Has anybody seen the ads for "United 93" (the hijacked plane on September 11 that crashed into a field because the passengers took control from the hijackers)?
...this is hypocritical, since I wrote a 9/11 L&O story, but I have avoided the trailer (it's been on 60 Minutes and West Wing, both of which I taped last night) and I know I won't see the movie. And I did see a lot of the 9/11 documentaries as well. It's just...I don't know if it's exploitation bias or just that I don't want to see a movie that I know has the worst possible ending or...I haven't sorted out my feelings.
Should the producers have done it? I don't think I would have. There's been a documentary, there have been books, why do we need a fictionalized version?
It's just...I don't know if it's exploitation bias or just that I don't want to see a movie that I know has the worst possible ending or...I haven't sorted out my feelings. Yeah, that's sort of where I was. I dunno... still too fresh, I think.
I saw the ad too and was perplexed. Didn't A&E already do this movie, or was theirs based on another of the planes?
I probably wouldn't see it either, for many of the same reasons why I won't watch Boys Don't Cry with Hilary Swank. I know how it ends and it's too much to bear.
I saw the ad too and was perplexed. Didn't A&E already do this movie, or was theirs based on another of the planes? You're kidding. I didn't know it had already been done on TV. That's... ugh.
I was surprised by my strong reaction against the trailer Yeah, same here. It was a trailer on a movie I just got, and it just felt really shocking. I hadn't expected to feel that.
I changed channels too. I think there should be a minimum of 25 years between such events and a docudrama based on the event. And for some things, reading about them is bad enough; I really don't ever need to see a movie.
I think there should be a minimum of 25 years between such events and a docudrama based on the event. Sounds about right. I can totally see a lot of good reasons for doing it before then... but my gut just doesn't agree with them.
Yeah, I don't think I will either. Possibly, many years down the road. Or if somebody can give me a good and convincing argument to see it. But my gut says no way, no how.
There's no way I would see the movie; same thing a lot of other people have said, I know how it all ends. I was shocked the other night when I saw the trailer on TV. I'd heard about the movie, read about it in news magazines, but when the commercial caught me unaware, it was strange---it was like I was suddenly back there on 9/11 again, with that same sick feeling.
I'd heard about the movie, read about it in news magazines, but when the commercial caught me unaware, it was strange---it was like I was suddenly back there on 9/11 again, with that same sick feeling. Yeah, exactly - I read the articles saying it was being planned and kind of rolled my eyes and went "yuck", but my reaction upon seeing the trailer took me by surprise. It's just still too fresh a wound. And I'm not even American; I can only imagine how much more strongly most Americans would feel about it.
In listening to the coverage of the 9/11 trial (the one guy that they caught) and hearing just the *transcript* of the flight recorder when the plane was under attack...
First, no fictionalized version could ever match it. And nothing else could be so terrible. And as a student of history, I know all too well that eventually, the fiction gets taken as fact.
I hate 'rewrites' in a situation like this. We had the real thing when the real thing happened.
First, no fictionalized version could ever match it. And nothing else could be so terrible. And as a student of history, I know all too well that eventually, the fiction gets taken as fact. Good point. I wasn't even thinking of the adapting for entertainment value part of it, but that's... ugh. Yeah.
I hate 'rewrites' in a situation like this. We had the real thing when the real thing happened. The thing is, though, that I'm sure the producers (and many other people who worked on the movie) would argue that it's not enough to have read the transcripts and have a vague idea of what happened, because (a) most people don't have the patience to read the news, and (b) there are gaps in the record, so nobody has a coherent linear idea of what happened on that plane. And it'll be good for people to be able to attach names and faces and personalities to what happened.
Except that they'll be attaching the wrong faces to the names, and believing all sorts of things that may or may not be true, depending on how close to the evidence the filmakers went and how good their guesses were about what happened in the gaps.
I'm sure the producers (and many other people who worked on the movie) would argue that it's not enough to have read the transcripts and have a vague idea of what happened, because (a) most people don't have the patience to read the news, and (b) there are gaps in the record, so nobody has a coherent linear idea of what happened on that plane.
Yeah, well, those are producers. They fail to understand that people don't need more than a nanogram of imagination to 'fill in the blanks' as to what happened. Just imagine the worst thing that could possibly ever happen to you, and you can't do anything about it.
But then, that's why they work in LA. Because they assume people are unimaginative idiots who have to have it all spelled out for them.
They fail to understand that people don't need more than a nanogram of imagination to 'fill in the blanks' as to what happened. Actually, I happen to think that most people don't have that necessary nanogram of imagination to fill in the blanks.
