Skip

March 15, 2002
8:39 AM   Subscribe

In light of Steven Speilberg's editing of the soon to be re-re-released "E.T.", Slate offers its own (mostly funny) editing suggestions for the remaining Speilberg canon. By the way, is anyone else repulsed by what Speilberg's doing?
posted by adrober (60 comments total)

 
Slate was incorrect about Hook being unfixable. Simply change Hook's hook into a spoon.
posted by fleener at 8:45 AM on March 15, 2002


My childhood would have been happier if Poltergeist would have been more like this:

Carol Anne (crouching in front of the TV): Theeeeyyyy're heeeeere!

Her mom: Who's here, honey?

Carol Anne: The TV people...

ENTER Cable repair guy.

Cable Repair Guy: (clips wire, connects it to VCR) That should take care of that static, Ma'am!

Cable Repair Guy tips his hat and walks out the door. Roll credits.
posted by ColdChef at 8:50 AM on March 15, 2002


ugh.
posted by Dom at 8:53 AM on March 15, 2002


Heheh. I never saw Hook. Sounds like I'm not missing much.

Frank Marshall, who co-produced several of Spielberg's films, has reportedly said that he and Spielberg are interested in revisiting the Indiana Jones movies next and making similar modifications.

Actually I don't think the Indiana Jones movies would be messed with much. Those weren't like real "Lets herd these Jews into Ovens" Nazis, they were more like "Lets find some religious artifact and take over the world!" kind of Nazis. So I really have no clue what they could possiby change around...
posted by Keen at 8:54 AM on March 15, 2002


Obviously, a director can do whatever he wants to his own film, and the changes here are pretty minimal, but if he's (sadly, they're almost all "he"s) going to alter his work years after a film is released, there need to be disclaimers. After all, if I buy ET on DVD, I'm not getting the same film I saw years ago. It's, on some level, false advertising. They should be required to retitle them. "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial : Redux", or whatever.

Hell, they can even sell the "original", minus the changes, as "Classic E.T.", and charge an extra ten bucks.
posted by jpoulos at 8:54 AM on March 15, 2002


what the hell could they do to Raiders of the Lost Ark?

don't touch it!
posted by o2b at 8:54 AM on March 15, 2002


and i loved Hook.
posted by o2b at 8:55 AM on March 15, 2002


So I really have no clue what they could possiby change around...

I honestly could see them wiping the swastikas out of all the shots. They don't need to be real nazis for the story to work. At least, that's what the studios might argue.
posted by jpoulos at 8:55 AM on March 15, 2002


If someone else was doing this to his films, I would be outraged. If he were a more influential director (say, Kubrick), I would be saddened. But, if Spielberg wants to butcher his own work, I say, "go nuts!"
posted by electro at 8:58 AM on March 15, 2002


Deleting the last third of "AI: Artificial Intelligence" would do wonders for the integrity of the film.
posted by Danelope at 9:10 AM on March 15, 2002


Some people are really, really afraid of reptiles. So....

Revised Raiders of the Lost Ark

Scene: Standing over a hole, looking down into the pit where the Ark of the Covenant is resting.

Sallah: Why is the floor moving like that?

Indiana Jones drops a torch down into the room.

Indy: Snails...Why did it have to be snails?
posted by ColdChef at 9:17 AM on March 15, 2002


what the hell could they do to Raiders of the Lost Ark?

How about softening some of the more violent scenes, like when the bald guy gets chopped by the propellor, and the spectacle-wearing guy melts down? I'm sure that Spielberg would be all too happy to cut several seconds from those scenes. In fact, I've seen an edited-for-television version of Raiders and that's just what they did.

I wonder if Eliot still calls his brother "penis breath" during that kitchen table argument early on in the film...?
posted by scarabic at 9:20 AM on March 15, 2002


This really bugs me. If we're going to start editing films to comply with current sensibilities, where will it end? I can understand updating the special effects in Star Wars, where the specoal effects were kind of the point, though whoever came up with Greedo-shoots-first should be forced to commit seppuku, I volunteer to be his second.

Whether or not one thinks Spielberg is a serious director, I do, one of the ideas in E.T was the comparison of the worlds of children (wonder, imagination) and adults (serious, violent). Changing rifles to walkie talkies? Why not change all the rain to sunshine?

And plus, the story's a pretty cool Jesus Christ metaphor.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:24 AM on March 15, 2002


I have these fond memories of films that I watched as a kid (or just as a younger person), and there are moments in film that now exist - literally - only in my memory. I cannot find a copy of 'Star Wars' where Han shoots Greedo first, and that really pisses me off. Han doesn't wait for Greedo to fire (and miss from two feet away), Han caps his ass first, and that's one of the things that defined his character.

