ET 20th anniversary edition (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

I always thought the guns weren't to use against the kids. Elliot's mom might have read it that way, but really I thought they were afraid of E.T. The agents weren't privy to the info the audience was, they didn't know he was cute and cuddly. They just knew he was an alien, and had just come back from the dead! Who knows what that thing could have done! He represented a real threat (in their eyes) and the only way they knew to combat it was with guns.

Interesting interpretation, but I disagree. The kids were taking off with the find of the century, and the agents wanted to do whatever they could to stop this. Granted, I never really understood why none of them blasted anybody AFTER they took off into the air - bullets can't hit a flying target? - but I feel strongly that the guns were an offensive, not defensive, weapon in this case...
------------------
Colin Jacobson
DVD Movie Guide
www.dvdmg.com

 

[Dwayne]

This is getting pathetic. I have my own reasons for not liking this proposed change, but if anyone wants a good reason why this scene shouldn't be cut, just take a look at this thread. The scene has many different meanings to many different people. Removing it alters the meaning for many, myself included.
Whether or not this scene is considered a pivotal one (which I think it is) is dependant upon the viewer. But where is it going to end? The film has been considered a classic for twenty years. Why does anyone need to fuck with it now?
I believe one of the things that prompted this fiasco was the Columbine tradegy. Cutting this scene is not going to change things. Parents inquiring about banging sounds coming from the garage will. If anything, the guns in E.T. were clearly portrayed as being sinister and not glorified in any way. This PC shit has simply got to stop. There are more constructive ways to impact on a child the dangers of guns.
------------------
-Dwayne
[Edited last by Dwayne on October 02, 2001 at 12:22 AM]

 

[Damin J Toell]

If this happens Spielberg will violate every artistic principle in existence!

yes, it is indeed a deep violation of artistic principles for an artist to be allowed to do what he wants with his work. how dare he?
DJ

 

[Tom Ryan]

Damin, if and when the artist changes his work because of political/societal pressures, those changes are NOT his vision and therefore not a genuine part of the work. If John Carpenter went back and removed the dog from The Thing because animal rights activists disliked it, would that be part of his "art"? Now, the REAL question is: why is Spielberg doing this? If he REALLY thinks it would be better for the film, and he's not doing it because of outsiders or even the influence of recent events, then bless him, he's the director and I'll wager he knows his own film better than anyone. If not, the changes are wrong and lifeless.
-Tom

 

[Damin J Toell]

quote: If he REALLY thinks it would be better for the film, and he's not doing it because of outsiders or even the influence of recent events, then bless him[/quote]
this is, of course, the explanation that Spielberg is likely to give. even more problematic than those who would doubt him (as is also quite likely) are those who argue that an artist may not modify a piece of art whatsoever after it has been released to the public. this is, in a common form, the viewpoint of the post i was replying to ("removing footage or altering footage because you changed your mind or political beliefs years after the fact is not art, creativity, or poetic license."). i find this viewpoint utterly distasteful. if artistic freedom is to have any meaning whatsoever, the artist must be free not only to create his art, but also to enact any modifications desired (leaving aside the matters of a director doing a film as a work for hire, etc.). Mark E J, in the post i quoted, supports new versions of films that add footage, but not those that delete or alter footage. i believe that this distinction is nonexistant in the context of this debate. in any of those cases, the director is making the call to modify (in a general sense; be it add, remove, or modify existing footage). for artistic freedom to have power, the artist must be allowed to do all of those things. consider a director who wishes to change a film by adding back a previously deleted scene and removing a scene he no longer feels is needed. according to Mark E J's standard of artistic freedom, he is allowed to do the former, but not the latter; i find this to be utterly illogical. an artist cannot be said to have any meaningful freedoms whatsoever if he can only add to existing works; that is not a freedom at all but a pointless external control on an artist who desires to decide the fate of that which he owns. if an artist isn't allowed to make all changes desired (add, delete, or modify), then the so-called artistic freedom is completely illusory.
i believe it to be a violation of artistic principles for Mark E J to arbitrarily decide that an artist may add to a work after the fact, but not delete or modify. if freedoms matter, all changes must be allowed.
Mark E J's argument is a variant on an even deeper attack on artists: those who argue that any changes after the fact are disallowed, even adding. for example, Adam_S says: "when you submit art to the public forum, it becomes a collaboration between the artist and the observer, for the artist to take back what they once made, remove it from all possible future appreciation, and for the artist to deny that the feelings and opinions made by their previous millions of collaborators upon the 'horribly flawed what was i thinking' work are valid is stupid, self-centered, and mean." in general, the argument runs that once the art goes out of the artist's hands once it has been released publically, and it no longer exists "for him," but rather "for everyone" within the minds of the viewers, the texts of criticisms, etc. (in short, the discourse). therefore, it goes, since the art itself has left hands of the artist, he cannot go back and change anything. i find this last step to contain a fatal logical flaw, as it is contradictory with the previous step in the argument: if the art has left the hands of the artist, it is simply not possible to modify that original work, anyway. nothing the artist can do can change anything about the relationships that viewers had to that original piece. for example, Apocalypse Now Redux cannot possibly change anything in the discourse about the original cut of the film because, as the inital statement claims, that original discourse cannot be modified by anything that the artist would do. as a result of the work being beyond the artist's control, the artist should be allowed to make any and all modifications he desires because the discourse (the "collaboration between the artist and the observer," as Adam_S puts it) of the original work can't be changed, anyway. if the artist is powerless to define the limits of interpretation of his work, the release of a newly-modified version of that work can't logically do something that the artist simply isn't able to achieve by virtue of the nature of discourse. since the artist is unable to affect the collaborative nature of art, he should be allowed to do whatever the heck he wants; the original collaboration remains despite future modifications.
in short: Spielberg should be allowed to do whatever the heck he wants because:
(1) artistic freedom demands such an allowance
(2) the original version (i.e., the original "collaboration between the artist and the observer") can't be affected by such modifications, anyway; the original version of E.T. remains unmodified (and, indeed, unmodifiable) for the "previous millions of collaborators."
DJ
[Edited last by Damin J Toell on October 02, 2001 at 04:43 AM]

