Confirmed: Spielberg alters "E.T." (1 Viewer)

[Sam Davatchi]

Link Removed
This is ridiculous. No one points any guns at kids in the movie. Watch the above image from the original movie. (The image is small in size

 

[Sam Davatchi]

... and especially when you know that in real life they send swat team with full gear pointing heavy guns to get a boy in a normal house (it's not like terrorists camping in a house). Remember the famous picture?

 

[David Lambert]

You mean this one?

I'm linking to this pic on the following ABCNews page, which itself is a link to a RealVideo of that event:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/elian_subindex.html
MORE TV ON DVD, PLEASE!

 

[Van T Tran]

Here shows the agent with the "walkie-talkie" that Colin mentioned. (Click on the image to enlarge.)

------------------
Van T. Tran
DVD Movie Guide
www.dvdmg.com

 

[Doug Pyle]

Nice pictures. They tell us nothing extraordinary, except the story-teller is still involved with his story. And that's not a bad thing. It certainly isn't censorship or bowing to pressure or anything else like that. The only pressure I read here is to keep Spielberg out of the picture, to keep him from being involved in his own story, which seems unfair to Spielberg. We want to stay involved with it as the listener/viewer, but we don't want the storyteller around anymore? That doesn't seem fair. It's his imagination we're enjoying. You and I didn't dream it up, and he certainly did.
Story tellers get to change the story they tell. That's the rule. It's part of the essence of storytelling. Changing things to fit the time and audience is a tradition as old as oral story telling itself. I do it myself when my son says, 'tell me again the story about ...." It's never exactly the same twice.
------------------

• May you be happy and well!

[Edited last by Doug Pyle on October 19, 2001 at 08:24 AM]

 

[Gordon Moore]

This just in:
"Spielberg recently announced that in Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom he is going to change the "heart removing" scene so that the evil priest merely picks the man's pocket and holds up his wallet which bursts into flames after he removes all the cash, all the while laughing hysterically and screaming in a maniacal voice, 'Gimme the casssshhhh!!!' Then the man is lowered into a pit full of rose petals."
Let's see who would defend that!

Oh shit Sean, that's funny stuff! Link Removed

 

[Ryan Wright]

quote: Changing things to fit the time and audience is a tradition as old as oral story telling itself. [/quote]
How does removing the guns fit the time and audience? It merely caters to a small group of anti-gun zealots. Most parents don't have a problem with their children seeing guns. I personally think the removal of the guns lessons the impact of that portion of the film. Federal agents don't enforce road blocks with walkie talkies.
------------------
-Ryan ( http://www.ryanwright.com )
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you do criticize them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
[Edited last by Ryan Wright on October 19, 2001 at 11:57 AM]

 

[Tom Brennan]

Thanks for the screenshots. The new shot looks so silly.
------------------
Please vote for a Richard Donner Re-Cut of Superman II
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/...ML/003753.html

 

[Philip Hamm]

Haven't we just been through this not two weeks ago??

Personally I won't buy this for the same reason I didn't buy Jaws, CE3K, and SPR. I'm happy with the Laser.
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker

 

[BrettB]

E.T. The Edited-Treasure
I really don't like this at all. However, it's Mr. Spielberg's baby and he can do what he wants. This is my favorite movie, so I will be in the theater (more than once) and I will buy the DVD. It's just too damn good a movie to do otherwise.
I don't think I'll have much luck convincing the wife that we need a LD player for one movie. I can always pop in the VHS...oh, wait, I gave my VCR to my daughter.
How much do LD decks go for anyway?

 

[David James]

