I am no mod, but seriously - use some common sense:

If you want to talk about the DVD potential of the movie - start a thread in DVD Talk as raven suggested.

If you want to talk about conspiracy theories involving 9-11 - start a thread in Other/Politics.

Or get on the internet and post incoherent messages about the "tasteless" possible release of United 93 in Superbit...

The topic is not about the actual specs of the DVDs, the topic is how we should be feeling when seeing the film in the theater or how we should be feeling when buying the DVD...it can belong in this forum...just because i mentioned potential DVDs in my postings, it doesn't mean it goes in the dvd forum. And you can't talk about this movie without being political, so my postings don't have to be in a political forum. This is a "Movie Talk" forum. Practically every previous post about this movie in this forum is political. The topic is how we so easily accept everything into becoming movies or becoming entertainment right away now, whether it be on film or on tv.

And also to add, me talking about DVD subwoofer surround sound is the same as people saying "this movie has to be seen in the theater." What's the difference? If a movie is powerful, it can be appreciated on a tv screen and watching by oneself too. Anyone that says "this movie should be seen in the theater, not in home theater" is actually saying that the movie is more powerful on "a large screen, with a group of people, surround sound, and subwoofer." What else could it mean?

dude... then wait til the dvd comes and then get home... crank your receiver high and hear the sounds of the movie..... but damn man... the technical aspects of the film is weird to discuss.... if you feel so inclined about the techinical side... start a thread of it and discuss it...

this thread is for the review of the movie....

Any way we can get everyone who hasn't seen UNITED 93 banned from posting in this thread? That would be excellent.

MATT

Stop posting lengthy and irrelevant posts, just go see the film.

I dont need to see this movie I already know what happened that is good enough for me.

exactly. plane crashes people die. i can see your point on not needing to see an overdramtized version of the movie. it was done well but it seemed more like a doc than anything. if i hadn't seen it for free it wouldn't have been worth my time.

Wait...I thought the plane was shot down?

I have to agree. While competent technically, with compelling action and good music, the movie is flat. Everything is presented as matter of fact, the story is not presented as a story but rather as a document. I'm not sure why he felt the need to produce a documentary with actors or present a fictional film as non-fiction.

No one is disturbed that some characters are actually played by the real life characters?

How and why is that disturbing??

To me this adds credibility...

~jason

Umm....no? Should I have been?

I have lost sleep over this, actually.

that's a very logical theory that i'm not ruling out. but to the general public who don't look at facts they don't see that, so it'd be stupid to make a film where everyone is like "that didn't happen" without explaining that. the theory of it being shot down would most likely be a documentary. sometimes ignorance is bliss which is the case with this movie.

I was disturbed at how bad actors they were. Particularly the radio girl at NORAD.

It sounds like you've ruled out the possibility of the events happening much like they unfolded in the movie.

From the data recorder link I posted earlier it is pretty obvious that the passengers had breached the cockpit and the terrorists had decided to crash the plane if they did. There appears to be a struggle for control of the plane. The plane ultimately crashed.

So... where's the explosion on tape of the shoot down? If the plane was hit by a missile and depressurized why continue to fight to get into the cockpit?

The tape seems consistent with what was portrayed in the movie. There clearly appears to be a stuggle between the passengers and the Jihadists.

first off, the tape doesn't even mention anyone in the cockpit but the pilots. maybe they cracked the door, but they did not get in, because if they did, you'd here people talking. also, only transcipts have been released, not the actual blackbox. also, the tape ends at 10:03, but the plane crashed at 10:06. where is the last 3 minutes of the tape? and why was it not released?

"There is a three-minute discrepancy in the cockpit voice-recording immediately prior to the flight's crash. The Cockpit Voice Recorder transcripts end at 10:03 am but Cleveland Air Traffic Control reported that Flight 93 went out of radar contact at 10:06 am and FAA radar records note a time of 10:06 am. Seismologists record an impact at 10:06:05am, +/- a couple of seconds. "

So if my watch says it's 5:11, and I drop dead, and break my watch (reads: 5:11), and someone standing next to me calls the police, and they say the call came in at 5:14... does that mean that the person standing next to me didn't do anything for 3 minutes?

no that means your watch was wrong by 3 minutes. something i doubt the plane, air traffic control, radar control and seismotologists did. i'd assume they'd all be on "official us time."

Just so we're clear:

You think it's more likely that a fighter jet managed to fly there, shoot it down, and fly away without being noticed than the clock being wrong?

Look at facts? What facts show a fighter jet shooting down United Flight 93? You're piecing together small coincidences and making up your own assumptions. The movie was made based off of recordings of phone conversations in which the passengers told their loved ones and 911 operators that they were going to do something and not let the plane crash into another building.

The military was not prepared to deal with the situation that day and did not have any fighters available to even come close to shooting down the planes. The two fighters that were closest to flight 93 were UNARMED so they had no way to shoot down the flight.

FYI...If something of this nature were to happen again, I have no problem with the military shooting down a commercial airliner to protect the country.

In addition to lordwow's reactions, I'll add my own.

(1) So the terrorists, realizing that a takeover was imminent, decided to crash the plane themselves. Their final words seem to indicate they were preparing themselves for something (death?)----and I don't think they'd be prepared to be shot down because I don't think they would have seen that coming.

(2) How, exactly, does the three minute discrepancy solidify anything in your scenario? It's odd, but that's about it.

(3) This is pure conjecture on my part, but if the plane was shot down by a military fighter jet, would the seismologists have recorded anything? That is to say, I imagine the jet would decimate United 93, reducing it to mere debris. Would this debris---knowing that United 93 was already flying low---even show up on seismology readings?

Finally, what would be the logic behind trying to cover this up? After watching the WTC fall and the Pentagon get hit, I know I would certainly support the take-down of a confirmed highjacked airplane.

many people on the ground saw an unmarked white airplane in the air. a lady in the bathroom on her self phone (cell phone for you simpletons who lack reasoning skills) said she saw white smoke on the plane. all i'm saying is that 3 mins of audio is missing from the transcipt and this is just one of many things that "just doesn't seem right." i choose to ask why, where many others accept what they're being told.