Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: stop the madness...E.T. getting re-edited.....

This is topic stop the madness...E.T. getting re-edited..... 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=000493

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-10-2001, 06:52 PM:

OK...please stop the madness....according to www.cinecon.com a line in E.T. is getting changed because they used the word terrorist in it....next thing you know terrorist will no longer be in the dictionary.....

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-10-2001, 07:30 PM:

Grrr... absolutely ludicrous. Then again, the article states that the audio and *video* have been renovated.

In other news, excerpts from the script for ET2 have leaked to the press ... http://www.bubblegun.com/features/etii.html

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-11-2001, 03:12 AM:

Is Drew Barrymore still fighting for the digital removal of the guns in the movie too?

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-11-2001, 02:39 PM:

The 1988 video release already had the line "You're not going as a terrorist!" removed. The reissue is supposed to have the guns taken out as well.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-11-2001, 07:27 PM:

quote:
In other news, excerpts from the script for ET2 have leaked to the press ...

Yeeesh. That is the most tasteless thing I've read since last month's Maxim magazine.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 11-15-2001, 11:35 AM:

I was told, but it wasnt confirmed, that penis breath was also taken out.....anyone know anything about this?

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 03-19-2002, 06:19 PM:

Bumping this up top to coincide with re-release.

I saw E.T. once (on video) and found it weak. The fact that people are willing to swallow Reaganite fantasies says something about how big that movie was back in the day.

Hey, if they're gonna re-release 80's movies, why not re-release Rambo: First Blood Part 2?

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-19-2002, 07:25 PM:

IMHO, That is totally nuts!!!!

Why don't they remove the word "Hemorrhoid" from a Preparation H commercial? It is just about as stupid......

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-19-2002, 07:36 PM:

I thought E.T. was boring as well, but it had nothing to do with Ronald Reagan!

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 03-19-2002, 11:24 PM:

I loved ET, and that other great speilberg movie, "Batteries Not Included".

I can see why they pulled the guns out, because everyone knows that if an FBI guy has a gun, he shoots it. No one got shot, so out go the guns. Otherwise we could have ET2:THE BLOODBATH.

Now that would be entertaining.

Dave

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 03-20-2002, 12:14 AM:

Well, I saw E.T. on opening night in 70mm... and it worked quite well that way. Seeing it years later on video and immediately calling it "weak" isn't quite fair. I suppose I'll see it again next week and decide if it still works (in 35mm).

Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 03-20-2002, 12:33 AM:

If word "terrorist" will be removed from dictionaries then our sons won't know the meaning of it and it'll be more dangerous than current days. I believe in "If There's a positive side, There's a negative side". In our world exist good people and bad people. If you want to defeat your enemies you'll need to stay as closest as you can, so you know all its weaks points. They shouldn't put a "douser" in ours son's eyes because we let them green light to terrorism.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 03-20-2002, 05:30 PM:

If you have seen the movie, and understand the comic reference to the word "terrorist" in the film, then you understand the need for removal. Now that terrorism has raised to a whole new horrific level, it is no longer funny to refer to anyone as a terrorist without referring to them as a murderer or person of complete and total hatred of all mankind.

And I don't think that it becomes a precursor to elimination, just a proper placement of the word in our new world. It used to be that gay meant to be happy, and now if you say you are gay, you are automatically assumed that you are really really happy!!! Usage and placement of words go through changes from generation to generation. I wouldn't be worried about the loss of the word, at least I understand that Penis Breath will still be there, according to the editing staff for the re-mix.

Dave

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-21-2002, 02:26 AM:

I accept that argument in terms of the dialogue for new films being made now, but you can't alter history. The word 'terrorist' had a specific meaning when that film was made and if people can't deal with the fact that you have to exercise some judgement when you're dealing with any film/book/play/TV show which was made a significantly long time ago, then they're a bit sad. Would you rename the The Gay Divorce just because the commonly understood meaning of 'gay' has changed since that film was made?

Reminds me of when The Dam Busters was on telly over Christmas, and thanks to the marvels of ADR the black labrador had been renamed 'Tigger'. I've also seen another version in which all references to and shots of the dog are completely removed. If members of minority groups can't deal with the fact that the 'N' word is unacceptable now but was regarded rather differently in 1952, then IMHO that's their problem. Besides, the 'N' word was used extensively in Pulp Fiction and no-one tried to censor that.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 03-21-2002, 02:44 AM:

Censorship is bad; retroactive censorship doubly so.

And somehow the fact that Speilberg is doing this voluntarily makes it even more disgusting.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 03-21-2002, 09:14 AM:

To quote Doc Brown, "You're just not thinking fourth dimensionally."

