Talk:United 93 (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United 93 (film) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Trivia Removed

A trivia section claimed the flight in the poster was United 175. Clearly, the poster shows both WTC buildings giving off smoke. Thus United 175, would not be the plane in the picture. It is just a promotional poster. Flight 93 never made it this close to New York. The Statue of Liberty is probably for dramatic effect and to invoke the idea of "patriotic liberty" and not a recreation of an actual 9/11 scene. It has been removed.

[edit] Final Captions Change?

I don't think the change in the title card actually took place or if so, then is not relevant. Since both "America's war on terror had begun," and "Dedicated to the memory of all those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001," are shown in the final credits (albeit the latter is mentioned last) this part of the article is completely irrelevant. Secretwanderer 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the film for a second time last night; it definitely does not say "America's war on terror had begun." If the article says it does, I'm going to take that out. ----Nqnpipnr

Hi hi. I have to admit that I download movies off the internet and I have the DVDRip and some Cam Screener of it: the screener has the "America's war on terror had begun" line, the DVD didn't. The DVD version's end also is a bit different, so to me it seems that only the screeners shown to the press had the line? --85.217.32.208 11:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • This page was original written about the theatrical film, but I think the mention of the tv movie is appropriate to avoid confusion. -- MisterHand 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the TV movie is more of a formulaic tear jerker, making it an unbereable watch for any sensitive viewer of movies or just plain common sense. However, it fits nicely into the whole lifetime viewer kind of thing.

[edit] 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)

"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)

[edit] 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)

  • 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.
Indeed the film is speculative, some say to a fault. However, credit to the movie's "realism" is given strictly from a filmmaking point of view. All it means to say is the director did not employ a baroque camera style but rather went for naturalism. Jonathan F 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Realism has been changed back to immediacy. Jonathan F 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Reaction

I was wondering if anyone would like to start a list of critical reaction/reviews of the film? The debate over the film has been pretty intense, and is all over the map. Here's one...

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)

Well, the plane left from Newark Intl Airport. AMac2002 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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
FWIW, the plane on the poster looks like a Boeing 767, not a 757. ProhibitOnions 19:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cast

I found an error in the cast: Actor: Tom O'Rourke ----- Role: Donald Peterson ... Tom O'Rourke was born in 1856. I'm pretty sure he wasn't in a film in 2006. 74.224.117.108 01:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spoilers?

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

  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

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)

I took off the damn spoiler warning. user:Zerath13

The spoiler tag is in place because the reader should be allowed a warning before reading how this film ends. The end of United 93 depicts passenger success in breaching the cockpit and an attempt to wrest control of the plane—both unverified events. The reader should be warned that the filmmaker chose to end the film this way. Jonathan F 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That isn't even a plot descreption to begin with. It merely lets you know what the closing title card is; not a big drawn-out description, like most film pages (Sin City and Once Upon a Time in America come to mind). If you're going to have a big description like that, then maybe, but not for this. Take it down. -- Nqnpipnr

This is ridiculous. A spoiler tag should obviously stay there. If there's this much disagreement, put it to a simple vote.

