by the images. [DISCLAIMER:] This coming from someone who didn't personally know anyone who was murdered that day. [/DISCLAIMER] I do think about the attacks every day of my life, and I pray for all of those who did lose someone close to them.

Why is there a movie focusing on one flight? Because what happened on that flight represents the first victory in the war on terror. It's a hero's tale. The people on the other planes and in the buildings that were hit were unknowing victims. I don't mean for that to take anything away from the others who were murdered. Just that the people on this flight were the ones who had the first chance to fight back, and they did so bravely. It makes perfect sense to tell the story of 9/11 from their point of view. I'm looking forward to this movie.

I do agree that it was in VERY bad taste to say "From the director of Bourne Supremacy..." or whatever it said in the trailer.

BTW, AMC is working with Universal to change the trailer company wide. A memo came to us yesterday that a new version should be arriving soon. This may also be true with other chains. And yes, there is a behind the scenes on our pre-show as well.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 04-07-2006, 12:17 AM:
 
I don't think it is too soon at all. Its a story that needs to be told, and, apprarently, before the project was greenlighted, the director spoke to and got the consent of each and every family who lost someone on that flight. The trailer itself is very powerful and, frankly, one of the best and most moving trailers I have seen in quite a while.
 

---

Posted by James Bjarnason (Member # 3237) on 04-07-2006, 02:29 AM:
 
We've run the trailer off and on since it was released as Flight 93. The first concern we got about the current version on Inside Man was after the news coverage on CNN.
 

---

Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 04-07-2006, 05:23 AM:
 

quote: Stephen LaPadula

---

the part that got me upset was showing two clips; one of a plane all but exploding into the south tower, and then a few seconds later one of the towers falling. This movie is about flight 93 right? or did I miss something? the movie is at least an hour and a half, why put those 2 clips in a 1:30 trailer??

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Why is there a movie focusing on one flight? Because what happened on that flight represents the first victory in the war on terror. It's a hero's tale. The people on the other planes and in the buildings that were hit were unknowing victims. I don't mean for that to take anything away from the others who were murdered. Just that the people on this flight were the ones who had the first chance to fight back, and they did so bravely. It makes perfect sense to tell the story of 9/11 from their point of view. I'm looking forward to this movie.

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Because what happened on that flight represents the first victory in the war on terror.

---

quote: Robert Burtcher

---

Well said.

---

quote: Bill Gabel

---

Here in NYC, anything dealing with the events on 9/11 will have a problem.

---

quote: Chris Hipp

---

According to the logic of the chad the Nazis won WWII.

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

It was therefore, the first battle in the war on terror. In the end, the terrorists were not able to achieve their goal. That means they lost.

---

quote: Mike Heenan

---

Another thing, how do you fight terrorists before they take over the plane?

---

quote: Chris Hipp

---

When you are talking about war I think any reference to the biggest war in the last century is apt.

---

Thats another statement that a quietly laugh to myself about whenever I hear it. Most people that try to link similarities between World War II and the War on Terrorism are the sons of WWII veterans pissed of that their generation was defined by Vietnam. No more will I say about this. lets get back to the film Flight 93.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 04-09-2006, 09:24 PM:
 
I think I have to agree with Chris on this one. There are many similarities between the War on Terror and the Second World War. The consequences to our nation of losing the war on terror are no different than the consquences would have been in losing WW2 - the destruction of the free nations of the world and their way of life.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-10-2006, 09:19 PM:
 
Point noted, but at the risk of having this thread closed over a silly arguement I'll refrain.


 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-15-2006, 10:15 PM:
 
It was probably about a year after the Attack and I was visiting a friend in Indiana when PBS ran a documentary on the events. I we all sat in silence as the program progressed. But then came the footage of the two hits, the people jumping from the buildings and the collapse. It was like a Mack truck had slammed into me. I couldn't breath. I had no idea it would have had such an impact, after all, they had run this footage for days after the 9/11. But mercifully, I had not seen these images since that time, making sure to shut off the TV whenever there was even a hit that they would spring that footage on me again. I had watched in horror from the roof of my apartment building as both towers each collapsed. Foolishly I guess I thought the events and the emotions were safely tucked away somewhere when I was off to the midwest -- all that New York stuff left behind.

My friends, for anyone who had loved ones die or were in anyway connected to someone who was lost, even to people who just did mundane business with people over the phone who worked in those offices, people who you never saw but knew their names and knew their voices, now silenced, believe me, there is no leaving it behind and there will never be a time that's "long enough" where those images and the retelling of those stories will not cause distress, pain and all the myriad of feelings and emotions that make us human.

I can very well imagine what extreme emotions that trailer would have conjured up for people watching it, unprepared, for the first time. Pulling the trailer was just the right thing to do for common decency. I mean, the people who run those theatres are New Yorkers too. You just don't inflict that on your own community for the sake of....what?

Should the film not be shown? Not at all. Like all the painful footage of Nazi concentration camps that is almost unbareable to watch and all the pain that that can cause, even for those of generations removed, like it or not, the images are forever part of our collective psyche and they need to be examined and understood and not forgotten.

I don't know if I will have the fortitude to see this film; my dad was a New York Firefighter (not lost, but friends of his and mine were). Sometimes I drive on the Brooklyn side of the BQE and look at the skyline across the water on the New York side and it STILL, this many years later, looks surreal with the missing Towers that SHOULD be there; I catch myself thinking, if I just look away and then back again, they will reappear and everything will be alright, like sometimes happens when a computer screen re-writes itself. I find I have to shake it off me.

But certainly the film should be made and probably a number of them should made by different filmmakers and from different perspectives so the best documentation will be available to the next generations.
 

---

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 04-17-2006, 12:58 AM:
 
When I went to see the movie Inside Man, I saw the United 93 Trailer and it hit me hard. Even though I only saw the 9/11 events on TV and can't fully relate to the people in New York, it still hit me hard since I have family there in New York. Anyway, I'm glad that I did see the trailer and I will definately see the movie when it comes out.

However, I believe that everyone that made a post(s) does have valid opinions and/or viewpoint(s). To me, the events of that day are tragic and I personally respect those people feelings, etc. So far, I haven't received any complaints about the trailer. Granted, we live across the country.

Anyway, my thoughts goes out to the families of the victims of this horrible tragedy.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 04-23-2006, 08:21 PM:
 
I saw the trailer when I went to see Inside Man and I have to admit that it was very emotional for me. My heart was really thumping and I felt nauseous. Having said that, I'll probably see the film (unless it gets really bad reviews.)

I can understand anyone who sees this trailer getting emotionally upset and certainly the short time between the actual events and the release of this film plays a part, but should we be any more upset by what this film portrays and seeing films about concentration camps, slavery or war crimes? I hope this film DOES get people upset: maybe they'll be less apathetic to all that is going on in the world and the dangers that we still face.
 

---