Pre-Order E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial Limited Edition (1982) 40th Anniversary Gift Set (4k UHD Combo) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link. As an Amazon Associate HTF earns from qualifying purchases

 

[Jake Lipson]

From the looks of it, this seems to be just a box of junk edition. Unless they've actually done something to improve the movie disc, I'm good with what I already have.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

From the looks of it, this seems to be just a box of junk edition. Unless they've actually done something to improve the movie disc, I'm good with what I already have.

I am fairly confident they are simply recycling older discs/transfer for this holiday promotion

 

[Jake Lipson]

I am fairly confident they are simply recycling old discs for this holiday promotion

That's what I suspected too. Thanks.

I doubt that adding a bunch of random merchandise is going to make new customers pay a premium for this title. Anyone who is a big enough fan of E.T. to consider this price point probably already owns the movie on disc.

 

[Lord Dalek]

The only thing you could possibly add for E.T. is the 2002 version, but Steven never wants to see that ever again.

 

[Robert Saccone]

How was the 2002 version different from what is currently available? Is that where the agents guns were replaced?

 

[TravisR]

Is that where the agents guns were replaced?

Yep.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

How was the 2002 version different from what is currently available? Is that where the agents guns were replaced?

Here's my (long) discussion from my old DVD review:

"This DVD offers both the original 1982 version of <I>E.T.</I> and the 2002 “special edition”. How do the two differ? The latter adds an extra six minutes of material and also updates some shots and dialogue. This means we occasionally see an “enhanced” E.T. A few times the computer simply makes him more “expressive”, while in others, we watch an entirely digital alien. In addition, Spielberg uses technology to erase guns from the government agents and also changes a line of dialogue; for Halloween, Michael wants to go as a hippie now instead of a terrorist like in the original.

Note that the latter alteration occurred in some form a long time ago; the terrorist line didn’t appear when <I>E.T.</I> first hit home video in 1988. Actually, in prior home video incarnations, the line made no sense; Mary never specified what costume Michael wanted to wear, so the gag lacked its appropriate punch. The “hippie” line doesn’t make much more sense, but it’s better than the old bit.

The removal of the guns is brand-new, however, as are all of the other CG changes. As I noted when I opened this review, I didn’t look forward to the prospect of a CG E.T. and all the other variations. Now that I’ve seen the 2002 edition, I can say that it didn’t offer the abomination I expected. However, I continue to strongly prefer the original version.

I tried to view the flick from the point of view of what appeared well executed and I attempted not to penalize segments just because they were different. What worked well in the new one? Some of the altered effects did look better. When E.T. ran from the agents early in the flick, the new CG critter definitely seemed more convincing than the old “red light on a rail”. The opening shots of the spaceship also came across as more realistic.

Otherwise, I couldn’t think of any new material or alterations I preferred. The CG E.T. shots varied from watchable to terrible. In Spielberg’s defense, he didn’t go nuts with his new toy. Many of the E.T. facial and body shots carried over from the original; not each and every one of them received an update.

A few of the images looked decent, but most came across as overly animated. For example, when we saw E.T. after Gertie dressed him up in drag, the attempts to make him appear humiliated showed far too much movement. CG animators often pour on mannerisms in an attempt to simulate life, but sometimes less is more. For whatever flaws it possessed, the old E.T. puppet had a spark of life that the new CG one lacked.

As for the omission of the guns, that change simply seemed silly. Why <I>wouldn’t</I> government agents out to capture an alien use weapons to execute that task? The switch to walkie-talkies appeared pointless and insulting.

The other most prominent effects alterations occurred during the film’s final act. We saw changes made to the flying bicycle scenes, and E.T.’s spaceship got a makeover as well. I felt indifferently toward the bike scenes. Elliott’s initial ride looked fine, but the group jaunt later in the flick looked a little silly; it added some distracting animations to the kids that seemed unnatural. E.T.’s ship also appeared too busy. The artists tacked on different lights and exhaust effects that didn’t make the vehicle look any more convincing; if anything, they distracted as they called too much attention to themselves.

In addition to the “hippie” line, the 2002 <I>E.T.</I> included at least one altered piece of audio. (Actually, there’s more than that, but I’ll save mention of the other until I discuss the 1982 cut in the supplements.) When Michael sang “nothin’ but health shit” as he checked out the refrigerator, the word “shit” got lowered in volume to the point where it effectively became chopped off after “sh”. <I>E.T.</I> still contained other mild profanity – why did Spielberg feel the need to make this odd little change?

