Should real life events and disasters be used to dictate changes ...

Since real life events and disasters dictate changes to the plotlines of real life I don't have a problem when the media has to respond to it too.

To say that a film shouldn't be changed in light of some tragic event is to suggest that the film has a kind of artistic unity that would be compromised or destroyed by the change. That's difficult to imagine in the case of the sort of stuff coming out of the Hollywood assembly line these days. I find it hard to imagine someone saying "no, we need the theater-massacre scene, otherwise the picture will be ruined!" In other words, movies with theater-massacre scenes are, almost by their very nature, impossible to ruin by taking out the theater-massacre scene and substituting, say, a restaurant-massacre scene or a zoo-massacre scene or a water-park-massacre scene.

That being said, there are instances where the better choice is simply to delay the release of the picture rather than make changes. Dr. Strangelove was scheduled for release shortly after Nov. 22, 1963, but the assassination of JFK forced the studio to push back the release until the following January. In that instance, making changes to the film's characterization of the president or the chances of accidental thermonuclear annihilation would have destroyed the movie.

A movie that came out today, The Watch, was originally titled Neighborhood Watch. It is a comedy with Ben Stiller and Vince Vaughn. I believe that the real life case involving George Zimmerman will effect a change that Hollywood fears the most: fewer people will pay to watch this movie.

Sure, but it sucks that they took out the helecopter-in-the-spiderweb-between-the-twin-towers scene out of Spiderman because of 9/11. The scene's deletion didn't ruin the movie, but it definitely lessened the movie.

NO.

It 'd have the OPPOSITE EFFECT.
If people care about Zimmy 's case,
movies concerning such circumstances will have their attendance enhanced.





David

All my instincts are to "no, human nature was here first", similar to Boomer's take, and our cultural mores were here first. But then it gets sticky for me in that violent movies (et al) mesh with the cultural mores of forever (I'm off and on reading Herodotus) - and I do wonder if they are exacerbating matters.

To put off a movie 'premier' due to what just happened for real is a mix of studio sensitivity to people's feelings and a smart financial move, emphasis on financial move.
To put off movies at all in case they incite a disturbed person is a step too far. I think. Or I think today, don't know about tomorrow, being open on this one to changing my mind.

I feel that title changes are far less creatively intrusive then say rewriting an entire film's finale scene because it just might suggest a familiarity to a certain small subset group of recent events.

Delaying the movie's theatrical release could help the audience as well as the studio's box office intake. I see that as a fair compromise between filmmaker, studio, and audience. A little time distance should help give the audience a better perspective between film and event especially if both merely exist and are coincidental at best.

What she said...