Posted January 21 2004 - 09:42 PM
| Sorry, but it's already true as I explained why in several posts. |
Your explanation doesn't nearly suffice to prove that a "vast change" or "growing trend" has occurred. To prove that a change (especially a "vast" one) has occurred or that a trend is occurring, one must provide both the before and the after of the situation, and then a comparison of the two. You've only done one part of this. Your posts have only provided the after: the situation you believe currently exists with regard to films being recut. You then claim to be making a comparison. However, you do not provide the before. It's impossible to make a comparison of the after without knowing the before. You've got nothing with which to compare it. You haven't provided any foundation for the claim that films were recut with less frequency in the past; you just keep repeating that it happens more now. When I and others provide you with some historical perspective, you ignore it and keep repeating that it happens more now.
Without both the before and the after, no comparison of the two can be made, and thus no change or trend can be proven. Since you provide only the after, you have proven neither a change nor a trend.
| Previously re-cut movies before 1997 doesn't disprove my point about a growing, recent trend and DVD has *some* kind of influence. |
No, it doesn't disprove the point that the DVD format has some influence on the way older films are now released. It does, however, work to disprove the claim that there has been "a vast change in the last seven or eight years compared to the previous hundred or so years" or that there is "recent trend" in this regard. Information regarding the frequency of pre-1997 recut films is absolutely essential to proving either. Again, without a comparison of the two sets of data (pre- and post-1997), no change or trend can be proven.
| As stated to the effect previously, Alien is the most recent example we have seen. |
, like another film in your list, The Exorcist
, is a rather ironic example that actually does more to disprove your claim about the history of the practice: both films have sequels that were recut long before DVD. So, yes, while Alien
was recently recut for theatrical and DVD release, Aliens
was recut before the DVD format was a glimmer in anyone's eye. And, yes, while The Exorcist
was recently recut for theatrical and DVD release, The Exorcist II: The Heretic
was recut during its theatrical run before even the laserdisc format hit the market. Four films, two series, two recuts pre-DVD, two recuts post-DVD. Not a very good argument in favor of a new DVD-spurred trend that signifies a major historical change.
And, of course, one of the other films you cite to, Star Wars
, was surely not affected by DVD in its 1997 Special Edition release, or we wouldn't still be waiting for it to come out on the format 7 years later.
| On any rate, I have no more to say about the matter as I agree with the moderator that this has gotten off topic. |