 

[Mark E J]

Damin,
Ok I'll admit you have a point, it's his film and he has a right to change it if he wants to. But just because you have the right to do something doesn't always mean you should. If it doesn't violate "every artistc principle", it certainly violates the principle relationship between an artist and audience: Trust. Years ago he trusted the viewer to watch the film and make up his own opinion. Now he fears we'll make up a bad opinion so he takes away the option. I think this is wrong.
I think it is also worth pointing out that in the course of the film no gun was ever fired or even pointed at a child. In the case where the agents surround the empty van they had no way of knowing that only kids took the van. Infact they probably had a gut reaction that somebody else besides the kids was stealing the van and the alien body. I probably would have under the circumstanses. In any case it was a serious incident and surrounding the van with guns drawn would be standard procedure. In the case of the roadblock the shotguns were never pointed at the kids, they were pointed up in a non-threatening manner while the officers calmly waved for them to stop. They had no intention useing the guns, they were simply there to show the kids that the officers meant business. To remove this aspect will take away the sense of reality from the film, and this marriage of reality and fantasy is exactly what made this film (and much of early Spielberg) so great.
Also the concept of replacing guns with cell-phones will look stupid in the final film. Picture twenty goverment agents running to surround a van holding cell-phones over their heads, and what about the mothers dialouge in this scene? She is clearly heard shouting "No guns, their only children!" What are they going to do with this? overdub it with the line "No cell-phones, there's a hospital near by".

All in all I think it is a horrible idea. However if Mr Spielberg wants make a special edition of this movie that's fine, change it any way you want. But PLEASE release the original version first! I mean many have (and will) question the changes made to The Exorcist and Apocalypse Now but atleast there we will always have the originals preserved on DVD.

 

[Mark E J]

Damin,
I did not see your second post until after my response. Again you make some very good points and I agree with most of them. So I'll modify my original statements. I believe it is a violation of artistic principle to REPLACE the original form of any piece of art with a new version of it. This is what is wrong with the Star Wars trilogy. Lucas didn't just create an alternate version or "director's cut" of his work, he removed the original version of it so no one will ever be able see it again in any form unless you already have it.
How can this help the commerce between the artist and admirer? If this principle of replacement stands how can we ever consider any art sacred? Must we breath a sigh of relief when and artist dies, knowing only then can we enjoy their works without fear of losing them to a "new improved" version? Where does it all end?
However you're right my original statement of "add but not subtract" was flawed and I retract it. Art is fluid and should not be hindered. There are many films that I truly wish WOULD be modified. Jacob's Ladder for instance, I feel the director's decision to cut out the films final 20 minutes destroyed this film just as much as if you cut the last 20 minutes out of The Exorcist or Requiem for a Dream. Nothing would please me more that to see an alternate version of this film restoring it's climax. By the same token I feel that films like Blade Runner for instance was improved by removing the narration and happy ending, and I'm really looking forward to the director's cut of Pearl Harbor that will reportedly have a great deal of footage removed and replaced with more violent and realistic footage.
So you're right there is no difference between adding, removing, or altering footage, it's all part of the artistic process. But I still feel it is every bit as important to preserve art in it's original form as it is to allow an artist freedom to interpret it.
To let a piece of art be lost or discarded in favor of something "new" is to compromise everything art stands for in the first place.