Anyhow, if Spielberg touches any of the 'Indiana Jones's, I'll be very, very upset. Changing E.T. is bad enough.

I wish this idea would go out of vogue among directors.
posted by GriffX at 9:26 AM on March 15, 2002


I am led to understand that "penis breath" is indeed axed from the revised film.

Of course, Stevey's always one step behind Lucas in this stuff. What is it with bearded geeky millionaire sci-fi directors altering their work twenty years later? Why did Greedo have to shoot first, George? Why?

But fuck, it's only E.T. In the end, who cares? Go nutso, Stevey boy!

He's just doing this to distract from the fact that Minority Report is going to suck so hard.
posted by solistrato at 9:28 AM on March 15, 2002


Raiders of the Lost Ark changes:

Scene: bald muscleman gets head shredded by plane propeller amid a spray of blood.

Change: We see his head flip up and down in a cartoon-like manner as his chin hits each propeller as it comes up, over and over again. Then the man simply falls down unconscious.

Scene: snakes.

Change: Snakes replaced with Pokemon dolls. Indy repeatedly gripes, "I hate Pokemon!"

Scene: Indy gets shot in arm. Holds arm in pain thereafter.

Change: A new scene is inserted where Indy gets a tattoo.

Scene: The ark is opened, nazis get blasted by the face of God.

Change: Nazis get scared by ghosts and run away. God steps out of the ark (portrayed by a digital George Burns) and comforts Indy and Marion.
posted by fleener at 9:28 AM on March 15, 2002


In all honesty the changes Spielberg's made to ET seem to be minimal. He's certainly not "butchering his own work." I think it's also a matter of keeping up with the Lucases so to speak. George dramatically altered his own Star Wars trilogy and Spielberg feels it's a good idea to revisit his own works after looking at the new CGI technology that has come along since his movies came out. I happen to believe he is incorrect, but so far I haven't heard any critics saying that the changes are so noticable that they detract from enjoying the film.

Sometimes attempts to improve older films with new technology is terrible but sometimes it's a good thing. When Turner colorized the Maltese Falcon, that was despicable. However, several years ago I saw a revised version of the silent film Metropolis which greatly improved my enjoyment over the original version. The problem with updating a work however is in making the changes timeless. So you don't have to revisit it again in the future. The newer version of Metropolis included music that while appealing (Freddie Mercury's "Love Kills" remains one of my favorite songs ever) is also rather dated to the technopop sound of the 1980s, which today's younger audience would probably find laughable.

I guess my point is no matter how good such changes may or may not be, there'll always be critics of the changes, just as there were critics of the film when it first came out. Spielberg wasn't satisfied. It's his film. Hopefully now he's content with it and can move on.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:30 AM on March 15, 2002


ZachsMind, you may be the only person in the entire world who liked the Georgio Moroder version of "Metropolis" better. :-)
posted by briank at 9:40 AM on March 15, 2002


Danelope: IMO the only thing that could have saved "AI" would have been if Spielberg had actually been brave enough to have an opinion one way or the other about the subject matter. He never convinced me the kid was anything more than an enhanced toaster (because he didn't know if the kid counted as human-equivalent or not himself), so I found it hard to really care about his experiences. And the dialogue was unbearable ("I'm sorry I never told you about the world"...yeesh).

I don't mind if he wants to re-edit any of his films, although I think his reasons for re-editing "E.T." are a pretty clear-cut example of the sort of dopey misguided sympathy that gives us things like people complaining about "Huckleberry Finn" being taught in schools (on preview, as Ty Webb said: "editing films to comply with current sensibilities"). Re-editing for artistic reasons (like making director's cuts) is often a wonderful thing, but re-editing where you're almost pretending that the original version didn't exist because of some vague notion that seeing guns makes baby Jesus cry in 2002, when it didn't in 1982, just seems patronising (and weirdly offensive, like Soviet-era revisionist history) to me.
posted by biscotti at 9:40 AM on March 15, 2002


I hope they remake Gone With The Wind. The slave scenes depress me.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:52 AM on March 15, 2002


I dunno - I agree with Zachsmind on the Moroder "Metropolis". As a matter of fact, I'm pretty peeved that it's not available on DVD (or anything at all, at the moment; thank goodness my laserdisc player still runs.)

