ET 20th anniversary edition (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

oopsie!
[Edited last by Carl Fink on October 05, 2001 at 01:26 PM]

 

[Damin J Toell]

If Speilberg was indeed not finished with the movie, then he owes me either my money back, because I did not get what I paid for, or a free screening of the new version, because that IS what I paid for.

none of those statements are compatible with absolute control by an artist over his work. i'm not putting these words into your mouth; you made them come out all by yourself.
DJ

 

[Philip Hamm]

For some reason my post came under someone else's name..

I deleted that and here it is for clarification's sake:
Carl, you're emphasizing my point.
In general, we tend to accept this kind of tinkering ("Aliens", "Blade Runner", "Brazil", "Star Trek", etc. etc.) if we happen to agree with the motives of the director. If we don't happen to agree with the motives of the director (who btw is just one part of the entire creative process), we get up in arms. It's a hypocritical situation.
If Ridley Scott is allowed to change "Blade Runner" from the theatrical cut why isn't Stephen Spielberg allowed to change "E.T."? Because you or I disagree with their motives? Please!
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker

 

[Philip Hamm]

Carl, you responded to my screwed up post, and I think your response got deleted.

Friends, remember, in this debate there are no absolutes. No-one's "right" or "wrong". (except perhaps me

but only because if you read my posts I'm taking all sides and attacking the problem from all angles)
You keep reinforcing my point over and over again.
According to you, a director should be able to make changes long after a film has been released only if their motives are to your liking. If their "vision" has somehow been compromised in the film process you think they should be able to go back and change things.
However, if the same director looks back after 10 or so years (13 in this case) and says "You know what? I hate that little thing in that movie! It's always bugged me. I think I'll change it" They're not allowed to.
Same director, same process (changing movies from the theatrical release many years after the fact). You differentiate whether they should be able to do it by your judgement of their motives.
My whole point is you can't have it both ways. You can't endorse changes you happen to agree with (CE3K) and then deplore those that you don't (ET). Either you let the director change from the original theatrical print or you don't. It's up tothe director to decide what they want. They don't answer to us (well, of course they do ultimately when we decide dto buy or not to buy their product). It's really as simple as that.
And I'll say it again, there are plenty of valid points for both sides of the argument. Let's not get nasty I don't want to suspend members. The fact that there are so many valid opinions is what makes this such a fascinating debate.
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 05, 2001 at 01:41 PM]

 

[RobertR]

what's the point of the caps on the word "period"?

To emphasize that there's no "but" after it, the "but" being saying something like "but he needs to bring his 'original vision' to the screen, which he couldn't do because of 'studio pressure' or 'budget constraints'" etc. etc. That is not true.
Again, this makes this case different from some of the other cited examples.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Again, this makes this case different from some of the other cited examples.

in your judgement.
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker

 

[Chuck Mayer]

This has rolled down into a discussion of artist's rights, although no one gives a crap about consumer's rights. But AGAIN, it's SS's decision to change the movie. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM HIM. The only vote I have in this touchy, feely artist-world is my money. However, and I have heard this argued before, Spielberg is not an artist like Mahler or da Vinci. His efforts are colloborative, so different rules apply. Hundreds worked to bring ET to the screen, LED by Spielberg. But legally, it is at his discretion to change those images. In Aliens, BR, CE3K, many changes were done colloboratively. The scenes were filmed, but edited differently, not created years after the fact. In ET, a computer kid at ILM will initiate the change, and he or she will have had NOTHING to do with ET in the first place. So Spielberg is not an artist, living in a vacuum, as many would believe. He is good at his craft, DIRECTING, and the final result is a work of art. But it is not his alone.
And I haven't even covered consumer's rights, but that is a different argument and doesn't really apply to this case. I am still scared that many seem willing to throw it out the window.
Phil,
Saying everyone is making your point does not make it so. Apples and oranges...
Take care,
Chuck

 

[RobertR]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this makes this case different from some of the other cited examples.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in your judgement

Hmm, so is it your "judgement" that all the other examples are exactly the same as this one?

 

[Brad Cook]

"Even ignoring personal preferences for one version over another, such sholarship issues are damned important. As works are modified, we can study the timing, impact, and color of the modifications to learn how people and cultures have reacted and grown (and contracted) over generations. Such study is lost when cultural artifacts are morphed over time with no paper-trail of the morphing that took place."
Of course such scholarship issues are damned important, but who says that DVD is permanent? Do we know if it's sturdier than LD? Is the original version of E.T. not available on LD? Of course it is.
Do we have any storage medium for film that's been proven to last long-term?
Has Spielberg tried to have those earlier versions of E.T. banned permanently somehow? Has he insisted that the original version be allowed to decay and dissapear? Apparently he's been bothered about the guns for years, but yet I've seen E.T. on cable during that time. The VHS tapes and the LD release were still made available, despite his reservations.
I assume you're talking about long-term scholarly studies; i.e., the kind of stuff people will do in, say, 100 years, after everyone involved in this argument and everyone involved in the release and re-release of E.T. are gone. Assuming that both LD and DVD will both survive that long, why won't film scholars be able to sit down and view the LD and DVD releases of the film's initial release and re-release and compare and contrast them? For all we know, the original version may become available on whatever the perferred storage format of the future will be.
How can you say that there's no paper trail? This discussion is a paper trail. All the articles and reviews written back in 1982 are part of the cultural archive of E.T. And all the articles and reviews that will be written next year will become part of that archive too. All those things will be available.
- Brad

 

[Robert Crawford]

Robert,
I don't believe anybody is arguing your point! People are citing examples of films that were altered for video format releases with the changes due to different reasoning as already expressed by many posters. Most of the changes are solely due to the director or studio or both wanting alterations to the product whether we like the alterations or not. If we're unhappy with the changes then the only recourse we have as consumers is to not buy the product, however, the general public will still buy the altered dvd, no matter what the film purists think about the changes.
Crawdaddy
------------------
Peter Staddon: "I didn't say you can put 'Monkeybone' back!"

 

[Brad Cook]

"This has rolled down into a discussion of artist's rights, although no one gives a crap about consumer's rights."
This is silly. What are the consumer's rights? To have whatever they demand?
When Kurt Vonnegut released his final book a few years ago, I read an interview with him, and he said that some of his fans were *demanding* that he keep writing, that it was their *right* to buy more of his novels. Does that mean he should have been forced to keep writing?
Consumers have the right to voice their opinions, and they have the right to vote with their hard-earned dollars, but they don't have the right to demand that any individual or organization do anything (unless, of course, we're talking about, say, Firestone's problems with tires that fall apart).
I guess if anyone around here feels that strongly about what Spielberg has done, then maybe they should file a class-action lawsuit. I'm serious. If you're that upset and you feel that your rights have been trampled on, then go ahead and sue, assuming that petitions, letter-writing and phone calls don't work.
I don't know what else there is to say.
- Brad

 

[Robert Crawford]

Members,
Some of the points of contention in this discussion are starting to border on silliness and petty disagreements. I want this discussion to continue and I hope members can do so without this thread being close or worse yet, memberhips suspended. Therefore, I'm going to step back from this discussion and get a little perspective. Hopefully, some of you will do the same thing!
Crawdaddy
------------------
Peter Staddon: "I didn't say you can put 'Monkeybone' back!"
[Edited last by Robert Crawford on October 05, 2001 at 02:06 PM]

 

[Philip Hamm]

quote: Hmm, so is it your "judgement" that all the other examples are exactly the same as this one?[/quote]"Judgements" aside, here are is the UNDISPUTED FACT: All the above films were modified from their original theatrical release for DVD versions. The changes were made at the discretion of the content owners.
So yes, all these cases are the same. It is a fact, not a judgement. You are judging the worthiness of each change based on your opinion of precieved motives of the content owners.
See what I'm getting at? If we like the change or agree with the content owners (if they claim, rightly or not, that this "represented their original vision") then we celebrate when a movie comes out that is different from the theatrical release. If we don't like the change or don't agree with the content owners (they want to change things years later) we get up in arms!
It's hypocritical. (and to be perfectly clear I'm judging myself here also as a hypocrite) If these people own this art they should be able to make changes, it's their descision to make. Of course the argument that only the theatrical release should be available is trong also. And from a historical perspective this "revisionism" could be very alarming to some.
The more I think about it the more I lean towards the side that says NO CHANGES ALLOWED EVER. Hee hee hee. And I started this debate saying I liked the change.

------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 05, 2001 at 02:22 PM]

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Brad,
Those are the exact rights I was talking about. But they didn't fit into this discussion, so I didn't include them. Don't assume things about what I say. Or if you do assume, please be correct. It makes these discussions ugly. As I said in my POST, all I can vote with is money, and I have the right to disagree. I'm just sick of the roll over and take it concept. Hollywood thrives on that. It's sad that we're arguing, b/c we mostly agree. Hope this doesn't offend, and DJ, I am sorry.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[RobertR]

all these cases are the same.

