How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

I thought it was a really good movie, and I read it was the most critically acclaimed movie of 2006. But no one I know has heard of this movie, when I talk about it. I was wondering, was it not well liked or well received when it came out?

People didn't(and still don't) want to watch a 9/11 movie and it came out in April a week before MI-III.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

But why don't people want to watch a 9/11 movie, when they watch movies of other real life tragedies? I even recommended the movie to a friend and he said, what would be the point of making a 9/11 movie? But you can say that about any movie made about a real tragedies. You can say what's the point of making a movie like Titanic or Schindler's List or JFK. Those movies were hits, and are still a lot better known today, so why not United 93?

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

It was too soon tbh.


The pain of 9/11 is still fresh in the minds and hearts of the populous, so for a movie to be based on it and be a huge hit, they'll need to wait until like, the year 2050.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Perhaps back then, but even today, people haven't even heard of the movie, and still don't seem interested to seek it out, it seems.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

That's what I mean though.


The thing with the movie being released so soon after the attack, has basically tainted the film.
There was a movie based on the firefighters and stuff too, which has also vanished into obscurity.


The problem with movies like these, is the particular subject is still going on today with all those I.S retards who are bombing shopping centres and stuff and killing children at music concerts.


With the subject of terrorism being so prominent in current society, the majority of people simply won't buy cinema tickets or DVDs for films based on it.


On a smaller subject, there's a movie being made about the Grenfell Tower Fire in London.
Because of negligence from the UK Government, the fire killed 71 people, including a stillbirth baby.


It only happened 6 months ago, and they're already making a movie about it... and pretty much all of the publicity about the movie has been a resounding "Why?".
It'll sell a couple tickets here and there no doubt, but will definitely bomb at the box office.

They didn't really do the graphic type Holocaust movies until the 1970's.

I'll say this, I was around that area and I saw the effect on people. I didn't know anyone who died but I knew a lot of people who lost people. It's very difficult to for me to watch a 9/11 movie especially a non-Hollywood style one like United 93.

Many people have conspiracy theories about 9/11 so that's another thing, as well as the fact that the script had to fill in people's lives and make the terrorists seem human. I've never had a problem with fictionalized docudramas - I watched it the day it came out and I own the DVD. The level of realism and tension in the movie is great though, which would make it more difficult for numerous viewers.

But I think the fact that it's non-Hollywood looking and feeling really adds to the movie. The firefighter one, World Trade Center, was much more Hollywood feeling, and I think that kind of hurt the movie in a way. I feel that United 93 has aged a lot better.

How did the movie make the terrorist seem human though? I mean the terrorists were stressed out of their minds, and sweating and all, but I think that's what terrorists would be like in real life. Does that bother viewers?

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

I saw it. I dont recall seeing some huge display of audiences not liking it or it not being well received. It's not exactly a fun watch for obvious reasons, though. As said above, maybe it was just too soon for people to grab popcorn for such a terrible event.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Probably because it's a bummer. I've heard it's really good, and I've still avoided seeing it. I took a few years to see Schindler's List, too. Sometimes movies come out that you know are good, and well-made, but which you can be pretty much certain are going to leave you in a crappy mood, and it's kinda inconvenient to have to block your day out that way for an activity that's usually done for fun.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

It being a bummer was most likely part of it. I think Rodent's "it was too soon" was probably the biggest thing though especially with the era it happened in. 2001 was a lot different from now but it was also very easy then to get the news and images of the events constantly especially for something that size. It's the biggest even that happened in my lifetime and i'm still not feeling like watching a movie of it. I will say though it would have been more likely United 93 was a hit IMO because that was the plane that went down in a field in Pennsylvania unlike the ones we watched going into the towers there's more of a sense of the unknown there.

I agree with your statement.

Jon

It was a really good movie, but it couldn't have been a comfortable viewing experience for people who lost loved ones on 9/11, especially people who lost loved ones on that particular flight. The movie was really well done but it just wasn't audience friendly subject matter. To a lot of people, 9/11 still feels like yesterday even though it was almost two decades ago.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Why wasn't (Insert movie her) a bigger hit? You could say that about every single movie.

Btw the film made back 3 times its budget so it was a hit.

Depends where you are. It got some attention here...

Yup...that's how I feel, I just don't want to revisit that subject matter.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Probably the only 9/11 masterpiece is Basinski's Disintegration Loop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYOr8TlnqsY

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Because some people don't want to see very sad events to close to home played out as entertainment. Events were too raw in people's memories and this film wasn't gung ho, it was considered, researched and pieced together as realistically as Paul Greengrass could've made it, so the end result was extremely uncomfortable watching.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Okay thanks, that makes sense, that people were uncomfortable watching it, cause it was close to home. But why not now? Or has not enough time went by? Do you think the movie would be a bigger hit, if it was made in the 2030s maybe or something then?

As for the conspiracy theories, if the movie was told from a more conspiracy theory point of view, would audiences be more interested in it then?

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

I think it would always have limited appeal given the type of film it is. i.e. a docudrama played out in real time. I think it's one of those films that if you'd wanted to see it you'd have done so.
Not sure even if the word 'hit' applies to this kind of film if you know what I mean.

The coverage and videos of 9/11 will always be available so i don't think it'll ever gain the same sort of curiousity for a fictional version as previous events like The Titanic or whatever, even when people are far removed from it. Major historical events that connect with the general public most are ones they aren't that aware of i believe. Why pay to go see a fictional film when you can easily access more videos and information than you'd ever be able to sift through?

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Well I thought the movie did a really good job, of imagining the event on the actual flight, plus I inside the military building (can't remember what it's called), that was making decisions on whether or not to shoot the remaining planes down, after the WTC was hit. Things like that gave me new perspective, and those things were not filmed at all in real life, so I thought the re-imagining of them, was very effective.

I mean I guess that's like saying why see Schindler's List, when you can just watch some archive footage. And even if you watch Shoah (1985), having a dramatized re-imagining can still shed new perspective on the events.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Shoah is 100% interviews with survivors not archival footage. And the holocaust had nowhere near the visual coverage 9/11 did because of obvious technological limitations, not to mention it being in the middle of a war and being covered up by one of the most powerful nations on the planet at the time.

It's not like saying that at all. Guess again.

You seem to think people dont. Ofcourse some people watch real footage. If they didnt, documentaries wouldnt contain them.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Also Shoah wasn't a "hit" unless you mean critically in which case United 93 was too.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Yeah, okay that's a good point. But I felt like seeing re-imaginings of things was effective cause there was a lot of 9/11 not seen, such as the inside of the plane, the inside of the military buildings, making decisions, and the inside of the flight control building and how they dealt with it. There is no real footage of that, unless I didn't see it.

That's all still unseen, Greengrass put a tonne of work into making it as authentic as possible like Christine said but it was still dramatized. Reading the reports is as close as you're going to get to understanding what it was like.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

That's what I mean is that we never saw it, and felt like it added new perspective for me. But I guess I just like the dramatization, and am more of a dramatist when it comes to historical drama movies I guess.

Yeah, i understand why you liked it. I thought this thread question was why the general public didn't take to it? That's what i was attempting to answer.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Yeah I felt they would like it too, since they like a lot of dramatizations of historical disasters. However, I can see now why they didn't take to this one. I just thought it would be more well received now that some more time has went by and all.

It was released on dvd, special box set and BR, then a second BR. How do you know people arent watching it? You seem to think that because a few friends of yours havent heard of it no one else has. Comes up a bit in your threads, IP.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Yeah I'm just going by people I know I guess, but I asked like 30 people since I saw it back in 2012 around and none of them even heard of it.

Its reputation has definitely improved over the years. From what i remember initially it was "oh here we go a film to cash in on a disaster", now it's genuinely acclaimed in some places. Can't remember who it was from but there was some "best of the 21st century" video list posted from a critic here that had United 93 on it. So it's definitely well received but it's not the sort of film you'd ever expect to connect with the public enough to make it a notable box office success.

The biggest Box Office Hit about a real disaster is obviously Titanic and the main selling point for that was the (obviously fictional) love story and especially Leo. Maybe if they included some bs love story on the plane it would have worked but then everyone there died so they wouldn't have had old Rose left to manipulate the audience with.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Perhaps in 50 years from now, they will make a 9/11 with a fictionalized love story, but I think if they did that now, audiences would be dis-interested even more, unless I am wrong, and these forbidden romance stories, help make the hostorical drama movies, more popular.

I was being facetious. I personally think the level of exposure to the event and availability to real information on it will hold some people back.

