What's new

More on A.I. and the World Trade Center (2 Viewers)

Brian Perry

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,807
*EDIT: Again, I think it's highly significant to recognize that Speilberg is or may be altering his film to accurately reflect a historical truth - the destruction of the world trade towers in the year 2001 - not to deny or revise that historical truth.
Hypothetical question: let's say the flyover of underwater NY had been left on the cutting room floor for the theatrical release, but for some reason Spielberg wanted to include it on the DVD, perhaps as a tribute. Would that be okay since it's his piece of art, or wrong because he'd be making it less accurate, historically?
------------------
Home Theater Pictures
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
Even though I think the point of historical accuracy is significant in the context of this discussion (where Spielberg is being accused of "historical revisionism"), I placed that point in a footnote both times for a reason. And that reason is that although historical accuracy is important, it's secondary to another consideration (though, in this instance, the two are inextricably bound together).
And that other consideration is narrative logic. This includes the verisimilitude of the setting and the question of anachronism as it pertains to that particular shot, the purpose of which is only to identify a location and a time-period. Clearly, in this instance, the presence of those towers is anachronistic. Unlike, for example, the opening montage of Woody Allen's Manhattan, those towers simply should not be there.
So, I would say, first, that Spielberg has the right to revise or alter his film as he sees fit. Second, this revision of his film is the right thing to do because the presence of the towers detracts from the viewer's willing suspension of disbelief by positing the existence of a thing which everyone in the world knows would not exist in the timeframe of the film. Just as it would be a mistake to include a shot of those towers in a film set in a period prior to their construction, and just as it would be a mistake to show their conspicuous absence in a film set in the period between their construction and destruction, so too would it be a mistake to include them in a film set in a period after their destruction.
And, finally, let me concede once again that I do think this change is more warranted because this was a film released to theaters last summer, and we're now on the brink of the DVD release. It provides an ideal opportunity for this change, and it would be such a simple change to make. After all, we're only talking about one or two shots, and the towers do not figure into the plot of the film other than to identify the setting and time-frame (which, alas, their presence now contradicts). Yes, part of why I would urge that this change be made is simply because it would be so easy to rectify what would otherwise be a glaring anachronism. After all, if Spielberg was shooting this film today, he certainly would not have included that shot.
So, if you accept that Speilberg has the right to revise his film and if you agree that this revision is necessary to preserve narrative logic, then why would you otherwise argue that they should be left in the film? Are there other, more significant principles at stake?
 

Todd H

Go Dawgs!
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 27, 1999
Messages
2,269
Location
Georgia
Real Name
Todd
What the hell...I guess the ists have won. Let's just remove any mention of the towers from every book and movie ever made. I guess I'm just not "politically correct" enough to understand.
Look...if someone wants to makes changes to one of their movies, then fine. But at least offer the original release as well. I fear that many of these movies will never be viewed in their original form again. I'd love to see the A.I., E.T., and Star Wars that I remember seeing at the theater. Looks like that will soon be an impossibility.
I'm done with this.
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
What the hell...I guess the ists have won. Let's just remove any mention of the towers from every book and movie ever made.
Solid proof that you haven't been paying attention. You are hereby caught, red-handed, and sentenced to reread this entire thread. If you refuse and continue to post such blatant inaccuracies, constructing strawmen willy-nilly, then prepare to be ignored! :)
 

Jason Harbaugh

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,968
Here is an interesting question. What will they do when we WILL rebuild the towers, even if they are not the same as before? Will Speilberg go back and reinsert these new ones into the movie? My beef with all of the digitally editing out the towers is that we(they) are trying to make it seem like the WTC never existed. Out of sight, out of mind. I think it is more politically incorrect to remove the towers than to leave them in films. IMO. :)
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
Here is an interesting question. What will they do when we WILL rebuild the towers, even if they are not the same as before? Will Speilberg go back and reinsert these new ones into the movie?
If he had the wherewithal (money and technology) to do so, would you have a problem with it?
[Edited last by Al Brown on October 31, 2001 at 11:56 AM]
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
My beef with all of the digitally editing out the towers is that we(they) are trying to make it seem like the WTC never existed. Out of sight, out of mind.
And my beef with statements like this is that they're factually inaccurate. There has been no wholesale effort to remove the towers from the vast majority of films in which they appear (a partial list can be found here ). We're dealing with a small number of recent or upcoming films where the presence of the towers may create narrative or tonal problems.
For anyone who lives here, there's no such thing as "out of sight, out of mind" when it comes to the WTC.
M.
 