--Amynewyork4248 09:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Why put spoilers on this? That would be similar to putting spoilers on a documentary about WW2 made by the History Channel. This is a non-fiction story, it doesn't deserve spoilers. I also find it kind of disgusting that people think this requires spoilers. Are you so ignorant as to recent world history that you need spoilers on something like this? "Durr dun tel me wut happenz at teh end of dis film i wanna see it 4 myself!!" It's not like there's some ultra-surprise plot twist or ending. It follows historical events. I KNOW! Let's put spoiler tags on the history of Rome page. Because people might not know that the ancient Roman civilization collapsed, we wouldn't want to ruin that for them. Maybe the page about the Germans losing World War I needs spoiler tags, too, because someone might not know that they lost that war. Seriously, if you're going to put spoiler tags on something as huge as this, something that doesn't need it, someone (like me) is going to start throwing them up on all the friggin' pages that have anything resembling a plot (fiction or non-fiction). Just remove them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.186.106.148 (talk • contribs).
The "Plot" section describes describes dramatic elements from the film, i.e. spoilers. If you're familiar with the events of 9/11, you know what happens in a wide, sweeping sense, but this section could give away(that is, spoil) parts of the film for people who haven't seen it. The tags stay. qwe 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • I'm removing it. The paragraph is pure editorializing and is completely uncited. -- MisterHand 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • 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. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • 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)
      • 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)
        • CNN Situation Room April 28 2006 transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/28/sitroom.03.html). Google search engine result (http://www.google.ca/search?q=9%2F11+conspiracy&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official). ShowBiz Tonight March 25, 2006 transcipt including poll results with 53 000 respondents (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/27/sbt.01.html). I could cite articles written by scholars and Ph.D's in relevant fields to these issues. Here's a link to the board 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' that has links to numerous articles and videos written by Ph.Ds about these issues (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/). The official 'United 93' message forum, in which this controversy is playing out in realtime (http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1). Is this not enough? Would I need to cite a minimum of 25% of the members of Congress questioning the official story of what happened here for this to be wiki worthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.25.7 (talk • contribs)
          • I just read the transcript of the CNN show. It briefly mentions conspiracy theories surrounding the flight, but at no time does anybody mention anything about the veracity of United 93 (the film). -- MisterHand 21:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
            • What you should try to include in this article, is specific references regarding the film. The CNN transcript is too fleeting a mention (its a brief soundbite about "conspiracy theories on the internet"). The Scholars for 911 truth link and the 25% of congress members factoid (with reference, pls) belongs in the main article not this film article. Google searches don't belong in articles as references. If there is a stable link regarding the discussion on the Universal Pictures forum, that's probably okay. You should find a news / magazine article specifically discussing the film in this context though Bwithh 21:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I would say that the Universal forum is NOT okay, as anybody can post there and we have no way of knowing how many of the people there are trolls and/or sockpuppets. -- MisterHand 21:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Good point Bwithh 21:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
                • The place for this discussion is Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories and not here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • We're discussing the addition of a "Veracity" section to this article, which is why we're having the discussion here. -- MisterHand 21:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • So the wiki, I take it, is not the place for original scholarship, but only rehashing work that has already been done and accepted as credible at large? Wow, and I thought this site was less retrogressive than that. Not to be condescending (I'm sorry if it comes off that way), or overly naive, but this is reminding me so much of the problems of the entire, at least North American, education system (pre-secondary, secondary and post). I'm sorry if people don't take the internet, as as a source of research, seriously. Part of the problem is that, "credible publications" on the whole seem hesitant to go out on a limb with this stuff. That's why i cited that CNN is at least talking about it, along with the 'United 93 message forum', etc. Can't we all just get along? Lol.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.25.7 (talk • contribs)
                      • You're actually correct about that...original scholarship is not allowed here. Here's the policy page: WP:NOR -- MisterHand 22:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • I don't see how the "Veracity" section really belongs in the article. And, I don't see any of the points made by 70.27.25.7 that talk about the film. If the anon. can come up with any reliable sources that do discuss the film, then okay. Otherwise, any discussion that tries to discredit the actual account of events of the flight are covered in the conspiracy article. The CNN piece doesn't discuss the veracity of United 93, but merely dismisses Loose Change - "It's important to note, of course, Wolf, that these are all conspiracy theories and they do run counter to all mainstream media reporting and Congressional investigations" -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
                      • Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for my ignorance. I will look for more specific and credible resources that pertain to the film in regards the realism claims, veracity of portrayl and content, etc. I am assuming it would be deemed inappropriate by most people here to include in a short sentence a reference, if multiple sources can be found (which I expect will), an internal link to the 9/11 conspiracy page? I understand the summarizing quote made in 'The Situation Room' report. That is what makes the issue controversial. I am worried that this discussion is concerned too much with semantics and base essences of what something like "veracity," "controvery," and "realism" mean, and that it would require too lengthy and off-topic an introduction to justify being included in the main article, by most people's standards.

[edit] WSJ quote about Ben Sliney

This is the review by Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal quoted in the main article in the line

Some participants in the real-life events play themselves, including FAA operations manager Ben Sliney, whom the Wall Street Journal critic singled out for his "uncanny star presence."