When i was younger i had a weird interest in completely fictional (although technically based on real people) mafia films. They were always terrible and often didn't make sense but at the time i didn't know anywhere else to find out more about that subject i was interested in. As soon as i did i haven't watched the dozens of similar films that have came out since. That's about a subject that is supposed to be secret and hidden from the public; 9/11 is a very public thing, it's understandable why it doesn't get the average person curious when they could easily access real life stuff about it.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

I'm gonna make an awful mafia film that makes no sense when I grow up. Just for you, Camo.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Yeah that makes sense. I remember a few years ago, I thought it would be a great idea if Hollywood were to make a movie of the O.J. Simspson murder case, and people said to me, why bother when the whole trial can be found online. So I guess there's that, where there is already so much public information out there.

This is true

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Well after watching it again, I feel that the whole shaky cam, documentary style of the movie, perhaps gives it an exploitative feel to the material, cause it's a true tragedy, yet they are trying to be so stylistic with it. Do you think that's true, compared to fiction, where this shaky cam documentary style, may work better?

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

No.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

I think it's the other way around. It'd feel more exploitative if they were using noticeable camera effects or trying to add to the drama in other especially artificial ways. Greengrass was very smart about it.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Oh well I was just thinking in little ways. For example, when they shoot the pilots flying the planes, they shoot them from behind, to the side almost. What's wrong with more frontal face shots of the pilots? Why be so voyeuristic, like someone is watching through a camera sort of deal? Doesn't that come off as kind of pretentious for a real life tragedy movie?

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Just some thoughts - I saw this in the theater when it came out. I was anticipating seeing it and it's one of the few movies I went to alone which seemed somehow fitting due to the subject matter - this was not a "good time" movie to share as a social outing.

It wasn't a bad movie, quite well made in fact, but I don't know... it just didn't have the impact I was expecting.

What may account for this: I had seen a docudrama on TV made about the doomed flight which was pretty good, so while watching that I kept thinking if they made a full movie that was all drama and not a documentary it would be even better.

After the movie came out, I ended up feeling like the docudrama was actually better than the movie! Maybe because the docudrama provided more information about the passengers that couldn't be transmitted via exposition in the movie? So you felt like you knew who these people were a little better? I don't know.

Also regarding the shaky cam... maybe the movie was too realistic and should have focused more on the story than on trying to put the viewer in the plane? I don't know... been a while since I saw it.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Oh okay, which docudrama was that or what do you remember about it?

Because that's exactly what the handheld style is supposed to feel like. It's supposed to be less polished, and more voyeuristic, to emulate the feeling of being there. So this is basically the same question over again.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Oh okay. Well how come other movies based off disasters don't have to be handheld and no one calls them out on being exploitative though, like World Trade Center (2006) for example?

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

What do you mean "have to be"? Nobody said it had to be. It's a stylistic decision, and people can make good or bad stylistic decisions. A better question is why you would expect different filmmakers to make the same kinds of films, just because they're about the same event. Similar to many other questions about why X and Y are not the same, when there's no particular reason to expect them be. People are different, and make different choices, is the answer to most of these questions.

BTW, it seems Greengrass made the better choice, given how well his film was received compared to the

I wish I could tell you, I.P.

In the years following 9/11 I pretty much watched every documentary or "docu-drama" that was on TV. Don't know which network broadcast it, but it was a United 93 documentary interspersed with dramatic reenactments throughout based on what information was known. Somehow I felt the build up to the climax (the passengers rushing the cockpit) was somehow more intense in the TV show than the movie.

As said, maybe the reason for that was the docu. provided more factual info in it's documentary portions. Or maybe because the dramatic portions weren't spaced like in the movie - they were interrupted by documentary portions. Or maybe it was because I watched the docu. closer in time to the actual events, making it more "raw" in my mind and this was the first reenactment of the events (while, by the time I saw the movie, I was more than familiar with the events)?

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Oh maybe it was Flight 93 (2006), which I saw on TV too back then?

Yeah I guess it doesn't have to be, but I guess I just feel that shaky cam style with zooms, belongs more in an action thriller like the born movies, than a true story drama I guess. It would be like if John Woo decided to make a 9/11 movie, but he decided to bring on his intense slow motion effects. But then again, maybe that would work dramatically in it's own way too.

Quite possibly. Unless there were other docudramas made about that specific story before the feature film came out.

Re: How come United 93 (2006) wasn't a bigger hit?
 

Oh okay. It turns out the full movie is on youtube. Is this the one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppKLF_HKXKc