Couldn't they just remaster the film and leave it the way it is? It's fine!

At the end of the film, it will be mentioned that all the Nazis from throughout the movie, have come out of their comas and are alive and well.

For filmmakers to substantially alter the original work (See Bladerunner Thread for another example)is like Dickens deciding that Tale of Two Cities needs another chapter or Da Vinci deciding that the Mona Lisa needs a frown instead of smile.

I like the idea of extra footage on DVD's (SEPERATE FROM THE FILM) and even commentary explaining what they would have done different if they could have. BUT, they have got to stop sometime!

Spielberg is the one who started all this with his CE3K Special Edition. Is it better now? No.

I wish these guys would just release the damn things and quit obsessing over it. Make some new films and quit re-editing all the old ones!

quote:

---

and he'll also remove all guns from the government agents

---

OH, NOOO! ROSIE O'DONNELL HAS GOTTEN TO HIM!!!

Another thing I couldn't believe was that the little girl Elliot kisses is the same girl who pops out of the big birthday cake in Under Siege. I put the movie in after reading that and checked out the scene, and sure enough it was her. I couldn't believe it!! My, she certainly has grown up, hu?

Somehow it always feels a little weird to me, watching actresses that you saw as children suddenly doing nude scenes all over the place. It's like having your little sister get a first boyfriend -- or so I'd guess, I have no sisters. (or brothers either, except a couple of adopted ones)

I haven't seen E.T. in a long time, so I don't quite recall which parts of Ford we actually see -- possibly just the hands and feet. Like I said, though, the voice is unmistakable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:
At what point is a piece of art finished? I say it is finished when it is released to the world at large.

For filmmakers to substantially alter the original work (See Bladerunner Thread for another example)is like Dickens deciding that Tale of Two Cities needs another chapter or Da Vinci deciding that the Mona Lisa needs a frown instead of smile.

I like the idea of extra footage on DVD's (SEPERATE FROM THE FILM) and even commentary explaining what they would have done different if they could have. BUT, they have got to stop sometime!

Spielberg is the one who started all this with his CE3K Special Edition. Is it better now? No.

I wish these guys would just release the damn things and quit obsessing over it. Make some new films and quit re-editing all the old ones!

There. I am much better now.

---

But then again, there's the issue of studio interference, for example with Terry Gilliam and "Brazil". I believe it was the studio that made Scott insert a happy ending at the end. Gilliam was forced to cut down his movie to a running time the studio wanted and lighten up some elements of the story (in fact, the studio even went so far as to assemble it's own version, complete with a happy ending). I think the only time a filmmaker can go back and change his film is if thier complete vision of the film wasn't fully envisioned (preferrable because of studio interference and not necessarily because of technological and bugetary constraints)

Spielberg doesn't have an excuse for this (if it is true, I doubt it is). He had full creative control with E.T., unlike Scott and Gilliam.

That's a joke.

I can certainly see your point, but I like to think of film as representing not just a director or a studio, but also a period in time. I think of film as a historical document that gives us insight into who the film was made for and the mores and beliefs of the people who made the film. That applies to studio execs as well as directors. If you want to be free of studio control, you do Independent films.

That's way things like Amos and Andy, Little Black Sambo, Charlie Chan, Mr. Moto should not be changed. Yes, they can be racially insensitive, but they did exist. They were part of our culture and editing them to make them more PC is like trying change history.

How far are we willing to go to make sure that everything is sunshine and light? In the 80's and the 90's nobody trusts the government. ET reflects our collective paranoia about the government agencies. I don't think it should be changed.

Again, does anyone think that Star Wars SE and CE3K SE were that much better than the original releases? I don't think so.

I would much rather that Mr Lucas had done another movie (even a bad one) then re-edit Star Wars.

Mr. Spielberg should not waste his money and effort on “fixing” ET and spend some time thinking about Indy 4 before Harrison Ford has to play the role from a wheel chair!

NP - Gladiator by The Sweat Shop Boys.

NP: THE OMEN (complete) (did you know Richard Donner is going back to digit-out all the violence? They're afraid some kid will rent the picture and get it into his head to supernaturally hang his nanny, make his mother fall an extreme distance -- twice! -- manage to have some priest run through with a fallen church steeple, have a photojournalist decapitated, and just lie idly by while his father rams a fork into his second nanny's skull. But the part that REALLY upsets them is that the kid might arrange to have his father SHOT! Guns, guns, guns! A pox on them! There is nothing worse on Earth than guns -- NOTHING!!!!! I can hardly wait until every movie's been changed beyond recognition, and every last perfect day is like a sweet sweet dream.)

(oh yes, the score will be replaced by Eric Serra -- the Goldsmith one is simply too intense. A Fox 2000 executive was quoted as saying, "The revised and improved OMEN will require a certain touch of 'je ne sais quoi' -- you might want to call it CMS." Also, Gregory Peck will be replaced by a digitized Jude Law -- "Gregory is just too damn old for the current marketplace," the executive said. Law will be paid $7 million to substitute Peck's role.)

MWR--I see your point completely about leaving films as they are, especially not to tamper with them just to "update" them by erasing objectionable material. I believe that original versions of works should be preserved and made available for those who want to have that version. Period.

But my desires are not the same as directors, producers, studios, the public as a whole, the distributers of DVDs, etc. All of whom have their own agendas, tastes, needs, and desires.

For instance, I can see having different versions of things. Like remaking a film--you've got two versions of the same story, that's not always a bad thing.

But it raises the question of when is a work finished. Some artists like to tinker with things. Composers regularly revise their works. Herrmann revised practically all of his concert works from their original versions, but interestingly, when Vaughan-Williams revised his 2nd Symphony, it was Herrmann who asked him to put in a section that he'd taken out of the revision and V-W refused.

So what happens if the revised version is the only one available? From my point-of-view, we should have all versions. But from an artists point-of-view, he/she may feel the earlier version is bad publicity, that it damages his/her reputation as an artist, and that it should be altered or supressed. Am I to say he's wrong? Am I even allowed any input in the question?

This leads into the whole topic of just who owns an artwork that I've brought up in different posts, most recently in reply to MWR on the Attn All Criminals topic.

Ignoring studio recutting and intervention for the moment, some directors like Kubrick and Truffaut were notorious for going back and rethinking things. When Truffaut added footage to his re-release of Two English Girls, he was going to take the narration out--he was talked into keeping it at the last minute. I think I've seen three different versions of The Shining. I agree that Lucas should not have touched the original Star Wars, but he wanted to. I wasn't keen on colorization. As for all the changes of language being redubbed or nudity digitized out, I consider it puritanical. Of course, I don't have children at home to raise, if I did, I'd probably have a demand for the bowderized versions too.

Again, I think the more versions the better, but that's just me, and it leads to another problem of what to do with the surplus....

Rocco--I remember Cyd Charisse objecting to a version of The Bandwagon with an extra scene added. She said it was cut for a reason, that it wasn't meant to be seen, and that the only reason it was being seen now wasn't "preservation" but the ploy of repackaging something as new as a way to get more money out of it. But this is a different scenario from the one where a director gets his version chopped by the studio and wants to preserve it in some form (which reminds me of how badly I want to see the 5 hour version of Until the End of the World). I think it's fascinating that DVDs and software are making it possible to tamper with films to create your own versions (I've done this to a certain extent myself in a strictly amateurish way). I don't entirely understand where the demand for this came from however (I mean, how many people in America and elsewhere want to become film editors). But again, now instead of the director or studio tampering with a film, you've got potentially everyone. And there'd be no way to keep track of it all. What if Amy down the block was actually able to put together a better version than an ACE editor? Would I be able to go to a cinematheque and see this?

Once again, we've got this dual situation of versions we can't get properly and others we have more material than we know what to do with. In some cases the situation improves, in other cases the films get ruined. As for cultural memory, I guess that goes the way of 1984, where the language is continually being altered to limit the kinds of ideas that people can generate. In this case, it's our view of an era's perspective that is being "updated" just as MWR said and in a way it's a lie and a whitewash for future generations. I suppose that's the intention. So that future generations don't look at Spielberg and say, he was racist against arabs or pro-guns or whatever, he's trying to correct himself. I can understand that and certainly it's within his power to do so, but it "boosts" his image and legacy at the expense of our cultural heritage and memory. Call it revisionism or Dorian Gray-ism, but i think we should get the versions with warts as well that is if some artists can deal with that.

As with so many of the issues we raise on this board, this is just another one where the interests of all the parties involved leads to a compromised situation that is far from ideal.

NP: The Ice Storm (Mychael Danna)

In as much as a piece of art becomes part of our collective public consciousness, I think we at least have as much right to an opinion as the artist.

I cringe with revulsion when I remember Sam’s Gold lame’ jacket in Casablanca or the fact that they got Humphrey Bogart’s eyes the wrong color. Colorazation is a tool of the devil, plain and simple. Ted Turner and his box of Crayons!

The editing of our cultural past is not only wrong, but it cheapens the work of those artists who created it. It robs of the past that we have a right to, warts and all. Don’t try and fix the past, fix the future. Give us new works to excite us, don’t tamper with our history, you bastards!

I reminded of two (sorta) examples:

Because the Pope interfered with the painting of the Sistine chapel is it any less a work of art? Sure, it's different from what the artist originally envisioned, but if he were alive today, should he change it?

Robert Frost and a critic got into a heated discussion about the meaning of his poem "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening". The critic maintained that it was about death and how much remained to be done in life. The unnamed narrator it pondering that even though it might be tempting to let go of the burdens of life, he still had much to do before he could rest.

Robert Frost took the critic to task and said "Nonsense, its just about a drive through a snowy woods. Nothing more."

The critic replied "Well, I am sorry that you don't know what your own poem is about, but you're wrong."

It took a few years but Robert Frost finally agreed that the critic had been right all along. He even apologized.

I am worried that someone may try to "improve" Casablanca in a similar manner.