Posted September 02 2006 - 11:42 AM
Sometimes I laugh a bit though, because of the so-called purist argument of not altering films.
How many films were put out in Mono that are now in Dolby Digital? Or Stereo and upmixed to DD5.1? How about films that were recorded usign Sens-O-Rama that are of course not offerred that way?
Films like "Vertigo" get cleaned up, have the color "enhanced" and have a DTS soundtrack, as well as a re-recording of some music in order to put it back.
How is any of that something that seemingly gets a pass here, but when someone suggests updating special effects, which is the most notable failure of older works, people go ballistic.
Think about it. At one point, hundreds of years ago, someone staged Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet" for the first time. Now, we do it with elaborate stagecraft, set design, etc. Is that update heretical as it's no longer being done on a wooden flat stage exactly as it was presented the first time?
I kind of get the argument some propose that they want nothing to ever change. But it does. Just by putting a movie on DVD, in some ways, important facts about it change. The black level is no longer truly consistent with film. It undergoes a form of compression. Audio is changed. The movie is presented with menus, something it obviously never had in a theater, and the existance of a commentary track is an alteration of it's original presentation.
I have no problem with them takin the old star trek and remaking the special effects. Why not, it's just fiction. If Majel Barret doesn't object, then I don't understand why I should.
I disagreed with Lucas because he effectively ditched the originals and did not allow you to have both. But here, you can easily have both. And I don't see any problem with that at all.
Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)
This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3