Spielberg Q&A Raiders of the Lost Ark at 30th anniversary screening September 12th on status of... - Page 2

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.

That would be quite a rallying cry.

"What do we want?"

"Guns, terrorist and penis breath!"

"When do we want it?"

"Now!"

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.

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.

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.

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!!!"

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.
Edited by Bryan Tuck - 9/13/11 at 10:29pm

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.

Kind of funny we might have a reverse Lucas/Star Wars situation (original with no SE being available on BD). Nice to see Spielberg come around to his current thoughts - and thank God Spielberg directed Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I suspect the "Free Hat" episode of South Park had something to do with Steven's change of mind.

Spielberg should Learn from Lucas. Release the 2002 edition labeled as extras on a second, preferably third disc. Non-anamorphic. 4:3 and Pan and Scan preferably!

Basically, if he decides to include the 2002 cut, fine, but I would never watch it and would never miss it if he buried it in the landfill with the Atari cartridges. Likewise, if George said, "Fine, you win. I'll have Robert Harris meticulously restore and preserve the original original trilogy and use those restorations for a pristine new Blu-Ray set, but you will never, ever see the altered versions again!" I think I'd be okay with that, too.

While things like wires can get lost amid film grain and scratches, I saw Raiders countless times in the summer of '81 and I can assure you the reflection was always visible. As was the fly that Belloq seems to swallow, though according to Simon Pegg:

 

I as recall from interviews Columbia was in financial trouble and wanted CEO3K out in November of 1977 while Spielberg wanted to do more work and was expecting a summer 1978 release.  After the film did blockbuster business Columbia was very agreeable to let him come back and jigger with the film, but only if he gives them a hook, which was the inside of the mother ship.  Spielberg did not want to show the inside, but did want to play with his film so he agreed.  Over the years fans have divided over the two cuts and in 1998 a third version was created by Mr. Spielberg as a director's cut which but back many of the scenes that were cut from the original version, while leaving most of the addition scenes from the 1980 version.  I have to say that both the 1977 and 1980 versions are part of film history. 

 

Again I do want the original ET version on Blu-ray, but the 2002 version does not make a difference whether included or not.  Just as with CEO3K, it was the original theatrical version that I wanted the other two were great extras.  However, when it gets time for 1941, I hope the Blu-ray is of the longer version included, for I did enjoy the extended scenes.  It appears that we can have different thoughts on original versions out of the same brain.

Pauline Kael's review of the Close Encounters speical edition sums up exactly the way I feel about the changes to Star Wars.

That's pretty much what I've always heard, too. Actually, with Close Encounters, I actually like the Director's Cut better than either of the other cuts. I think the Original Version really does dally too long on certain things, but then the Special Edition takes out a little too much, and I agree with Spielberg that the mothership interior should not have been there. To me, the Director's Cut is the one that flows the best (ironic, as it's the longest of the three). All the same, I am very glad to have all three on the Blu-ray.

I do hope both cuts of 1941 are included, as I honestly like the theatrical one better. You're right, different thoughts

Oddly prescient, that Pauline Kael