# A Minor Re-Issued Movies Rant...... **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 22, 2002, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457 "2002-03-22T00:38:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Quasimodem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Quasimodem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quasimodem)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/1 "2002-03-22T00:38:34Z")
Look, I **know** Spielberg dressed up **ET** with more scenes, crisper(?) quality, and whatever else, but I happen to think that **ET** in its original format was just fine with me, and I don’t plan to go and see the re-issue. I also don’t care about so-called “Director’s Cuts” or however else they decide to fancy-schmantzy up a film in order to squeeze a few more bucks out of it. It’s the same thing with “colorization”. That did absolutely **nothing** for me. As a matter of fact it **detracted** from my enjoyment of a lot of films. Sometimes a work of art needs to just stand on its own, dammit. Going back and tweaking makes me think the director wasn’t satisfied with his first effort. I know this is gonna open the door to criticism. For instance, “What about re-makes, Quasi? You don’t like those either?” For the most part, no. One exception: John Carpenter’s **The Thing** although I am sure there are more if I’d stop and think about it. So let me have it. What do y’all think? Quasi ---
**Author:** ![Agrippina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8797f3/32.png) [@Agrippina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agrippina)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/2 "2002-03-22T01:56:08Z")
I don’t like re-makes either, but at the same time they don’t bother me as much. Because if the original was great, THAT’S the one that’ll be remembered. If the re-make is the one that will always be remembered, then the original sucked. Now re-releases, I see as a waste of time (almost). Now there are some movies that are way worth seeing on the big screen (like _2001: A Space Odyssey_), but most of them it’s like, “I think I’ll go rent the movie. Just like I’ve rented the movie for the past 20 years…”. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/3 "2002-03-22T02:32:12Z")
For the most part, I don’t go see the re-releases, with the exception of _Star Wars_. Never seen the “extended” _Exorcist_, not gonna see the “new” _E.T._. I loathe the changing of a creative work just because its creator’s values have changed. And on that front, the _E.T._ re-release pisses me off in a major way, even more than Greedo shooting first: the digital erasing of guns. I mean, the guns were in the hands of FBI agents. So, what, Spielberg has a problem with federal law enforcement agents having guns? It’s one thing to be a “limousine liberal” and petition for gun control from behind your paid bodyguards, but it’s just plain stupid to pretend that the government doesn’t or shouldn’t have any guns. Anyway. Two reasons for all the rereleases. One, Hollywood is out of ideas. Two, it’s easier to repackage and resell the stuff that’s already sold once before than to create a whole new story that might not succeed. And they won’t stop as long as they’re making money at it. So, we all gotta band together and stay the hell away. ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/4 "2002-03-22T06:28:22Z")
Well, i saw ET when it first came out (when i was 4), saw it again sometime later (don’t remember when), and i’ll see it again this time. That, the Indy movies and the Star Wars/Trek movies are movies i’d go see constantly in the theater, if only a theater showed them year round. Any movie i own on video and DVD that i didn’t specifically buy to riff i’d also go see in the theater if they were ever re-released. ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/5 "2002-03-22T07:25:11Z")
Colorization vs. Re-editing: Colorization was a decision made by business executives against the wishes of the original artists, and while most of the re-editing for re-release or dvd is done by those originally involved in the production. Also, colorization is a much more fundamental change. It affects everything about the look of the movie, and renders irrelevant decisions made by the director, cinematographer, set and costume designers. Digital re-editing of guns into flashlights, though silly, doesn’t bother me, as it is really of little importance to the main thrust of the film, and seems to be an issue only for those who want to use an artistic choice as a political football. Can’t comment on “Greedo shoots first”, as I don’t recognize the movie or scene. Re-Releases: I saw the restored _Lawrence of Arabie_ in 70mm in '89, and it was one of the great experiences of my movie-going life. I see virtually every new release that comes to the local revival theater. Some movies, particularly the great ones, are greatly enhanced by the big screen treatment. Remakes: _His Girl Friday_, _A Star Is Born_ (1954), _A Fistful of Dollars_, _The Magnificent Seven_, _Reservoir Dogs_, _Star Wars_. Without remakes, we would have none of these. Of course, we also wouldn’t have _Barb Wire_ and _Switching Channels_, which would be a good thing. I’ll be there for the re-release of ET tomorrow. My wife wasn’t around the first or second time, so this will be her chance to see it for the first time. We’ve seen restored versions of several movies we have on DVD at the classic theater, and without exception, they’re more compelling on the big screen. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/6 "2002-03-22T09:47:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Can’t comment on “Greedo shoots first”, as I don’t recognize the movie or scene. _nudges **Number Six** down a couple of paragraphs in his post, to where he mentions the movie in question_ In _Star Wars_, in the scene where we’re introduced to Han, he kills a bounty hunter who was sent after him. In the One True Version of the movie, Han shoots in the middle of the conversation, because being both sensible and cold-blooded, he knows exactly where the conversation is headed, and only one entity is going to walk away from it. In the Infernal Bastardization by the Now-Senile Lucas, Greedo, the bounty hunter, shoots first, at a range of about two feet, but misses, thereby justifying Han’s shooting as self-defense. One more thing about _Star Wars_: It’s one thing, I suppose, if a director wants to go back to a movie once better special effects become available. It’s quite unforgivable, though, to go back to a movie to make the special effects _worse_. ---
**Author:** ![Gorgon\_Heap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f475e1/32.png) [@Gorgon\_Heap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorgon_Heap)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/7 "2002-03-22T13:45:44Z")
**Chronos** , you are a wise man and I truly enjoyed your take on StarWars. _Infernal; Bastardization … Now-senile Lucas_ [snort-laugh] 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/8 "2002-03-22T14:22:06Z")
But I disagree with **Chronos** on the idea of better effects are available now so it’s ok to redo it. Would you redo The Day the Earth Stood Still? One great thing about movies is that they are little time capsules. The capture tons of little things and record them for prosperity. Things like the acting level of an actor at a particular point in their career. Or the writing style of that decade. Or the film stock qualities of the time. And, yes, the ‘state of the art’ of special effects of the day. You can also see what a studio does by how much support it gave the production at the time. Now with a special directors edition you get things like The Abyss. Now with tacked on ending that wasn’t there because FOX ordered Cammeron to stop shooting. E.T. with the now less scary Feds because we can’t scare kids now. Star Wars with new lemon scented completly innocent Han Solo. My real problem is that the originals are not being preserved. You won’t be able to get the original versions of Close Encounters, E.T., Jaws. 50 or 100 years from now people will want to study Mr. S and Mr. Lucas. But they won’t be able to watch the films those two actually made but only the ‘new and improved and approved’ versions. Bleh ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/9 "2002-03-22T15:37:27Z")
There is no “sting” or power in art that can be changed years later at the whim of the creator. Where’s the bold statement? Where’s your “stamp” on the world? There isn’t anymore. That sense of permanence of art is going the way of the dodo. No artist need ever have a real opinion ever again. Something about your movie rubbing people the wrong way ten years after? No problem. Withdraw all old copies, alter the movie to your liking and release it again, the old version left to slowly die in the minds of those who first saw it. (Sorry for the slightly inconherent rant). ---
**Author:** ![Podkayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/10 "2002-03-22T16:03:13Z")
On the one hand, I think many remakes are intensely lame, and back-editing morality is spineless revisionism. On the other, the original still exists, so I can’t get myself worked up over it. And some remakes have been okay, and I can’t make a case for restricting the vision and artistry of a director who wishes to revisit a classic with a fresh sensiblity. If it sucks, it sucks on its own. The original is still there. On the third had (Martians have three hands) while it is widely agreed that the director’s cut of Blade Runner is far superior to the original, and it redresses significant artistic sacrifices supposedly made by the director, who was at the mercy of studio fat-cats , it’s been eons since I’ve seen the original release, and now I can’t find it! There aren’t any copies at our local Schlockbuster, and it seems the only way to lay hands on it is to buy it used. Ideally I’d like it on DVD, but I should probably forget about it. So in a sense, the original has almost ceased to exit, essentially overwritten by the director’s cut, which is probably a better representation of the director’s vision but still . . . Art is, on some level, about compromise, and the compromises that the artist makes are an integral part of the work of art. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/11 "2002-03-22T20:00:34Z")
Now, now, I never said that it was acceptable to update the special effects, just that I can understand the rationale. I don’t agree with it, but I can understand it. Even so, though, the original effects for _Star Wars_ were _better_ than the re-released CG version. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2002, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/12 "2002-03-22T23:16:37Z")
> [@](#): > > In the Infernal Bastardization by the Now-Senile Lucas, Greedo, the bounty hunter, shoots first, at a range of about two feet, but misses, thereby justifying Han’s shooting as self-defense. And you know what the dumbest thing about this is? It was **ALREADY** self-defense! I mean, Greedo has a **GUN** pointed at Han, and says, “I’m going to kill you.” I think any jury in the country would say shooting Greedo under those circumstances was self-defense. And as for Spielberg removing the guns from E.T., I can just see the interview now: “Well, I always INTENDED to have walkie-talkies instead of guns in that scene, but I didn’t have the budget.” (For those of you who don’t get the sarcasm there, that’s what Lucas said about Greedo firing first.) Does anyone think that maybe Lucas and Spielberg are the same person? I mean, they both made “special” editions of their movies, they both used to have some mysterious enmity towards DVDs… has anyone actually seen them together? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ankh\_Too](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ab097/32.png) [@Ankh\_Too](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ankh_Too)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2002, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/13 "2002-03-23T05:24:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Podkayne \* > \*\*On the third had (Martians have three hands) \*\* [nitpick hijack] I thought Moties have three hands, while Martians had antennae (is there a xenobiologist in the house?) [/nitpick hijack] I tend to agree with you on everything else. If, as you mention, the director is going back and retrieving something he or she thought was lost because of forces outside of his control, then I’m all for the “director’s cut” being released. The idea of digitally erasing the guns from the scene mentioned above is so ridiculous it almost defies analysis. I realize that people have the right and ability to change their philosophy and even morals throughout their life, but the idea of going back to remove that part makes my brain hurt. It could, however, make it somewhat difficult to discern the real motives of the director with subsequent releases. “Yeah, the studio jerks made me cut the scene of space hookers with telescoping nipples, but I’ve come to realize that I’m morally opposed to the Space Police showing their guns in front of small children.” ---
**Author:** ![strangecurrencies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@strangecurrencies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/strangecurrencies)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2002, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/14 "2002-03-23T06:50:49Z")
Speaking of Spielberg, is there anyone else who **hates** that Close Encounters was re-released as a “special edition” that (imho) nullified the whole point of the movie by going inside the Mothership? This has \*always \* irked me to no end… ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2002, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-minor-re-issued-movies-rant/99457/15 "2002-03-23T07:06:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ankh\_Too \* > \*\* > > [nitpick hijack] > I thought Moties have three hands, while Martians had antennae (is there a xenobiologist in the house?) > [/nitpick hijack] > > \*\* Well, as a biologist and a Martian (Barsoomian for you natives!), i can assure you us Green Martians have 4 arms. Red, White, Black, and Yellow have 2.