Actually, Morgenstern wrote that the movie "singles out" Sliney as the "hero" of the film. Morgenstern's line "(Mr. Sliney is played, with uncanny star presence, by himself.)" seems to me a trivial comment indicating the critic's stated discomfort with writing about a grave issue from a movie review angle. Regardless of my view, given what can be said of Sliney's participation in the film and in the real events, citing his "uncanny star presence" seems superficial. Jonathan F 05:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That line was taken out of context before. Sliney is worth mentioning, but I think that the quote as it was was a bit of misnomer. -- MisterHand 21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brokeback 93

The link to "Brokeback 93" seems to be completely irrelevant to the film. First of all, the author admits he has not seen the movie; second, he proceeds to bash anyone who thinks these events make for a good movie based on what he thinks is in it. Therefore, I have removed it. Instead of articles listing reasons why person X is not going to see the movie, let's get some real reviews(like the Slate article).

Any objections?

Qwe 00:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent dispute over "Production Notes" section of article

If the article is going to say that the final scene of the film (with passengers having made it into the cockpit) either (1) contradicts what actually happens or (2) goes beyond what is known to have actually happened, then it should cite a source. Max rspct seems to have an opposing view so perhaps he/she could explain it here. I've made a change with a cite to the 9-11 Commission report but this revision is still pretty clunky and needs to be further revised. Or maybe the discussion should be moved out of the "Production notes" section of the article and into the "Factual inaccuracies" section. In addition, I think it would be much preferable to cite an external source which is itself comparing the film to the Commission report, rather than the argument coming from Wikipedia editors; I'm afraid that the way I've worded it might violate the Synthesis of Original Research policy. --Mathew5000 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, thinking back to the movie, I don't think it's entirely inconceivable that the pilot had already pushed the plane into a dive. All you see is the passengers breaking into the cockpit and pulling him out of the chair; the plane then crashes. But all the same, a more concise citation might be helpful(that's a pretty big page to sort through just for that factoid; I gave up after a little bit of looking). Qwe 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should say that it is unclear from the movie whether the hijacker deliberately crashes the plane into the ground (having realised he is not going to be able to make his target), or whether it accidentally crashes because he loses control during the struggle. Views? Barnabypage 18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Dispute

There is an ongoing dispute over the following sentence:

However, there is no record of what Adams did prior to the crash. His role in the film seems not to be based on facts.

I have moved it here for discussion. As written, it is POV. For inclusion it needs to be attributed to a reliable source. Also, the following passage:

The Guardian reports that Silke Adams, the Adams's widow, is "believed to have refused to cooperate on the film, saying that the memory of her husband's death was still too raw".

Also needs a citation (preferably a link to the Guardian article where it came from. -- MisterHand 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A citation for the second sentence has been provided. Thanks! -- MisterHand 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full cooperation

It strikes me that "The film was made with the full cooperation of all the families of those onboard" is probably not strictly true, because presumably the families of the hijackers weren't involved. Is there a more precise way to word this? Barnabypage 13:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Not to mention that it's emerged in other parts of the article that the family of the German passenger did not seem to have cooperated. I wonder if it would be accurate to say "The film was made with the full cooperation of all the families of the Americans onboard." --Mathew5000 16:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The only citation we have for the German passengers family is pure speculation on the part of a newspaper reporter. I'm going to change the wording to "victims." -- MisterHand 16:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The NYT article cited as a source says: "The filmmakers said 'Flight 93' had the cooperation of all the families of the passengers who died on the flight." Two points about this: (1) they use the word "passengers"; no claim is made that they had the cooperation of families of the pilots & flight crew. (2) The NYT doesn't refer to the cooperation as a verified fact, but rather as an assertion made by the filmmakers; I think the Wikipedia article should reflect this. --Mathew5000 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: War films

Article reads:

Initial screenings ended with a closing credits line, "America’s war on terror had begun".

