Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

United 93 (film about September 11th)

See my post #23.

What that means, is that it's in last place with respect to the new releases. You'll also note that it's only showing in 654 screens, which means it's been pulled from wide release.
 
RaverDrew said:
What do you mean it's nothing ? :D

It's already making a massive profit unlike all them big budget Hollywood turkeys we're inflicted with every year.

waterworld anyone ?

Thirty million is nothing, and it won't make much more. It's being pulled from the theatres because the curious have seen it, and it won't get much if any repeat business.
 
As I also pointed out earlier, RV, with robin williams, has been in release for the same number of weeks, and has grossed 61 million. And that's a movie so bad that even the trailer can't make it seem good.
 
What about dvd sales ?

It may not be the most successful film ever but it's not there to compete with the tom cruise/tom hanks blockbusters. I'd say for the relative size of its budget, its been a huge success.
 
RaverDrew said:
What about dvd sales ?

It may not be the most successful film ever but it's not there to compete with the tom cruise/tom hanks blockbusters. I'd say for the relative size of its budget, its been a huge success.

We can agree to disagree. My only point is that most people in NA don't want to see movies about 911, and the box office on this one, supports my contention.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
See my post #23.

What that means, is that it's in last place with respect to the new releases. You'll also note that it's only showing in 654 screens, which means it's been pulled from wide release.

You have absolutely no idea of how the film business works. Low budget films are not expected to make tons of money and are free to take more risks as this one has. With a budget of $15 this has made $30 in the US alone (and will be making more in Europe where it's only just coming out), which is fine for a more small scale film, so I have no idea of what you are banging on about the film being a failure. United 93 hasn't been pulled from a wide scale release, it's been on release for over 2 months in the US, so for a small film 654 screens at this point is still pretty good going.
 
Reno said:
You have absolutely no idea of how the film business works. Low budget films are not expected to make tons of money and are free to take more risks as this one has. With a budget of $15 this has made $30 in the US alone (and will be making more in Europe where it's only just coming out), which is fine for a more small scale film, so I have no idea of what you are banging on about the film being a failure. United 93 hasn't been pulled from a wide scale release, it's been on release for over 2 months in the US, so for a small film 654 screens at this point is still pretty good going.

I didn't say it was a failure.

What I said, for the twelfth time, is that this film didn't do big box office because most people in NA don't want to see it, or other graphic movies about 911.

"Failure" in my mind, connotes some sort of lack of artistic merit.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Really? I thought I knew a little bit. 15 million budget isn't a low budget film.

Shows how little you know. By 2000 the average budget for a Hollywood film hovered around $54 million, so these days $15 million is considered a low budget film.


Johnny Canuck2 said:
I didn't say it was a failure.

What I said, for the twelfth time, is that this film didn't do big box office because most people in NA don't want to see it, or other graphic movies about 911.

You seem to do nothing but state that United 93 was a financial failure, which it wasn't as it wasn't expected to do "big box office". United 93 wasn't made to appeal to the kind of audience who pay to watch Scary Movie 4 or RV or whatever else appeals to the lowest common denominator that week.
 
Reno said:


Shows how little you know. By 2000 the average budget for a Hollywood film hovered around $54 million, so these days $15 million is considered a low budget film.




You seem to do nothing but state that United 93 was a financial failure, which it wasn't as it wasn't expected to do "big box office". United 93 wasn't made to appeal to the kind of audience who pay to watch Scary Movie 4 or RV or whatever else appeals to the lowest common denominator that week.

What audience was it made for?
 
Don't tell me - in the Hollywood ending Bruce Willis jumps out of his seat and flies the plane round the Twin Towers averting disaster.

Christ, why anyone wants to go see this film is beyond me. Can they squeeze any more money out of such a awful event?

Anyone want a "I survived 9/11' t-shirt?
 
Barking_Mad said:
Christ, why anyone wants to go see this film is beyond me. Can they squeeze any more money out of such a awful event?

Anyone want a "I survived 9/11' t-shirt?

edited, cause I really cannot be arsed.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
this film didn't do big box office because most people in NA don't want to see it, or other graphic movies about 911.

But they'll flock to WTC, the upcoming cheesefest of hero worship against 'evil' that'll probably have only the vaugest grip on the 'facts' and truly is Hollywood.

That speaks volumes Johnny & you know it. Stop fudging.
 
Barking_Mad said:
Then why type something in the first place?
He means he can't be arsed getting involved in an argument with someone who has clearly not read the thread. I can though. I'm always up for an ill-tempered and ultimately pointless squabble.:p
 
Reno said:
United 93 [/I]wasn't made to appeal to the kind of audience who pay to watch Scary Movie 4 or RV or whatever else appeals to the lowest common denominator that week.

Yep - I don't think any chilling, fact-based docudrama is ever going to compete that well at the box office - nobody's going to bring the kids, or a hot date!
 
Pie 1 said:
But they'll flock to WTC, the upcoming cheesefest of hero worship against 'evil' that'll probably have only the vaugest grip on the 'facts' and truly is Hollywood.

That speaks volumes Johnny & you know it. Stop fudging.

IMO, there'll be no flocking to WTC, at least on this side of the Atlantic.
 
Pie 1 said:
I saw United 93 last night. It is unsensational, shockingly real and visceral. As a result, it's a brilliant piece of film making.
This film is the beat thing that could have been done with the story of that flight, and thank god Paul Greengrass (writer/director) got this film made before the real Hollywood cheese mongers got their sticky paws on it.

I agree 100%. The film couldn't have been much better, and lacked any of the nonsense that you get in a stereotypical action film. I found it conveyed the feelings of "WTF!?" that many people felt during the first few hours of the attacks very well. I also found it very disturbing, and the ending - even though you knew it was going to end in everyone dying - was a genuine shock.

I thought the foreign guy had a Dutch accent? :confused:
 
Somebody else's view - with a bit of Kirsty Walk on Newsnight thrown in: Another Surrender Monkey . . .

Once the hijackers have taken control of the plane and the passengers have been sent into desperate panic, a handful of American passengers begin planning how they'll rush the cockpit, take control and install the only half-qualified pilot on board to take control. On that score, no problem: transcripts of conversations conducted via the in-flight phones leave no doubt that that's pretty much what happened.

Eventually, however, a European-accented passenger pointedly makes the case for negotiation - and then, come the storming of the flight deck, attempts to place himself in the way.

Given the patriotic legend of flight 93 ("Let's roll," said one passenger, unwittingly launching a tub-thumping Neil Young record, several thousand T-shirts and a catchphrase that crystallised a very American derring-do), this little subplot packs a very hard punch: when the film plays in the US, there will surely be all kinds of cries about old European surrender monkeys, the US's contrasting backbone etc.

So, from where did this episode come? As it turns out, nowhere. We know there was a German passenger - one Christian Adams, aged 37 - on board, but that's it. His role in the movie is the product of something several light years away from artistic license, as is proved by the exchange between Greengrass and Kirsty Wark on Thursday's Newsnight:

KW: There was one passenger [in the film] that actively tried to stop the others going forward. That was the German passenger.

PG: Erich, the actor who played him, who was German ... One of the interesting things he talked about was Mogadishu [eventual destination of a hijacked Lufthansa flight in 1977], saying that a German passenger of his age would well remember that [and] it would have given him a very clear view that the correct thing to do - and bear in mind that was operating in a pre 9/11 context - was to get the plane down.

KW: It might be difficult for the German passenger's family, in a sense, to think that he was the one saying: "Hold back, do nothing." You don't know that.

PG: We don't know, no, but you have to set the parameters of the film as they actually are and explore it, and in the end, audiences have to make their own minds up about whether that's a credible, believable portrait.

By definition, it's not credible; it's not believable either: given passenger Adams's actual age, he would have been eight years old at the time of the Mogadishu hijack. But who cares about that? Thousands of Americans will make their judgments at a stroke. That's how the continental divide works right now. So thanks, Mr Greengrass.

And a parting thought: if such a potent moment is actually founded on thin air, can we be forgiven for wondering about the whole film?
 
London_Calling said:
Somebody else's view - with a bit of Kirsty Walk on Newsnight thrown in [...]
Fine, but that is a far cry from your argument that the production companies conspired to denigrate the German stance on the war. According to your quote the director's justification is that the scene was an idea proposed on the spot by the actor in order to make his character seem more realistic. And the author of your quote seems to think that it was an unfortunate choice because of the way it could be interpreted by American audiences. To be fair it is improbable that an audience outside Germany will be able to grasp the cultural reference (the Lufthansa flight). However it is taking it too far to say that it is a political point, it's just a case of the film overdoing the aim to be realistic.
 
You’re conflating two points in two separate posts. The first addressed the German accent as described by Philip Norman in his review – in my view it was politically motivated, the second point (and separate post) addressed Pie 1’s assertion (as if it were fact) that the film was “British-made and not Hollywood”.

You’re also confusing my two opinions on those two subjects with the above post, which I offer as yet a further perspective, not to reinforce or undermine any particular pov.

Cos they are all just points of view.
 
I always thought the plane was shot down by the military as they knew what was going on at this point and knew where the plane was heading. Then they later changed the story to make it more palatable to the Americans.

I remember watching it live on TV on Septemeber 11 and during the day they were saying a fourth plane had been shot down and only later in the evening did they start saying it was the passengers.

I've not read much on 9/11 since it's mostly tin foil hat territory, so I may be wrong.
 
PacificOcean said:
I've not read much on 9/11 since it's mostly tin foil hat territory, so I may be wrong.

Although there certainly are some odd things about the official story of 9/11, such as the finding of one of the hijacker's passports at the site of the twin towers, in my opinion the conspiracy theories about the attacks have grown to rediculous proportions.

To be honest, I think if it was shot down, it would obviously be an unpleasant event, but it would be completely understandable to 99% of people - especially if it was going for the Whitehouse.
 
London_Calling said:
You’re conflating two points in two separate posts.
[...] You’re also confusing my two opinions on those two subjects with the above post [...]

(a) In post #55 you use a quote from Philip French to argue that the scene with the German passenger is making a political statement (s1="Germans are pacifists and reluctant to attack Iraq therefore unlike us they defend terrorism"). I don't see Philip French describing a German accent anywhere, he is just stating that the man is speaking in one. In post #57 which it has to be said is extremely laconic you mock a stereotypical Schwarzenegger accent making it seem as if it is taken from the film. In post #75 I said if this was true you probably had a point, having in mind the use of this accent for villains in Hollywood films.

(b) In post #63 you present a list of the production companies involved in the film and associate the film to the political actions of the governments of the countries these companies are based in. It seems again that you are arguing that the film is making a political statement (s2="the film is a collaboration between the US and the UK and justifies the actions of these two governments"). In ensuing posts several people challenge your premise that the film is a propagandistic Anglo-American production.

Given that you have been rather elliptical in putting forward your point of view it is not difficult for a reader of the thread attempting to understand it to connect (a) and (b) and to consider (s1) and (s2) as two premises in support of the same argument.

Anyway, as I said, I haven't seen the film (and it sounds like you haven't either) and I'm not really able to discuss this scene just on the basis of what reviews say. The director's explanation sounds quite convincing though as it is in line with the film's stated intention to be as realistic as possible (going as far as having a German actor play a German character).
 
Back
Top Bottom