ON the cover of the movie you can see the twin towers on the back of z . does anyone think that they should take that off or something , i mean on the first spiderman trailer , they took it off , but i'm just wondering about this .
I think they did change the cover, but then i mite be mistaking it for an "Antz" game of some kind
And anyway? what is the big problem with the trade center appearing in places, like front covers? Is it a gr8 show of disrespect to show something that isn't there anymore? (and yes, i understand that alot of people were killed tht day, and it was awful) but still, They're just buildings.
Finnigan...ARGH!!!!
[deleted]
I may just be jumping to conclusions but...I have a strong feeling that ddskyline329 may have already known that the ANTZ cover had, recently, been changed and may have only brought it up in an attempt to sound as if they had an intelligent idea. However, if you ask me, it really isn’t all that great of an idea.
After all the original cover was designed quite nicely
[deleted]
My beef is in the end of the movie. It shows what is assumed to be Central Park, and then shows both the Empire State Building and World Trade Center next to each other as if they were 5 blocks away from each other, when in reality, you can hardly see the World Trade Center from the Empire State Building (the towers look really small frome ESB). Did that bother anyone else?
shareNo...the animators wanted to show off these great buildings in the New York landscape in one shot. Its cretive license, baby! Why should an artist forgo these images? Because it doesn't make sense in the real world? Art gives us the freedom to envision a better image than the world could offer.
This reminds me of how in Babe: Pig in the City (another wonderful fantasy) the landscape shows off the Statue of Liberty, the Sydney Opera House, the Hollywood sign, etc.
Still, it was cool of you to point this out. I hope this detail doesn't continue to disrupt your enjoyment from the ending. In fact, my appreciate of Antz has grown because of this detail. Surely, the filmmakers knew that New York doesn't look EXACTLY like this. This was surely deliberate.
Completely agree. I imagine it was intended to tie in with the theme of individualism (vs. the (dare I say) socialistic structure of the ant colony). And if that was indeed the case, then they should have let the Towers continue to "stand" on the cover. It would be a shame if we all got swept up in this wave of Orwellian revisionist history (a la 1984) which seems to be occurring lately and destroyed every last shred of their existence. If we do that, then, on some note, the barbarians have won, haven't they?
sharedare you not. The ant gov. was not socialist. In fact this movie has some very communist undertones. woot!
"... I'm as experienced as a palsy victim giving brain surgery with a pipe wrench." - Hartigan
Dude. Comminusim is a kind of socialism. The ant government was very socialist too, putting an emphasis on the worker, the colony beng treated as one whole organism. It makes sense that the ants would be like that, the whole group being placed before the individual.
"Punch the keys for gods sake!" -YTMND.com
That is because the view was from across the river, most likely New Jersey.
"That is because the view was from across the river, most likely New Jersey."
no way! it was central park. everyone knows all woody allen movies take place in manhattan! it(obviously, theres the wtc and empire state building so everyone gets it) was a nod to the rest of allen's films.
Not only that, but you couldn't see the World Trade Centre from central park when standing up as a fully grown adult, or even climbed up a tree, much less as the size of an ant. But i guess it was just artistic license on the part of the filmmakers.
Still, could be worse... My nose could be gushing blood!
No. All it means is the movie is set before 2001. :-)
shareWell, the spiderman teaser had a shot that was never intended to be in the movie. The helicopter was too big (Or the space between them too small) for that to be plausible...and the size of the webs were much too big to have come from Spidey's wrists.
Run.
You must be retarded
share[deleted]
It was made in 1998
shareEveryone is trying so hard to erase the World Trade Center Towers from every movie, show, story, and pictures, it's disgusting. Would we deny Pearl Harbor, Vietnam, the Holocaust, etc.? The World Trade Center Towers were there in 1998, why take away a picture showing a part of what New York represented at the time?
Do you know what it's time for? A sexy party!
What's with you americans wanting to black out the existence of the twin towers? If anything it seems to me a sign of disrespect denying that the towers were ever there and that nothing ever happened to them.
share[deleted]
If anything, we need to FLAUNT the Towers whenever, wherever, and however we can. It's like everyone in the country has forgotten about "9/11 The Event", and can only remember "9/11 The Bush Foreign Policy". This was an event we NEED to remember. To deny the existence of the Towers (as suggested by your proposed removal on the DVD cover) is to deny that terrorism exists in the world. The last thing we need is to be caught with out heads in the sand. Again.
shareNo, it's pointless when they do that... it's as if they just want to forget the WTC ever existed
shareSo are we now supposed to pretend like there never was The World Trade Center?
Do we take actors/actresses off the covers after they have passed on or fallen out of favor?
Political Correctness is obnoxious and this country's greatest form of "denial".
"No wonder we often know how to make a watch, but we don't know the time of day." -- H.P. Walker