I could have done without the music, but it was as acceptable as some plinky piano score, I guess. But the fact of the matter is, it is recognized as the best job of reconstruction and image correction by just about anyone who holds 'Metropolis' in high esteem. There are 3 sources for consumer copies of the film, and the other two are recognized as complete junk.

There is a new release of the film that may hold some promise due out in October, 2002. Here's hoping...
posted by Perigee at 10:12 AM on March 15, 2002


Moroder's Metropolis was a horrible adaptation of the original. I saw the adapation first and that it was OK. Then I saw a silent version that contained many more scenes not in the "modern restored" version and found some actual plot/character motivation changes. The changes pissed me off, but I was especially incensed that the newer version was marketed as being a more complete version. It was not.
posted by fleener at 10:31 AM on March 15, 2002


Change: Snakes replaced with Pokemon dolls.

Product-placement dollars to boot!

Spielberg feels it's a good idea to revisit his own works after looking at the new CGI technology that has come along since his movies came out...

But Zach, this isn't like Lucas adding new CGI effects in the background of Star Wars. He's changing the content for some sort of political or moral(?) reasons.

Personally, I don't care. I never cared for ET anyway, and I'm not worried that Scorcese, for example, will be neutering Taxi Driver any time soon. But then, what happens when Scorcese dies? Can we expect an all new Taxi Driver, where the pre-teen Jodie Foster is replaced digitally by the current, 40 year old Foster?
posted by jpoulos at 10:32 AM on March 15, 2002


What would be cool for Metropolis on DVD would be if one had a choice of various soundtracks--the pop music one, plinky piano, or--my favorite one--the Alloy Orchestra (which uses the Moroder print, iirc).

But back to the subject at hand...

I have issues with directors changing films they made in the past to reflect their current sensibilities--strikes me as somehow dishonest. I won't be going to go see ET, but not because of the dishonesty inherent in the changes, but because the damn movie gave me nightmares.
posted by eilatan at 10:39 AM on March 15, 2002


In the abstract, I have no problem with a director who wants to experiment with past works: look at what Coppola has done with The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now. Although it's arguable that these re-edits were better or worse, they are all interesting and worthwhile.

That said, however, what Spielberg is doing is wringing the public tit until it's purple. Lucas did it with Star Wars (there are about four different VHS releases, a VCD release, and it has been released theatrically three or four different times), so Spielberg must figure that he should get in on the action too. I wouldn't mind so much if it were an art-house thing, or were shown at $1 per person, but this kind of cynical money-grubbing is just shameful.

It also speaks of the complete creative bankruptcy in the film industry when one of the most-hyped releases of the year is a twenty-year old movie that most of the prospective audience has already seen.

Although I am quite fond of the film, I hope it completely tanks at the box office to discourage any more stunts like this.
posted by mrmanley at 10:44 AM on March 15, 2002


(fleener: The non-Moroder version you saw went by the 'American script', which essentially changed the entire story that Lang had scripted. Moroder's version contains the original story line. Just a sidenote... back to the regular discussion...)
posted by Perigee at 10:49 AM on March 15, 2002


For those of you familiar with Seattle. There's a place called Gasworks park, where there is this mass of old pipes and gears and things, about 10 stories high, left over from, yes, a gasworks, and it's just sitting in the middle of the park. Nearby is a big hill. A screen was stretched in front of the gasworks, so that on the top and sides of the screen you could see this eerie looking industrial stuff sticking out. And Metropolis was shown on it, at night, for free, with the audience sitting on the hill facing the screen, with a live orchestra performing an original score by a local composer. It was truly one of the greatest movie-viewing experiences of my life.
posted by bingo at 10:54 AM on March 15, 2002


"This really bugs me. If we're going to start editing films to comply with current sensibilities, where will it end? "

Well, I don't know where it will end, but I can guess where the flicks will end anyway: TNT. Or maybe that other network where James Bond movies get digital corrections to cover behinds of bond-girls soon-to-be-defenestrated.
posted by rexgregbr at 11:14 AM on March 15, 2002


By the way, the change was requested by Drew Barrymore, not Spielberg. ET is one of my three favorite films from my childhood, movies that still give me a sense of the magic I felt when I first saw them. I'm so happy another generation of kids is going to be able to see it in a movie theatre, considering the current spate of children's movies are all trying too hard to please adults to have any long-lasting emotional impacts on kids. I do remember being shocked and frightened when I saw the men with guns, and that was a good thing. It's a minor change; I hope it doesn't detract too much from that scene.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 11:18 AM on March 15, 2002


Here's the change from Raiders: The scene where the crowd parts and the guy with the swirling sword emerges and shows off - then Indy shoot him. That one is as good as gone.