Given the apparent intention of the filmmaker, would it qualify (as a "War on terror" film)? Jonathan F 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it a war film, as such. More of a "prelude to war" film. But I won't dispute the category either. -- MisterHand 13:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on the definition at War film, I don't think the tag quite fits. qwe 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

I wrote

The film depicts the hijackers' devotion to (their version of) Islam.

because perhaps saying that they were devoted to Islam may suggest that their actions are in accordance with Islam, but it was changed.--Patrick 22:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The film depicts them praying at the start of the film, in accordance with Islamic practice (not merely their "version" of Islam). That (the praying) was how the film depicted their devotion to Islam. The article isn't saying that hijacking the plane was a depiction of their devotion to Islam. --Mathew5000 08:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but the article now implicitly says that hijacking the plane is not contradicting devotion to "regular" Islam.--Patrick 13:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of this article is to describe the movie, not discuss Islam. There are other articles for that. Specifying "their version of" is POV commentary. -- MisterHand 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Inaccuracies / Original Research

I have tagged the Factual Inaccuracies section as original research. Of the items listed, one is uncited, and the others have cites that don't reference the film. For this section to stay, every item has to be linked to a reliable source that specifically mentions the factual inaccuracy within the film. Wikipedia editors should not be making the logical leap about factual inaccuracies on our own. -- MisterHand 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no attempt has been made to provide proper citations for this section, I am moving it here: -- MisterHand 15:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual inaccuracies

The 9/11 Commission's map of Flight 93's flightpath.
The 9/11 Commission's map of Flight 93's flightpath.

In the movie, a short time after takeoff, the pilots make a left turn and note that the passengers on the left side of the plane will be able to see the New York skyline. The passengers look out the left windows, and see the New York skyline, along with a perfect view of the not-yet-damaged World Trade Center. However, according to the official 9/11 Commission, the plane did not take a turn to the left, circling around downtown Manhattan. The plane made an immediate left turn after takeoff, but this would not have allowed the passengers to see New York - they would have seen New Jersey. Assuming the 9/11 Commission's representation of the flightpath is correct, New York City would have been north of the plane all the time while it would have been visible to the passengers - on the right side of the plane, which was travelling west. If any of the passengers had been able to see New York, it would have been the passengers of the right side of the aircraft.[citation needed]

Template:Spoiler The final shot in the film shows only the hands of the passengers struggling with the hijackers for control of the plane. This is a departure from the 9/11 Commission's account of events. The Commission concluded that there was no evidence that the passengers managed to enter the cockpit and that the flight recorder data showed that the hijackers remained at the controls before the plane rolled onto its back, but they must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from breaching the cockpit and overcoming them.[1] Template:Endspoiler

Like the 9/11 Commission Report, the end credits state that the plane crashed at 10:03. However, Cleveland Air Traffic Control reported that Flight 93 went out of radar contact at 10:06 and FAA radar records note a time of 10:06. Seismologists recorded an impact at 10:06:05, give or take a few seconds. [2]

[edit] Rating Change?

The article states that the movie is rated 'R'. I am looking at the DVD release, and it is rated PG-13 for 'Some Violence and Emotional Depiction of the Hijack Situation'. This should probably be noted, but I'm not sure if the R rating is correct (maybe for the theatrical release?). --Nick.sideras 04:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You must be outside the United States. Amazon.com says the DVD is to be released in the US on 2006-09-05 with an R rating [1].--Mathew5000 05:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you are looking at a DVD for Flight 93 (TV film)? -- MisterHand 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's Flight 93, not United. I didn't realize that Flight 93 (film) redirects to United 93 (film). Sorry about that! Now I'll have to find United. I totally thought that's what i saw... --Nick.sideras 01:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler? (spoilers within)