In regard to the six minutes of new footage, two minutes accommodated credits added for the 2002 version. Another 54 seconds included a Halloween scene in which Mary found Michael and Gertie in the neighborhood. This scene made the ensuing scene with the police officer confusing. Since Gertie basically tells Mary where to find Elliott, why doesn’t she just go get him? Why not tell the cop that he’s out in the forest? During the police scene, Mary clearly had no idea where to locate Elliott. Barrymore’s performance in the new scene seemed amusing, but the clip had no place in the movie.

The final and most substantial addition came during the first day that E.T. and Elliott spent together when the latter stayed home from school. It showed them as they weighed each other and E.T. took a bath while Elliott received a call from his mom. Painless but inconsequential, the sequence didn’t actively detract from the film, but it also added nothing and it should have remained on the cutting room floor.

Ultimately, most of the alterations seemed fairly minor. As he states during the DVD’s supplements, Spielberg feels that even the most attentive fans won’t notice the changes, which leads me to wonder what he’s smoking; most of the variations will appear exceedingly obvious to dedicated fans. However, others probably won’t find any problems with them. Some of the CG suffers from the usual overactive qualities, but the 2002 <I>E.T.</I> leaves enough shots alone to mean that these segments don’t overwhelm. Overall, I don’t much like the 2002 version, and I doubt I’ll ever watch it again, but I will admit I don’t feel as negatively toward it as I expected."

 

[Lord Dalek]

I think the 2002 version would have been more acceptable if he just left the guns alone. There are some fixes in there like replacing the puppets in the flying scenes with real kids on bikes and E.T.'s weird run in the beginning into sort of a mad hop that were actually good ideas!

But regardless, the walky talky backlash was enough to make him disown it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think the 2002 version would have been more acceptable if he just left the guns alone. There are some fixes in there like replacing the puppets in the flying scenes with real kids on bikes and E.T.'s weird run in the beginning into sort of a mad hop that were actually good ideas!

But regardless, the walky talky backlash was enough to make him disown it.

Spielberg briefly indulged his inner George Lucas before he snapped to his senses and realized that "updating" movies is a slippery slope, I guess.

I'm sure the $$$ success of the 1997 "Star Wars" reissues influenced his decision to alter "ET" as well.

The 2002 theatrical re-release did okay - $69 million WW - but not as well as the 1997 "Star Wars" reissues.

"Star Wars" itself brought in $138 million in the US alone! (BOM doesn't list WW.)

"ESB" and "ROTJ" did less well, but they still made more than the 2002 "ET" - and "ET" should be directly compared to "Star Wars" anyway, since they were the 2 massive hits.

If the 2002 "ET" had been a bigger financial success, would Spielberg view it differently?

And if the 1997 "Star Wars" reissues had flopped, might Lucas see them in a less favorable light?

 

[sleroi]

This comes with a certificate of authenticity. Are there a bunch of counterfeit E.T. lunchbox and thermoses out there?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Just Atari games

 

[Worth]

Did Spielberg say somewhere he regrets some of changes since then?

On The Scene: Raiders of the Lost Ark 30th Anniversary

Cross-posted on Film.com One of my all time favorite movies and probably one of yours too, Raiders of the Lost Ark , screened in downtown ...

allthingsfangirl.blogspot.com

Speaking for myself, you know, I tried this once and I lived to regret it. Not because of fan outrage, but simply because I was disappointed in myself. I was overly sensitive to some of the criticism ET got from parent groups when it was first released in '82 having to do with Eliot saying "Penis Breath" or the guns...and then there were certain brilliant, but rough around the edges close ups of ET that I always felt, if technology ever evolves to the point where I can do some facial enhancement for ET, I'd like to. So I did an ET pass for like the third release of the movie and it was okay for a while, but then I realized that what I had done was I had robbed the people who loved ET of their memories of ET. And I regretted that...

 

[Tino]

Sounds like he just wanted to have both versions available. I’m cool with that.

Here’s the whole quote.