Actually it wasn't originally scripted that way - there was supposed to be an elaborate sword/whip fight. Unfortunately Harrison Ford was very ill that day (Cairo water) and they needed to cut the scene short.

That's when the best movie moments take place - inspiration on the set! All these digital changes are how the blandest movie moments take place...
posted by Stuart_R at 11:30 AM on March 15, 2002


did y'all know that spielberg is doing indy 4 and that kate capshaw is returning as willie? wasn't she bad enough in temple of doom?
posted by michaelbrown at 11:31 AM on March 15, 2002


did y'all know that spielberg is doing indy 4 and that kate capshaw is returning as willie?

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
*flinging self against walls*
*banging head in oven door*
*mixing pop rocks and pepsi*
posted by Ty Webb at 11:35 AM on March 15, 2002


not that capshaw was solely responsible for how bad temple of doom was because damned if there weren't a lot of things that made it bad, but i don't think i've been so disappointed by a single bit of casting in a long time.
posted by michaelbrown at 11:37 AM on March 15, 2002


Spielberg feels it's a good idea to revisit his own works after looking at the new CGI technology that has come along since his movies came out

Zach, unless you're saying that Spielberg didn't have the technology to use walkie-talkie props instead of gun props, or that he said the kid looked like a terrorist because the technology to call him a hippy just wasn't there, then these revisions are more than digital touchups. I think they're politically correct revisions, personally.
posted by Hildago at 11:46 AM on March 15, 2002


i don't think i've been so disappointed by a single bit of casting in a long time.

Totally agree. It's off topic, but this is a very sensitive point for me. I actually think the movie is pretty damned good, though not nearly as good as "Raiders", but I don't think Jar Jar could annoy me more in that role than Capshaw. The kid, Short Round, would have been more than enough to forgive.

Plus, the devil on my shoulder keeps telling me that Speilberg only cast her because he wanted to lay the shiksa goddess. (please take that comment in the lighthearted spirit in which it is intended. -ed)
posted by Ty Webb at 11:46 AM on March 15, 2002


Ty, weren't they already married at the time? I think he was already in pretty solid. And she's hardly a goddess. What's she got that Amy Irving don't got?
posted by bingo at 11:56 AM on March 15, 2002


Ty, weren't they already married at the time? I think he was already in pretty solid.

Damn. Okay, then it's Linda McCartney syndrome.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:00 PM on March 15, 2002


I'm of the (very strong) opinion that any "new" versions of movies should be released in addition to, not in place of, the original works. The original works should always be available. No one, not even the director of film, has the right to go back and erase cultural history.

Now some people will scoff at my last statement and say that it's just pop-culture, who cares, etc. But cinema is the Great Art of the 20th century. It exists in the public consciousness more strongly than any other form of expression. Movies like Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark still carry tremendous cultural influence decades after their release. Yet people like Spielberg and Lucas are blithely pulling the rug out from under everyone by going back and changing things.

When George Lucas released his "special edition" of Star Wars, he took the extra step of destroying any 35mm prints of the original he could get his hands on. One of the most influential films of the 20th century is now gone, unless you want to count the remaining VHS and LD copies, which are hardly the same thing, and may not even be viewable in the long-term future.

Future generations will find it hard to believe that people just sat back and allowed such important works to be destroyed.
posted by Potsy at 1:18 PM on March 15, 2002


I can't believe that nobody's mentioned the CGI'd rerelease of Star Wars, where the one change that mattered was that Greedo shoots Han first (and improbably misses badly), so that Han isn't seen killing in cold blood -- even though we all know that he was dead meat if he didn't.

If that isn't a politically motivated change, I don't know what is.
posted by dhartung at 2:22 PM on March 15, 2002


Umm dhartung
posted by plemeljr at 2:35 PM on March 15, 2002


Go Potsy!

Are there no DVDs of the original Star Wars? Ech..still, someone must own some of the original prints...they were collector's items long ago, after all. Someone will, or has already perhaps, hopefully transfer(red) it to DVD or VCD.

You know about Gaslight? A very old movie that underwent a similar fate...only it wasn't the original director who destroyed the old copies, it was the producer of the new film...forgive me if i'm wrong, but I think it was Selznick. Fortunately, he didn't succeed, and you can still rent the original on VHS.

