Now, just like 9/11, we need heroes, and "United 93" fabricated them. The fact of the matter is that the cockpit was never breached. You shouldn't make a film based on true accounts, and then taint families memories of their loved one's final moments with suggestions of false heroism. ESPECIALLY when you don't know the facts. The developments in question would be the black box recordings, which unfortunately came AFTER the film.

It's a fictional movie, and should be viewed as such. Atleast he didn't do like Universal's "Flight 93", and show the food cart on the ground at the end. It's stupid circumstances like that that don't get taken into account. How a food cart would be stronger than a cockpit threshhold door. How you can ram a door, having to roll back then forward continously, as a plane is in a downward trajectory. There are just too many underlying circumstances, potential coverups, and a solid lack of TRUTH that obviously weren't taken into consideration before making a movie out of the events.

I hardly think it's Oscar calibur. If it were to win, I'd espect a MAJOR backlash, given it's perpetuating a total lie. I'm surprised to find myself all alone with this opinion. Guess I'm one with the terrorists...

The problem is that you don't seem to recognize the difference between a "total lie" and speculation. A "total lie" implies a willfull attempt to conceal the truth in order to perpetuate a fraud. The filmmakers were very upfront about the fact that no one can know the exact details of what happened aboard Flight 93, and the movie was made to the best of their abilities at the time. This included following the timeline and what was known from phone calls from those on board to their loved ones and others.

The fact of the matter is, the passengers of Flight 93 did fight back. Whether they were actually able to breach the cockpit door during their efforts is irrelevant. "United 93" does not fabricate heroes, and it does not rely on "false heroism." The very fact that the passengers fought back does make them heroes, even if they failed to breach the cockpit door.

The fact that you dismiss the movie as a lie based on how far the passengers got in their battle against the terrorists is just mindboggling.

The negative reactions to your opinions may largely be because of stupid statements like that.

(Edited to correct typo caught by BrentLumkin)

I have not had the stomach to see the movie yet, will pick it up on DVD so I can cry in the privacy of my own living room.

Very well said, Mr. Salty :up:

Cinemaddiction gives the impression that the passengers just sat there and the plane went down on it's own.

Oh great, now you're agreeing with the guy.

:p

I can distinguish speculation from the truth. That said, denial has played a large part in United 93 sympathizers inability to do the same, and it's understandable, having been sold along with the rest of America on the passenger's "heroism" for almost 5 years, only to find out it was simply not true. I've got a feeling that a lot of "truths" have been held back so that we can keep the heroism going, have a reason to be at war, and assorted other underlying patriotic circumstances.

What place is it of Greengrass' to incorporate speculation when trying to preserve the honor and memories of loved ones on the most infamous day in US history? Why make the fucking movie? What did we learn from the movie that we didn't already know? It's pretty cut and dry. Passengers on a plane were destined to die, so they fought back. Big surprise there. It's just like Russell in "Independence Day", taking his ship into the alien craft. I honestly don't think there's much dramaticism to be drawn from such a situation, much less need 2 hours to play out.

It's incredibly relevant. They were nothing more than people acting on instinct. They didn't breach the cockpit, which has pretty much been confirmed from the recordings. Where's the heroism in trying to survive? Just because I try and fight for my life when I'm in a dire situation doesn't make ME a hero. There's more evidence to support that the plane was destroyed mid-flight than there is anything else. Even if you give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorists, to their country, they're the heroes, just because they erradicated the lives of Americans. I highly doubt that these terrorists simply "got scared" a couple of minutes before their target by people banging on a metal door with an aluminum food cart.

I acknowledge the supposed "fact" they took a couple of them out with brute strength, and it's admirable, but it's not an exclusive instance or trait to these people. It's instinct. It's survival. Not heroism. The firefighters in NYC that risked their lives to get people out of burning buildings..those people are heroes, especially to those who survived. If someday, it comes to light that the passengers DID physically re-capture the plane, taking it into the ground, I'll give them their due. Based on what we know now, they saved themselves with their action and nobody else. A lot of people would like to believe otherwise, as well as believe I'm a jaded son of a bitch, but given all that's available, I have no reason to think otherwise.

I think Greengrass saw "Delta Force" one too many times, IMO.

What, exactly, is a "United 93 sympathizer"? Should we be against United 93? Were they our enemies in some way? Do they need sympathizers?

What do we learn that we don't know from virtually any historical movie? Were you surprised when the Titanic sank? Should we stop making World War II movies because we know the Allies won?

You should win some sort of award for comparing what the passengers aboard Flight 93 did to "Independence Day."

And the movie was 90 minutes, not two hours.

Yet, when faced with dire circumstances, many people freeze.

And you're as guilty of speculation as Paul Greengrass is in making assumptions about passengers' motives.

No, the evidence is solid that the plane was destroyed when the terrorists deliberatley flew it into the ground rather than let the passengers regain control. Unless you've been drinking the conspiracy-theory Kool-Aid.

You're right, they are considered heroes by their brethren. But the cockpit voice recorder is clear: They decided to fly the plane into the ground rather than allow the passengers regain control. I wouldn't equate this with being scared.

And the cockpit door wasn't metal. As per FAA regulations, it was designed to be weak enough to be kicked in in case of a rescue situation. Because of that, in the aftermath of 9/11 there has been much debate over how to better secure the cockpit. You can read more here.