Ryan Spaight

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
676
So it's OK to remove them from A.I., but not from Escape From New York? Will someone explain what the difference is?
A.I. was created in a world where the towers had not been destroyed. The simple fact that the towers have been destroyed should not invalidate the art.
SF/fantasy/speculative fiction relies on the question "what if". If every time the real world diverges from the "what if" world, we went back and changed things, we might as well not wonder "what if" at all.
I mean, come on folks, there is an infinite number of things in A.I. that will never happen. Why worry about just one?
I hope we're not mangling the movie just to avoid a "anachronism" line in the IMDB.
Ryan
 

Richard Kim

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2001
Messages
4,385
What will they do when we WILL rebuild the towers, even if they are not the same as before?
Wishful thinking. You're saying that as if it's a foregone conclusion that the towers will be rebuilt, which it most certainly is not. Nobody knows what will be done with Ground Zero, once the wreckage is cleaned up. Perhaps a memorial to the victims will be built there, who knows?
 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink
So, I would say, first, that Spielberg has the right to revise or alter his film as he sees fit. Second, this revision of his film is the right thing to do because the presence of the towers detracts from the viewer's willing suspension of disbelief by positing the existence of a thing which everyone in the world knows would not exist in the timeframe of the film. Just as it would be a mistake to include a shot of those towers in a film set in a period prior to their construction, and just as it would be a mistake to show their conspicuous absence in a film set in the period between their construction and destruction, so too would it be a mistake to include them in a film set in a period after their destruction.
I think Ryan's got the right idea. I'm not sure when exactly "A.I." is set (I haven't seen it yet), but I assure you that when we get there, the presense of the WTC will be but one of millions of little things that don't actually fit with history. What makes this particular difference okay to revise, and why haven't we done the same with 2001, T2, and other films whose future is now in our past, and has been proven inacurrate?
 

Jason Borchers

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 14, 2001
Messages
437
SF/fantasy/speculative fiction relies on the question "what if". If every time the real world diverges from the "what if" world, we went back and changed things, we might as well not wonder "what if" at all.
Well said!
That's one of the points I wanted to voice in this subject, but I couldn't express it as well as you did. Thank you.
 

Ted Todorov

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2000
Messages
3,706
I don't want to veer off topic here, but:
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.
M.
I personally think and hope that they will be rebuilt -- maybe a 120-story pair, but at least as tall and glorious as before. About the financing: lest we engage in historical revisionism to go with our film revisionism: the WTC towers were built with 100% public funds by the NY/NJ Port Authority in the first place. Funding will come from insurance money, plus Federal aid ($20 billion has been pledged so far, etc.) plus PA funds. The PA will rebuild them. Many, many companies will eagerly occupy them if offered long term leases at bellow market rent. If the "nobody will occupy them" statement is to be taken seriously, then no one should want to occupy the Empire State Building either -- it should have been empty by now -- certainly the same logic applies to it. But it isn't empty -- most people aren't ready to run and hide. My old company, Telerate, used to be on the 104th floor (in what was to become Cantor's offices) and I would gladly work in a rebuilt WTC. I work on Wall St., a couple of blocks from the WTC site, so these statements are not being made from some safe distance. And as to the WTC, anything less than what we had before will be an admission of defeat.
To get back to A.I Spielberg will feel very, very silly (to say the least) if he does indeed edit the WTC out of the DVD release of the movie and the Twin Towers are then rebuilt.
I agree with Al Brown's points on what does or doesn't constitute a finished work of art. I strongly disagree with his point on narrative logic and anachronism in A.I. for the reasons stated above.
Ted
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Ted, those are admirable sentiments, but the economic realities make a rebuilt set of towers unlikely.
In the interest of avoiding thread drift, let's move this to email.
M.
 