Boucher then brought up the controversy surrounding George Lucas changing Star Wars - cue audience groan - and asked if Spielberg feels the need to go back and change things,

SS: That's a little hot topic, isn't it? (laughter) Let me put it this way. George does what he does cause there is only one George Lucas and thank god for that. He's the greatest person I've ever worked with as a filmmaker and collaborator, he is a conceptual genius, he puts together these amazing stories and he is great at what he does. And my feeling is he can do whatever he wants with his movies because those are his movies. We wouldn't have been raised with Star Wars or Indiana Jones had it not been for George, so what he does with his films is great. Speaking for myself, you know, I tried this once and I lived to regret it. Not because of fan outrage, but simply because I was disappointed in myself. I was overly sensitive to some of the criticism ET got from parent groups when it was first released in '82 having to do with Eliot saying "Penis Breath" or the guns...and then there were certain brilliant, but rough around the edges close ups of ET that I always felt, if technology ever evolves to the point where I can do some facial enhancement for ET, I'd like to. So I did an ET pass for like the third release of the movie and it was okay for a while, but then I realized that what I had done was I had robbed the people who loved ET of their memories of ET. And I regretted that. (massive applause) And the only contrition that I could possibly do because I felt bad about that was, the only contrition that I really performed was when ET came out on DVD for the first time, I asked Universal, I didn't ask Universal, I said you're gonna do this, when you release this on DVD you have to come out for the same price of one DVD, you have to put two movies in the box and one movie will be the 1982 version and the other will be the digitally enhanced version. I'd like to ask you this, let's do a little poll here, cause I know we're coming out with the blu-ray of ET, if I just came out with one ET on blu-ray, 1982, would anyone object to that? (loud NO from the audience). Okay then, so be it. (huge applause)

Boucher points out that they should do a 30th anniversary screening of ET next year - there is wild applause in response

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Believe it or not, the Criterion laserdisc wasn't the real theatrical cut (it added the ufo flyover from the SE and took out the pillow shot). So yeah actually that didn't materialize on home video until 2007.

Thanks. It's been like 25 years since I saw the Criterion so I didn't remember any changes!

 

[MartinP.]

"I realized that what I had done was I had robbed the people who loved ET of their memories of ET."

How did the 2002 version of E.T. rob me of my memories of E.T.? It did no such thing. That's ridiculous. I liked the few added bonuses in the film. I saw the release in theatres and I also have it, and usually put that one on to watch. I didn't have any issues with the added scenes or technical enhancements, the dialogue replacement was the only annoyance. I know some people watch movies, especially those on HTF, as though they are analyzing every ingredient along the way like a recipe for paella, instead of just enjoying the meal. The changes are relatively minor compared to some movie alterations. Hey, I'd even have liked to see the scene with Harrison Ford as the teacher, or E.T. placing one of the Reeses Pieces on Mary's Piilow as she sleeps.

In a book club I belonged to in 1982, I bought an exclusive hardcover edition of an E.T. novelization. It was one of the best novelizations of a film I've ever read. (Do they even do that anymore? Besides Tarantino.) I still recall a line about E.T.'s spaceship looking like an heirloom Christmas ornament, and ever since I wished that there was such a thing!

 

[Lord Dalek]

As for "robbing people's memories of the original", yeah I don't get that either. Unlike George and Star Wars, Steven has never made any attempt to suppress or replace the original 1982 E.T. In fact he's done the exact opposite, going as far as demanding Universal make their initial dvd release a two disc set when they were originally planning on making the 82 exclusive to the Box O' Junk edition.

 

[Tino]

Pulled this out. Great DVD Box set with great extras.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Speaking of the 40th anniversary of E.T., La La Land Records is taking pre-orders for a reissue of their two-disc CD soundtrack. The content will be the same as the 35th anniversary edition, so people who got the previous edition won't need this. But I greatly appreciate the reissue because I didn't know the previous edition existed until it had already sold out.

The new edition is up for pre-order now and will ship August 26. It is limited to 5,000 copies.

RELEASES - 1980s - Page 1 - La-La Land Records

lalalandrecords.com

They also have a reissue of the Close Encounters score for the same reason.

Also, The Ultimate Visual History will be published on August 30. This is a behind-the-scenes book written by Caseen Gaines. He also wrote We Don't Need Roads about Back to the Future, which was excellent. I would be much more interested in plucking down money for this than I would for the Blu-ray box of junk edition.

 

[B-ROLL]

The only thing you could possibly add for E.T. is the 2002 version, but Steven never wants to see that ever again.

I suppose they could add a "Theatre sized" box of

!