What's new

More on A.I. and the World Trade Center (1 Viewer)

Brian Perry

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,807
Yes, but Al, is this debate happening only because we happen to be in between theatrical release and DVD release? In other words, let's say the DVD had been released prior to 9/11, towers intact. Is there then a historical obligation to go back in and alter the DVD? I think not. I think the key date is the theatrical release. If the attacks had happened prior to that, I think Spielberg would certainly have removed them.
------------------
Home Theater Pictures
 

Mike_G

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
1,477
Real Name
Mike
I'll say this - we don't know if there's not going to be a WTC or not. Here in the NY area there's a lot of statements made that they WILL be rebuilt. Nobody can say if they'll still be gone in 5 years, or if they'll look different, or if they'd be TALLER.
I don't know, maybe it's because I'm from the area and seeing them removed when we don't really know yet what the fate of that area will be yet seems seriously premature. Spielberg shout NOT remove the towers since they could be rebuilt at any time in the 2000 years between now and when AI takes place.
It's a strange subject, and one that we've never had to deal with before. I think that shots of the skyline should be avoided for the next few years until we know what's going to happen in that area. However, removing the towers could be just as disaterous in the long run as leaving them in. I say this - if you're going to spend the money to wipe the towers out digitally, why not put the actors in a whole different part of the city? That way, you don't interrupt the flow of the film, you don't piss anyone off, and if the towers are rebuilt you can go back and use the original footage. That should make everyone happy.
Mike
------------------
Windows XP Resource
Listen to my radio station - Starman's Neverland
Link Removed
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
I don't think there's an "historical obligation" to preserve the reality of the post-9/11 world - I was just countering the argument that there was some sort of historical obligation to include those towers.
But I do concede your point. I do think this change is more warranted because we're on the brink of the DVD release which, for most intents and purposes, will be the definitive version of the film, and also because it would be such a simple thing to do. We're only talking about one or two shots, and the towers do not figure into the plot of the film. Yes, part of it is that it would be so easy to rectify what would otherwise be an historical inaccuracy.
And I do think we can distinguish this from the Pan Am and Ma Bell references in 2001. Those anachronisms are mildly amusing and, today, even something of a commentary on the way those big corporate entities and monopolies were then perceived as being immune to changing economic and political conditions. But seeing the Pan Am logo, anachronistically, and enjoying the irony of its presence is something of a wholly different nature and a wholly different order than seeing the World Trade Towers, anachronistically, and recalling their destruction and the murder of thousands of people.
And, still, some may suggest that leaving them is in some way a tribute to those who died. Well, I can see their point and their heart is certainly in the right place, but let's make no mistake: leaving them there is, in some way, to pretend that they were never destroyed. Indeed, if Speilberg removes them, their very absence from that so familiar skyline will be both notable and historically truthful. And I'd certainly understand if Speilberg feels that he should be faithful to the historical truth of the pitiless murder of thousands of people in a way that he or Kubrick probably wouldn't feel the need to be faithful to the historical truth of Pan Am's bankruptcy. The two are similar in that they both represent historical anachronisms, but wholly different when we consider the nature and human significance of their respective ends.
 

MichaelPe

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 22, 1999
Messages
1,115
If the studios plan on removing WTC scenes from their films, they should at least keep them on the DVD as part of a "deleted scene" feature. I watched A.I. again in theaters recently (after 9/11), and the scenes with the towers really made a powerful impact.
------------------
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/005780-2.html
MY TOP 20 OF 2001
 

Joel C

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 23, 1999
Messages
1,633
I think calling, as you put it, "one brief shot" in this film "revising history." A.I. has no basis in current reality. It is a fantasy, for the most part, even if it is "set" in our world. I hardly think we'd look to it as a historical record.
------------------
Joel
[email protected]
"I've been very lonely in my isolated tower of indecipherable speech."
digitallyOBSESSED
 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink
To pretend that the towers still exist is to close our eyes to the sad reality of their destruction.
I think the greater crime would be to pretend that they never existed in the first place. "A.I." was made while the towers still stood. The audience knows that. Leaving the towers in the movie isn't an attempt to pretend they're still there, it's just an acknowledgment that they used to be there, as they were when "A.I." was made.
 

Robyn Young

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 23, 2001
Messages
113
My real problem with this is simply the fact that I did not see AI in the theaters. Therefore, the version that will be on the dvd will not be the same. What's the point of home theater if the "home" version is altered.
My simple opinion about the removal of the wtc is that it is inappropriate in any way, shape or form. Period. Every removal amounts to a small victory for the terrorists, and quite frankly, I want every picture of the wtc preserved, not edited out like it never existed.
Robyn
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
"A.I." was made while the towers still stood.
Yes, but it's not as if they were photographed for the film. What appears near the end is a digital simulation that inserts the towers into a landscape thousands of years in the future. Since there was no "historical accuracy" in the original shot, there'd be no "inaccuracy" in changing it (which I suspect won't happen in any case).
M.
 

