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

[DaveF]

I don't care about E.T. so much, as I'm interested in the larger argument: should creators modify their art after its initial public presentation?
Perhaps it depends on whether it's performance art or static art. Static art, like paintings or sculpture, are generally considered "finished" when they are, well, finished. The sculptor does not revisit his work in a gallery to tweak it. Performance art, such as a play, changes over time as a matter of course -- the performers' style changes or improves; performers come and go. But they may also be modified based on feedback from audiences.
Perhaps ownership matters. The painter can't modify the painting I bought (unless I give him permission to do so). But for a play, I merely buy the right to view it one evening. I've got no claim of ownership to protest changes made after my viewing.
What about movies?
They are both performance art and static art. The ownership is studio, though some would make a "public ownership" type argument against that. And studios like to keep talent like Spielberg happy, so they may allow them to modify the work later.
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer about this. Moreover, as a public speaker, it's a given that I will work to improve my presentations. The idea that my speech should be forever the same as the first public performance is ludicrous. It's almost always good edit a speech after a presentation, to improve it for the next time.

 

[Mike_G]

Oh, I can just see it now. In the one shot where the officer cocks the shotgun, instead there's a closeup of his hands whipping open the cell phone.
Now I remember why I got a DVD-R.
I'm going to have to say that the sense of danger is gone now. Ok, so they're blocking the road. Is THAT supposed to be a Big Deal after all the hairpin turns, skidding, and riding they've ALREADY done? Unless there's something that's just as appropriate for that scene, I think this is going to be a wash.
By the way, not to sound morbid, but I'm thinking realistically here - what happens when a filmmaker dies? Who decides on what's released afterwards? Could a mid-21st Century Fox or Universal FINALLY release the original versions of the films we hate the alterations of?
Mike

 

[MichaelG]

Hmmm, anyone interested in an unopened Collector Edition box set of ET? I am sure that one was never touched.

 

[Ryan Wright]

Do you suppose the "penis-breath" line has been edited out?

Nevermind the fact that children already say things like this when they think adults aren't listening...
------------------
-Ryan (http://www.ryanwright.com )
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you do criticize them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

 

[Stu Rosen]

While I think it's an interesting issue as to whether a creator SHOULD make changes, can we all at least agree that the owner of the work (here - I misspoke earlier - the studio, probably, not Spielberg) has the right to do so?

 

[Brian-W]

I say we give this whole E.T. debacle a break and forget about it for now.
Why? Because as soon as it's shown theatrically, this whole argument and discussion will start up again. Then I'll again suggest we take a break from the debate...
Why? Because as soon as the DVD is released, we're back to square one arguing all over again. Seems 90% of the people in these E.T. edit threads are against them, and 10% don't care/support the edits.
-Brian

 

[RobertR]

can we all at least agree that the owner of the work (here - I misspoke earlier - the studio, probably, not Spielberg) has the right to do so?

Hmmm. I wonder if Spielberg was one of the people bitching about Ted Turner's colorization of B&W movies (Turner, of course, had bought the rights to the films and was therefore their legal owner).

 

[RobR]

quote: If, over time, a director decides to change something, he or she has every right to.
As much as we love them, we as the audience hold no creative control over them.[/quote]
Suppose the director becomes mentally insane in late life and decides to reedit and ruin a masterpiece

[Edited last by RobR on October 18, 2001 at 04:48 PM]

 

[Matty B]

A little OT, but if you are not prepared or intending to use the gun, you don't point it at someone. That's one of the most basic rules of handling a gun.

Ah, the mouth of a man that has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. As someone that has been arrested, I will tell you RIGHT now that federal agents and local police departments have NO problem with pulling guns on you as a way to motivate you with fear. Maybe in personal gun use (Ugh, dont get me started) you shouldn't point a gun if you don't plan to use it, but federal agents and cops don't follow those rules.

 

[MickeS]

you shouldn't point a gun if you don't plan to use it, but federal agents and cops don't follow those rules.

I never said they did, and it might fit fine in the movie. The poster seemed to encourage this behavior, which is why I commented on it. I have no doubt that cops and federal agents use them as a way of threatening people even though they in many cases shouldn't. But that's still OT...
/Mike

 

[AaronMK]

Moreover, as a public speaker, it's a given that I will work to improve my presentations. The idea that my speech should be forever the same as the first public performance is ludicrous. It's almost always good edit a speech after a presentation, to improve it for the next time.

It would be one thing to change the speech with the intention of better communicating your ideas. It would be another thing to change the speech in a way that alters the ideas being communicated.
It is similar with movies. There are certian changes that can help to better realize a vision (updated special effect and sound, adding certian scenes, etc), and there are those that are contrary to the original vision (greedo shooting first, removal of the guns, etc.)
People go to see new cuts of films to see a better realization of that vision, not something contrary to it. Leaving a viewer with contrary realizations of a vision lessons the integrity of that vision. This is why I feel films should pick a vision and stick to it.
------------------
My DVD's
If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.

 

[David Lambert]

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.

• Yes, the man can change the film all he wants to.
• A "boycott"? You mean me not buying the film. It will achieve this: I won't own something I don't want. If a LOT of people also don't want it and don't buy it, I suppose you could call that a "boycott".
• You mean I'll miss out on a bastardized version of one of the best-SELLING films of the last century. I disagree that it was such a hot movie, but that's IMHO.

