ET 20th anniversary edition (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

Your feelings for the original version of Apolcalypse Now didn't change because they didn't have to - a DVD version exists.

and if the original version was never released on DVD, my feelings about it would've been changed by Redux?
DJ

 

[SteveA]

If Spielberg feels compelled to use CGI to modify ET, then how about taking out all images of those nasty Reese's Pieces and replacing them with a better candy, like JujyFruits!

 

[Matt Perkins]

and if the original version was never released on DVD, my feelings about it would've been changed by Redux?

came out.

Sure read that way to me, Damin ...
Try to remember where we are: the Home Theater Forum. Try to remember who we are: film lovers & collectors. Try to understand why we're offended:
Elements of film history, some all but negligible to others but for any personal reason significant to us, are being stolen from our enjoyment, scholarship, and future sharing with loved ones.
If you're not sad about that, then I'm truly glad for you. Understand that many of us do not share your dispassion -- and some of us really are (gasp!) artists.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Understand that many of us do not share your dispassion -- and some of us really are (gasp!) artists.

i'm unsure if this is some implied sleight at me (re: being an artist), but i have no dispassion here. i am quite passionate about art, actually. and my passion about artistic freedom implores me to defend the choices an artist might make in the face of selfish and ungrateful fans who want "their" film to remain unchanged. it's Spielberg's film. not allowing him to do what he wants with it would be violative of basic artistic freedom. if you're so passionate about Spielberg's work, why not allow him to do what he wants? it was this freedom that allowed him to create E.T. in the first place. if you don't support the ability of an artist to modify his work, you don't support artistic freedom at all; artistic freedom is utterly meaningless if it applies only at the creation stage and not to future modifications. why should an artist feel any external controls upon his choices? he shouldn't. not when he makes the film and not when he chooses to change his work 20 years later.
DJ

 

[Mark E J]

Damin,
Your arguments are beginning to lose credibility. According to your logic, if I buy a painting the artist has a right to come into my house years later and paint over it and I don't have a word to say about it. Do you really think THAT qualifies as artistic freedom?
Do feel the same way about novels? Would you support J.D. Salinger pulling all copies of Catcher in the Rye off the shelves then re-writing it so Holden Caufield kills his family at the end, and goes on a shooting spree at Pency Prep. so he can make the story more topical for the times? Would this not destroy everything that made us love that book in the first place? Or do we not have a right to love a book or movie since we are "selfish and ungrateful" if we don't accept an artist's revisions with humble obedience.
Damin you need to realize that art does not exist in a vacuum, a filmmaker's career and future as an artist depends on people like me who spends our hard earned money to see his works. I think this puts me in the loop. Sure an artist should have the right to modify his work if he sees fit but he shouldn't remove the original. Because it is what made us embrace him as an artist in the first place.
People should also realize that removing guns is not the only change that is supposed to take place. Several new scenes will be added, others re-edited, the soundtrack is supposed to completely remixed, and some of the FX will be changed. These changes might help or hurt the film we won't know until we see it. The only thing we do know is that it won't be the classic we grew up with, wether it be better or worse it won't be the same, and if this becomes the only version available it will be very sad indeed.

 

[AdrianOC]

It won't really be a 20th anniversary edition will it? It won't be the original - it'll be a new film.
------------------
"Want to hold up a bank in Latin?
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."
(I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head.)
My DVD List

 

[Matt Perkins]

if you don't support the ability of an artist to modify his work, you don't support artistic freedom at all; artistic freedom is utterly meaningless if it applies only at the creation stage and not to future modifications.
Honestley Damin, you sound like a broken record that's playing silence. Nobody here has expressed any problem with after-the-fact creative alteration, provided that the original remains intact and available somehow.
So, you must be arguing for historical revisionism. You're trying to convince the crowd that less information about a subject is better than more. I can't fathom anyone accepting the idea ... and then, you tell me that to disagree with you is to disfavor "artistic freedom"??!! I am truly lost.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

so are you actually arguing that it's economically unwise to modify a film? what if it results in more people liking it, resulting in more personal wealth for the artist, and helping his career to flourish?
DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

So, you must be arguing for historical revisionism. You're trying to convince the crowd that less information about a subject is better than more. I can't fathom anyone accepting the idea ... and then, you tell me that to disagree with you is to disfavor "artistic freedom"??!! I am truly lost.

speaking of being truly lost: i seriously have no idea how you're getting any of that from what i've said. less informtion? huh?
i merely argue that the "sky is falling/Spielberg has no right to do this!" mentality is incorrect. beyond that, i've got no idea what you're getting at.
DJ

 

[Jeff_A]

i even find a problem with the idea that, for some reason, the original version "must" be made available. why?

What is so difficult to understand? As consumers we want to purchase the films we love as we remember seeing them.
What if the original version is never released? Unfortunately, that may mean NO SALE.
------------------
The Dark Tower

Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)?

