It's come to my attention that there's an upcoming action-thriller-type movie, titled Abduction, scheduled to be released on September 23rd, which based on the evidence of its previews contains one of the most injurious misrepresentations of Amtrak trains to come along in quite some time. It's a misrepresentation that Amtrak's public relations people should never have allowed to happen, given that at least one train involved in the action is unquestionably shown as being an Amtrak train, with the corporate logo and paint scheme prominently displayed; Amtrak had every right to insist on accurate portrayal, preferably absolutely accurate portrayal, of Amtrak trains and travel as a quid pro quo for the use of its corporate identity in the film. At the same time, given that five-and-a-half weeks remain before the film's opening, so that presumably no release prints have been made yet and tinkering with the film may still be going on (for example, in response to test audiences' reactions), I wonder whether there's a possibility that the situation could be rectified, perhaps in response to a threat of legal action by Amtrak.
The movie is about a teenager named Nathan (played by the very popular Taylor Lautner, of the Twilight movies) who becomes aware that he is part of a scheme, engineered by shadowy, apparently governmental forces, that among other things has involved his being abducted from his real parents in early childhood and given a new identity. In the previews, we at one point see Nathan and his girlfriend Karen escaping from pursuants in what's supposed to be a sleeping car of an Amtrak train. (It's actually a typically unrealistic fake train interior that includes such things as an impossibly wide corridor, and pull-down shades on the windows.) At one point, either for the purpose of escaping the sleeping car room they're in or for the purpose of firing a gun (it's not clear which), Nathan simply hauls off and kicks out the room's window, which is shown as consisting of a single layer of glass, some of which breaks away completely, leaving jagged glass edges, and some of which merely cracks extensively: in other words, it's not even as strong as automobile glass. (Apparently the filmmakers were thinking, "Since trains are [i.e., supposedly] less technologically advanced than planes or cars, it follows that train windows must be weaker than plane windows or car windows".)
Needless to say, this is a completely unrealistic portrayal of what virtually all American passenger railcar windows are like: not just the windows of Amtrak trains, but those of most other passenger trains in the country as well. Unless a waiver is granted for a specific railcar--usually because it's a very old, historically significant piece of equipment--American passenger railcars are required to have Federal Railroad Administration Type II windows, which are double-layered and bulletproof. Those windows are so strong that, as many of you may remember, in the 1996 Amtrak/MARC collision in Silver Spring, Maryland, firefighters using pickaxes couldn't break the windows of the MARC commuter train from the outside. (The passengers in the MARC train were having difficulty escaping from their car because of certain design shortcomings that, tragically, put unnecessary obstacles in the way of their opening the windows and doors from the inside.) Putting this scene in the movie essentially sends prospective Amtrak passengers the message, "If you take an Amtrak trip and the train experiences any kind of mishap, the window right next to your head will provide you almost zero protection from whatever is outside, and furthermore you'll probably get all cut up by broken glass. Also, if a window is intact and you have to escape through it, the only way to do so will be to break it yourself; so if you're not physically strong, tough luck--you'll probably just be trapped". What a message to send to prospective customers of a transportation service that has enough problems with poor image already--and in a film that's obviously portraying Amtrak trains with the company's consent!!
What's especially stupid about this is that, as most of us know, it's easy to escape from an Amtrak sleeping car room through the window: all you have to do is pull on a clearly marked handle that's attached to the window molding, and once the molding is removed the rest of the window follows easily. Yes, it's not quite as dramatic as a kick; but if Amtrak is in the position of being able to grant or not grant permission to have its name and logo used in a film, then it should be able to make that permission conditional upon the film's portraying it and its services only in an accurate, non-injurious way. If Amtrak's public relations employees don't understand that, then they don't deserve to be the custodians of the image of the only extensive intercity passenger rail service the United States has. Someone I know used to work in marketing for a major consumer-products company, and part of her job was to sit in on commercial shoots and watch what was going on like a hawk, to make sure that nothing in any way derogatory to the company crept into the various takes. The fact that Amtrak, which has some of the most serious image problems of any American corporation, is not savvy enough to practice anything remotely like that kind of image control, is just sad. Amtrak has let inaccurate and unfavorable portrayals of its trains occur in Hollywood films for years--most notably in scenes, as recently as in 2001's Double Take and perhaps more recently than that, showing water vapor gushing out from under Amtrak passenger cars (even though Amtrak abandoned steam heating systems in the early eighties), an image that feeds the popular misconception that "American passenger railroading in its present form is a nineteenth-century steam-based technology that has undergone no changes whatsoever in the last hundred and fifty years". This sequence in Abduction, however, because it directly involves train safety features and proper passenger reaction in the event of an accident, is arguably an order of magnitude worse.
