ET 20th anniversary edition (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

You said it on page six of this thread. I claimed that we had laid down some objective criteria — that the changes were not coerced, but chosen by Spielberg himself. You responded:

The very fact that I (and many others) disagree with what you call an "objective" criteria, makes both our opinions "subjective" by definition, no? I think that the fact that this debate rages on is proof enough that there does not exist any "objective" criteria whereby to make such a judgement.

 

[Philip Hamm]

You completely and totally misunderstood my post. Probably my fault as I'm not that great a writer obviously

. I don't see anything there claiming that Spielberg was coerced into the guns. I was simply stating that what you claim is an "objective" criteria is actually subjective, subject to the director's intent, or their claim to intent (whether the descision was made before or after the film was released in theaters or not is irrelevant). I don't think I'm doing much better now.
What did you think of that paragraph I wrote up there?
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 06, 2001 at 12:54 AM]

 

[cafink]

I think you have a valid point, and you make a good argument for it. I respect your position, I just don't happen to agree with it.
[Edited last by Carl Fink on October 06, 2001 at 12:58 AM]

 

[Philip Hamm]

That's what's so compelling about the whole thing! It's all based on different people's interpretations of art and opinions! As I've written a bunch of times, the thing about this particular debate is that there can be no right answer because it's all based on opinions and emotions and interpretation of a "pop" art form!
The funny thing is that we all want our cake and to be able to eat it too! On one hand we say it's OK for director X to make a change 20 years later because his claimed intentions match our own artistic sensibilities. Then on the other hand we say Director "Y" (or "X" on a different project!) should NOT be allowed to make another change (in this case a minor one when compared to most of this type of tinkering.). And what is this response base on? Once again, based on our own artisitic sensibilities and their bearing on judgements that we make on the director's stated intentions!
Aside: That's why I say the criteria you layed out is not objective. Because it's based on your artistic sensibilities. You have decided that a certain type of director's stated motives are acceptible for you, and a certain type of director's motives are unacceptable. So you break down these changes into objective categories:
(1) Changes that are made because the director was forced by some outside forces to compromise their motives before the film was released.
(2) Changes that are made because the director looks back years later and wishes they made a change.
Sure you can say "objectively" that Spielberg is doing this because he changed his mind after the fact. My point is that's irrelevant to me! It's objective, yes, but totally irrelevant. Imposing that criteria is subjective, even though the choices themselves are not. In my opinion the director's motives are irrelevant to whether we should accept this type of tinkering or not. You disagree. Who's right? Both of us! Neither! (Only James Cameron really caters to both groups on a regular basis, and I wish more directors would.)
What's for sure is that the director is not going to possibly be able to be objective in the process of "recreating his vision" returning to a project 20 years later regardless of his stated motives, no matter how noble they may seem to be.
If we are serious about film as an art form (and many of us are, that's why we're HT ehthusiasts) then we should be consistent about this issue. The "film purist" doesn't have any philosophical inconsistencies, to him/her it's black and white. Show what was in the theaters.
Personally I like all of us make up my mind on a case-by-case basis. In the case of "Star Wars" and "Aliens" I reject the director's "second cut" because I find them inferior to the original as an art form. However, in the case of "CE3K", "ET", and many others I accept the Director's changes.
Fun topic. There really is no wrong answer, only opinions.
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 06, 2001 at 01:08 AM]
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 06, 2001 at 01:12 AM]
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 06, 2001 at 01:17 AM]

 

[cafink]

If we are serious about film as an art form (and many of us are, that's why we're HT ehthusiasts) then we should be consistent about this issue. The "film purist" doesn't have any philosophical inconsistencies, to him/her it's black and white. Show what was in the theaters.

To be honest, a big part of me wants to just say, forget about film as an art. Let the studios release all versions of a film that exist, and let the viewer choose for himself. That way, everyone is happy! We can choose which version we enjoy the most! After all, isn't that what our hobby is about? ENJOYING the movie?
Of course, then I realize that such an attitude is the exact reason it's all but impossible to find a widescreen version of "The Mummy Returns" to rent, and that we almost got no widescreen version of "Willy Wonka" at all. So I'm really torn here.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Well, calling film "art" is an interesting conundrum.
Is "Freddy Got Fingered" art?
How about "Citizen Kane"?
How about "Pokemon: The Movie"?
"Barney's sing-a-long"?

Hey I made major edits to my last post - please review. Good stuff.
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker

 

[cafink]

quote: . Imposing that criteria is subjective, even though the choices themselves are not.[/quote]
But is it any less subjective to just say "no changes at all, ever"?? Your opinions might not differentiate based on criteria, but you're still ultimately falling back on your own personal (and very much SUBJECTIVE!) sensibilities.
[Edited last by Carl Fink on October 06, 2001 at 01:54 AM]

 

[Evan Case]

I SUBJECTIVELY OBJECT to the OBJECTIVE of this SUBJECT.
Evan
------------------
"* * * * * * * * * * * * *" - Buster Keaton
S&S: 16 films left
Most recent: Paisan

 

[AaronMK]

Alright, cease fire for a bit.
Philip,
That paragraph cracked me up. I read it three times trying to make sense of it, before getting to "joking aside". Keeping track of what is OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE in this discussion is making my head spin.

BTW, I see you are editing your posts. You're doing it in service of the original vision I hope.

