Spielberg Q&A Raiders of the Lost Ark at 30th anniversary screening September 12th on status of Blu (1 Viewer)

[Stephen Brooks]

I'd love to be wrong but I say that there's no chance of that or the wire on the buoy in Jaws being returned.

Actually there's a good chance of it, since this is obviously a new restoration and the change was only made to the 2003 master.

 

[Stephen Brooks]

You know......I'm not sure I completely agree with Spielburg completely suppressing the 2000 version of E.T. It was given a wide theatrical release, and for many it's the first time they saw the film. How is his "regretting" the decisions he made then any more valid than Lucas "regretting" the way the original Star Wars films were release? It should be fairly easy to do a branching version like Close Encounters. I haven't watched either version in years but I remember liking some of the new digital changes (not the walkie-talkies necessarily, but that didn't bother me as much as it does some people). If we're going to take the stand that NO theatrically released film should be scrubbed from existence by the director, then that must include the 2000 Special Edition of E.T. Also, maybe my memory is playing tricks on me here, but I remember Elliot's "penis breath" line being present in both cuts on the DVD (never saw it in theaters). I thought it was a myth that the line was removed because people just assumed it would be given the "family-friendly" nature of the new cut. Anyone have the DVD hand and care to check?

 

[cafink]

I agree, Stephen. I probably hate the 2002 version of E.T. more than you do (I dislike the Walkie-talkies as much as anyone and I don't think the new CGI added anything at all except distractions), but it's still a part of the movie's history, and for that reason I'd like to see it released on Blu-ray, as well. If only one version is to be released, then of course there's no question that it should be the original, but there's no reason a DVD or Blu-ray release can't include both.

 

[TravisR]

I agree, Stephen. I probably hate the 2002 version of E.T. more than you do (I dislike the Walkie-talkies as much as anyone and I don't think the new CGI added anything at all except distractions), but it's still a part of the movie's history, and for that reason I'd like to see it released on Blu-ray, as well. If only one version is to be released, then of course there's no question that it should be the original, but there's no reason a DVD or Blu-ray release can't include both.

Agreed. I might watch the 2002 version once and its exclusion wouldn't have any effect on my purchase but I'd still like to see it included for the sake of history.

 

[Vincent-P]

I agree that even though I don't care for the 2002 version, it needs to be included.

 

[Alan Tully]

Indiana Jones will be out on Blu-ray in either September or October next year. No sooner and no later.

Yep, a Christmas release sounds about right to me. They can wait a year, it's money in the bank.

 

I hope they reinstate the

groan E.T. makes during his death scene.


It's a powerful m om ent that wasn't on the original version (or the 20th anniversary version) on dvd.

 

[cafink]

Eric, are you saying that the "original" version on DVD was actually altered? That's news to me. In fact, I specifically recall that version reinstating a bit--I think it was the "terrorist" line--that had been omitted from every prior home-video release.

 

Yes, but I don't think it was on purpose. The sound was gone from both versions. The only other possible explanation was that it wasn't there in 1982 and added in 1985 for the re-release. Likely, though, it was an oversight during the m ixing. It's kind of an im portant m om ent and I can't believe that Spielberg didn't notice that it was gone.

 

[Lord Dalek]

While there are a lot of fixes to the 2002 version that I think are well done and make perfect sense (fixing E.T.'s run from the feds in the intro; replacing those fake looking puppets with actual kids in the flying scenes, and a few of the new shots of E.T.) most of it is unnecessary and we're better off having the 1982 cut only.


Of course Spielberg could simply put the guns, terrorist, and penis-breath back in and that would actually satisfy everybody, but that ain't ever gonna happen.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I also wouldn't mind if the 2002 SE of E.T. was included on the Blu-ray release. I vastly prefer the original version for a variety of reasons, but as others have stated, that alternate cut is a significant part of the film's history, so maybe it should be presented as well. That said, its exclusion certainly wouldn't prevent me from buying the Blu-ray. Even though, on principle, I feel that a movie's original version (particularly a well-loved classic) should be made available if any version is to be, for me it really comes down to whether or not I feel like I'm watching the same movie. The digital tweaks done for the Indy DVDs may be largely unnecessary, but to be honest, they are so subtle that they don't make me feel like I'm watching a different movie. That's just not the case with the "enhanced" Star Wars and E.T. (or The Exorcist for that matter). And I actually don't have too much of a problem with slight digital tweaking, if the goal is to make the film look more like what it would have looked like in theaters upon its release. It's likely that the cobra's reflection in Raiders wasn't noticeable in a lot of theatrical prints, and it could be that the filmmakers sort of counted on that at the time. It was always fun to point out on the VHS, but I honestly don't mind that being "fixed." Same with the Emperor's "slug" in Return of the Jedi; if the printing process originally obscured that, then it could be argued that digitally removing would be true to the original intended look. Of course, all that is a very slippery slope; you start doing stuff like that, and before you know it you wind up with something like these "Special Editions," so I really don't know.