A very long time ago I purchased E.T. version 1.0 on VHS. Now the vendor has "enhanced" the product and will release E.T. 2.0 on DVD. My choice is to upgrade or not. If I don't like the new version I won't upgrade, If I do, I will. Simple. Movies are a consumer product. As a consumer, I have no inherent rights regarding the content and makeup of the product. I vote with my money. I can voice my opinion and elect not to give the vendor my money. But the vendor has no obligation to not "enhance" the product nor are they required to do anything else I want, simply because I'm an avid fan and enthusiast. I also don't believe they are under any obligation, moral, ethical or other, to make me happy. This is the way our system works. Vendors produce products and services which they hope meet a consumers need. If the product or service does not meet the need, the vendor adjusts or goes out of business.
As a home theater enthusiast, should I not have this attitude? Should I believe that movies are different, and should not adhere to the same principals as other products? Are movies a type of "art" that once viewed by the public, achieve "stone tablet" type status, never to be modified? I don't believe so which clearly puts me in the minority on this thread. But despite all the arguments (both intelligent and those with many capital letters and curse words) I've not seen anything to change this opinion. I strongly agree with those that suggest seamless branching techniques to provide a choice for the consumer.
Will I buy or rent E.T.? I'm not sure yet, but I do know that it's way to early for me to make that decision. At this point the changes being discussed are, for me, a non-issue. I really enjoyed the movie, but apparently I view a movie differently then many of you. I couldn't even remember the guns in the original.
Finally, I will judge each new "enhanced" version of a movie on it's own merits. Regarding Temple of Doom, I would probably buy both the original and the new enhanced wallet and rose petal version

 

[Brian-W]

I'll tell you what blows: That screenshot of the agents without guns. Look at all that EDGE ENHANCEMENT ! Jeesh, no purchase from me
-Brian

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Will the new release come with a disclaimer saying it has been edited for content like the altered Disney DVDs of Melody Time and Make Mine Music?
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[HenrikTull]

Oh my God, this is even worse than I thought, and I think Spielberg is really making an ass out of himself for doing this. Personally I think it's best not to change a film when it's allready been released. Eventhough the changes are minor the movie is still changed, and changing it "just because you don't like it anymore" doesn't cut it. There are many more things I would have liked to say about this instead I'll keep it short. I'm seriously considering NOT buying the future DVD if this new cut is all the man has to offer (which seems more than likely especially since it's Universal product).
------------------
A Little Slice of Heaven
[Edited last by HenrikTull on October 19, 2001 at 02:58 PM]

 

[Brad Cook]

Is it really sacrilege to alter a film after its release? Think carefully before you answer.
Let's see--Kubrick cut about 15 to 20 minutes out of 2001 about a week after it came out. The Coens just did a new cut of Blood Simple.
Coppolla went back and redid Apocalypse Now from square one.
As we all know, Gilliam did a director's cut of Brazil, and, of course, Ridley Scott changed Blade Runner to his liking.
I don't really care if a director makes changes to a film after it comes out.
As for ET, I agree that the changes don't really need to be made, but I am glad that Spielberg has the power to make them, as opposed to some suits at the studio.
Does anyone have any evidence to show that any group pressured Spielberg into these changes? My understanding is that he said a long time ago that he regretted showing guns in the film (in the laserdisc CE, to be exact), so this clearly has nothing to do with 9/11 or anti-gun people or anything like that.
Of course, everyone is free to like or dislike the change and decide whether or not to see the film based on that. But the level of hyperbole around here is a bit too much.
Oh, and BTW: Why are some objecting to Jaws so much? What's wrong with the DVD release?
And are the objections to CE3K over the fact that it's the "Collector's Edition" (or whatever it's called), instead of the original theatrical release? Personally, I think the film is perfect now; Spielberg got to put in what he wanted, and he was able to take out the going-into-the-spaceship ending.
- Brad

 

[Kelly Payne]

Well, I just looked at that movie poster and all I have to say is "Where the heck is that kid's helmet!"

 

[Patrick McCart]

What I meant was that you're not combating censorship if the director is doing the changes. Do any of you really expect the original scene to be re-instated if Speilberg doesn't want it in the movie and spent money getting the guns digitally removed?
Thousands of signatures could be taken up on a petition to get the original scene put in the way it was originally. All it will show Speilberg is that a bunch of people want the movie THEIR way instead of his.
It's like Lucas's SE's of the SW trilogy. I personally don't prefer Greedo shooting first, but if Lucas wants it that way, that's fine with me.
Movies are never finished...they're just abandoned.

 

[Scott Shanks]

Nice one, Kelly!
While I think that the alteration is silly and unnecessary, I don't think it will stop me from purchasing the disc. It is such a minor alteration, really. The shot of the agents probably only lasts about 5 seconds and doesn't change the story at all.

 

[cafink]

All it will show Speilberg is that a bunch of people want the movie THEIR way instead of his.

If including guns isn't Speilberg's way, then he shouldn't have put them in the movie in the first place.

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Well, I just looked at that movie poster and all I have to say is "Where the heck is that kid's helmet!"

Don't give anyone any ideas.
Very funny, though.
Ryan