What's new

The truth revealed (formerly "Now an entire subplot of OCEANS ELEVEN is being cut! ") (1 Viewer)

Mark E J

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 26, 2000
Messages
283
You know what really p***s me off is that we have this film being edited, Collateral Damage being bumped, Windtalkers being moved to summer, dozens of trailers and movies removing the Twin Towers, the pilot of The Agency "never seeing the light of day", and Friends and 24 being re-edited, all to show respect for the horrible tragedy of 9-11-01. Yet in a few weeks there will be a "very special" terroist episode of The West Wing, that will show the WTC and Pentagon bombings in all their horror then show Martin Sheen dealing with it.
Even worse this show will have no mention of last years cliffhanger, nor will there be any mention of this "stand alone" episode during the rest of the season. Now can someone tell me why movies and tv shows that were made long before the bombings have to be altered or removed but Aron Sorkin and NBC can capitialize on the tragedy by using it as fictional drama?
I can see only 2 possible resons for doing this episode at all, 1 to shamelessly use real tragedy as a excuse to grab ratings, or 2 to show the President and the American people what were doing wrong, and how we should REALLY be reacting to this. Either way to rush an episode just to show a FICTIONAL President dealing with this REAL LIFE crisis is sick, and if Sorkin/NBC can get away with it then we should be allowed to see OE uncut.
patriot.gif

[Edited last by Mark E J on October 01, 2001 at 03:38 AM]
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,599
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Members,
Let's discuss the issue at hand and not personal opinions about other members.
Crawdaddy
------------------
 

ChristopherS

Second Unit
Joined
May 28, 2000
Messages
295
Mark E J,
My wife and I had that exact conversation last night. I think both NBC and the West Wing better tread very carefully or face a consumer backlash that could destroy an excellent television series. If the show ran without commercials it might (stress might) not be too bad as no one is making money off the WTC tragedy.
Chris
 

Dawn_R

Grip
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
15
Hi all,
I found this article and now am just wondering whether this is encouraging news, in other words better by far than what we'd been hearing....or whether it's still a matter of sensibilities *possibly* being taken just a mite too far. Myself, I think that if this article's on the money then it's a *huge* relief and maybe we needn't be quite so concerned anymore....maybe. :) 'Course, that we got to this point at *all*....
************************
OCEAN'S TO OPEN
Soderbergh confirms scene won't make it into 'Ocean's Eleven'
Norm Clarke Las Vegas Review Journal 9/28/01
An 11th-hour re-editing for "Ocean's Eleven" won't scuttle the film's world premiere here on Dec. 7.
A Warner Bros. spokesman, speaking for director Steven Soderbergh, confirmed the New York-New York implosion scene is being removed.
"Due to the recent terrorist attacks in New York City and out of respect for any uneasiness this scene may cause, Steven Soderbergh decided to reshoot that scene to replace New York-New York with a fictional casino," the spokesman said.
The computer-generated implosion was part of a demolition, not a bombing, he noted.
The premiere will be at the "O" Theatre at the Bellagio, where much of the film was shot.
**********
I think what I twigged to there was the mention that they decided to change the *name* of the casino in question and yet not omitting the scene itself entirely. In other words, if the scene itself is still in there, that would *definitely* be a vast improvement over *not* seeing it at all....obviously.
wink.gif

Yet for all that, I think the fact of the matter still remains that it shouldn't have come to this at all....film reshoots and editing and suchlike on this point shouldn't even be an *issue*. Of course we're walking a fine line here, but I would think that if we start constantly monitoring even the tiniest detail and possibly freaking out over it....then aren't we only making it worse for ourselves? These films are our way of escape, and hopefully an avenue for healing....and despite what's happened I'm just not sure that they should suffer because of it. Of course, because I *have* been so eager for "Ocean's 11" for a long time now, I'm that much more hypersensitive and protective of it.
wink.gif

Thoughts?
Dawn.
 

