Confirmed: Spielberg alters "E.T." (1 Viewer)

[Julie K]

NO SALE!
Yes, of course it's Spielberg's movie and if he retains the rights he can do as he damn well pleases with it. He can add giant blue bunnies dancing in the street if he wishes.
However, I have every right to not buy his new product if I deem the changes to be wrong. Not only do I disagree with the notion that this change is solely due to artistic vision (he wouldn't have Neary leaving in the mothership in CE3K today, but you don't see him digitally altering that film) but I do think it's a "big deal" in the movie itself. The music cues, the look on the actors faces, the pacing will all be totally out of place when we see federal agents carrying walkie-talkies instead of rifles.
------------------
My DVDs
"Some people think I'm over-prepared, paranoid...maybe even a little crazy. But they never met any pre-Cambrian life forms, did they?"

 

[Doug Pyle]

And, by the way, what defines "political correctness" that's so horrible for an artist to express it in a film? Very subjective it seems. Is it a set of ideas you or I don't like hearing, because they criticize popular, traditional social standards or values? Or just a set of political opinions with which you or I disagree? But suppose the artist sincerely expresses socio-political ideas that seem annoying to you or me, do we dismiss it out of hand as PC? This is a sure and simple-minded way to diminish our own appreciation of artistic expression. Is Green Card PC because it is sympathetic to illegal aliens? Aliens because it portrays a powerful woman in the lead role? Thelma and Louise because it is Thelma and Louise? Any movie by Costa Gravis? And now into that cesspool of cinematic political correctness, we should cast E.T. because Spielberg decided not to show guns gratuitously to children when it doesn't further the plot anyway, or not to stereotype with that 'terrorist' comment? Maybe I would show guns and stereotypes in my film, but does that make it wrong for Spielberg not to want to in his film?
Political expression has a long and distinguished presence in film, from Eisenstein to Riefenstahl, and Chaplin to Griffiths. I don't know what the charge of "PC" is supposed to mean when leveled against artistic expression, except it usually means the opposite of what it claims to mean: I'm right and I don't want to hear that opposing view.
Again, IMHO.
------------------

• May you be happy and well!

[Edited last by Doug Pyle on October 18, 2001 at 05:34 AM]

 

[Doug Pyle]

Sorry, can't resist: I wish David Mamet's films were blockbusters and that he had a penchant for pointlessly tinkering with their minor details. It would please me no end to read tirades against his daring to alter the classic beloved film, Things Change.
[Edited last by Doug Pyle on October 18, 2001 at 05:29 AM]

 

[Richard Kim]

No, the fact that it is "PC" does not bother me. It is the fact that the director is bowing to outside influences and compromising the realization of a vision.

With all the talk about people hating Jar-Jar,if Lucas listened to all the naysayers and removed Jar-Jar from future releases of TPM, I wonder if there would still be an outcry?

 

[Jeff_A]

NO SALE. I guess I will be supporting a boycott, because I have no intention of purchasing this version of the film. Sadly, I will watch my original VHS release.
This argument seems endless. Of course he has a right to do whatever he likes with HIS film. And as a consumer, I will exercise my right to say it stinks.
This trend that is developing to revise past films (no matter how small the revision appears) is very sad and truly must stop. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.
------------------
The Dark Tower

Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)?

 

[richard plumb]

How many versions of Close Encounters have their been? How is one more definitive than the other? Is the current DVD the 'best' version because its how Spielberg wanted it? If so, then surely the upcoming E.T. is just as valid.
I personally think its a stupid change, but I think it is his perogative to make it if he wishes.

This movie IS a family movie, so I think the removal of the guns is appropriate. Besides, I really think it was a dumb thing in the first place...why the hell would a cop point a gun at a CHILD?

Because they have an ALIEN?! Who knows how you would behave in that situation? I think its completely feasible.

 

[Jeff]

Is Spielberg aware that there were no hand held cell phones in 1982? Even in the movie Lethal Weapon (1987) we see one of those old two part phones.
I'm hoping these are walkie talkies.
Jeff

 

[Tom Brennan]

I'm pretty sure they are walkie talkies and not cell phones.
------------------
Please vote for a Richard Donner Re-Cut of Superman II
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/...ML/003753.html

 

[Doug Pyle]

I recall Spielberg made a comment in an interview I saw (I forget where -- anyone know?) in which he said basically the same thing -- that he didn't think it made sense for the scene to have a cop point a gun toward a child, and he wished he changed it before it was released. If I recall his comment accurately, he wasn't comfortable with it early on, thought it was a mistake, and has long wanted to fix it. I believe it's his genuine preference, and not just what he thinks would be more acceptable to parents.
[Edited last by Doug Pyle on October 18, 2001 at 06:27 AM]

 

[Eric Peterson]

Who said that this was "Censorship"? There is a difference between censorship and revisionist BS. It's one thing to change a movie due to new technology developments or change pacing (i.e Star Wars & Blood Simple), but this is an entirely different animal. Changing dialogue and weaponry to appease all of the PC idiots in the world is not a valid reason to change a classic movie.
I will not be buying this and will hold on to my memories. Spielberg's time would be better spent making a new movie.
I will NOT be buying this!!

 

[Stu Rosen]

It's simple. He's free to change his creative work as he sees fit. You're free to say, "no thanks." What does Spielberg owe to those who have the original version burned into their memories? Unfortunately, nothing at all.
Me, I enjoyed the film, but it premiered when I was in my 20's, and was not a key emotional event in my life. I'm sure my kids will love it, though.