Is the movie really spoiled by people knowing the passangers are going to win? Doesn't EVERYONE IN THE WORLD PAYING ATTENTION know this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The ending of any fictional movie is a spoiler. This movie is fiction. The viewer should not be expected to know whether or not the movie follows the actual course of history. Johntex\talk 14:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The movie is a "docudrama" according to Wikipedia, and as such it is already known that it follows the actual course of history. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps so, perhaps not. Producers of docudramas will take liberties. Which ones, how many? Also, it is not known ahead of time what point in history the movie will stop. Will the movie follow the plane all the way through the crash or not, for instance? Johntex\talk 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I accept that the fact the movie fades out directly before the crash is a spoiler. Can we restrict the tag to only that? Docudrama's adhere generally to history per wikipedia, taking only dramatic liberties, not rewriting history. The plane not-crashing would make this a science-fiction movie. Let's be realistic here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be OK with the spoiler tag moved somewhere further into the section, yes. I took a stab at placing the tag where I think it should go. Could you have a look please and give your opinion? Thanks, Johntex\talk 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I edit the section and propose the following:
The hijackers do not prevent the people from making phone calls. Hearing about the crashes into the WTC, the passengers and crew understand that if they do nothing their plane will also be crashed into some building, killing them and people on the ground. Thus they decide to fight the hijackers. One of the passengers can fly a plane (though he has not flown this type), and they hope he will be able to fly it after they have overpowered the hijackers.
{{spoiler}}The cockpit is forcefully entered by ramming a trolley into it. The film ends just before the plane crashes into a field.
Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I do like your version, but I like my version a little better. How about this, if no one else chimes in on the matter in the next 24 hours, then I'll agree to support your version? If anyone else does chime in then we can hear their ideas first. Johntex\talk 15:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not terribly opposed to your version either. We could always just flip a coin. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As I stated on the spoiler warning RfC, my general opinion is that works that that claim to be all non-fiction don't need spoiler warnings. The Titanic (1997 film) movie does need spoiler tags, because it featured fictional characters in a historical setting. In the case of United 93, I tried to assume the perspective of somebody with just a vague recollection of 9/11 (Some planes crached into some American buildings, the US blamed terrorists for it) just discovering the title of the movie in a TV program guide and looking it up here, and perhaps being able to watch the film as a suspense drama. The article clearly states that the plane crashed before we get to the plot section. And not having watched the film, perhaps the film states that too? So there's no suspense or other surprise to be ruined. Although this film contains fictional "John-Doe" characters, these were clearly based on real ones, and I think the degree of fictionalization described here is too small to warrant a spoiler tag in this case. --GunnarRene 15:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • A question about the film not related to the article - I watched it on DVD and just read a review by Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times [2]. In it, he says: "The film begins on a black screen, and we hear one of the hijackers reading aloud from the Koran." I didn't recall this, so I stuck the DVD back in, and watched the opening sequence again. Black screen yes, but no Koran reading. So what on earth is he on about? Is this something included in the original and removed so as not to offend someone? Or did he just make it up? Palefire 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, since you have dependable sources for both these, you can add that to the article somewhere near the part about "America’s war on terror had begun". --GunnarRene 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've just watched the film on DVD - European release. There's defintely reading from the Koran during the intial black screen opening. Are there different versions, maybe? --Nilenico 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's time to add a Critical Acclaim Section for the article

I suggest that the author starts a section focusing on the critical acclaim that this film has. Up until August, not even World Trade Center has overcome the outstanding and universal acclaim that this film have. It is the highest rated movie on Metacritic, it is Certified Fresh in Rotten Tomatoes with 175 reviews in which just 17 are splats. It holds the BFCA Broadcast Critics Association highest rating with a 95. It obtained perfect stars from Roger Ebert, Michael Medven and Peter Travers. The vast majority of all reviews available are perfect scores/stars. Like the author of Brokeback Mountain did, I think it's time to dedicate a section of the United 93 article to the massive critical acclaim that will surely will be a strong factor in favor of United 93 at the awards season.

Since you've obviously already done some research on this, you'd seem well-placed to start the section yourself! Barnabypage 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reduced this section somewhat. It's repetitive; we only need a few examples to show that the film was critically acclaimed. Barnabypage 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Saw it, and it is the only movie page on the entire wikipedia that has such section, in other words... it just yells: "im a good movie!!". Not very sutile...

[edit] The Bomb

In the article it says

They wonder if the bomb is real or fake, but start by overpowering the man with the bomb, which turns out to be fake (clay has been used instead of explosives; the audience is aware of this already, having seen the hijacker assemble it in the plane's lavatory).