Dawn_R

Grip
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
15
*ahem* Double post, first one *ever* on my part; I hadn't realized the first one got through this morning, and for the double post I must most humbly apologize and then smack myself upside the head. :) Still, this is what I didn't say before....hope that's alright....
I'm minded also to mention Roger Ebert's remarks from this weekend's show where he talked about the possibility of editing the Towers out of films and TV shows (such as "Friends", unfortunately, as has been mentioned) - and he didn't beat around the bush in making his opinion loud and clear and *very* gratifying to me, I must say. I was rather proud to hear him addressing this issue directly and talking about how, in his opinion, the Towers should *never* be edited out of anything. Indeed, they should be digitally inserted into shots, as he put it, so that they stand forever proud, gleaming and beautiful.
And when he demonstrated his points by showing clips from several films, shots of the Towers standing proud and tall in radiant sunrises....to see them again....it brought a lump to my throat, of course, but this time it was because seeing them that way was....they were beautiful. That's the way I think most of us would wish to remember them, and as symbol of that pride and strength, that towering fortitude and triumph over adversity, I think that they *should* be kept in films and TV....like Roger Ebert said this weekend, as testament to their glory and to the strength, the diamond brillance of New York and the country as a whole. Very definitely, I am *most* glad that he addressed this issue, because I daresay that he's nailed it right on the head this time. Yes, I know, I'm as stunned about that as anyone.
wink.gif

Dawn.
[Edited last by Dawn_R on October 01, 2001 at 07:47 PM]
 

David_LM

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 20, 2000
Messages
61
Let's just hope the DVD has the option of viewing the theatrical version of the movie with scene cut or the otpion of viewing the movie with the cut scene restored.
 

Dawn_R

Grip
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
15
About the hoped-for possibility of deleted scenes restored on the DVD....I quite agree, and in fact that was one of the first notions that struck me upon hearing this troubling news. What a laden, rich DVD that would make for, eh? :) Still, what does it say about me that I was already hungrily salivating and eager over the notion of the "Ocean's 11" DVD when it hasn't even hit theatres yet.... *grins* Yep, I'm gleefully obsessed, all right, I admit it.
wink.gif
Then again, I was doing the same thing with "Harry Potter", so I suppose it's all of a piece....
Still, regarding this whole issue, has anyone else noticed - or heard mention of - a definitive backlash by consumers, i.e. the public at large, regarding this hypersensitive attitude that has been taken? That is to say, I would *think* that if most people as a whole, such as the moviegoing public, spoke up and said that they just didn't see how altering scenes or taking them out, this form of - well, of *censorship*, really - was doing any good at all....if the studios or management at large knew how people really felt, then perhaps they'd be less likely to take this controversial little route. Of course, it could be that I'm being too idealistic, unrealistic in my hopes perhaps....but never mind. *sighs*
Dawn.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Still, regarding this whole issue, has anyone else noticed - or heard mention of - a definitive backlash by consumers, i.e. the public at large, regarding this hypersensitive attitude that has been taken?
I certainly see signs of a backlash against removing the image of the twin towers from location shots already filmed (as was done, for example, in a few shots in Zoolander). With the exception of this thread, though, I haven't seen any backlash against filmmakers avoiding images of New York City blowing up.
M.
 