 

[Greg_S_H]

Of course Spielberg could simply put the guns, terrorist, and penis-breath back in and that would actually satisfy everybody, but that ain't ever gonna happen.

That would be quite a rallying cry. "What do we want?" "Guns, terrorist and penis breath!" "When do we want it?" "Now!"

 

[SamT]

that alternate cut is a significant part of the film's history,

I don't think so. That cut is very insignificant in the film' history and I'm betting that Spielberg wants to drop it all together and don't release it. It was just a quick nightmare and it's passed. By the way, King Kong looks real bad and fake in King Kong (1933). Anyone for a digital replacement by Weta?

 

[TravisR]

that alternate cut is a significant part of the film's history,

I don't think so. That cut is very insignificant in the film' history...

It might have sucked but it wasn't insignificant. And drawing a parallel between Weta adding a digital Kong to the 1933 King Kong makes no sense.

 

[ahollis]

Just as it is about to get quite on the Star Wars front, we have another controversy. Well that's what keeps me coming back to read this forum.

My vote is as long as the original ET theatrical release is included then I will be happy. Have no feeling of ya or nay on the 2002 version being offered.


And I am ok with the Cobra reflection not included as I do not remember seeing it in theatres.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Just as it is about to get quite on the Star Wars front, we have another controversy.

Wouldn't that be great? "No 2002 cut?! Yes, it sucked, but AAAHHHHH!!!! It should be on there!" I guess I was just trying to be fair to anyone who (for some strange reason) actually preferred the 2002 version. But it's good to hear that Spielberg actually presented the question to a roomful of his fans and got such a distinct and unambiguous answer.

I don't think so. That cut is very insignificant in the film' history and I'm betting that Spielberg wants to drop it all together and don't release it. It was just a quick nightmare and it's passed. By the way, King Kong looks real bad and fake in King Kong (1933). Anyone for a digital replacement by Weta?

It might have sucked but it wasn't insignificant. And drawing a parallel between Weta adding a digital Kong to the 1933 King Kong makes no sense.

Yes, the Kong parallel doesn't work, but SamT may be right about E.T.. If Spielberg himself would like the original to be the version that "history remembers," then maybe the 2002 cut should be relegated to the same place in film history as the colorized Casablanca, Maltese Falcon, and everything else Turner got hold of in the 80s. I guess my original point was supposed to be that I wouldn't mind if the 2002 cut was included, but I really wouldn't care if it wasn't. So I would have been among those in the audience the other night shouting "NO!!!"

 

[TravisR]

If Spielberg himself would like the original to be the version that "history remembers," then maybe the 2002 cut should be relegated to the same place in film history as the colorized Casablanca, Maltese Falcon, and everything else Turner got hold of in the 80s.

The difference (to me anyway) is that Spielberg is the one who made the changes. It wasn't done by Ted Turner or some company 40 years after the people involved with the movie died. Apparently, Spielberg regrets the changes but he initiated them so, if only as a curiosity or a look at someone going too far and realizing he should pull back, I think it should be available.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

The difference (to me anyway) is that Spielberg is the one who made the changes. It wasn't done by Ted Turner or some company 40 years after the people involved with the movie died. Apparently, Spielberg regrets the changes but he initiated them so, if only as a curiosity or a look at someone going too far and realizing he should pull back, I think it should be available.

That's a good point, too. After all, Spielberg regrets adding the "mothership interior" to the end of Close Encounters but you can still see that version on Blu-ray. (Of course, that was the "official" version for quite some time.) Well, here I am flip-flopping. I'm really not sure what to think here; all I know is that if E.T. comes out on a Blu-ray that includes the original 1982 theatrical cut, I will most certainly buy it, whether it includes the 2002 cut or not. Just as I would buy an official release of the original, unaltered Star Wars trilogy, no matter what other versions were included. It really would be hilarious if we end up with the opposite issue on E.T. here.

 

[AaronMan]

Good riddance to that new version. There was no reason for it to be created in the first place, so no reason to keep it in circulation.

 

I would like both. The 2002 version could be part of the extras or relegated to another disc. But the big attraction should always be the original.