I was of the impression that the bomb was genuine, so far as the scene in the toilet did not suggest to me that the device was fake. I do not have experience making bombs nor did I see packaging that suggests that the blocks of clay were nothing more that modeling clay. Furthermore, at one point he jostles the blocks and freezes for a second as if they might suddenly detonate. Could somebody clear up my confusion? Thanks. --Colossus 86 09:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The scene you're thinking of where the hijacker is nervous of the explosives occurs in [[Flight 93 {TV movie)]] - I just watched that and can confirm it's there. Barnabypage 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Most coverage of the film seems to suggest that we are supposed to believe it was a fake bomb. Also, and I'm no expert here, if there had been a bomb (detonated or otherwise) on board wouldn't the crash investigation have found some evidence of explosive materials? Barnabypage 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to accept that the bomb was indeed fake for a variety of reasons such as, per your suggestion, the fact that the crash investigation did not report evidence of a bomb. What I don't understand is when or where in the lavatory scene are we, the viewers informed that the explosives are fake, as they do not look especially like blocks of clay to me. And what I percieved to be the hijacker freezing in his tracks for fear of setting of the explosives confuses things further... --Colossus 86 13:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I just saw it a second time (and my God, even when you know EXACTLY what's coming those last five minutes are almost unbearably tense). Anyway, I can confirm that when he unpacks the 'explosive' in the lavatory, the packages are clearly labelled "model clay" or "modelling clay". Barnabypage 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'as much veracity as possible' - not true

"The film attempts to recount with as much veracity as possible..."

I don't think this is strictly true. The 9/11 commission notes that the passengers didn't succeed in entering the cockpit before the plane was put into a dive. According to the black box the plane was put into a dive by yanking the stick to the left, flipping the plane onto its back, and putting it into a dive. As Pilot/Salon Journalist, Patrick Smith, notes in Ask the Pilot, it would be impossible for the passengers to have succeeded in entering the cockpit if they hadn't done so before the dive. (He puts in blunt terms: they didn't enter the cockpit). This element of the film is therefore poetic license.

Furthermore, the depiction of the German passenger, Christian Adams, represents an emotional and negative depiction of a character where there was zero evidence to do so.

As 'much veracity' as possible would have had the passengers not entering the cockpit at all, and a neutral (or probability-wise acting the same as the other passengers) character for the German passenger. Macgruder 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

An "inconsistencies with the evidence" section would be quite a good addition to this article, I think. Go for it! Barnabypage 01:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Docudrama?

The film is indeed a docudrama per the OED's definition, and others'. The error is actually in docudrama, not this article - I'll make some quick fixes to the former. Barnabypage 14:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many awards?

I'm concerned that the list of awards for United 93 is getting out of hand. For example, is the Oklahoma Film Critics Circle really notable? Perhaps we should just list the major national and international awards, and comment that the film has also been acclaimed by many smaller groups. Barnabypage 14:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the section to make it look smaller, I have follow the Awards Season for quite a long time and all critics awards are equally important because they show the tendencies of which films could be catalogued as the "critic's darling". For example, telling that X city film critics is more important than Y film critics is not being neutral. For example, the Brokeback Mountain article have notable awards won by the movie, but there is a complementary article called citing all awards and nominations for the movie, that is one alternative. So eliminating awards from the list based on importance, like I said before, is not neutral. Check website www.moviecitynews.com, all awards are listed at the same level without falling into selecting awards because they are more important than others. By the way, the BAFTA's, the Academy Awards, Central Ohio Awards and the Director's Guild are the organizations left to announce their nominees, so if the film is nominated the list would not change a lot, it basically stays like how it looks right now.
Well, notability is not the same issue as POV. But thanks for fixing the list - it looks a lot better. Barnabypage 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confusing redirects and disambigs

Please see my comment at Talk:United 93. --Mathew5000 20:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:United932dvd.jpg

Image:United932dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:United932dvd.jpg

Image:United932dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:U93.jpg

Image:U93.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:United93.jpg

Image:United93.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added by myself and another editor. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)