Talk:United 93 (film)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Final Captions Change? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  immediacy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Realism has been changed back to immediacy. Jonathan F 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speculative account 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: With reference to the cast setion, I note that on end credits of the actual film, the cast are separated by crew, passengers and hijackers, and I was of the impression this was not to show the names of the 4 hijackers directly alongside the passengers and crew. Should the same be done on this article?--Kieronoldham (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hijackers names 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  spoilers? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Veracity

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''WSJ'' quote about Ben Sliney

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brokeback 93 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  recent dispute over "Production Notes" section of article 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Full cooperation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Based on the definition at War film, I don't think the tag quite fits. qwe 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category: War films]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Islam

message: 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)
thread_title:  Factual Inaccuracies / Original Research 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 .--Mathew5000 05:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you are looking at a DVD for Flight 93 (TV film)? -- MisterHand 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating Change? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Bomb 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  'as much veracity as possible' - not true 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Docudrama? 

message: Please see my comment at Talk:United 93. --Mathew5000 20:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing redirects and disambigs 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:United932dvd.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:United932dvd.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:U93.jpg

message: :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)
replies: text: Rationale added by myself and another editor. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:United93.jpg

message: This article seems to be pretty badly written and contains many instances of poor expression.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.72.4 (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, why don't you point them out instead of making blanket statements? or better yet, edit them perhaps? --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to bite.  We can ask the IP in a better tone for examples of where he or she thinks it is badly written, and we can discuss improving it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro says: "The film attempts to recount with as much veracity as possible (there is a disclaimer that some imagination had to be used) and in real time (from the flight's takeoff) what has come to be known in the United States as a critical moment." The double parentheses are probably unnecessarily fussy, and the phrase "what has come to be known in the United States as a critical moment" is very vague. A critical moment in what? Or critical to what? I'll let someone more familiar with the subject alter it, but something a bit more readable would be great. I would suggest, too, that 9/11 had implications far outside the United States. In fact, not all the passengers were American. Just some suggestions. Sadiemonster (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly written 

message: What happened to the money that was to go towards a victim's memorial? Any info on that? Ingolfson (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial? 

message: Portions of the text in the Plot section is identical to that of the Flight 93 (TV film) article. One or the other is the copy and should be rewritten. CapnZapp (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot text 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United 93 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130518091430/http://www.mpaa.org:80/FilmRatings.asp to http://www.mpaa.org/FilmRatings.asp
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/united-93-2006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United 93 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060329/en_nm/leisure_attacks_dc
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060426125745/http://villagevoice.com:80/film/0616,lim,72901,20.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0616,lim,72901,20.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061206003448/http://www.gpoaccess.gov:80/911/pdf/sec1.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.avmaroc.com/videos/united+airlines-cLiPUfHP1_DIie0.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060110223738/http://www.flight93.net to http://www.flight93.net
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United 93 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/6/2006_6_16.shtml
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130204051431/http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2007_thb/070108_mon.html to http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2007_thb/070108_mon.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)