 

[TheoGB]

It sounds stupid to me. I've not seen the film since...since it came out, actually, but it's going to cost them a load of money to make a change to a section of a movie most people probably wouldn't have really noticed. I say this because I never heard anyone say 'oooh - those guns seems pretty weird there'. Now, however, those who've watched the movie and know it well are left with something that will grate time and time again.
Let him do something decent with his cash and make the FX in the finale of Temple Of Doom look even vaguely realistic.

 

[Philip Hamm]

quote: Let him do something decent with his cash and make the FX in the finale of Temple Of Doom look even vaguely realistic.[/quote]I would guess that many of the effects in "Temple" were deliberately made to look unrealistic. I don't think that's going to happen.
As for Spielberg's motives here, many people are jumping to conclusions here. Don't. In the SE LaserDisc documentary (circa 1994) Mr. Spielberg makes it very clear why this change is taking place. He was in doubt about having the guns in the film from the time he made the final cut. It's something that has been bothering him about the movie since it first came out. I believe he goes so far as to state that had the technology been in place in 1982 to digitally remove the guns he would have. However, the film had already been shot and reshooting these scenes would have been prohibitive.
This is not some "revisionist" trying to be "politically correct". He just thinks that having guns brandished against children in a children's fantasy movie is inappropriate. I agree.
------------------
Philip Hamm
Pat's the best!™
AIM: PhilBiker
click on the little green house to see the evolution of my home theater!
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 02, 2001 at 07:54 AM]

 

[RobertR]

This is not some "revisionist" trying to be "politically correct". He just thinks that having guns brandished against children in a children's fantasy movie is inappropriate

.
I don't buy this argument at ALL. He obviously DID think brandishing guns against children WAS appropriate, because HE PUT THEM IN THERE. He can't make ANY plausible excuse that he put the guns in the scene because of "studio pressure" or "time constraints" or "budget constraints". He made his OWN ARTISTIC CHOICE to put them in the scene. I never read ANYTHING from Spielberg back in '82 that he wished he hadn't put the guns in.
The objective fact is that he chose to put the guns in, and years later decided he wanted to revise the film. To say that revising the film isn't revisionist sounds like Orwellian/Clintonesque doublespeak to me.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Phil (and folks),
You can't expect us to agree. Steven has the right to change his movie as he sees fit. FACT. You think it won't change the effect of the movie. I think it will. OPINION for you, OPINION for me. It's your opinion because it applies to you, but not to everyone. But it's a fact to me, because it applies to me specifically. I am not a fan of political correctness because it inhibits freedoms that I hold dear. Please feel free to run with that and put words in my mouth if you (being a general "you," available to anyone) would like...it's the typical defense. Anyways, all I ask is to give me, the FAN, the spender, the one who has filled his coffers with my youthful money and love, a CHOICE. They won't b/c they find it irresponsible to do that. I find it irresponsible not to, but I am not rich, and I have no real power, therefore my opinion is not valid. ET means a lot to me. I will most likely buy the LD now to ensure MY choice. That's why this is so important. As long as GL gives me a choice of SW, I won't complain. I prefer the original, b/c the SW that lives in my memory is a better movie than exists now. It's that simple. However, SS and GL have no obligation to allow a choice. It's their work. It's their choice. But I don't have to like it, and I am willing to sell that part of my childhood to just ask for it.
That's why we are mad, Phil. We don't like being pandered to, or told to accept their new version and like it as the same. I respect GL and SS as visionaries, and I am certain they are good people. But I don't have to like or AGREE with their decisions.
Sincerely,
Chuck

 

[Philip Hamm]

Chuck, please read my last post again. It's not modern "political correctness" that's behind this change. This was decided on many years ago (probably long) before the LaserDisc SE came out.
RobertR, Good point. My post was poorly worded. The way he put it appeared that he put the guns in, then decided soon after, likely after seeing it a few times over a few years, that it was inappropriate.
I think this is being blown so far out of proportion that it's ridiulous. It would be more appropriate if there was half as much "outrage" about what Lucas did with Star Wars.
------------------
Philip Hamm
Pat's the best!™
AIM: PhilBiker
click on the little green house to see the evolution of my home theater!
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 02, 2001 at 10:08 AM]

 

[RobertR]

Phil, the degree to which the change bothers people is obviously subjective--you're not bothered by it at all, while others are bothered by it a great deal. It isn't that difference that I objected to so much as your arguments along the lines of "this change isn't really a change".
And, of course, there's the issue of opposing such changes on principle, regardless of how much the particular change does or doesn't bother you.

