Hollywood reacts to WTC attacks (1 Viewer)

[GaryEA]

I mean this sincerely; if a production had already shot the majority of its production in Manhattan before Tuesday, the Towers should remain in the film.
Spider-Man is about New York City. If there was even a shot of the Towers, they should be there. The film was produced when they stood, and we should not become so sensitive to the memory of them, and the people that they will forever represent, that we or movies studios should backtrack and use technology to remove them from the film.
MIB2 did not shoot it's climax which involved the Towers. I'm sure they will switch to a new building and rework the opening, but if they are in the skyline, leave them.
My feeling is that the films that dealt with terrorism, not the image of once was, will have to be the films that are either shelved or reworked. The sensitivity, at it's core, is about terror, not the victims. If we are going to rework projects to block memories of tragic events, then there is a list of films the length of the Turnpike that would need digital altering.
The Towers should remain as an honor, a tribute. We should not look away, but remember. I'm very sensitive about what happened this week, but I'm prepared to redefine my knowledge about terrorism and where our country is headed but I refuse to alter my memories of the Manhattan skyline, on the sole reason that the terrorists wanted me to.
Let the sequels to these films acknowledge and reflect the New York City of thier day.
The Towers should remain.
Yours, Gary
[Edited last by GaryEA on September 15, 2001 at 09:15 PM]

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I do have a major problem with any filmmakers digitally erasing the presence of the WTC in films that have already been released. I realize this has not occurred (yet), but the sentiment seems to be out there. I understand why the Spiderman trailer would be pulled, and as far as I know, the building was not going to play a similar role in the film.
For films yet to be released, I suppose it's a trickier matter. I guess I'd prefer levelheaded decisions rather than rash choices based on the emotionally charged environment now.
(And for Mariah fans, Glitter is supposed to come out September 21. I am not anxiously waiting...)
------------------
Read my reviews at www.dvdmon.com
Most recent reviews: Mississippi Mermaid, Un Flic, How to Get Ahead in Advertising: The Criterion Collection, WarGames, Open Your Eyes, Waiting for Guffman, Maelstrom
Most recent column: Panning P&S

 

[Seth Paxton]

I looked it up since no one had mentioned it.
Black Hawk Down was already bumped back to March 2002 a few months ago. I had missed that. Anyway, that solves that issue.

 

[Hugh Jackes]

Nate Anderson says:
"Actually, Black Hawk Down should not be delayed since we all want to see those terrorists get thier butts kicked, even if it's in a movie."
Coincidentally, I am reading Black Hawk Down, a gripping, non-fiction, account of an afternoon and night of fighting in Mogadishu, Somalia. I started it before the WTC/Pentagon attacks and am finding it difficult to pick and read now.
Anyway, unfortunately, Rangers and Delta Force guys are the people who get kicked.
[Edited last by Hugh Jackes on September 17, 2001 at 09:14 AM]

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yeah, but as I mentioned, BHD was already bumped till next year for other reasons.
And as you mention, it's just as well because who wants to see D-Force getting spanked in an area not unlike Afghan. considering that it might very well be Rangers and D-Force that have to go in there as well. Doesn't seem like that would be good for American morale.
I'm not sure how I feel about the WTC being digitally removed from Zoolander and Spider-Man. Half understanding, but also half defeated.

 

[Norm]

Hollywoods a Farce, you know in a few years there will be tons of TV movies about the WTC attack!
------------------
Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation
http://apacure.org/

 

[Michael Reuben]

Hopefully, "in a few years", the situation will be very different from what it is today.
M.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Jason, might want to doublecheck on any advances of Training Day. Showed up tonight and was told the screening was pushed back two weeks. Guess I'll go to the Anchor Bay chat...
------------------
Read my reviews at www.dvdmon.com
Most recent reviews: Mississippi Mermaid, Un Flic, How to Get Ahead in Advertising: The Criterion Collection, WarGames, Open Your Eyes, Waiting for Guffman, Maelstrom
Most recent column: Panning P&S

 

[Rob T]

The latest news on Sum of all Fears is that it'll premiere in 2002 as originally planned.
------------------

 

[Jack Briggs]

I've been away for more than a week, and I'm glad I checked this thread out before posting about the topic separately. Which is to say that the talk I've been hearing about the World Trade Center towers being digitally eliminated from existing films is wrongheaded. They were made when the WTC towers were still standing, and it's nothing less than vandalism to alter the films in light of last week's events.
As for terrorist-oriented films being considered now, perhaps it's a matter of good taste and respect for the innocent lives lost that such projects should be shelved for the time being. These wounds are going to take a while to heal (if ever).
How's this for an idea: Instead of movies about buildings and other objects being blown up, why not return to the time-honored concept of well-scripted stories with involving plots that engage the mind and soul? Maybe it's time to ditch the kaboomy popcorn movies for a while.
------------------

 

[GaryEA]

[rant]
From Dark Horizons:

Superman II (DVD): The R2 Project reports that the UK DVD release has been delayed due to the design sleeve
featuring the twin towers.