Maybe we have reached that point to agree to disagree. It seems from your recent posts like you now understand my view, and I really hope that I understand your view because you and others have brought up many good points and views that I had not considered before. This makes it easy to hold high respect for these points of view even if they differ from mine.
With people so passionate and having given so much thought to their views definently makes makes for much more interesting and rewarding discussion, even if it does get heated at times and people say/type things that are inappropriate (myself included, of course).
Wow, it feels good to have gotten that out.

Alright, I suppose it is time to continue fire.
------------------
My DVD's
If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.
[Edited last by AaronMK on October 06, 2001 at 02:08 AM]

 

[LARUE]

Whatever your view on the matter, Spielberg will make the changes and everyone will buy the disc.
Then when the HD version comes out maybe he'll: leave it as it is, restore the original version, or decide the agents should be holding Candy Canes to lure E.T.!
Doesn't matter, everyone will buy it again.
When I think of how many truly great movies are out there, versus how many times some people are going to purchase E.T., it makes me sad.

I for one ain't buying it!
LARUE

just before he died Van Gogh was gonna put the ear back!

 

[David Lambert]

I would simply like to have A CHOICE. Give me both the old and the new vesions so that I can choose to watch either one at my leisure. If you must charge a separate fee for each, then okay. But at least give me a choice. Same for Mr. Lucas and the Star Wars Trilogy.

There, that takes care of both camps (pro-vision and anti-revision), doesn't it?
There was another thread called "What changes did Spielberg make to Close Encounters and ET?"
( http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum15/HTML/031290.html
MORE TV ON DVD, PLEASE!

 

[Mark E J]

David,
You hit the nail on the head. What we should have here is choice. In fact I will recant all of my previous statements in favor of this concept. It doesn't matter what changes are made or what the motivations behind them are if you can have both versions.
This should even satisfy Damin(but probably not).

How can you violate artistic freedom buy seeing all the versions an artist has to offer? We should have the original theatrical version of any given film plus any alternate version the artist should decide to put out. That way art is served and everyone is happy. (Except maybe Damin)

 

[Matt Wallace]

David,
I agree with the idea of choice. I just bought Star Wars -again - on VHS to get a non-SE version in my collection. That's how sure I am I won't see it on DVD.
I also wanted to point out that the Retailer does NOT lose in the scenario you painted. In the age of a computer, multiple SKU's don't mean jack. If anything, we win as much as the consumer does because we capture more sales per title by offering CHOICES, rather than take it or leave it. Also, we can take anything that doesn't sell after a certain time and return it to the studio. That's when they start getting the message. Disney sure did see alot of P&S Remember the Titans and 102 Dalmations come back from my store about the same time they got my order for more Widescreen That's the best feedback they get from retailers about what works and what doesn't. That's also the best feedback we get as retailers, because we know what the consumer wants in a more immediate and dependable way.
BTW- to get back to topic, leave the guns in!! Quit screwing with our childhoods! Yes, we have the memory, but we can't relive the experience with the edits in place.
"Run E.T.!! They're collecting roaming charges on their Cell phones!! It's madness!!! Ahhhhhhhh!!!"
Give me a break...
Matt
------------------
"And I say I'm dead, and I move"....

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think the perfect solution would be to retain the guns for the agents, give ET a pistol as well, and have him shoot first...
------------------
Colin Jacobson
DVD Movie Guide
www.dvdmg.com

 

[Kyle Milligan]

Man! Was there this much outrage when the Coens decided to trim down "Blood Simple" to improve it?
I think it's a lame thing to do also, but it's his right as the director to change it if he wants. There's a great deal of talk about artistic obligation and a line in the sand being crossed. That may be true if the original artist wasn't behind it, but that's not the case.

 

[Michael Allred]

I'm curious here.
To all you folks who oppose an artist changing his work, do you only think of movies when this subject comes up? Spielberg and "ET", Lucas and "Star Wars"? Would this idea bother you as much if it occured in another medium?
For example, The Beatles going back into the studio and removing all of Ringo Starr's drumming from "Sgt. Pepper" and replacing it with Roger Taylor's (from Queen) re-recorded drum playing?
------------------
My DVD collection--> http://members.tripod.com/~evilbaby/DVD_Collection.html

 

[Damin J Toell]

This should even satisfy Damin(but probably not).

i am satisfied when what the director wants to happen, happens. if he doesn't want to release multiple versions, then he shouldn't have to. if he has no problem with it, then by all means, release 'em all.
DJ

 

[Jeff_A]

I'm curious here.
To all you folks who oppose an artist changing his work, do you only think of movies when this subject comes up? Spielberg and "ET", Lucas and "Star Wars"? Would this idea bother you as much if it occured in another medium?
For example, The Beatles going back into the studio and removing all of Ringo Starr's drumming from "Sgt. Pepper" and replacing it with Roger Taylor's (from Queen) re-recorded drum playing?

This would be an abomination if all of the original versions of SP were magically removed and this was now to be considered the definitive version.
If the original version we fell in love with were still available, I would relish something new like you are suggesting.
Perhaps this the essence of what many here are saying to the artist. Fine, change your work if you see fit. Offer the world your new vision. But please DO NOT remove your original work. Offer us something in addition to it. Are we to somehow pretend the original never existed?
------------------
The Dark Tower

Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)?