------------------
DAVE/Memphis

MORE TV ON DVD, PLEASE!

 

[Sean Laughter]

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

Of course, this is coming from the person that tried to rationalize the release of Willy Wonka in only full-frame so I don't see how anyone is surprised by the remark.
IMHO, the practices that Lucas and Spielberg are now employing simply lesson their legitimacy as artists. An artist knows to lay the brush down. The artist knows when to stop typing and revising. I heard a story once, about an artist that went into a museum and tried to change a painting that was already hanging in the museum, I think he was removed or something. In that case, I can have a little sympathy because he may honestly have though "it wasn't finished." However, an artist should know and should be prepared for their work to be seen as initially presented (unless there was major studio interference or purely market reasons for changes, ie. Brazil and The Abyss for example).
This, IMO, is not what Spielberg is doing, he isn't fixing an unfinished work, he's making it more marketable -- exactly the kind of nonsense that gave us that god awful studio cut of Brazil! That great shot of E.T. with that frightened look on his face after we see the officer load his weapon is going to be ridiculous now!! Like someone else asked, what is E.T. going to be reacting to, him opening his cell phone?!? "Oh no, Elliot, he's not dialing 1-800-COLLECT, we must fly away to safety!!!" Please, what utter nonsense.

 

[Dwayne]

Sean,
Link Removed

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

And who says trolls don't exist?????
Sean pretty much nailed it. This scene is not going to play out as well as it originally did. The closeups of the gun and E.T.'s reaction led to a tense feeling that was suddenly uplifted as John William's music kicks in and they fly over the cars. Movie magic. The new edit will not even come close to that original feeling.
------------------
-Dwayne

 

[jimmy h]

Has everyone forgot that in the scene with the feds and their guns that dee wallace shouts out 'no guns!They're children!'
So why the guns need to be removed from that scene I do not know.It will be interesting to see what changes are made to the scene where et and the boys take off (!) just as a rifle is about to be pointed at them.
E.T. is one of my favourite films and I will still be going to the re-release even with the slight alterations.It might not be quite how we remember it but then again there will be some new footage and I'm sure it will look and sound great.Does anyone know the uk cinema release date?
CHEERS,jimmy h.

 

[Mark Palermo]

I have plenty of respect for Mr. Spielberg. AI is presently the BEST film of 2001, and Close Encounters, Raiders, Jaws, ET, and Schindler's List all mean a lot to me.
With that out of the way: FUCK THIS MOTHERFUCKING SHIT!!!!!
How can Mr. Spielberg claim any interest in reflecting truth with his historical films now. Is it possible to take Saving Private Ryan as a representation of reality (not that it needs to be that, but that's what the film's most ardent supporters claim) when Spielberg views history itself as a piece of clay that he can shape at his will? He has no right to do this! I don't care if he did direct E.T. He's released it to the public before, so now it belongs to culture. Let's just erase the word "terrorist" from the dictionary. That will solve all the world's problems.
Mark (who still refuses to buy the bastardized version of Jaws on DVD)

 

[Clinton McClure]

While we're at it, why don't we ask him to edit out ET drinking beer and getting drunk? I mean, for heaven's sake...it is only a kids movie. We wouldn't want them to grow up to be alcoholics because ET did it.

Much the same as with Close Encounters, I did not like the movie when it first came out so I have no plans to buy it. I do strongly object, however, to any aftermarket altering of a movie. Unfortunately, though, I have the sinking sick feeling this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are sooooooooooo many ways he can still screw with the Indy series...especially Temple Of Doom.
------------------
My DVD Collection Casa del Clint
[Edited last by Clinton on October 18, 2001 at 10:18 PM]

 

[Jeff Adkins]

I wonder if the people who don't have a problem with this would mind if Paul McCartney went back and changed some drug references on the Beatles CDs by redoing the vocals and then discontinued the original versions. How about if Jimmy Page was unhappy with his guitar work on "Stairway To Heaven", should he be allowed to go back and re-do it? Personally, I don't give a rats ass about E.T. but this revisionism has gotten way out of control. If the director wants to present an alternate version, fine. But it should be that, an alternate version and the original version should always be made available.
Jeff

 

[Sean Laughter]

This just in:
"Spielberg recently announced that in Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom he is going to change the "heart removing" scene so that the evil priest merely picks the man's pocket and holds up his wallet which bursts into flames after he removes all the cash, all the while laughing hysterically and screaming in a maniacal voice, 'Gimme the casssshhhh!!!' Then the man is lowered into a pit full of rose petals."
Let's see who would defend that!

 

[Justin Lane]

I have plenty of respect for Mr. Spielberg. AI is presently the BEST film of 2001, and Close Encounters, Raiders, Jaws, ET, and Schindler's List all mean a lot to me.
With that out of the way: FUCK THIS MOTHERFUCKING SHIT!!!!!

I originally thought Spielberg was editing the film for the benefit of children, but now I have a totally different view. When people make comments like Mark, I think Speilberg is more worried about inluencing the minds of adults with so much pent up rage over a simple film.
I will be buying E.T. the first day it is available. I do not agree necessarily with going back and changing a work per se, but I do see where Spielberg is coming from. We have to face the facts....this will probably be the only version available on DVD, and in the end changing one scene does not at least for me ruin the magic of this film.
J