 

[cafink]

this aside, i even find a problem with the idea that, for some reason, the original version "must" be made available. why?

Because the original version of ET is the one that everyone here fell in love with. The original version of ET is the one that became a classic. The original version of ET is the one that garnered all kinds of critical praise and accolades. The original version of ET is the one that everyone has been watching for the past twenty years. It is no longer Speilberg's private property, it is now a part of American culture, for better or for worse, flaws and all.

 

[Tony Stark]

I am writing Steven Spielberg to have him remove all the guns and violence from Saving Private Ryan. I am hoping he can turn it into some love story or something.
-T

 

[Dave Koch]

First, I should say that I am opposed to changing it (whatever "it" may be). I have been very outspoken about Lucas's changes to SW.
However...
I think it is Steven's film, and ultimately, it is his to do what he wants with. To compare a FILM with J.D. Salinger's book, a painting in my house, or other types of art (with other types of distribution) is absurd. If an artist paints a picture and sells it, it is out of their control... and no longer theirs to change. Spilberg still has "control" over this film, and it is his perogative to make changes if he sees fit.
Further, that conclusion is flawed. If, instead of "Catcher in the Rye," we look to a geography textbook, you can see changes ARE made, and books are updated. For sure, a goon squad does not come to your door and demand old copies- but my point is that books are not by definition static: they CAN change, and often do. (Another good example is Kafka's Trial; the order of the chapters is still a matter of debate... or was that The Castle????)
Anyway, I did want to point out one other work of art: la Gioconda by Leonadro da Vinci. This painting was "finished" before he left for France and his good buddy Francios I. But for his three years in France, Leonadro continued to "diddle" with it; adding a cel phone here, removing a gun there... ok, not really, but he continued to "play." I think he redid the smile 13 times. And it is the smile we all remember, now.
I think we can agree that no matter what WE may think, it is the artist who best knows his work. And in an artist of this calibre (Steven or Leonardo.... heck, throw in Salinger!), time will probably prove them to be right. Who are we to second guess that? It is not our place or our decision to make. We may not LIKE it, but that is where it ends. As much as I do not like the guns being pulled out, well, Steven has yet to call me to ask my opinion!
dave

 

[Patrick McCart]

I think Speilberg should do whatever he wants to do. It's his film, after all.
I agree that the gun "gag" was not needed..come on...that's a really cheesy think to do. It's like in Eegah!, when the cop shoots Eegah for trying to throw a pool ladder at him...
Guys, this isn't being pollitically correct, it's called fine tuning.
When you think of the logistics, why the heck would a cop pull a gun on an unarmed child? I think the edit will be fine since ILM is going to fix the scene. If you don't like it, tell Steven to leave his films alone and stop being an artist.

I'd feel wronged if I was denied the right to edit out something out of my own film that was completely out of character of a person in the film...that I just didn't think about taking out at the time. Films are never finished, they're merely abandoned.
------------------
P.S.: There's no P.S.
[Edited last by PatrickMcCart on October 04, 2001 at 06:57 PM]

 

[Damin J Toell]

What is so difficult to understand? As consumers we want to purchase the films we love as we remember seeing them.

and your selfish desires concerning a film you had nothing to do with trump the desires of the director concerned?
i simply can't buy this kind of artistic tyranny.
DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

It is no longer Speilberg's private property, it is now a part of American culture, for better or for worse, flaws and all.

and this is where we'll have to agree to disagree, i suppose.
suffice it to say that i'd certainly not like to live in a world in which you were in charge. i much prefer one in which art is controlled by the creator and not the arbitrary will of society.
DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

I'd feel wronged if I was denied the right to edit out something out of my own film that was completely out of character of a person in the film...that I just didn't think about taking out at the time. Films are never finished, they're merely abandoned.

thanks, guys, for letting me know that i'm not a lone nut here.

DJ

 

[cafink]

suffice it to say that i'd certainly not like to live in a world in which you were in charge. i much prefer one in which art is controlled by the creator and not the arbitrary will of society.

There's nothing "arbitrary" about it. What's arbitrary is finishing a movie, releasing it, and then, twenty years later, deciding to tinker with little bits of it. The artist should have absolute control over his work, right up until the time it's released. Sadly, this typically isn't the case, and I'd like to see that changed. But once the artist decides he's happy with the work, there's no reason for him to go back and fiddle with it any more. When a person second-guesses himself, it's usually for the worse.
There's no indication that Speilberg was pressured into putting guns into "ET." He DID have control over it!! And that's just how it should be, isn't it?

 

[Dwayne]

Some say this isn't revisionism. If the original cut will no longer be available, then how is that possible? Isn't that denying the existence of one in favor of the new?
------------------
-Dwayne

 

[RobertR]

sn't that denying the existence of one in favor of the new?

Exactly the sort of thing that was done in 1984. Hence my use of the term Orwellian.
------------------