I know that there are people whose reaction to this complaint will be along the lines of "It's just a movie", "It's just good fun", "Everybody knows that movies aren't an accurate representation of reality". I'm familiar with those arguments, and I don't agree with them. I believe that Hollywood movies and other popular entertainments are a significant factor in shaping people's view of reality, particularly concerning subjects they aren't familiar with, such as American passenger trains. I recall, for example, a passage in an Israeli newspaper article that I read about ten years ago that said something like "It's well known that American passenger trains have serious safety problems, as evidenced by the fact that all the passengers except one were killed in the train accident in the movie Unbreakable". (How's that for journalistic standards!) These kinds of misrepresentations of Amtrak, and of American railroads in general, just cannot be regarded as harmless.
It seems to me that there are two ways this situation could be at least partially rectified. The first way would be for Amtrak to insist to Abduction's producers, on pain of legal action, that its corporate logos and paint schemes must be digitally removed from every shot in the film in which they appear. The result would still be a misrepresentation of the safety standards of American passenger trains, as guaranteed by the FRA's window requirements, but at least it wouldn't be a direct libeling of Amtrak. The second way would be to replace the shot of kicking out the window (which apparently only lasts a second or two) with a substitute shot of Nathan removing the window properly (he could do it violently, as befits an action movie). They wouldn't have to use Taylor Lautner: they could just use a body double filmed from behind. I'm sure Amtrak would extend full cooperation in getting such a shot filmed. And then the broken glass and the black window molding could be digitally removed from the immediately following shots. I'm assuming this could be done for, what, maybe $100,000? A drop in the bucket for a Hollywood film, and a lot cheaper than paying a multi-million-dollar legal settlement.
I'm wondering whether anybody at Amtrak might read this, and have enough initiative to take quick action on the matter (it'd have to be quick, given the film's impending release date). Or perhaps we could bring this matter to the attention of Amtrak's public relations people ourselves.
I certainly agree with Mr. Paulshore that there is within the trailer a P-42 clearly in Amtrak livery.
To what extent Amtrak extended production assistance for this film, I know not. Amtrak wisely stayed far away from Silver Streak II for which I hold roundly the same thoughts that Mr. Paulshore holds regarding this subject film with respect to "depicting" railroad safety.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
"Or perhaps we could bring this matter to the attention of Amtrak's public relations people ourselves."
Did you?
Posted by mpaulshore (Member # 3785) on :
Mr. Kisor: I haven't communicated my concerns to Amtrak yet; for the moment I've been concentrating on putting them in a hopefully persuasive written form, as in my posting above--but I'm planning to talk or write to someone at Amtrak tomorrow.
Mr. B Norman: As far as I can tell, it's only the train interiors that are fake: all the train exteriors, including the one in the still you provided a link to, appear to be shots of real trains. Which brings up a puzzling point. The previews clearly show a Superliner train with a Genesis locomotive in certain shots, and a fluted-side midcentury single-level train in others. Does that mean the plot involves two different trains? Or is this another example of an absurdity we've seen in so many movies, namely using shots of visibly different trains to represent a single train, on the assumption that to the average viewer all trains of a given general type look alike? From the previews, I just can't tell.
Shots of the fake train interior can be seen at several points about midway through the two theatrical previews.