This is insane. Are we not civilization that can both handle the burden of grief and uncertainty while still being able to look at reminders of the past, no matter how painful? Isn't this trait one of the facets that make us strong and rich in our history and culture, even in the face of death?
Will every film that featured the Twin Towers be evaluated and re-edited, years after their release? Is that where we are headed? Are the Superman films (for example), which brilliantly did not try to hide the fact that no special effect or real city could stand in for the fictional Metropolis other than Manhattan, going to be reissued with new art and "sensitive" edits to reflect that the Towers no longer stand?
Are we in pain? Yes. Angered? Yes. But those buildings were there and no matter how the well-intentioned studios approach this, removing the Towers from films already filmed before the events of 9.11.00, any of them, unless the film directly deals with violence near or around the Towers, are doing a tremendous disservice to everyone.
I've gotten to the point where I am beyond insulted.
[/rant]
Respectfully,
Gary

 

[MickeS]

I'm not sure how I feel about the WTC being digitally removed from Zoolander and Spider-Man. Half understanding, but also half defeated.

I feel OK with it, and if I was the filmmaker, I'd do it too. These movies aren't released yet, and they're supposed to be set in the present time. When they open, present time means no WTC. If the movie had them, it would date the movie.
Movies that have already been released should of course not be altered.
/Mike

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I don't think I've said this here, so sorry if I'm repeating myself. I say this without intending to offend anyone so here goes... While not to the same level, removing the WTC from films released or near release is akin to cutting out the deceased in photographs. I also think those considering doing this, or in the process of it, are only calling more attention to it.
As for the issue of being current, I think most people realize that films weren't shot within the last week. I understand the sensitivity, but it seems to be going above and beyond what is necessary.
------------------
Read my reviews at www.dvdmon.com
Most recent reviews: Mississippi Mermaid, Un Flic, How to Get Ahead in Advertising: The Criterion Collection, WarGames, Open Your Eyes, Waiting for Guffman, Maelstrom
Most recent column: Panning P&S

 

[Michael Reuben]

I don't think you've said anything to offend, Mark, and I know from your many posts on this subject how thoughtfully you've been considering the pros and cons of this issue. So please forgive me for using your example as an occasion to reiterate a point I've tried to make in other threads.
quote: While not to the same level, removing the WTC from films released or near release is akin to cutting out the deceased in photographs.[/quote] That's one way to look at it, but here's another: If somone has suffered the loss of a loved one through a sudden, violent and gruesome death, would you walk up to them and thrust a picture of the deceased in front of their face?
Of course not. And I think that's the perspective from which many filmmakers and TV producers are reevaluating their work, past and present.
The WTC was an integral part of my personal landscape for decades. I didn't work there, but I dined there, visited people in offices there, oriented myself in my downtown travels according to the position of the twin towers, shopped in the concourse, changed trains in the station below, and sat in the plaza on beautiful fall and spring days to admire the scene. The place was an integral part of my life that has been abruptly ripped away, along with the thousands of innocent souls who perished there.
For me, at this point in history, it is painful, physically painful, to see the image of the WTC. It's like the famous Hitchcock example of showing the audience a bomb beneath a table while two people sit there talking baseball. You're no longer listening to the conversation; you're jumping up and screaming, "Do something! You're in danger!!"
In time, that feeling will fade. At least I hope so. But not this year, and probably not next. Assuming I'm not a complete aberration among New Yorkers (and others), I think it's appropriate and decent for Hollywood to consider how its images, past and present, might affect me as an audience member. (It's also good business; you don't want to risk losing millions of paying customers.)
From a detached, analytical point of view, I agree that films and shows already released shouldn't be altered. But there are a lot of them I won't be watching for a long, long time.
M.
[Edited last by Michael Reuben on September 20, 2001 at 01:17 PM]

 

[Steve Felix]

All this reminds me of the story of John Huston and Humphrey Bogart making Across the Pacific in 1941 about a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, when much to their surprise I'm sure, the Japanese DID attack Pearl Harbor. They changed it to the Panama Canal.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Gary, the heck with Superman. Where is King Kong going to go, up the Empire State Building?
Glenn

 

[Jason Whyte]

Jason, might want to doublecheck on any advances of Training Day. Showed up tonight and was told the screening was pushed back two weeks

I checked with friends and the screening here in Victoria played last night, no problems. (I didn't see it myself, was caught at work; will have to wait until the 5th)
Sorry to interrupt, please continue other discussion.
Jason
------------------
Link Removed
[email protected] ICQ: 16733922 I Am Jack's DVD List
"After about five minutes of this movie, you're going to wish you had ten beers." Ghost World
My Own Film Review Website Coming Soon!

 

[Brian Harnish]

I realize that the business decisions that executives in Hollywood face at this time are almost insurmountable, to say the least. What are they going to do three years from now, though? Or even five years from now? Will they release the films that were edited today again as "Special WTC Editions" after the war is over? I should hope not. I'd much rather see the films as they were filmed (before 9/11/01) rather than butchered amalgams of inaccuracies.
It is far more decent and acceptable for studios to edit or digitally alter NEW films if they will be very painful for the audience (such as a film that depicts yet another WTC incident). However, if a film such as Spider-Man uses the WTC as a battleground for Spider-Man to attack and defeat villains, then what's the problem? Wouldn't it boost American morale to see Spidey whoopin' some terrorist butt and saving the day? My guess is: Yes. In the above case, leaving in the WTC is perfectly acceptable. The studios/producers/directors should look at this on a case-by-case basis rather than using a blanket statement to support their actions.
------------------
- Brian
My DVD Collection
Want Sliders on DVD? Then please SIGN the petition!