ET 20th anniversary edition (1 Viewer)

[Philip Hamm]

Matt,
quote: Not a hyposrite, Philip. I feel the same way about all the modified films in your post, and I've made the same arguments (elsewhere) about those.[/quote]I think you're in the minority. quote: But I agree, to defend one modification and not another is hypocracy. Holy crap, did I just agree with Philip Hamm? [checks pulse][/quote]

Hee hee. And it's a hypocracy that I indulge in occasionally myself. I love the so-called "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner, and look forward to this new version of "E.T." though I do have the CAV SE LaserDisc if I want to see the guns (and all the side breaks

).
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 05, 2001 at 08:29 AM]

 

[Robert Crawford]

What is released to the movie theaters is the theatrical version. We are Home Theater enthusasts. NOTHING BUT THE ORIGINAL THEATRICAL PRINT SHOULD ACCEPTIBLE.

Phil,
In your last sentence, if you meant it's not acceptable then do you also mean we shouldn't buy the dvd in which case I then have to disagree with your stance. Also, during the Roadshow era there were many films released with two theatrical versions, so which version is acceptable in your mind?
Crawdaddy
------------------
Peter Staddon: "I didn't say you can put 'Monkeybone' back!"

 

[Philip Hamm]

Crawdaddy,
That's not my stance. I just made that point to illustrate the hypocracy of most of the people up in arms about 20 arguably largely irrelevant seconds of "E.T.".
But in the cases you point out the "home theater purist" who want to have all versions that were run in theaters.
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 05, 2001 at 08:43 AM]

 

[Robert Crawford]

But in the cases you ppoint out the "home theater purist" who want to have all versions that were run in theaters.

Phil,
Well I guess I'm not a "home theater purist" because I want the version of the film that works best for me!
Crawdaddy
------------------
Peter Staddon: "I didn't say you can put 'Monkeybone' back!"

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Phil,
Although I "reinforced" your point, it was my point the whole time as well. I just wanted to include my inability to respect the WHY. I haven't seen the change. Maybe it will be good. Who knows...however, the quote you included could be applied to everything all the time. Of course I am more inclined to agree with things I like. That's called choice. I never said my choice was BETTER than anyone elses, just mine.
As I understand, you are saying we shouldn't be upset. My defensive response comes from not liking being told how to feel. I have not intended to portray that all changes to completed films are bad. I just illustrated my desire for a choice. Don't call my reaction knee-jerk. It is well-thought out and defendable. I don't have a problem with changing a movie, JUST THIS CHANGE (and Greedo

). And it's not like he gives a fig what I think. Nor should anyone else reading this post.
Sorry, again, for being defensive. I know we all mean well, and agree to disagree. Thanks for continuing to check it out and respond.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Damin J Toell]

I am happy to not be arguing with DJ. It's not fun to have someone put words in your mouth.

DJ

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Sorry, DJ. I couldn't resist a little jab! Carl had mentioned it, and you did do it a few times. I am not saying whether I thought you were wrong or right, just that it happened. Hope I didn't bother you too much. If so, I'm sorry.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[RobertR]

quote: What ends up on film is as much determined by budget contraints, timetables, intervention of studio personnel, etc. as the director's "original vision". [/quote]
Phil,
As I pointed out to you earlier, Spielberg CANNOT plausibly use that excuse for this particular change. The decision to use the guns in the scene in question was HIS artistic decision.
Therefore, this is PURELY a case of "I thought it was ok, but now I don't think it's ok". In that sense, there is justification in treating this differently from some other examples you cited.
[Edited last by RobertR on October 05, 2001 at 10:47 AM]

 

[AaronMK]

to defend one modification and not another is hypocracy.

Since when? That would be just like saying someone is a hypocrite because they feel the US should have been involved in WW2 and not vietnam. They would be defending involvement in one war and not another.
------------------
My DVD's
If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.

 

[Robert Crawford]

As I pointed out to you earlier, Spielberg CANNOT plausibly use that excuse for this particular change. The decision to use the guns in the scene in question was HIS artistic decision.

Robert,
I'm pretty sure that Phil is not arguing that point! He is just saying that people complaining about this change in ET need to be consistent in their criticism of other changes such as the ones in Star Wars, Blade Runner, Star Trek and countless other films.
Crawdaddy
------------------
Peter Staddon: "I didn't say you can put 'Monkeybone' back!"

 

[Philip Hamm]

Crawdaddy,
Correct! Also, every response so far that tried to not agree with my statements actually reinforces them!
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker

 

[Philip Hamm]

Since when? That would be just like saying someone is a hypocrite because they feel the US should have been involved in WW2 and not vietnam. They would be defending involvement in one war and not another.

This analogy makes absolutely no sense at all to me but if you say so...

------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker

 

[RobertR]

I'm pretty sure that Phil is not arguing that point!

Robert,
I don't know if Phil is arguing the point or not. I'm simply pointing out that for him to talk about "budget constraints" and "time constraints" and "studio people" is IRRELEVANT in this case. It simply doesn't apply. Therefore, this change is NOT being done for the same reasons as some of the other examples he gave.
It's being done SOLELY because Spielberg originally wanted the film one way, now he wants it another way. PERIOD.

 

[Brad Cook]

"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."
Wow.
I have to agree with those who are bothered by this kind of tyrannical attitude. How do we take away an artist's control over their work? Do we put control over a film like E.T. into the hands of a commission of Home Theater Forum members who will decide its fate?
Wait, don't reply to that. I probably don't want to know the answer.
If it's true that Spielberg has been regretting the guns for a long time now (as seems to be the case, according to the quotes from the LD), then this doesn't sound like a decision coming out of some desire to be PC. It sounds like he's regretted the decision fr years but wasn't able to put the changes into motion until now, with the special effects advances that have been made.
TBH, I haven't seen E.T. in a long time, so I'm not sure if I'll be happy with this change. While I didn't mind many of the changes Lucas made for the Star Wars SEs, Greedo firing first was a very poor choice, in my book. But, in the end, these guys have control over decisions like that, and I'm glad that they--and other filmmakers--have that control, because in the past many of them didn't.
I'd rather see an individual make decisions like this--however flawed they may be--than see a studio make them. Wouldn't you?
Here's a comparison: Look at the grief Terry Gilliam went through over Brazil. What if the "love conquers all" version was the one released to theaters, and Gilliam had to fight for years just to finally get his version released to home video? Would you say that the theater version trumped what Gilliam wanted?
Of course, this silly "The artist should have absolute control over his work, right up until the time it's released." attitude also means that we would have never had the Blade Runner Director's Cut, or the Close Encounters Collector's Edition, or the new Superman cut, or any of that stuff.
And how lousy would that be?
- Brad

 

[Damin J Toell]

Sorry, DJ. I couldn't resist a little jab! Carl had mentioned it, and you did do it a few times. I am not saying whether I thought you were wrong or right, just that it happened. Hope I didn't bother you too much. If so, I'm sorry.

it does bother me only in the sense that i don't believe i've done so. can you provide examples if only so i can try and defend the charge?

DJ

 

[cafink]

quote: Of course, this silly "The artist should have absolute control over his work, right up until the time it's released." attitude also means that we would have never had the Blade Runner Director's Cut, or the Close Encounters Collector's Edition, or the new Superman cut, or any of that stuff.[/quote]
You're misunderstanding my point COMPLETELY. I said that the artist should have ABSOLUTE CONTROL over his work. If that happened, then Ridley Scott WOULD NOT WANT to revisit "Blade Runner," Steven Spielberg wouldn't want to revisit "Close Encounters," and Richard Donner wouldn't want to revisit "Superman."
I am NOT trying to wrestle some sort of tyrannical control away from the artist as everyone seems to want make it out. THAT is where everyone is putting words into my mouth!

Here's a comparison: Look at the grief Terry Gilliam went through over Brazil. What if the "love conquers all" version was the one released to theaters, and Gilliam had to fight for years just to finally get his version released to home video? Would you say that the theater version trumped what Gilliam wanted?

Show me some evidence that Spielberg went through similar grief. Until you can do that, this point is irrelevant to the topic at hand. NO ONE MADE SPIELBERG PUT THE GUNS IN "ET." It was HIS CHOICE.
[Edited last by Carl Fink on October 05, 2001 at 12:56 PM]

 

[Matt Perkins]

Brad Cook,
Thanks for the insight, and for explaining your view. Your Gilliam example fits perectly: in the Criterion edition, we have both the director's preferred film, and the studio film. It's up to us. Both versions are out there for public consumption, commentary, and scholarship, and for that I am truly grateful.
But that's the extent of your example's usefulness. It does not apply to exactly what we're talking about: The "LCA" version was not the issued film that audiences saw in theaters. Had it been, then I would still -- and vigorously! -- demand that it, too, be available along with the version Gilliam wanted. (Which, gratis to Criterion, is the case.)
Of course, this silly [...] attitude also means that we would have never had the Blade Runner Director's Cut, or the Close Encounters Collector's Edition, or the new Superman cut, or any of that stuff.
Here's where you falter. I want the original Blade Runner, and the original CE3K, and the original Superman. I can't have them. Comparisions between the orignals and the replacements of these films are impossible (or are nearing impossible, as LDs and VHSs degrade & obsolesce). Enjoyment of what I saw in theaters, for these films, on DVD and therefore for the forseeable future, are impossible.
In a couple generations, those comparisions will be impossible. That is why the historical record suffers with authoritative revisions such as these, no matter who is in the (re-) editing room.
Even ignoring personal preferences for one version over another, such sholarship issues are damned important. As works are modified, we can study the timing, impact, and color of the modifications to learn how people and cultures have reacted and grown (and contracted) over generations. Such study is lost when cultural artifacts are morphed over time with no paper-trail of the morphing that took place.
That (Damin, I'm looking at you!) is why history suffers, and why we end up with less information than we did before, when works are stolen from the well of public knowledge and "adapted" without any record of what was adapted.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's being done SOLELY because Spielberg originally wanted the film one way, now he wants it another way. PERIOD.

Robert,
Most in this thread agrees that Spielberg now wants the scene shown in a different way! Also, what's the point of the caps on the word "period"?
Crawdaddy
------------------
Peter Staddon: "I didn't say you can put 'Monkeybone' back!"

 

[Damin J Toell]

That (Damin, I'm looking at you!) is why history suffers, and why we end up with less information than we did before, when works are stolen from the well of public knowledge and "adapted" without any record of what was adapted.

the artist giveth and the artist should be able to take away. when the competing interests are:
1. your desire for a historical record
2. the artist's desire for his own creation
i think #2 wins.
DJ

 

[cafink]

Most in this thread agrees that Spielberg now wants the scene shown in a different way!

But they don't seem to acknowledge that this is NOT the case for many other instances of "director's cuts," such as "Brazil" and "Blade Runner." In those cases, the director did NOT change his mind as Spielberg has done with "ET" — they expressed a desire for the changes ALL ALONG, even BEFORE the movie was released.