 

[TimDoss]

To me, it has nothing to do with political correctness, or
the filmmaker wanting to show now what he meant to show
then... he is dicking around with what many people regard
as a classic... the time for changing it is done. At what
point do we stop trying to change our history? Would Da
Vinci be allowed to walk into a museum because he always
wanted the Mona Lisa to be a blonde, he just could never
mix the color right? Good or bad, in it's entirety, the
movie is a part of our film history. I don't think that
even the filmmaker himself should be able to take that
away from us.
"If you want the original scene it, you're only saying that you like seeing guns being pointed at un-armed children."
Yeah Patrick, that's what I'm saying. I don't even like the
movie, I was just going to get the DVD so skipping to that
part would be easier. I hate all that rewinding and fast
forwarding when all I want is my daily fix of guns being
pointed at un-armed children.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I recall Spielberg made a comment in an interview I saw (I forget where -- anyone know?) in which he said basically the same thing -- that he didn't think it made sense for the scene to have a cop point a gun toward a child, and he wished he changed it before it was released. If I recall his comment accurately, he wasn't comfortable with it early on, thought it was a mistake, and has long wanted to fix it. I believe it's his genuine preference, and not just what he thinks would be more acceptable to parents.

Spielberg addressed the issue on the ET CE LD, though he probably mentioned it elsewhere as well. I agree that I don't feel this is a bow to outside pressure; it seems to be his idea. However, I think it makes PERFECT sense for the feds to threaten the kids with guns. Even if they never intended to use them, it'd scare the crap out of them, which would hopefully achieve their objective.
Even if that didn't work, I don't think it'd be a stretch for the feds to use the weapons. After all, they're toting around a real, living alien being - that'd be the greatest find in history! You don't think they'd stop at nothing to make sure they kept the little bugger with them?
------------------
Colin Jacobson
DVD Movie Guide
www.dvdmg.com

 

[Gruson]

I really CANNOT believe this.
Star Wars gets ruined first with CGI, etc. and now this. I knew this was coming.
I am so glad I have the E.T. collector's edition box set (one that came with the CD). The video and audio are both superb. I highly recommend this over the normal E.T. LD.
THANK GOD FOR LASERDISCS!!!

 

[David Paymer]

NO SALE
Not surprised about this, however, Spielberg is a businessman, not an artist.
------------------
"If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions."
--Pulp Fiction

 

[Michael Sliger]

I can understand the pressure (external and internal) to alter E.T. to make it more family friendly in today's market. However, I have always felt that it is important not to hide or alter our past. Though they aren't truely accurate, older films are one of the main ways that the general public perceive previous eras. When E.T. was first shown, there was no unrest about the guns in the film. That sort of action was acceptable at the time. When Pecos Bill and other cartoon characters smoked on the big screen, it wasn't even noticed by kids and adults alike. It was the norm of the era. By editing these things out, studios are trying to hide us from our past instead of letting us get a small understanding of human nature in those eras.
I hope Universal and Speilberg will work to support both sides on this issue. Depending on the number of changes, either seamless branching or multiple DVDs can be used to give us both versions of the film. Please try to give both of the main audiences of this movie, kids now and kids at the time it came out, what they desire to see. You have the technology to do so.
------------------
Link Removed Babylon 5 on DVD!
Purchase "In The Beginning/The Gathering" on December 4th.
[Edited last by Michael Sliger on October 18, 2001 at 08:24 AM]

 

[Gordon Moore]

"the call that started it all..."
Yeesh, did they steal that from Snow White? ("the one that started it all...")
Couldn't marketing find something better to say on the poster? What a rip-off.
In regards to the thread, I don't think we're talking about a lot of film time here. On top of that, the crux of the story is intact, so why all the fuss? I guess the best compromise would be seamless branching. It's funny that branching isn't used more. Is it hard to accomplish? Are director's even aware that this can be done? Maybe some education from the authoring company is in order. Maybe the director has never been presented with all the options? Lots of speculation on my part, of course.
[Edited last by Gordon Moore on October 18, 2001 at 11:30 AM]

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Not really sure how I feel about this one; I think I'm going to have to see how the scene plays. While I can understand Spielberg's intentions here, it also seems to me to be ludicrous that government agents, confronted with an alien being that has demonstrated major psychic abilities, would approach the scene WITHOUT guns drawn. They have no idea what the situation is and would certainly not want to be caught with their pants down. The fact that it turns out to be unarmed children just heightens the effect of their overreaction and paranoia.
The changes that Lucas made to Star Wars don't bother me because they're changes; they bother me because Lucas clearly doesn't understand what made the original film work for audiences and he made what was a good film much worse with his meddling. Inserting Jabba the Hutt destroys the surprise value that his appearance has in ROTJ (though by including him in Ep. 1 Lucas screws that pooch again), and Greedo shooting first both makes Greedo an idiot and Han Solo no longer an opportunist rascal. I'm surprised he didn't change the dialogue of Empire to make Han have bought the Millenium Falcon for a fair price. Whether the ET changes have this effect remains to be seen for me. Unfortunately I haven't seen it since its original release, so my memory on the whole situation is hazy.
------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."

 

[Brian Kidd]

Hmm. Guns pointed at unarmed children is unrealistic? Tell that to Elian!

Seriously, I think a boycott would just be whining. The man can change the film all he wants to. We may not agree with it, but in the end, a boycott will achieve nothing and you'll miss out on one of the best films of the last century.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

If you want the original scene it, you're only saying that you like seeing guns being pointed at un-armed children.

Link Removed That is hands-down the funniest thing I have ever read on the forum. It's the kind of straw man characterization of an opposing argument that is usually the forte of talk radio.
Analogous arguments: Disney could delete the poisoned apple from Snow White. If you wanted them to put it back, you would only be saying that you like seeing teenagers be poisoned.
Disney could remove the knife from Gaston's hand in Beauty and the Beast. If you wanted them to put it back, you would only be saying that you like seeing cruelty to animals.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA