Can't argue there.

Posted by Rundquist from adsl-63-201-187-189.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net (63.201.187.189) on Tuesday, November 06, 2001 at 8:44pm :

In Reply to: Here's the thing... posted by James from host-216-78-22-218.cae.bellsouth.net (216.78.22.218) on Monday, November 05, 2001 at 9:27pm :

I agree with the main point of your post. I just meant that the revisions are fun to look at (but not at the expense of the original versions). One ironic thing about all this is that Lucas and Spielberg have had full control of their movies for a long time now. Most director's cuts come about because of a director's having to originally bend his vision to studio forces. With these two guys this was hardly ever the case. One thing I forgot to bring up about the original article was that the journalist asked the question of who these movies really belong to. Does it belong to the director who made the movie or the collective audience that has invested years of emotion into these things? It's a tough call.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

: I really don't mind special editions, but the thing with E.T. is that, so far, the majority of the changes seem to be little more than Spielberg wanting to censor it. The sad thing is, the material he has taken out were so ridiculously inoffensive to begin with, that it seems even more disturbing.

: For example, pretty much everyone I've mentioned the removal of guns to has said the same thing, 'There were guns in E.T.?'

: The worse part is the realization that, if Lucas and Spielberg now deem things like 'penis breath' or a smuggler killing a bounty hunter offensive, what kind of Indy 4 will they feel is acceptable enough for public consumption?

: BTW, agreed about the SW special editions, although I was very excited to see the new footage when it first arrived in theatres.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:

E-Mail: ( default )

Subject:

Message:
: I agree with the main point of your post. I just meant that the revisions are fun to look at (but not at the expense of the original versions). One ironic thing about all this is that Lucas and Spielberg have had full control of their movies for a long time now. Most director's cuts come about because of a director's having to originally bend his vision to studio forces. With these two guys this was hardly ever the case. One thing I forgot to bring up about the original article was that the journalist asked the question of who these movies really belong to. Does it belong to the director who made the movie or the collective audience that has invested years of emotion into these things? It's a tough call. : xxxxxxxxxxxx : : I really don't mind special editions, but the thing with E.T. is that, so far, the majority of the changes seem to be little more than Spielberg wanting to censor it. The sad thing is, the material he has taken out were so ridiculously inoffensive to begin with, that it seems even more disturbing. : : For example, pretty much everyone I've mentioned the removal of guns to has said the same thing, 'There were guns in E.T.?' : : The worse part is the realization that, if Lucas and Spielberg now deem things like 'penis breath' or a smuggler killing a bounty hunter offensive, what kind of Indy 4 will they feel is acceptable enough for public consumption? : : BTW, agreed about the SW special editions, although I was very excited to see the new footage when it first arrived in theatres.

Optional Link ( default )

URL:

Title:

Optional Image Link ( default )

URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com