One other point that I've been meaning to mention for some time: I've noticed that every time you refer to the movie Silver Streak (1976), you call it "Silver Streak II". I get the feeling that that's intended as a snide joke, the point being something like "The title Silver Streak had already been used once, for the 1934 Thomas Atkins film, and so it was wrong of the producers of the 1976 Arthur Hiller film to use the same title; and therefore, to show my disapproval of the titling of the 1976 film, I'll pretend that it was a sequel to the 1934 film, and refer to it as Silver Streak II". There are two problems with that line of reasoning. First of all, the 1976 film didn't use exactly the same title as the 1934 film: the 1934 film is called The Silver Streak, whereas the 1976 film is called Silver Streak--i.e., no The. Second, it's a basic principle of the naming of artworks of whatever kind that titles are reusable and non-copyrightable, simply on the grounds that there's a limited number of good ones to go around. Many titles, particularly ones that are short, have been used multiple times in the history of film, and the same is true of novels, plays, musical compositions, paintings, or whatever. And it's all quite normal and not wrong. You might be interested to know, by the way, that there's at least one film that did exactly reuse the title of The Silver Streak (1934): it's The Silver Streak (1945), an animated Mighty Mouse short.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't this just a movie? The most recent train movie, "Unstoppable", was filled with inaccurate depictions of trains. But so what? I guess I'm not understanding the point here.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
A rare conjunction of two minds, smitty195 and Ocala Mike. Sir, it's called "artistic license" or something like that, and it happens to virtually every entity ever depicted on the silver screen.
There are countless depictions of the NY City Police Department, for example, which aren't always realistic (or flattering), yet the City of New York actively encourages their filming and release and has a whole bureaucracy devoted to this.
The 1986 film, "Top Gun," was full of inaccuracies and such, yet it was filmed with the cooperation of the Navy Department. For the next decade or so, US Navy enlistments surged.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ocala Mike: A rare conjunction of two minds, smitty195 and Ocala Mike.
There IS hope for world peace after all! Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
I just stumbled back in here after a long absence and saw this thread at the top of the list. This is a molehill hidden under a mountain of text. And I certainly don't think anything described here about the film comes anywhere near the definition of libel.
Are you worried that people who see the movie won't ride trains because they think the windows will break? Did people stop flying after a widescreen $#!^load of snakes got loose on a plane? Do people choose what car to buy based on seeing one plow through a fruit stand and emerging without a scratch?
Movies as a rule are loaded with scientific, technical, and factual inaccuracies. The show Mythbusters documents many of them. They bend the rules of logic, physics and reality to move their stories along. Most people know that, and they're not likely to be scared away from train travel by a movie scene.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Paulshore, so long as we are addressing Silver Streak (1934) (conforming with the identification of the film at IMDB), that film was equally absurd - case in point; the scenes of a Pioneer Zephyr operating around curves in mountainous terrain that would easily derail a kid's Lionel set.
Both noted films, so far as I'm concerned, portrayed the industry unfavorably. Amtrak was indeed wise to stay far away from Silver Streak (1976), and I believe, based upon your comments regarding Abduction (which be it assured I would only THINK about seeing if and when it's aired by HoBO and/or Starz), should have done same with this production.
You and I are on the same page regarduing this matter.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Movie companies usually pay substantial sums for using trademarked items in films. If the film company paid Amtrak for that, then perhaps the contract includes an indemnity clause.
Conceivably Amtrak decided the dough paid for the broken glass and slapped its imprimatur on the document.
Posted by mpaulshore (Member # 3785) on :
smitty195 and Ocala Mike: Regarding the "So what, it's just a movie" argument, I already dealt with that throughout my original post, and particularly in the fifth paragraph. You might want to reread the post to refresh your memory of what I said.
And smitty195: I trust that when you say "Maybe I'm missing something here" and "I guess I'm not understanding the point here", those are just conventional rhetorical tactics and not actual descriptions of your mental state. Because if the latter, that would be somewhat worrisome.
I'm aware that Unstoppable contained a number of inaccuracies, and in fact I don't consider that to be an acceptable thing, even if the reputation of the freight rail industry has mostly held up in the wake of the film. (But we can't say that that reputation is completely unscathed: for example, who's to say that the final straw dooming some future freight rail upgrading or expansion project won't be the objections of some NIMBY or bureaucrat whose ideas of freight rail risk are influenced by Unstoppable, Super 8, or some other such film?) Of course it's the significantly derogatory inaccuracies that bother me the most, not the minor technical stuff. One of the worst inaccuracies in Unstoppable, in my opinion, was some early shots of the locomotives as they leave the rail yard that show water vapor gushing out from under them, a faked image that's sure to reinforce many people's belief that twenty-first-century railroads are powered by steam technology unchanged since the mid nineteenth century.