I have to respect what Stephen Semel, editor for Way of the Gun, said in the DVD commentary for the deleted scenes. Something to the effect of "I just want to start out this commentary by saying that I think scenes are deleted for a reason, and that once they are gone, nobody should ever see them again. To add them back, even like this, is to reduce the integrity of the finished work."
posted by bingo at 3:23 PM on March 15, 2002


How about softening some of the more violent scenes, like when the bald guy gets chopped by the propellor, and the spectacle-wearing guy melts down?

The guy getting chopped up by the propellor is actually a part of the Indiana Jones stage show at Disney/MGM studios. It happens offstage, but you hear the guy screaming. Family entertainment - indeed!
posted by owillis at 3:44 PM on March 15, 2002


If "you look like a terrorist" was a comment that made sense in the context, and "you look like a hippie" is still a comment that makes sense in the same context, does that mean hippies look like terrorists?
posted by obfusciatrist at 3:48 PM on March 15, 2002


Rest easy, my friends, for Kate Capshaw's role in Indiana Jones will be limited to a cameo.
posted by adrianhon at 3:51 PM on March 15, 2002


on topic: Politically Correct film revisions, like most Politically Correct things, suck. If advances in technology allow a director to make a clearly labeled redux version of a film to more closely realize the original vision, I don't really have a problem with that. But to change dialogue, plot points and details according to changing sensibilities is pretty abhorrent.

Side note to bingo: I love Gas Works Park! The first time I stumbled across it there was a b&w monster movie marathon playing there. Hundreds of people lined the hills on blankets and even sofas they had carried in. I stood on the sundial at the top of the hill and took in the sight of the city lights, merchant vessels, massive bridges and busy freeways surrounding me. Two hours later from the window seat of my climbing 767 I looked down at the party still going on, and the very spot I had stood. Cool.
posted by Tubes at 3:51 PM on March 15, 2002


does that mean hippies look like terrorists?
Yes, and here's the proof.
posted by owillis at 4:13 PM on March 15, 2002


The excessive use of force in the original E.T. is one of the things I most remember about the film when seeing it as a child, so it's kind of a Greedo-shoots-first thing for me.

As for Metropolis: every version in existence today is drastically different from what could be considered the "original," which is long lost. We keep finding new pieces, of varying levels of quality, and many new versions containing various pieces and new orchestral accompaniments have come out over the years. As I understand it, the latest new cut with a good amount of newly discovered footage came out just last year. I too am hoping for a thorough DVD treatment.

There are only a couple of versions of Metropolis on DVD. There's a terrible, terrible terrible version occasionally available in the States for $7. The best version I know of is a region 2 DVD (acquired in France) and justifies the cost of my multi-region DVD player ten times over. (It's the only non-region-1 disc I own.)

(I too was lucky enough to see the Black Cat Orchestra accompany Metropolis live, though alas not at Gasworks Park, but at Bumbershoot. That was the Black Cat Orchestra that did the version at Gasworks years ago, wasn't it?)
posted by dan_of_brainlog at 4:40 PM on March 15, 2002


owillis, great photo, that band rocks.
posted by Ty Webb at 5:04 PM on March 15, 2002


There are tons of bootleg DVDs of the original Star Wars trilogy out there, all of which are simply transfers made from laserdisc releases. Supposedly there are a few 35mm prints of Star Wars in private hands, but the moment anybody tried to do anything with them, they'd be snatched up and destroyed. And who knows if they will still be around by the time the copyright expires.

I've got a laserdisc set of the original Star Wars triology for safe keeping, along with a couple of laserdiscs of E.T. Looks like I need to get my hands on a laserdic set of the Indiana Jones triology, too. Grrr.
posted by Potsy at 7:25 PM on March 15, 2002


Upon reading this thread I want to apologize for my earlier glib comment ("it's only Spielberg," yadda, yadda), not because I think it was wrong, but because it was insensitive.

I honestly think that we've already entered a new dark age. Nothing will survive from this period except what its owners think will make money, and it will be modified into whatever form its current copyright monopolist thinks will maximize his profit. Imagine if medieval monks had to track down Virgil's heirs to pay royalties on the Aenead.

Anyway, you're right that it sucks that the movie you saw as a kid no longer exists. In my experience, though, the movie on the screen is always disappointing compared with the movie in your head.
posted by electro at 9:59 PM on March 15, 2002


Just wondering whether Universal Studios Hollywood will change the animatronic figure in E.T. (The Ride)...if memory serves the uniformed cop points a gun upward at you as the ride sweeps you into "space."

