Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Re-release of E. T.

This is topic The Re-release of E. T. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000024

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 09-06-2000, 02:16 PM:

I just read that Spielberg is re-issuing E.T. in 2002. In the article (on the WebTV entertainment news pages) Spielberg is using additional footage and certain computer enhancements for this release. Is the movie not good enough as it is? I personally liked the film (In 70mm at the Columbia Theater in Atlanta) and see no way to improve it.

Is it possible that this new version will qualify for a new copyright?

In 1982, E.T. was playing all over Atlanta in many neighborhood theaters. The Columbia Theater (now gone) ran E.T. to a full house the night I saw it. The only seats available were in the BACK ROW of the balcony. It was an experience. Even in the back, the image was huge and sharp.

A couple of former projectionists at the Columbia regularly lurk here. Maybe one day they will tell us about the huge Cinemeccanica 70mm projector that ran this and all the other 70 stuff.

The Columbia ran: 2001, Sound Of Music, Dr. Zhivago, Oklahoma! And a host of others. We need more 70mm Productions!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-06-2000, 02:44 PM:

For those few (

)who missed reading about the "Splendor of 70 mm", here are links to the articles I wrote a few years ago for Kodak's "Film Notes for Reel People":
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/december98/pppp.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/pytlak.shtml

Note that I mention the gorgeous 70 mm prints of "ET" (I recall they were 1.85:1 aspect ratio with masked sides).

Unless the "certain computer enhancements" are done at greater than 2K resolution, they may not stand up to the greater sharpness and detail a 70 mm print can deliver. The added cost and time of rendering higher res CGI may be another reason fewer movies are being released with any 70 mm prints. IMHO, even a 35 mm release print would look better if the CGI were done at higher resolution rather than 2K.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-06-2000, 03:29 PM:

Since this thread is about E.T. :

E.T. was the first movie I ever saw in an indoor theatre. (West Theatre, Cedartown, GA, 1982). It was a single-screen theatre with a balcony.

I'd love to see that movie again on the big screen.

Evans

Posted by Richard C. Wolfe (Member # 431) on 09-06-2000, 03:57 PM:

ah yes....ET

The only movie I ever ran in my 561 seat house that sold out every evening show for the first week....over 7,000 paid tickets sold. On Sunday we sold out four shows in a row. Only the Saturday matinees had any seats left.

Boy would I like to do that again...just one more time before retirement! Oh, and by the way...this was sub run after the movie had been out for about nine months!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-07-2000, 07:31 AM:

I recall that "ET" played first run in Rochester for over a year. Close to a thousand runs per theatre on some prints.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-07-2000, 08:56 AM:

There's been a rumor floating around for months already that Steven Spielberg plans to digitally remove all guns from E.T. for this re-release and any future releases. Imagine an artist scarring up his own work in the name of political correctness.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 09-07-2000, 11:29 AM:

I have heard a similar rumor as Greg. I have heard that the DVD release of ET will have all the guns digitally removed. I disagree with Spielberg on this, I say leave it as is. Then again it's not mine to mess with, he can do what he wants.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 09-07-2000, 05:41 PM:

Removing all references to guns? How stupid! I dont own any guns, but if I wanted to own one, I dont want to have a bleeding-heart telling me that I cant buy one!

ALSO: My appologies for mis-spelling Spielberg in the original post. I'M GOING BACK TO FIX IT NOW!

Any coments on the copyright renewal questions?

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 09-09-2000, 06:48 AM:

I think it would be nifty to see E.T. get re-released... ^_^
It was the second film I had ever seen in a cinema. I went after school (OK, so I was in Kindergarten, and was 5 at the time), with my aunt, my cousin, and one of my cousin's friends. Even though I was an antsy kid that didn't sit still for much of anything, I sat in quiet awe watching that film.
I couldn't tell anyone at what cinema I viewed it, only that it was in the Lewiston/Auburn area, and is no longer open, and that means that it could have been one of several different places!

I even remember what the first film I saw in a cinema was - Annie. I am pretty sure that I saw that in Brunswick, at the old four screen (that at one point in time had been a two screen) cinema, that has been closed for almost five years now... Heh, my liking of that movie prompted my first theatre experience, as my parents decided to bring me to see a Maine State Music Theatre production of Annie...
I couldn't say what the first film I ever saw at a drive-in was, it's all hazy and cloudy in the memory, I was only a toddler! I vaguely remember seeing Bambi and Song Of The South...and then proceeded to drive my parents nuts by singing "Zip-a-dee-doo-da"

...The things we remember...

~GLB

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 09-09-2000, 10:52 AM:

Back in the spring of '82 I drove from Telluride, CO, to SF to visit Paul and his basement Century/carbon arc booth. Upon walking into his house, there were two film cans in the entry with "This Boy's Life" on the lables. That night a dozen of us adults watched ET two weeks before it opened. Not one of us thought it was a "kids" film; we were enthralled and captivated by a film that was magical and will be so 100 years from now. Wow!

Posted by Paul Cunningham (Member # 501) on 09-09-2000, 06:58 PM:

Would you believe that I have never seen ET, we went to watch it when it was first released but it was sold out so saw something else instead. And since then I have never had the interest to sit down and watch it.

Paul

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-11-2000, 03:45 AM:

It's interesting that they tried to fool people by putting 'This Boy's Life' on the trunks as it was well known even then that that was the working title for ET. (It's also the movie advertised on the marquee of the theatre as Zach Calligan walks up the main street in 'Gremlins').

Paul, you've waited this long...wait to see it in a cinema.

...although I must say that I hate the way these guys are going back and altering original works...even if they did make them in the first place.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 09-19-2000, 05:56 PM:

Political correctness ???

-Or yet another way to receive more media interest - Just as when Mr S. almost ruined "Close Encounters" to make his "Special Edition"

Commercial politics, you might call it!

Yak

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-22-2000, 07:19 AM:

The fact remains that when S., K. and G. announced their Dreamworks studio, lots of people were skeptical. And it seemed like forever before they actually produced a movie or a TV show or a music recording. Meanwhile, as we were still waiting for something tangible to come from that studio, the first thing Dreamworks actually "produced" was a political fund-raising party for Bill Clinton.

It's a sad piece of history and it would have bothered me if Dreamworks had done this for any politician or political party before they actually produced any entertainment. I don't look to entertainers for political guidance. But at least they're not trying to fund some covert operation. At least they're advertising their affiliations.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 09-22-2000, 09:54 AM:

I don't mind if Speilberg makes some changes on the re-release, he is still the director and a damn good one, so i am looking forward to that. As long as he doesn't change the story line- ok.

I remember the days in 1982 when E.T. had premier in my town, the theater was called ''BIOGRAFEN'' or just ''CINEMA''. People where just mad to get tickets. ( No 70mm )

I still get does ''Goosebumps'' down my back when i hear John Williams wonderful score.

Bravo!

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 11-17-2000, 04:11 PM:

I'm not much of a bleeding heart myself, but I can hardly blame Spielberg for wanting to take the guns out as it was pretty stupid to have them in there in the first place. Who the hell's actually going to use a shotgun to bring down a kid on a bike? Especially when they had a roadblock and it was clearly obvious the kids had nowhere else to go but up?

I can maybe understand them having the guns as a scare tactic but the way the shots were composed (especially the shot with that C.U. of a shotgun in an agent's hands as he's getting out of the car) as well as the ominous tone that Williams' music took, it's clearly evident Spielberg wanted to show these guys meant business. For Spielberg, I really don't think it's an issue of political correctness or pleasing the bleeding hearts. I think it's a matter of fixing a scene that looks comical at best.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.