But the thing is, the people who don't have the imagination to do that probably won't be able to benefit much from the movie - other than as entertainment value, that is.
I think if this were 25 years down the road, when people wanted to understand what happened, what that tells us about the human condition, how society got to the point where those planes were hijacked and what happened then, it would be beneficial to have a fictionalized account. To bring it home to people who have no way of understanding it because they weren't there. It's the Rilla of Ingleside phenomenon: I studied WWI at school and never really got what it was all about, but once I read Rilla of Ingleside, it sort of gelled for me - became a human story and not a bunch of stats on a page.
But right now? Anybody who needs the story digested for them so that they can "get it"... um. ?
I think it's pretty tasteless. I expect this kind of crap from television, but I expected a bit more... sensitivity from the film industry. It's sad that there is such a lack of creativity in Hollywood right now that they are actually financing crap like this. It's exploitation of a national tragedy plain and simple and I hope it disappears from the theatres as quick as it arrives or else I might lose all hope for the human race for good.
It's exploitation of a national tragedy plain and simple and I hope it disappears from the theatres as quick as it arrives or else I might lose all hope for the human race for good. They would probably argue that it's not about exploitation, it's about giving a voice to the people who died that day, and drawing attention to their heroism.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Maybe...
Should the producers have done it? I don't think I would have. There's been a documentary, there have been books, why do we need a fictionalized version?
Re: Maybe...
Yeah, that's sort of where I was. I dunno... still too fresh, I think.
no subject
I probably wouldn't see it either, for many of the same reasons why I won't watch Boys Don't Cry with Hilary Swank. I know how it ends and it's too much to bear.
no subject
You're kidding. I didn't know it had already been done on TV. That's... ugh.
no subject
*does a quick search*
No, it was a movie about the same flight. Here's (http://www.aetv.com/flight_93/index.jsp) the A&E movie site.
no subject
no subject
Yeah, same here. It was a trailer on a movie I just got, and it just felt really shocking. I hadn't expected to feel that.
no subject
no subject
Sounds about right. I can totally see a lot of good reasons for doing it before then... but my gut just doesn't agree with them.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'll definitely pass.
no subject
Yeah, exactly - I read the articles saying it was being planned and kind of rolled my eyes and went "yuck", but my reaction upon seeing the trailer took me by surprise. It's just still too fresh a wound. And I'm not even American; I can only imagine how much more strongly most Americans would feel about it.
no subject
First, no fictionalized version could ever match it. And nothing else could be so terrible. And as a student of history, I know all too well that eventually, the fiction gets taken as fact.
I hate 'rewrites' in a situation like this. We had the real thing when the real thing happened.
no subject
Good point. I wasn't even thinking of the adapting for entertainment value part of it, but that's... ugh. Yeah.
I hate 'rewrites' in a situation like this. We had the real thing when the real thing happened.
The thing is, though, that I'm sure the producers (and many other people who worked on the movie) would argue that it's not enough to have read the transcripts and have a vague idea of what happened, because (a) most people don't have the patience to read the news, and (b) there are gaps in the record, so nobody has a coherent linear idea of what happened on that plane. And it'll be good for people to be able to attach names and faces and personalities to what happened.
Except that they'll be attaching the wrong faces to the names, and believing all sorts of things that may or may not be true, depending on how close to the evidence the filmakers went and how good their guesses were about what happened in the gaps.
no subject
Yeah, well, those are producers. They fail to understand that people don't need more than a nanogram of imagination to 'fill in the blanks' as to what happened. Just imagine the worst thing that could possibly ever happen to you, and you can't do anything about it.
But then, that's why they work in LA. Because they assume people are unimaginative idiots who have to have it all spelled out for them.
no subject
Actually, I happen to think that most people don't have that necessary nanogram of imagination to fill in the blanks.
But the thing is, the people who don't have the imagination to do that probably won't be able to benefit much from the movie - other than as entertainment value, that is.
I think if this were 25 years down the road, when people wanted to understand what happened, what that tells us about the human condition, how society got to the point where those planes were hijacked and what happened then, it would be beneficial to have a fictionalized account. To bring it home to people who have no way of understanding it because they weren't there. It's the Rilla of Ingleside phenomenon: I studied WWI at school and never really got what it was all about, but once I read Rilla of Ingleside, it sort of gelled for me - became a human story and not a bunch of stats on a page.
But right now? Anybody who needs the story digested for them so that they can "get it"... um. ?
no subject
-H
no subject
They would probably argue that it's not about exploitation, it's about giving a voice to the people who died that day, and drawing attention to their heroism.
...
...yeah, I'm not really buying it either.