Vs. Reshooting the Theater Shootout

Sean Penn unleashes some phony-looking CGI bullet spray upon hearing the news.

In light of the recent tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, Warner Bros. has decided to reshoot some scenes for their upcoming mob flick, the Gangster Squad. As a result, its original release date of September 7, 2012 has been pushed back to January 2013 release.The scene in question is a shoot-out that takes place in a movie theater as audiences scramble for cover.


In Warner's defense, the action they took is commendable in honoring the lives lost and victims affected by such an atrocious tragedy. Until this point, they've done the right thing by removing the movie's trailer and TV spots to avoid adding further turmoil to a nation that is still recovering from. It's also understandable that they have probably opted for this route to keep clear from the notion that they could somehow profit from the theater massacre. 

However, by taking this course, isn't Warner and the film industry giving in to the whims of this mad man? Film is an art medium and as art, it should remain in it's respective realm separate from reality. Life imitates art and vice versa. Take the film, Inglourious Basterds, the Allies succeed in obliterating Hitler through a bombastic display of gunfire (in a theater of all places). In the case of  Gangster Squad, this shoot-out scene was already conceived and shot months before the Aurora theater shooting. You didn't see Tarantino and crew in a panic to do reshoots because they realized the events of WWII turned out to be vastly different on their take. Furthermore, Universal Pictures isn't coming out with a altered version of the film's dvd/blu-ray editing out the climatic scene in Tarantino's war film. In no way is Gangster Squad responsible for the deaths of innocent people. By doing this, not only does the movie industry kowtow to this dickface's actions, but as a society, we are also letting this whacko dictate our actions. We are giving in to what this murderer set out to do, cause fear... and most likely to get himself off.

I hate to elicit the comparison, but in a number of ways, these recent events and its consequences can be correlated with the on-screen events that took place in Nolan's Bat trilogy. James Holmes is in essence, an individual who uses fear to his advantage. He was garbed in a gas mask and equipped with a full set of various body armor; practically unidentifiable during the theater massacre. A faceless executioner, he was. The frightening thing is how he told police that he was the Joker. Batman explains to a hopeless Gordon, We cannot let the Joker win; and we can't let this red dyed prick either. Is this the beginning of things to come, the first of many victories for James Holmes to be had? Please, let it not be so.

If you want to point fingers on who's to blame for what can perhaps cause further uproar amongst both movie audiences and non-audiences alike, is the ever alluring presence of Emma Stone. For instance, observe the screen cap below. Damn! She's been burning up the screens as of late, but never so obviously as evident in the subsequent screen shot. Her hotness is already a crime in itself; the shortness of breath I felt, the intensifying palpitations, and the tingling sensation originating from the underworld of my undergarments, my heart almost gave out when she popped up in the trailer with that 'come-hither look.' Looks can kill folks, looks can kill.

It's an absolute crime to look so scorching hot

The scene in question can be viewed in the following trailer.