They are not the same, for the reasons I stated, ie it was Spielberg's CHOICE to put the guns in, NOT the "studio's", not "budget considerations", not "marketing considerations" etc. Those kinds of reasons are given as the basis for some of the changes in some of the other examples.
So they are different in that sense.

 

[RobertR]

I find myself thinking that more artists should adopt the attitude that Mike Knapp has towards his art...

 

[Tom Ryan]

I have never seen E.T. all the way through. Not any version. Therefore, I would like to be able to see it as it was originally in 1982, or at least the best mass home video representation of that (DVD). For Spielberg to deny me this while he allowed a hundred million people to do so in 1982 is unfair. I don't care if he has changed his mind, he didn't THEN and you cannot change the past. He's going to make the changes, and that's his prerogative. It doesn't give him the right to rob the best format of E.T.'s original form, though.
Also, with the issues of the director's cuts of Aliens, Superman, CE3K, etc....well gee, folks, why don't we look at the differences? Everyone one of those films had material ADDED, not taken away, and they were all better for it. Now, the original presentation of them SHOULD be available, preferably via seamless branching, but it's a lot easier to live with the loss of the original knowing that the new one is superior (this opinion is obviously not held by everyone, especially regarding the Star Wars trilogy). I don't know anyone who thinks that putting in idiotic CG cellphones in place of guns will actually improve E.T. Anyone? Anyone want to own up to that?
-Tom

 

[Brad Cook]

"Once an artist signs and displays the work he no longer has the right to alter it in any way."
Are you talking just about paintings, or are you talking about "signing" the work as a metaphor? I assume the latter, since this is a film forum.
All I can say is that Shakespeare was known to tinker with his plays even after they premiered. Many scholars still aren't sure what the "definitive" versions of some of his plays were.
In the end, I think that artists have a right to change their minds. In a perfect world, all movies would be released in their absolute final form and there would never be revisionism for any reason, but, as we know, this isn't a perfect world.
Films are changed for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons we may agree with, and some we may not, but, in the end, it's the right of those who control those films to do as they see fit.
- Brad

 

[cafink]

quote: So yes, all these cases are the same. It is a fact, not a judgement. You are judging the worthiness of each change based on your opinion of precieved motives of the content owners.[/quote]
When we have all of the facts, it is NOT a judgment to say that "Spilberg changed film X for reason Y, while Lucas changed film A for reason B." Just as you are making a judgment whether or not all films should be changed, we are making a judgment whether or not films with certain criteria should be changed. But that criteria is NOT subjective!
Sure, there are cases where deceased directors may not have had the final cut over their film, and we can try our best to reconstruct the film as they envisioned it. But that's simply not the case for any films mentioned here. We KNOW why everyone changed their films. Some did it to restore their original vision, some did it because they've changed their mind, and they simply have a new vision.
The point is, we're not making some arbitrary decision based solely on personal taste, for each and every case. We are not being hypocritical, because we have laid down a certain set of OBJECTIVE criteria, and we follow it for each and every film, regardless of how we might feel about the particular changes.
[Edited last by Carl Fink on October 05, 2001 at 03:16 PM]

 

[AaronMK]

Since when? That would be just like saying someone is a hypocrite because they feel the US should have been involved in WW2 and not vietnam. They would be defending involvement in one war and not another.
Quote:
------------------
This analogy makes absolutely no sense at all to me but if you say so...
------------------

Do I have to spell it out?

I don't think I should. Most people who give a second's thought to it will get the analogy.
Many people have a black or white view on the subject. If you read my earlier posts, you know that my views on whether a director should or should not make changes to their work are not black and white, but they are still well defined.
And no, people who agree with certian edits and not with others are not hypocrits. Many times, they are people who think certain edits improve a movie and certian edits do not, and this has not been the bases of arguments for or against whether a director should have a right to be able to go back and make given changes.
And yes, motives and reasons for actions do matter. For any given action, they can be the determining factor for whether an action is right or that same action is wrong.
Consider this statement:
"If (insert certian circumstances of motives), then I feel a given edit should be made. If (insert other circumstances of motives) then I feel that a given edit should be made."
This and others similar are not hypocritical statments.
If there is one thing that has been made clear from all the valid arguments made for both points of view, it is that whether a director should make certian changes (We all know he/she can) isn't black or white issue.
------------------
My DVD's
If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.