Ocala Mike: I know what artistic license is, and I also know that it can go too far, particularly when the reputation of a person or company is at stake. I'm not sure the New York City Police Department or the Navy has been wise to cooperate with movies that depicted them inaccurately, and I'm not sure that government entities are ideal models to look to for best practices in this type of public relations: I'd think that successful private corporations might serve better. But in any case it's well known that the U.S. military makes significant demands of accuracy, even if it's not perfect accuracy, on films that it cooperates with, and is quite willing to refuse cooperation if it feels the inaccuracies are too great. Amtrak appears to make no demands of accuracy at all. Let's remember, also, that the NYPD and the Navy have substantial reserves of public respect and goodwill that they can afford to lose a bit of if they make a public relations error; Amtrak, on the other hand, has few such reserves. And the Top Gun example is not necessarily apposite, since I assume that for the most part that movie's inaccuracies made the Navy look better than it really was, not worse.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Well, it's your right of course to have any opinion you'd like to about this movie. I'll stick to the "it's just a movie" opinion, and that about sums it up for me.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: Well, it's your right of course to have any opinion you'd like to about this movie. I'll stick to the "it's just a movie" opinion, and that about sums it up for me.
Agreed.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
And I'm wondering if mpaulshore is short for Mr Pauly Shores...
Posted by mpaulshore (Member # 3785) on :
Mr. Toy: Here's the applicable definition of the noun "libel" from the Webster's Third New International Dictionary, which I think pretty well covers the situation I've described in the movie Abduction: "3 b (1) : a written or oral defamatory statement or a representation or suggestion that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression [. . .] (2) : a statement or representation published without just cause or excuse, expressed either in print or in writing or by pictures, effigies, or other signs and tending to expose another to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule : defamation of a person by means of written statements, pictures, or other visible signs [. . .] (3) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel".
I am worried that a certain small number of people who see the movie won't ride Amtrak because they'll think the windows are easily breakable. A larger number of people, who might or might not be potential Amtrak riders, will just have their belief reinforced that Amtrak trains are technologically primitive and have poor safety standards . . . and then, if and when Amtrak is eliminated by budget cutters, will think, "Good riddance; it was just trash anyway". Neither of these possibilities is good for Amtrak, either now or in the future.
I think your argument about movie misrepresentations of aviation and automobiles doesn't fully transfer to American passenger trains, since there's the difference that most people have a fair amount of knowledge about planes and cars and a great deal of respect for them, so that they aren't all that likely to be misled or swayed by things they see in an individual movie; whereas most people have little or no knowledge of American passenger trains and little or no respect for them, so that things they see in an individual movie can do a great deal of harm.
It's true that most people won't be scared away from Amtrak travel by a movie scene; but why should any be scared away, if Amtrak can do something about it by forcing a change in the scene?
Posted by mpaulshore (Member # 3785) on :
Mike Smith: No, I'm not the comedian Pauly Shore. (For one thing, I think that if you were to compare the style of his comedy with my style on these boards, you'd have to admit that that's too much difference to be contained within one human being!)
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
The absurd notion that Taylor Lautner rides Amtrak trains should be enough to send millions of teenagers streaming to the Amtrak ticket windows, dreaming of their chance to be as cool as Taylor Lautner. If they want to try and kick out a window, they'll quickly find out about FRA window standards. I think Amtrak will come out way ahead in this instance.
Ever been to Forks WA? It's nothing like the Twilight movies picture it to be. But thanks to the Twilight phenomenon, Forks is now a flourishing tourist destination. Let's hope Amtrak can be equally lucky.
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
I gotta line up behind Smitty, Ocala, Mr. Toy and especially Vincent!
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Me, too. Chicken Little is sometimes right, but not very often.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
count me in on the decision. Just because the movie I see is about train robberies doesn't mean I won't ride the train. Well you get the idea.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
PS Yes, Smitty you and I are actually in agreement over something!!!!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
First, allow me to reiterate that I hold Mr. Paulshore's thoughts that this film casts rail travel in an unfavorable light, but I guess otherwise represents a break out to the next step in the careers of two child actors turned teenie heart throbs. Good luck to them both; Hollywood certainly pays better than does TV pay 'soapstuds' (hey, isn't that genre on the wane itself?).
Now where I disagree is with holding that a production company made this film "behind Amtrak's back'; Amtrak obviously approved and likely got some kind of remuneration (even those "thanks' in the production credits have some value). But what does astound me is that for the production of Silver Streak (1976), Amtrak steered well clear, but yet for this equally apparent absurdity, they stepped up to the plate. When Silver Streak was produced, Amtrak was very much, at least on a National scale, a "touch and go' agency. Now it has become a household brand, and obviously is here to stay. It would appear that brand is of far greater value today, and in view of that Amtrak enjoys a funding surplus from its increased revenues, why they wish to expose the brand to, in my view, this kind of rubbish escapes me.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
quote:Originally posted by train lady: PS Yes, Smitty you and I are actually in agreement over something!!!!
