Did anyone else see the Twin Towers at the end when they were on the roof? Not sure when filming ended but it must have been before September 2001. I seem to recall something about different filmmakers making sure the subject was avoided or scenes with the towers being cut out. It stirs up some emotions to see them in the background. (God Bless all effected on/from 9/11!)
shareyes I noticed & now in the movie they've become a sad anachronism
shareCameron letf them as a double meaning symbol:
(1) David was frozen before September 11th, 2001. Manhattan's geography is very wrong too, as that's New York as he remembers it, not an accurate representation.
(2) Don't you see the meaning of it? It's David's realm, where he's a god. In a subconscious level, maybe he "re-created" the towers to fill for something, as he created his own version of Sofía mixed with Julie.
"Money is always important because money is a by-product of success." - Mel Brooks
It's not anachronistic in any way. For one, the movie doesn't say what year it is. It could simply have been an alternate 2001 with cryogenics technology and holograms. They didn't have flying cars and weird clothing etc. Secondly, it was a dream.
Please excuse any typos, this was typed on an iPad
According to David's cyrotube, he was born 9/22/1968 (so his 33rd birthday party was 9/22/2001) and he died 12/26/2001.
shareYes I noticed them and are glad they left the scene in.
It's good to remember, and every time I hear drivel about erasing the towers from existence I cringe. What purpose does that serve? Keep up at this pace and before we know it the entire event will also be wiped from history.
I agree. I'd love if all the images of the Twin Towers were kept in all movies and TV shows.
And no, the memory of the people whose lives were so cruelly taken, and the monsters who did it will never be wiped from human history as long as humans roam this planet.
Gio, I remember from the news that several movies in production during 2001 removed scenes of the twin towers from their films. It was the companies choice to do this and Vanilla Sky might have been one of them. No film in NYC would be complete without showcasing the towers. I'm willing to bet there were many more scenes of them in Vanilla Sky we never got to see after 9/11.
An oldie but a goodie 80's film called Working Girl has quite a few spectacular scenes of the towers also. It was heartbreaking to see the towers for years after the attacks, but gotta admit I LOVE seeing their images in film now. Words like incredible, extraordinary, spectacular and unbelievable don't even come close to describing their magnificence .... and the courageous people trying to help one another within them.
I disagree. In film making, the focus is on the story. I don't know about you, but I missed dialogue when I saw the towers. I stopped watching the story and watched the towers, getting all sad and choked up.
I am sure the film maker would not want that interruption in that critical point in the film.
All they have to do is change the perspective so it looks uptown, not downtown, lol....
"We're gonna need a bigger boat"....
Or you can just suck it up and say "oh hey, look, the twin towers", and NOT get all choked up because of the image of them standing there.
We don't have to retroactively wipe the image of the twin towers from all of history. We're not doing anybody a service there. In fact, it's like a betrayal to all those who suffered or lost their lives on that day. Remember the towers for what they were, a landmark of NYC. Remember the time we had them, and acknowledge how they ended. But don't make their destruction the only event now.
I remember being there in the summer of 1999. I stood at the bottom, and took a picture of my friend with one of the towers reaching away to the sky behind him. That's how I prefer to remember them. Their destruction is just one other thing. Not everything.
The interruption is not the film maker's doing; it's yours.
[deleted]
It's like magic, seeing theme still there.
sharetry watching "remember me" (2010) http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1403981/
this reveals the final scene:
the film ends quite explicitly on 9/11 with pattinson in the WTC
or on youtube: *spoilers*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAGZIHLngbw
As an Englishman, it does not bother me to see the twin towers in the background. Yes it is very sad about all the people that died that day but to remove it from films is stupid. Its just a building and not a particularly good looking one...just very tall.
Fantastic 'Futurama' Forum!!
www.FuturamaFF.com
In the commentary Cameron Crowe mentions them discussing whether or not to leave the shot of the towers in. The reason he claims he wanted them there is because the skyline should be accurate to David as of the date of his death since it is all happening in his mind.
shareThat makes perfect sense juhumba...however, at the same time, Cameron Crowe's reasoning is contradictory. I read the following in the trivia section...
"The scene with Tom Cruise alone in Times Square is not computer enhanced. The production was given unprecedented permission to shut down Times Square for one Sunday. At the time, the news ticker was providing updates on the George W. Bush-Al Gore election. To avoid dating the film, Crowe got permission to change the NASDAQ sign in post-production."
The scene with downtown and the Twin Towers in view similarly acts to date the movie, so why wasn't Cameron Crowe's approach to tackling that fact aligned to that which he took with Times Square?...
I don't think it's contradictory to say that leaving in the towers doesn't date it the same way that updates on the election would. The towers were there continuously from 1973-2001. David died before they were destroyed and was born circa 1968. They would have been there for almost his entire life and his memory, especially if he had not grown up in NYC. On the other hand, the election of 2000 was a discrete event, which would date it for that one date in time only.
Edit to add: From the trivia section - his date of birth is September 22, 1968.
- Sally
The perfect human being is uninteresting. - Joseph Campbell
David died 12/26/2001, according to the cryotube.
shareDid anyone else notice the age of the cars in movie? That alone kinda sets the tone for the timeline of the movie.
shareIf I may veer slightly off-topic for a minute, the first of the Twin Towers is visible in The French Connection. It's in the background, under construction, during the scene in which the car that's brought over from France is offloaded from the ship.
Also, I remember hearing not too long after 9/11 that there were people calling for 2002's Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers to be renamed before it was released. It was apparently thought that the title might prove too painful for moviegoers. Whether this is true or not, I don't know.
Yeah and its amazing how 100% of all movies shot in NY before 9/11 focused on the Twin Towers. I get a little sad every time when I see them in a movie.
sharePrincipal photography for Vanilla Sky began in late 2000 and concluded in March 2001. It was released on December 14, 2001.
At the danger of being called insensible or harsh: Get over it. It was bad what happened, it is not going to change, I feel for the loss, but just get over it.
Denying the towers is weird, pointless and really a blow in the face of the people that died or lost someone there.
Remember them for what they are: a landscape of NY.
[deleted]
Yes isn't it weird how those towers show up on film when they were filmed when they were still there? lol
shareI've just watched the movie (again), and when David is told the end of his real life by Ventura, the tank where his body is stocked displays :
DAVID AAMES
PATIENT # : PL515NT- 4R51MS
First Life Cycle :
9-22-1968 to 12-26-2001
So David committed suicide on the 26th of December 2001. And even if the date displayed is the date he was frozen, maybe he died one or two days before, as you can't keep a corpse for a long time before it starts to rot.
Which means he was actually ALIVE when the 9/11 happened, so even in the NYC Lucid Dream area he asked for, the Twin Towers shouldn't be there. It could even be a hint to him that tells "you're in a dream".
David seems to be a real American guy who lives in New York, the 9/11 incident should have affected him deeply, even if all he was thinking about was Sofia...
By the way, Vanilla Sky could take place in an alternate reality where Informatics and Biology are more advanced in the 2000' decade than in our reality. The hologram of John Coltrane and the Lucid Dream technology for frozen people don't exist in our reality at the moment (2016), but do exist in Vanilla Sky reality. So in VS reality, terrorists never attacked NYC, who knows?
Completely off topic, but I wonder what would've happen if his lucid dream had progressed correctly, with no Sofia is Julie and Julie is Sofia subconscious troubles, if David and Sofia maybe decided to go on a trip far away from New York, as David is rich, do you think LE could generate another universe than the New York city area in David's Lucid Dream?