 

[Perry Williams]

ACROSS 110TH STREET highly recomended.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I would like to quote the comments Spielberg made on the SE laserdisc for a frame of reference:

~Edwin
------------------
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/005780.html#8 http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/006466.html

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Phil,
I understand it's not political correctness leading this charge. It is HIS personal opinion about HIS movie. I am not arguing his right to do it. I am explaining that the choice will not be well-received by many. Perhaps the movie will improve, but I doubt it. I could be wrong. And I agree that it is minor, but like the infamous Greedo shooting first (which is also minor - and less than 2 seconds), I believe it will change the flow and intent of the scene and to a lesser extent, the conflict. Like I ended my post, I don't have to agree with the change or buy it. That's my choice. And because I love ET, it's a hard one.
Sincerely,
Chuck
------------------
He had a plan. Maybe you just didn't see it 'til it hit you between the eyes. But, it started to make sense... in a Tyler sort of way. No fear. No distractions. The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide.

 

[Damin J Toell]

quote: How can this help the commerce between the artist and admirer? If this principle of replacement stands how can we ever consider any art sacred? Must we breath a sigh of relief when and artist dies, knowing only then can we enjoy their works without fear of losing them to a "new improved" version? Where does it all end?[/quote]
you're begging two very important questions: why is it desirable to consider a work of art "sacred"? why would we want the artistic process to end?
i see no terrible "sky is falling" proposition in the idea that an artist may, from time to time, at his discretion, do whatever he wants with his own artwork. i don't understand the desire for security in the artist/observer relationship. why does art have to be static to be enjoyable? you can enjoy the original version of E.T. forever, no matter how many times Spielberg changes things in it. as i argued earlier, new versions simply have zero effect upon the the relationship the observers had to the original version.
ask yourself the following: is it desirable to allow Spielberg to write an article all about the changes he desires in E.T. (say, in Film Comment Magazine). the article wouldn't change anything intrinsic to the original film itself; those who choose to read it can either accept it or deny it according to their own desires/tastes and the original film remains unchanged. the same is true of a modified re-release of the film. those who choose it see it can either can either accept it or deny it according to their own desires/tastes and the original film remains unchanged. the 20th Anniversary re-release is like a Film Comment article, having no effect upon the original film.
and death, of course, doesn't end the process, anyway. look at the numerous revisions to Tolkien's work in the years after his death.
DJ
[Edited last by Damin J Toell on October 03, 2001 at 11:03 AM]

 

[Jeff_A]

...as i argued earlier, new versions simply have zero effect upon the the relationship the observers had to the original version...

Zero effect? You're leaving out one minor detail. The original version would no longer exist, so there is no longer ANY relationship (except maybe a memory). I understand your argument for an artist's rights, but to say that it has no effect on this relationship is ridiculous - IMO.

------------------
The Dark Tower

Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Zero effect? You're leaving out one minor detail. The original version would no longer exist, so there is no longer ANY relationship (except maybe a memory). I understand your argument for an artist's rights, but to say that it has no effect on this relationship is ridiculous - IMO.

so what does it mean for a film to "exist"? to be currently showing in a theater? if so, most films don't "exist" anymore. to be available on home video? if so, many films also don't "exist". to be a piece of film sitting in a canister? if so, the original E.T. still exists. a work of art, exemplified by the artist/observer relationship, exists in the discourse that it creates: in the memories of the observers, in the articles written about it, etc. my feelings about E.T. won't cease to exist when the 20th Anniversary release happens. my DVD of Apocalypse Now didn't disappear like Marty McFly's photo of his family when Redux came out. the original films exist, and will continue to exist, no matter how many re-releases happen. even if an artist removes a piece of work from public view and replaces it with something different, the original work exists.
DJ

 

[Jeff_A]

Damin,
I believe the discussion here concerns the eventual DVD release of ET (not the theatrical or VHS versions). Your analogy makes no sense to me. Your feelings for the original version of Apolcalypse Now didn't change because they didn't have to - a DVD version exists.
------------------
The Dark Tower

Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)?