Ted Todorov

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2000
Messages
3,706
You mean, because they might be rebuilt?
Yes, exactly. And even if the movie is viewed between their destruction and rebuilding, the audience can easily imagine that they are there because they were rebuilt.
(And, yes I did see (and rather liked) A.I.)
Ted
 

Charles Bober

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 5, 1999
Messages
199
My whole take on this is the deleting of the WTC Towers anywhere shows the terrorists that they've won. They've gotten so much into the psyche of Americans, that we're now willing to edit our history, our art to either be "PC" or to lessen some alleged pain. They win because we're altering our lives because of their actions. They've succeeded in terrorizing us because we've allowed them to do so......and we have people defending these alterations of life. Now that's pathetic and downright un-American.
Leave the Towers in A.I Mr. Spielberg, or you're admitting to terrorists everyhwere that they've succeeded. IMHO, you're encouraging their actions and that's a dangerous precedent.
------------------
DTS Laser Disc. Size Does Matter
 

Todd H

Go Dawgs!
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 27, 1999
Messages
2,269
Location
Georgia
Real Name
Todd
I was going to leave well enough alone, but somehow got pulled back in!
Personally, I think this whole anachronism argument is just a thinly veiled excuse to make the movie more "PC.". Most movies are fantasy, except for things like documentaries. And A.I. is definitely no documentary. And this whole "how do you know they will rebuilt" idea is absurd as well. How do you know they WON"T be rebuilt? Are you Mistress Cleo in disguise? Hmmmm...
I look at it this way...the terrorists may have succeeded in knocking down the actual towers in NY, but the structures will live on in our minds, souls, hearts, TV, books, and movies (at least until everyone decides to edit them out). Removing images of them from movies won't bring back the innocent lives lost. It won't erase history and make things right. It won't take the pain away. We still have to live with the fact that they're gone. Let's not try to crawl under a table and hide, pretending that it never happened. It did happen. Life goes on.
Personally, I am sick of this whole revisionist attitude permeating the movie industry these days. I guess I'll buy a laserdisc player so I can buy some of my favorites in their original form before they disappear forever. I fear for Raiders of the Lost Ark, my favorite movie. I hope Lucas and Spielberg will leave well enough alone, but I have a feeling that they won't be able to resist tinkering.
And by the way...please no more subtle jabs at me. Implying that all I do is watch DVDs and that I didn't read this whole thread is insulting, no matter how many smilies you put at the end. NOW I'm done.
[Edited last by Todd H on October 31, 2001 at 04:46 PM]
[Edited last by Todd H on October 31, 2001 at 06:13 PM]
 

Robert Franklin

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 3, 2001
Messages
153
I don't think that we should be offended. I think it would be best if there were some type of homage to those that lost their lives and to those that sacrificed their lives to save others. I too would think that would make a very bad decision on the part of the producers.
 

John Miles

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 16, 2000
Messages
236
This seems to be the extreme example of the principle that you're working from. When a film is "finished", it's "finished", and no one, not even the author of that film, is obliged to alter it ever again. Does this adequately express your opinion on the matter?
Actually, not quite. I still have one question: when is a work of art "finished" in your mind? Upon it's first public viewing, perhaps? Would you agree with a definition that states "once an artist has presented his/her work to the public, that artist shall no longer alter it". Is this an adequate expression of your opinion on the matter?
Others have made the points I was trying to make just as well as I could, really. But the "slippery slope" argument does a good job of expressing my problems with the edit. Between now and the time that a hypothetical global warming trend covers Manhattan with water, any number of events could take place in New York that would alter the appearance of its skyline. Buildings will be built. Buildings will be torn down, legitimately or otherwise. There might be earthquakes, fires, floods, explosions, wars. Architectural trends we can't even imagine will come and pass; the city's population will rise and fall. It will be a very long time, if ever, before climate change renders Manhattan uninhabitable by putting it hundreds of feet under water.
So are you suggesting that Spielberg and his editorial heirs are somehow responsible for keeping A.I. up to date with geographic and social trends from now until Manhattan meets its watery doom? If so, that's absurd IMHO. Static works of fiction don't need to be updated and "improved" constantly like computer software or flight-sim games. A work of fiction is an attempt to communicate the creator's vision at the time of creation to his/her audience. That's all anyone has a right to expect.
Now, should the fixity of a work of fiction be some sort of "rule?" Of course not. Again, I agree with your repeated assertion that this question should be left for Spielberg and no one else to decide. I'm just telling you what I'd tell good ol' Steve-O if he were sitting in my living room asking my opinion over a beer. Sheer practicality demands that a far-future film such as A.I. be declared "finished" at some point, and I believe that point coincides with the film's theatrical release. It's as good a time as any.
Besides all that, you simply can't escape the point I and several others have made: every time we alter our lives to conform to the results of terrorism, THEY WIN.
furious.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,712
Messages
5,121,142
Members
144,147
Latest member
cennetkaralowa
Recent bookmarks
0
Top