What? By saying "In the name of Allah" a few times in a row? There's nothing conclusive about it, unless I've been reading the wrong transcript?

Cinemaddiction, please continue on in this thread. You're on the verge of saying some truly laughable things, and I don't want you to keep all of us from hearing whatever that might be.

The passengers who fought back on United 93 are heroes because by doing what they did, there's no telling how many other innocent lives they possibly saved that day, not to mention the mere fact that they decided to take action instead of just going with the flow, sitting back, and hoping for the best.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "hero" as follows:

If you refuse to believe that what they did required "great courage", then I really don't know what else to say.

I finally watched this last night for the first time and thought it was an amazing film. I really liked the documentary style that Greengrass chose. There's no Hollywood feel to this film, which I think is probably present some in WTC. Very intense film and the last 15 minutes are very difficult to watch. Seeing how the FAA and the armed forces handled the situation was alittle frightening as well. I hope to see WTC very soon so I can compare, but United 93 definitely sticks with you and packs a big punch. This has risen to the top of my best list for the year.

I agree, i just saw united 93 last night and thought it was an incredible film, very scary and moving. best film by far that i have seen this year. Bourne supremacy I enjoyed that greengrass directed but i thought the shaky cam stuff in the film was by an unsure director saying look at me i'm so great and smart. I thought bourne identity was better. But with United 93 Grenngrass gives the audience confident, realistic film. Outstanding job.

Not to bash the military. if they had read tom clancy novel on how jack ryan became president of the us, written ten years before they would have been better prepared.

I never served in the military but worked for the DOD briefly, I left to go to law school because i couldn't take the absolute idiots working there. I'm sure they have some great people. But of the thousand or so people i met while working there it seemed they purposely attempted to hire the dumbest, stupidest people they could find. I can't type or spell for crap but I like to think i'm not an idiot. I'd work about 4 hours a day and go to my boss for more work and he'd be like it takes the 10 other people in the office 3 days to do that much work. believe me i wasn't working hard. my sister and cousins served in the military and their stories range from scary to hilarious. Make a long story short 9/11 and the absolute uselessness of the government did not surprise me at all. I hope but i doubt we're any more prepared to day.

FUNNIEST.POST.EVER...


please continue.... rotfl rotfl

Osama... is that you?

I'd think it's because so much attention went into what happened to the towers, that he didn't want these people to be forgotten. But I'm just speculating.

Are you seriously calling the terrorists heroes? -ohbfrank-

They weren't fighting for just THEIR lives, they were trying to stop the terrorists from taking OTHER people's lives.

People like you should be living in a cave with Osama and his people.

Maybe from your point of view (especially from a media stand point), but if I were on that plane, my main concern is that I don't want to die. On this, I can concur with the thoughts of Cinemaddiction. It was purely a fight for survival. Either way, I still think it's a heroic gesture, rather than sitting there doing nothing at all, they decided to take it upon themselves to fight back. Learning about the other hijacked planes and what had happened to them, I feel it was more about the outcome of death (as it seems fromthe phone transcripts), than the outcome of, "OMG, we've gotta stop this so the plane can't take out another building and killing innocents," but of course, nothing can ever be known about the thoughts of the people on board since no one lived to tell about their feelings.

No, but the people that they spoke to on the phone are still alive and have talked about what their loves ones said to them

ding ding ding ding!! we have a winner

So can you point me to any other phone transcripts where they specifically said that we have to take over the plane to save other people? Again, all transcripts I've read have only addressed the plot to win back control with the knowledge that the other planes had crashed into the WTC, but not for any reasons other than pure survival since it seemed the outcome of death was imminent. I'm not saying these people are not heroes, but to be painted as people out to save the world for the greater good is beyond a stretch.

Loved the movie as i said above.

I think self preservation was the majority motivation. We have all be trained to be drones and sit there and wait to be saved by the government before 9/11 that the passengers in the first 3 planes waited thinking that the planes would land and the government would save them. u93 found out that the terrorist scum had no intentions of landing the plane. The passengers definetly had the advantage of information from people on the phone or they probably wouldn't have taken action in my estimation. Out of the desire to survive they took action. 9/11 could never happen again, in the same manner, because US passengers would never, ever just sit there while terrorist took over a plane. Some passenger probably knew that the effort would not be successful and might have thought at least they went out fighting and would save lives on the ground. But I would think most passengers were fighting for their lives and a chance to see their loved ones again even if they knew the chance was remote. I don't remember anyone in the movie saying that saving people on the ground was a motivation to fight back.

Great movie, like i said before the best of the year. I have been on a plane since 9/11 but i hesitate, i really have to want to go somewhere or need to be there before i'll get on a plane. Not rational i know but the hesitation is still there.

Okay, and I don't recall addressing what I said to you. I was talking to Cinemaaddiction, who was arguing that they weren't heroes. You stated that they were, therefore, I wasn't talking to you.

........?

I'm not arguing that they were or were not heroes. To me they did a courageous act that, in my opinion, made them heroes.

I was just merely pointing to your claim that they did it to save lives other than their own. And to that point, I agree with Cinemaddiction that it was more about survival.

They are heroes because they crashed the plane or forced the terrorists to crash the plane before the terrorists could reach their target and kill hundreds or thousands of more people. Is it that hard to understand?

The passengers had no way to fly the plane. They knew they were going to die either way.