Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Viewers, Marketers on the Defensive as 'United 93' Trailer Hits NYC Theaters


The Daily News this morning features the first of what promises to be many stories on what we might as well call the United 93 frontlash–visceral negative hype against a film about which everybody seems to have an opinion without having seen it. While I am far more preoccupied with known quantities–e.g. the film’s hacky, self-aggrandizing director Paul Greengrass–than with smacking United 93 down one month before its release, a trio of NYDN reporters hit area theaters to do the next best thing: gauge reaction to the film’s new trailer.
And, oh, the humanity:

At least one theater on the upper West Side has yanked the harrowing trailer for Universal Pictures’ upcoming United 93, saying it reduced one patron to tears.

“I personally received a couple of complaints. Some people were pretty upset,” said a manager at the AMC Loews Lincoln Square 12 theater on Broadway. “We pulled the trailer last weekend.” …

“I covered my eyes. I couldn’t watch it,” said upper East Side retiree Gloria Harper, who volunteered as a Ground Zero relief worker shortly after 9/11. “I won’t see the movie. I mean we lived through it.”

The trailer, complete with heart-pounding surround sound, had a similar effect on some moviegoers at the Regal Battery Park theater – located virtually across the street from Ground Zero.

“It was disturbing. It’s always painful and brings back memories,” said Aida Sotelo, 47, a Manhattan homemaker who was working a block from the twin towers on 9/11. “It’s still hurtful to see. And it will always be too early for me.”

The piece also features a few endorsements: At least one victim’s relative invokes the film’s potential to help future generations grapple with the horror of 9/11, and no less an authority than Universal Pictures marketing director Adam Fogelson is 100 percent behind United 93‘s trailer:

“We didn’t use any footage that people haven’t seen before, and we didn’t enhance it,” he added. “It’s truly horrific. So we’re not shocked to hear that some people find it uncomfortable.”

Translation: Get over it, New York.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon