Jump to content

Talk:United 93 (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.27.25.7 (talk) at 22:03, 30 April 2006 (→Veracity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

TV movie

There are TWO Flight 93 films coming out this year, I'm checking IMDB to find out which one this is. I changed the release date to Jan. 30, because I thought this was the A&E film, but I might be mistaken... Morhange 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

immediacy

I know what you mean with that word, but is there an article/better word that describes that filming technique that we could use here? AdamJacobMuller 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Documentary"-style, perhaps? Ronald D. Moore's Battlestar Galactica uses the same filming technique, and this is the term he uses to describe it, both in terms of intent and appearance. Would this be valid as part of this article? Certainly a documentary style does seem to be consistent with the motif of the film.

The technique is from the use of hand-held cameras. This is the signature style and medium of Paul Greengrass in most or all of his films. Bwithh 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speculative account

The film presents what appears to be a somewhat speculative account of what may have happened on flight 93. This article needs to be cleared that the actual events of what happened on flight 93 are not fully known and that people have speculated based on supposed cell and/or air-phone phone calls made passengers on the flight. I am not sure though how to state this while keeping it NPOV.--Cab88 00:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur. I added my own words in an attempt to be neutral about the whole thing, but they were promptly deleted. The fact is, no one really does know what happened on this flight. It's all just speculation. When the film is described tossing around words like "realism," etc., without a fair acknowledgment of this bias, it just sits uneasy for me. If the goals of this website are neutrality, objectivity and a sort of democracy in action, then why can't there be room for this voice? All it's really doing is throwing a question mark onto the things all of us already know. Really.

Poster

It's weird that the poster for U93 is of a profile of the Statue of Liberty, when the plane wasn't even NEAR New York and most likely wasn't even heading for New York. 156.63.85.17 17:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the plane left from Newark Intl Airport. AMac2002 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, reviews of the film have indicated that much of the film focuses on the tracking of all four hijacked flights that day, with the events on Flight 93 only taking up the last 30 minutes or so of the film. -- MisterHand

Cast

'The cast includes Tim Burd, Dina Meyer, Jesse Spencer, and Powers Boothe.' Is this true? I don't see this on imdb, or for that matter anywhere. I'm going to take it down, unless somewhere this can be confirmed.

spoilers?

Do we really need the spoiler warning on this one? — ceejayoz talk 16:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think so. Not to mention that the "plot" is merely a cut & paste from the intro paragraph of the United Airlines Flight 93 article. -- MisterHand 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beleive that it is important to have the spoiler warning. After all, the article for the 1997 film Titanic has one, despite everyone knowing the ending. I copied and pasted the intro from the United Airlines Flight 93 so that someone would be able to alter later on, to provide a complete plot summary, containing spoilers of the film. I do not feel that I have the skills to write such a summary. 66.41.212.243 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um... 1)the film Titanic was almost entirely fictional (sorry, but its true) and was basically a cheesy romantic movie with musical elements. 2)Who in their right minds is exactly is going to go see the Flight 93 docudrama as if it is the latest Hollywood thriller with an exciting ending and the possibility of a nice musical romantic moment? I think the spoiler warning and the plot summary subtitle should be taken out. Use "Historical Background" with a "For more detail see..."link the the United Airlines Flight 93 article instead - or whatever is normally done with docudramas Bwithh 23:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still a film, no more or less important than any other movie, and the "spoiler" section should be kept as usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.136.86 (talk • contribs)
      • Titanic revolved around two entirely fictional characters. There's a spoiler warning because we, despite knowing that the Titanic will sink, don't know what will happen to the main characters. United 93 is different - it's a docudrama. — ceejayoz talk 21:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. To put Spoiler on a movie about the fate of UA 93 is to label Wiki as the product of feeble minds. ("It crashes?") --Cubdriver 13:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity

Okay, this may be a reasonable section to include once good external references are provided and the section is rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. But at the moment, it reads like a mix of POV rants and it has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Needs to be got under control Bwithh 22:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm removing it. The paragraph is pure editorializing and is completely uncited. -- MisterHand 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your point is well founded, the tone was overly sensational. However, I still believe there to be validity to the essence of what was being said, namely, that it is controversial for a film to claim to be as realistic and meticulous as possible, while most of the dialogue is ad libbed, research focused entirely on interviews with family members who were not even present at the event, and the 9/11 Commission. There are serious questions that increasingly large numbers of people are asking about what actually happened on United Airlines Flight 93, and about 9/11 all together (re: the CNN ShowBiz tonight poll that showed 84% of the 40 000 responding believe there is a government cover-up involved in 9/11, that a search using the term '9/11 conspiracy' yields over 13 000 000 results in Google, over 650 000 of which are related directly to conspiracies regarding 9/11, that more and more scholars and academic experts are devoting their time and expertise to these questions, etc.). So you are saying citations would be needed, and greater objectivity in what was being contributed to the section. Aside from interviews with cast and film makers, a reference to the CNN poll, a reference to the number of pages turning up in Google, reference to the growing body of scholars, etc. dedicating themselves to these questions, what more could be done to make this contribution appropriate in your eyes? Even CNN's The Situation Room gave coverage to this issue on Friday's program. So if scholars, the popular news media, and the general public are all talking about this, what more is required for it to be worthy of inclusion in the wiki? Go look at the message board located on the film's website for more proof of the fact that this is not some invisible or made up issue. The piece wouldn't need to be slanted, but only mention that this is controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.25.7 (talk • contribs)
      • I fully agree with MisterHand. Keep the section out. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 21:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remember, this article is about the film not about the flight itself. So, much of what you mentioned belongs in the United Airlines Flight 93 article. If there is in fact controversy surrounding the veracity of the film itself, a simple link to a reliable source (not a personal site, message board, or blog) talking to that controversy would what we need to show that the controversy is in fact notable enough for entry in an encyclopedia. -- MisterHand 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anonymous Editor 70.27.25.7 - If you want a section about this controversy to remain in the article, you MUST provide specific, valid external references of satisfactory credibility and balance (linking to some blog probably won't do for instance). It's not enough to make vague references on the talk page here. And there were NO references in the text that was removed. Bwithh 21:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_93_(film)&oldid=50949050"