Dawn_R

Grip
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
15
Mmmm, yes, I'd heard of what was done in those few shots in "Zoolander", and I agree that is rather reprehensible when you consider that the towers were *there* at the time, and people are more liable to be put off, jarred right out of the film, if they *don't* see the towers there as they would have been at the time. Of course, it would strike me that "Zoolander" isn't exactly a film that'll suffer either way, aside from being pure escapist, mindless fare....I would think. :)
Personally, I feel that if people know that the towers were standing in a scene that's been shot, and then they see the finished film only to then note that the towers have been edited *out* - it must really be rather unnerving, and even I am troubled by something like that. Of course, on this particular point I also consider news of some recent movie screenings where audiences, upon seeing the towers still standing in one scene or another, burst into spontaneous applause and cheers....and to me that says a *lot* about just what people can handle.
Now, I wholly understand why a film like "Collateral Damage", whose central theme is terrorism, has been set aside indefinitely; doubtless it'll be released at some future point, but for now I think people in general have accepted that *this* film, with its specific theme, should just wait a little while - until we're well and ready for it. And I think this same concept applies with those TV shows whose episodes have either been postponed or scrapped entirely, such as ones I've heard about dealing with Osama bin Laden in particular....that it's just too *soon*, right now, for that because it's too bang on the nose, hits *too* close to home and all that.
But what strikes me about this particular case - and is starting to make me angry again, grrrrrr, I *knew* I wasn't okay with it! :) - is that this particular scene in "Ocean's 11" involving the New York, New York casino - it isn't attacked. It's not deliberately bombed. Unless I am vastly mistaken, I think the scene was that the casino is *demolished*....and so is that not a considerable difference, then, and sets it far apart from something like "Collateral Damage"....*very* different issues involved here, as I see it.
Now I suppose I can see where the fear might lie *here*, since any scene of the casino being demolished, imploding in other words, might bear a resemblance to....well, I guess the fear there might be that it would be *reminiscent* of the towers. I understand *that* well enough. But on the other hand, I don't think any of this precludes the fact that someday we *will* be able to watch footage of old, run-down buildings being demolished - because it has to keep happening, and I would imagine that soon enough we'll be able to handle it again. There's really no way around it....
But really, though, despite my sympathy, my deep sensitivity, I simply cannot understand how this particular sequence in "Ocean's 11" - the demolishing of a *casino* called New York, New York - would be deemed so objectionable as to be changed, edited from a film that isn't even due to be released for some two months yet. I mean, if the issue was one of allowing enough time to heal, to put some distance between us and what's happened, then certainly they could have delayed the release date....after all, isn't that what they're doing for movies like "Collateral Damage"?
And then, too, I also think that if they were concerned about offending people, the sensitivity of the issue, they could always have placed a small message at the beginning of the film simply stating what I put forth before....namely, that the scene was filmed well before recent events and that no offense or emotional distress is intended as a result. As an example, I know that the soap opera "Days of Our Lives" did that very same thing, I believe with regards to an ongoing storyline featuring people in mortal peril....and there seemed to be no problem with it. Now, now, I know what you're bound to say to that....but regardless of whether we're talking about a soap opera or primetime TV or a film, I think this argument still seems reasonable enough. :)
It's just....well, honestly, I do not think that people would find the scene originally involving the New York, New York casino as objectionable or sensitive as, say, the studio heads seem to think. We're a hardy bunch, we avid filmgoers, and I think we can handle an awful lot. :) But even if they *were* concerned about it, there were other solutions they could've taken without ever having to go the route of altering a film that doesn't *need* to be in the first place. Now, to be sure I'm taking this somewhat personally because - well, it's "Ocean's 11", period
wink.gif
- but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be defending any other film any less passionately in this same regard.
I honestly feel that these scenes *do* have a right to stay in there, and if we constantly second-guess ourselves and become overly hyper-sensitive or frantic with worry, if we go on a frenzy of digital editing....then the terrorists have truly succeeded in their aim to instill fear, nervousness and uncertainty in us. And since film can truly be a powerful mechanism for pride and triumph and, yes, patriotism as well - I don't think we should *ever* allow ourselves to succumb in the slightest. We're too strong for that, I would think.
And, thus, in the large things and the small - whether it's in postponing a film's release (understandable in some cases but they shouldn't be permanently canned either, I think we should keep that in mind) or digitally editing them....well, we should truly, deeply *think* about what we're proposing here, that's all. Because once we embark upon this route, it's a long, steep and slippery slope that may lead us places we don't want to think of. :)
Blessings,
Dawn.
 

Dawn_R

Grip
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
15
*sighs and shakes her head in amused bewilderment* Oh, well.... Double-posting woes to the notwithstanding, has anyone else happened to check out the official "Ocean's 11" trailer that was finally made available today? I believe it's accessible through darkhorizons.com or some such thing - don't quote me on that
wink.gif
- but my problem with *that* is that it's not in Quicktime format, so I guess I'll be waiting that much longer to download this little gem....argh. :) But seeing clips of it on AH today....my oh *my*....now I know all the more just why I've been insatiably, wildly eager and fanatical for this one....and why I'm already counting down the hours, minutes, and very seconds until December 7th. Wow, I say! :)
Dawn.
[Edited last by Dawn_R on October 04, 2001 at 10:09 PM]
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Dawn, just to be clear:
1. I agree with Ben Stiller's decision to edit a few shots in Zoolander. As I said in the review thread, there are very few shots affected, and I wouldn't even have noticed if this subject hadn't been so intensely discussed on HTF. Given the nature of the film, keeping the towers in would have been more distracting than taking them out, IMO.
2. I don't know why everyone is so quick to assume that it's the "studio heads" or "the suits" who are considering whether to make changes. The reports on O11 suggest that it's the filmmakers themselves. I continue to believe that none of us is in any position to second-guess the filmmakers on movies we haven't even seen yet. (Second-hand reports from undisclosed sources allegedly close to the production don't count.) I prefer to trust the filmmakers to use their best judgment under the circumstances.
M.
[Edited last by Michael Reuben on October 05, 2001 at 12:12 AM]
 