They're cutting Indy's pre-emptive strike of the sword-slinger--funniest moment in the whole film??? That was one of those theater-rocking-with-laughter moments, pure cinematic gold.
coughpenisbreathcough
posted by StOne at 11:59 PM on March 15, 2002


This has to be the most depressing pop-culture thread I've seen on MeFi. No more "penis breath"? No more Indy-shoots-guy-with-sword? Potsy is right about why movies matter, and how much they matter. People need to be able to see the originals. Besides, if you take out the sword scene, it won't make any sense a movie or two later in the series where Indy is confronted by two sword-wielding baddies, reaches for a gun that isn't there, laughs nervously and runs away.

If what I've read in here is correct, Spielberg is setting out to emasculate two of the best films I've ever seen, and probably some others that I care less about but still enjoyed. This makes me furious.
posted by diddlegnome at 12:51 AM on March 16, 2002


"They're cutting Indy's pre-emptive strike of the sword-slinger--funniest moment in the whole film???"

wtf, they're cutting that scene?

I have made a new enemy today.

That scene was gold!
posted by CrayDrygu at 1:33 AM on March 16, 2002


jeez, bingo, I'm sorry I missed that Metropolis... Oh, man, I remember sneaking into Gas Works Park with a friend one night about, jeez, over 23 years ago, in an extremely altered state, and climbing all over those cracking towers. They hadn't cut all the rungs off the ladders yet, just the first 7 feet or so. I did this incredible jump, caught the lip of a vent and just vaulted up... It was really beyond my athletic coughasifcough abilities and really stupid and dangerous but I was in no mind then to appreciate that. God, and I'm so afraid of heights, I can't stand third floor balconies. I have this blurred memory of the view from the top. I'm surprised sometimes I'm still alive... Damn Spoon for losing us the font sizes..

As to E.T.--I remember that terrorist line. I cracked up--plus that was my Halloween outfit that year, in homage: full cammo, olive ski mask, super skinny vintage shades--That sucks. Ditto the walkie talkies. I recall this Life In Hell cartoon by Groening where he recounted going to a Hollywood party--this was obviously post Simpsons--where Spielberg was in attendance, standing in a corner and receiving people like the pope. You get to be God and it goes to your head...
posted by y2karl at 2:15 AM on March 16, 2002


They're cutting Indy's pre-emptive strike of the sword-slinger??

No no no. That was speculation on our part. They haven't announced any changes they're making to Indy.
posted by jpoulos at 7:31 AM on March 16, 2002


...except that they're cutting out the part where the monkey dies. Kids HATE to see a monkey die.
posted by ColdChef at 7:35 AM on March 16, 2002


...where Indy is confronted by two sword-wielding baddies, reaches for a gun that isn't there, laughs nervously and runs away.

I've got to step up and defend Indy here. If memory serves, in TOfD he is confronted by two sword-wielding baddies, reaches for a gun that isn't there, laughs nervously, then proceeds to kick both their asses. Indy runs away a few moments later when he sees about hundred baddies charging.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:46 AM on March 16, 2002


Spielberg's DVD will have both the original version and the New Improved version on it - did anyone else bother to watch NBC's "it's not advertising, really" special about the rerelease?
posted by Nyx at 9:22 PM on March 16, 2002


I didn't see the NBC story, but yes, I've read about the DVDs of E.T. containing the original version (although what I read indicated that they would be two separate DVDs that had to be bought separately). I won't breathe easy until I actually have it in my hands, though.

But there is still the issue of the original Star Wars movies, the Indiana Jones movies, and whatever else major directors decide to go back and alter. Who knows what the double-threat of Lucas and Spielberg will produce when it comes to the Indiana Jones movies. (Will the movies even be recognizable after they get done?)
posted by Potsy at 11:56 PM on March 16, 2002


I don't get it. Just who is Spielberg protecting? The kids? Question: Are American kids exposed to more guns and violence now then they were in the early 1980s? or less? Just think about what you see every night on the news. How many parents out there were at a loss when your kids questioned you about Columbine? Or the half dozen other school shootings? Unfortunately guns are a part of our everyday life, even if we don't come into contact or even close proximity to them. I think the moral stance Spielberg is taking is much more damaging than having police carrying guns in his movie. (shhh! if we don't talk about them then they'll go away) And beside, this is what the police are supposed to frickin do. They're there to protect us. The cops in the movie didn't know the funny little brown alien wasn't a brain eating monster from outerspace.
posted by crustbuster at 5:16 AM on March 17, 2002


« Older   |   125 Car Pile-up on Georgia Interstate 75. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post