Lance Nichols

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 29, 1998
Messages
726
We'll have something there, but not a pair of 110-story towers. Nobody will build them; nobody will finance them; and nobody will occupy them.
That is one of the greater tragedies. Like films, arcitecture represents humanity's dreams and aspirations. Skyscrapers not only represent an incredible way to efficiently use landspace (something that is at a premium in any major city), but they represent humanity's reaching upward and onward in many peoples minds.
I am saddened slightly every time I hear something along the lines of "They will be rebuilt/replaced, but not by anything tall". I seriously belive that that is a failure of spirit and belief.
Someone should finance them, buld them and occupy them. To rehash what is rapidly becoming a cliche, "other wise the terrorists have won".
I am still personally on the fence about the posssible digital removal of the towners in the upcoming DVD. I don't like seeing films altered just for the sake of it, but if you were trying to create a beliveable post apcolyptic future then maybe they should not be in there. THat beinsaid, maybe they should be "replaced" with a fictional, impressive and GRAND rebuilt WTC.
------------------
"Dear Diary, My teen angst bullshit now has a body count" - Veronica Sawyer
Lance Nichols
The Nichols Collection, now showing.
 

Ryan Spaight

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
676
The point is not whether towers really will be there in the far future, the point is that they were there when the movie was made.
There are numerous post-apocalyptic films out there that include the Twin Towers as a touchstone of "the world that was." Going through and removing them now would be an artistic, moral and political disaster.
What's next, going back and changing 2001 so that it's a Microsoft videophone, not Bell? So that it's a Delta space shuttle, not Pan Am? While we're at it, we need to change the title of the movie, since we really didn't find a black monolith on the moon this year.
Last I heard, nuclear war didn't happen in 1997. Should we go back and change Terminator 2?
And 1984 sure didn't happen like in the book. Let's edit it.
Wow, isn't *that* ironic...
Ryan
 

Mike_G

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
1,477
Real Name
Mike
Lance,
Then they should have been removed from Final Fantasy, but weren't. You saw what kind of uproar the "Escape From New York" rumor caused. I guess it's easy to dismiss the towers without ever seeing them, or been in them. In my case I saw them at least 5 days out of the week.
Here's something to chew on. Last week I was invited to the Windows XP party. On my way there I took the NJ Turnpike which, as everyone from this area knows, gives you an excellent view of the skyline. For the first time I saw the entire skyline without the towers and it was then that I really understood what it's like to not have them anymore. It was much different than not seeing them in the distance like I did almost every day. Now that I think about it, I think I'll make a final decision - the towers should stay in everything that they were filmed with. Erasing them would be like erasing photos of a family member that was killed.
Mike
------------------
Windows XP Resource
Listen to my radio station - Starman's Neverland
Link Removed
 

Karl Englebright

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 9, 1999
Messages
122
"I wonder if Spielberg would change CE3K if Devil's Tower was toppled in an earthquake. The movie does start out saying "Present Day".
Leave the towers in A.I.! It's a fantasy movie, and we don't yet know if we'll have towers again in 5 years."
Here is a thought, that would go through my mind if I were Spielberg...
So what happens if leaving the towers in causes the audience start drifting towards what happened on 9/11, thus destroying the original artistic intent of the scene? Wouldn't the director be trying to regain the original artistic intent of his movie by removing the image?
[Edited last by Karl Englebright on October 30, 2001 at 01:16 PM]
 

Mike_G

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
1,477
Real Name
Mike
"So what happens if leaving the towers in causes the audience start drifting towards what happened on 9/11, thus destroying the original artistic intent of the scene? Wouldn't the director be trying to regain the original artistic intent of his movie by removing the image?"
Do people really think about this for tragedies like Natalie Wood's drowning, or untimely deaths of other stars?
If, God forbid, something happened to one of the stars of one of Spielberg's films, would he digitally replace him with someone else?
LEAVE THE TOWERS IN!
Mike
------------------
Windows XP Resource
Listen to my radio station - Starman's Neverland
Link Removed
 

Lance Nichols

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 29, 1998
Messages
726
Erasing them would be like erasing photos of a family member that was killed.
- Mike G
Mike, I totally agree with you. I was floating the possibility of having a "rebuilt" WTC as an alternative to not having it at all. I really DON'T think we should be going through old historical documents and removing any reference of the twin towers (and film represents a social/historical document). Ok, maybe I am not on the fence after all.
That being said, there is a historical, and real precedent for documents being altered to suit either the current mores, or what the "victor" believed. I don't support it (document alteration), and in this day and age, it might be easier to fight then before, when the sources of these documents were more centralized.
------------------
"Dear Diary, My teen angst bullshit now has a body count" - Veronica Sawyer
Lance Nichols
The Nichols Collection, now showing.
 

Bill Catherall

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 1, 1997
Messages
1,560
Just for the sake of accuracy...A.I. takes place just over 100 years in the future. At least the scene in question is about 100 years in the future.
I say keep them in the movie.
------------------
Bill
biggrin.gif

mickey31.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,552
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top