Dawn_R

Grip
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
15
Michael,
Oh, yes, I quite understand what you mean.... Personally I've not seen "Zoolander", for one, and have no intention to do so, but if, given the film's content and release date, it was deemed best to remove the towers from those few scenes - then on the one hand I *do* wholly understand, but on the other, well....oh, I admit it, this isn't an easy decision to make in *any* regard by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of the path one takes. To leave the towers in, to not leave the towers in....it's just hard, no two ways around it, and at present I truly do not envy anyone who is forced to consider it. :)
As regards to "Ocean's 11" and the slight editing job done there, though....well, yes, again I quite agree, I see the point there; I think on some level we all almost *hope* that it's the studio execs, the "suits" as it were, who are responsible for actions such as these so that we can then ream them out hard and fast for it....in other words, we have no problem targeting *them*....believe me.
wink.gif
After all, there are those who would undoubtedly say that studio heads can be the worst torture device ever devised by man, intended only to drive we good, honest, dedicated filmgoers downright insane....but that's another point for another day, I would think. *grins*
No, what I was merely thinking of in this particular regard, with the fact that if it *is* indeed the filmmakers themselves who are choosing to make the edits to "Ocean's 11" - say, Steven Soderbergh himself - then I would wonder, on one hand, whether perhaps they're doing it as sort of a pre-emptive strike type of thing, in order to sidestep any potential future criticism they would have faced had they left it pristine and unedited. Goodness, I hope that was coherent enough....
Yet another aspect of it, to me, is to wonder whether the filmmakers - say, Soderbergh himself - are aware that most filmgoers, the people avidly, eagerly awaiting this movie in particular - would not object in the least to its content and to this "questionable" (!!!) scene....in other words, I'm just not entirely certain that most people, upon seeing it as-is, *would* raise a big ruckus about it....and if the filmmakers fully understood this, then perhaps they'd be less likely to react in such a fashion.
Again, this is but my own humble take on the situation....and all this, of course, stems only from my intense eagerness for the film and the fact that I would love nothing more than to see it released pristine and unchanged in *any* way....I'm sure I can't be the only one who *is* this way about the films I love and so look forward to. Truly, movies *are* just one of those things....it's remarkable, that's what I say. :) And, yes, of course we want to trust in the filmmakers' best judgement, and oftentimes our trust *is* well-and-truly rewarded....but then when you feel as if the films you care about are in jeopardy in any way, well, you can tend to react from a place of pure visceral emotion....and that's not necessarily all *that* bad.
wink.gif

Dawn.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
I thought it would be interesting to revisit this thread now that I've seen the movie.

Am I correct that the scenes that were so hotly debated in this thread are the ones involving the demolition of Elliott Gould's old hotel? If so, could someone please explain to me how those constitute an "entire subplot", a "MAJOR portion" of the film, or any of the other exaggerated descriptions that people were hyperventilating about?

M.
 

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,566
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
Michael
Considering the past history of the originator (now banned) of this thread, it doesn't surprise me that it was an extreme exaggeration.
The scene in question as shown had very little to do with the rest of the film and I can't see how it could have been a major sub-plot.
Any one who has read the script care to fill us in on exactly what changes were made?
 

Brad_W

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
1,358
Neil, I'll do it for you:
Proportion out of blown another matter looks like, Yeah.
:)
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
whaa...(where's the double-take smiley) :):p)
I doubt that NY, NY was Gould's old hotel since it's pretty new and I doubt they would bother to have a fake of it demo'd and would have no real footage of it going down.
could be I suppose though.
Did they use a real casino demo in the film? I bet they did, they drop those suckers every other week it seems like. Get us JohnS over here, Mr. Vegas. Or Chmiel.
Either way, I would suspect that it might have had something to do with the diversion or power outage.
This is "never read the script" guessing of course. YMMV.
 

MichaelPe

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 22, 1999
Messages
1,115
I guess this explains it:
An 11th-hour re-editing for "Ocean's Eleven" won't scuttle the film's world
premiere here on Dec. 7.
A Warner Bros. spokesman, speaking for director Steven Soderbergh, confirmed
the New York-New York implosion scene is being removed.
"Due to the recent terrorist attacks in New York City and out of respect for
any uneasiness this scene may cause, Steven Soderbergh decided to reshoot that
scene to replace New York-New York with a fictional casino," the spokesman
said.
The computer-generated implosion was part of a demolition, not a bombing, he
noted.
The premiere will be at the "O" Theatre at the Bellagio, where much of the film
was shot.
 

Mark Cappelletty

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 6, 1999
Messages
2,322
I'm curious about this subplot as well, as the casino being destroyed/demolished is clearly the Desert Inn, which was brought down, I believe, during the making of the film, much in the same way the Sands was used in Con Air and the original Aladdin in Mars Attacks!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,583
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
1
Top