4 ms·

I'd also point at this big old list of media effected by 9/11[1] - I think the most notable one at the time was 2002 Spiderman which released a trailer containi

by munk-a 4y ago

I'd also point at this big old list of media effected by 9/11[1] - I think the most notable one at the time was 2002 Spiderman which released a trailer containing the two towers initially that was then edited (along with the movie) to remove that landmark. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_entertainment_affected_by_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_entertainment_affected...

ethbr0 4y ago
Editing something innocuous but associated with trauma just feels... wrong. History happened. No need to create a past and future-projected vacuum as a consequence of past events.
- alanfalcon 4y ago
  It felt right at the time to many people. The two towers trailer scene was specific to the trailer according to them at the time, so not having that scene was apparently already the plan. The way the film was, I certainly never felt the lack of the towers but would have been pulled out by their presence.
- yardstick 4y ago
  Spiderman was edited before its release, in April 2002, after the 9/11 attacks. I’m guessing this along with the other changes to the film post 9/11 but pre release were the creators wishes and reflections after the attack. You have to remember it was less than a ~6 months after the attacks. This wasn’t history. This was the here and now and it was a massive trauma on a lot of people at the time.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Granted. But we're now 20 years later. There are other, older movies with the towers in them, and yes, seeing them certainly stirs up emotions unexpected by the directors at the time. But the World Trade Center existed as a structure. And something terrible happened to it. Avoiding it now, even by omission, feels like avoiding an important part of history.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - xmprt 4y ago
      I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If a movie is released today, it obviously wouldn't have the towers. And a movie released in the past right after 9/11 would edit them out because it was still fresh in people's minds and most people agree that it was the right decision. Are you saying that the movies/trailers/TV shows should be retroactively edited to re-include the towers? Isn't retroactive editing a bad thing that we want to avoid. That's what this entire post thread is about.
      - bluefirebrand 4y ago
        > Are you saying that the movies/trailers/TV shows should be retroactively edited to re-include the towers? I didn't get that from their post at all. In fact I think you are in agreement. If your movie is set before 9/11 it should include the towers. If your movie was released before 9/11, it shouldn't be edited to remove the towers.
        yardstick 4y ago
        This movie was released after 9/11, presumably (based on not having the towers) also set after 9/11. I don’t get the original complaint at all.
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  For a movie coming out in 2002 and set in "the present day", I would think keeping the towers would be distracting and introduce an "alternate timeline" problem that further distracts.
- evan_ 4y ago
  OTOH if you don't, then you have something like the 2002 Muppet Christmas Special where they put Kermit in an "It's a Wonderful Life" scenario. We see how the world would be different if he had never been born. There's a scene set in New York where a random shot shows the WTC in the background, insinuating that Kermit was somehow responsible for 9/11. Obviously that was never the intention of the producers but it ends up being a huge distraction from the rest of the story of the special.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    It's not easy being green.

by munk-a 4y ago

ethbr0 4y ago

Editing something innocuous but associated with trauma just feels... wrong. History happened. No need to create a past and future-projected vacuum as a consequence of past events.

alanfalcon 4y ago
It felt right at the time to many people. The two towers trailer scene was specific to the trailer according to them at the time, so not having that scene was apparently already the plan. The way the film was, I certainly never felt the lack of the towers but would have been pulled out by their presence.
yardstick 4y ago
Spiderman was edited before its release, in April 2002, after the 9/11 attacks. I’m guessing this along with the other changes to the film post 9/11 but pre release were the creators wishes and reflections after the attack. You have to remember it was less than a ~6 months after the attacks. This wasn’t history. This was the here and now and it was a massive trauma on a lot of people at the time.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Granted. But we're now 20 years later. There are other, older movies with the towers in them, and yes, seeing them certainly stirs up emotions unexpected by the directors at the time. But the World Trade Center existed as a structure. And something terrible happened to it. Avoiding it now, even by omission, feels like avoiding an important part of history.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - xmprt 4y ago
    I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If a movie is released today, it obviously wouldn't have the towers. And a movie released in the past right after 9/11 would edit them out because it was still fresh in people's minds and most people agree that it was the right decision. Are you saying that the movies/trailers/TV shows should be retroactively edited to re-include the towers? Isn't retroactive editing a bad thing that we want to avoid. That's what this entire post thread is about.
    - bluefirebrand 4y ago
      > Are you saying that the movies/trailers/TV shows should be retroactively edited to re-include the towers? I didn't get that from their post at all. In fact I think you are in agreement. If your movie is set before 9/11 it should include the towers. If your movie was released before 9/11, it shouldn't be edited to remove the towers.
      - yardstick 4y ago
        This movie was released after 9/11, presumably (based on not having the towers) also set after 9/11. I don’t get the original complaint at all.
enragedcacti 4y ago
For a movie coming out in 2002 and set in "the present day", I would think keeping the towers would be distracting and introduce an "alternate timeline" problem that further distracts.
evan_ 4y ago
OTOH if you don't, then you have something like the 2002 Muppet Christmas Special where they put Kermit in an "It's a Wonderful Life" scenario. We see how the world would be different if he had never been born. There's a scene set in New York where a random shot shows the WTC in the background, insinuating that Kermit was somehow responsible for 9/11. Obviously that was never the intention of the producers but it ends up being a huge distraction from the rest of the story of the special.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  It's not easy being green.