World peace AND he** freezing over. Wow! Posted by mpaulshore (Member # 3785) on :
Mr. B Norman: Your expressions of support are appreciated.
It seems to me that it's an open question how much Amtrak did or didn't know about the specific content of this film to which it's lent its cooperation, or at least its partial cooperation. I'd certainly like to know more about what happened.
Posted by DeeCT (Member # 3241) on :
mpaulshore -
Do not think Amtrak needs to explain anything to you just because you are curious/obsessed about this.
It is after all "just a movie" -- get over it!
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I am also inclined to the "It's just a movie get over it." Perspective. Maybe part of that is being a Southerner. Look at almost every movie's depiction of anything happening in the southeast. It may be better now, but while in the army, a few of us from the deep south found it very easy to make some guys from Massachusetts believe that we had never seen indoor plumbing before being in the army.
Think of the dipiction of anybody involved in the oil and gas industry. Almost all I ahve seen qualifies as libel, and it has affected their ability to work in this country. Some legal actions would be nothing more than an exercise in futility.
Then for inaccuracies, I have seen things supposedly set at Pensacola Navy Base that had mountains in the backgournd. Duhh. A more accurate description of the terrain would be that of the guy that said, remember, in case of an apporaching hurricane you should leave low lying areas. Look at your driver's license. If it says Florida, you live in a low lying area.
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
They have indoor plumbing in the south?
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
I didn't even know if they had outdoor plumbing. (wink)
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris:
Look at your driver's license. If it says Florida, you live in a low lying area.
Don't remind me, George. I'm about 20 miles from the nearest river, but only a few feet above the water table. Looks like the powers that be are going to mandate flood insurance for me and some of my neighbors soon thanks to FEMA.
Posted by mpaulshore (Member # 3785) on :
DeeCT: Regarding your remark "Do not think Amtrak needs to explain anything to you just because you are curious/obsessed about this": I think Amtrak owes all taxpayers and rail advocates an explanation of how this derogatory false portrayal of its equipment got into a movie made with its cooperation. Amtrak consumes our tax dollars (and yes, the other modes consume our tax dollars too; but still), it consumes the time and energy of rail advocates who struggle to help keep it in existence; and then it squanders those resources by cluelessly cooperating with the trashing of its own reputation, which in turn contributes to the erosion of its customer base and its political support. We have a right to expect Amtrak to do better than that. And as far as my personal attitude goes, yes, I'm curious about what happened; what's wrong with that? But I'm not "obsessed". This is just an issue like any other, which I've brought up on this board for people to discuss.
And I'm stunned to see you simplistically saying "It is after all 'just a movie' ", as if you'd absorbed nothing at all of my multi-paragraph attempt to expose the fallaciousness of that position, at least in a case like this one. Maybe you should go back and read my original post once more, to see if anything in it rubs off on you the second time.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
With your latest tirade which is downright rude to DeeCT, you really have just annulled any argument you might have once had. The vast majority of the active posters here don't agree with you so it's time to take stock of the situation and decide whether this bugbear of yours really is an issue at all.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Even though I have over the years endeavored to develop a writing style that makes its point in the "softest" manner possible, e.g. I would have found a far less inflammatory title for this topic, I agree with Mr. Paulshore that anytime any business enterprise having a household brand name (I believe Amtrak is a household brand) and registered trademarks, they have a duty to ensure the brand is used in a favorable light.
Again I reiterate; why Amtrak has allowed its brand to be used in a manner depicting rail travel as some kind of platform for some movie with a brainless plot as well as destruction of branded equipment escapes me. For the audience segment that can say "it's just a movie', they would be perfectly content with some kind of generic "East & West Railroad' labeling.
While followers of motion pictures, such as I believe Mr. Paulshore to be, can think of other instances, I know of only one airline, Fedex, that has allowed their brand to be used in a depiction of an aircraft incident resulting in a hull loss. That was in the movie "Castaway", and that action by Fedex, who to my best knowledge has never had a hull loss (a few close shaves), also escapes me.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)