I don't think it qualifies as "censorship" when the creator of something makes the decision to alter it. The problem here is the philosophy that a work of art is never "finished" or that movies are like bonsai trees... or something like that. Each time a movie is re-released, these people want it to be as attractive as possible to the people who are paying money to see it today... as if those people had never seen it before or as if they haven't seen it enough times on video to really remember every detail. Some people will see the new version (having never seen any version on the big screen) and they'll be convinced that some new detail was added... only to go home and see the old video again and realize it was always there.

Guys like Lucas, Spielberg, Donner and Cameron will always give us excuses like "This is the way I always wanted the movie to be" or "We would have done it this way if we'd had the money/technology back then." So long as we're just viewers rather than producer/directors, I guess we can't change such thinking. Wouldn't it be a gas if one of these special editions were a box office flop? But... that's just dreaming.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 03-21-2002, 10:57 AM:

quote:
Some people will see the new version (having never seen any version on the big screen) and they'll be convinced that some new detail was added... only to go home and see the old video again and realize it was always there.

I've noticed this before. The first time I saw "Star Wars" on the big screen in 1997, I went home and checked all sorts of details on the video, thinking that many things weren't as I remembered them, just to find that nearly all of them were the same. The same happened with "Grease" when I saw its rerelease a few years back.

Evans

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-21-2002, 02:12 PM:

"Wouldn't it be a gas if one of these special editions were a box office flop?"

That will probably never happen, because I don't see people like Tom Green re-editing movies like "Freddy Got Fingered" saying "this is the way I intended it to be". Even after he "fixed it", still no one would go to see it (and for good reason). The studios will only green-light very popular movies in the first place.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 03-21-2002, 04:50 PM:

Sometimes a "special edition" will flop. The 15th anniversary re-release of The Big Chill tanked -- in and out of the Loews Lincoln Square in 1 week.

Universal must really be leaning on theaters to open this re-release of E.T. It breaks in as many theaters as Blade II with just as many prints.

Evans: The 1998 re-release of Grease was identical to the 1978 original, only with a Dolby Digital/DTS soundtrack.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 03-23-2002, 04:14 AM:

WE IS ALL A BUNCH OF FOOLS...

According to speilberg, he we never happy with that terrorist line in the first place, and had always intended to cut it, but never got around to it until a few years ago when it was getting to a re release on video.

The 1999 video release of ET has the line gone. This backs up speilbergs claim to his side of the story, and he never made a deal of it then because it was a personal thing to him to have it removed. he never was going to make any deal of this until some internet site made more of it than there was, and like all of us, didnt do any research, or even think to take old man spielberg at his word.

Dave

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 03-23-2002, 09:49 AM:

Update to my earlier post: The re-released E.T. broke in 300 more theaters than the original Blade II.

Based on what I see in the forums it's still gonna be "Ice Ice Baby" . . .

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-23-2002, 04:02 PM:

I say, if SS didn't have the time to cut the line for it's initial release, then he shouldn't be allowed to cut the line later without having to loose his original copyright.

If anyone gets the DVD of _USED CARS_ (a great movie, I might add) the comentary track is excellent. On of the things that Robert Zemeckis brings up is that films mark a place in time and should NOT be recut later and he has no intention of doing so. One thing to note is that Steven Spielberg was an executive producer on _USED CARS_. Aparantly there are several high-profile film makers that have this philosophy, I'm happy to say. Apparently Mr. Lucas and Mr. Spielberg do not agree.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 03-23-2002, 04:54 PM:

Did anyone else notice that one of Elliot's figurines still had a gun in his hand?
I think everyone should send their prints back immediately and DEMAND a new print where the figurine is holding a walkie talkie.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-23-2002, 05:05 PM:

They've taken all the BUNS out of the movie, too?! Is the politically correct term now "dinner roll"?

Oh, James went and edited his post, so now I look like an idiot.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-23-2002, 09:47 PM:

ET - Go home. You ain't gonna make it.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-23-2002, 09:53 PM:

When I went to see Resident Evil today, I poked my head in the ET auditorium for a few minutes (it's playing in their "flagship" house, 300+ seats). There were about 50 people max. Probably not a good sign.

I will say this though: The print looked stunningly good. My jaw about dropped. The remastered digital sound was also very clean and dynamic. Everyone's been debating about the aspect ratio. One way or the other, it looked like it was being shown at 1.85 in this theater.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-23-2002, 09:59 PM:

Actually E.T. won an Oscar for best sound when it was released. I remember the 70mm prints were also stunning as well. At least they ahve not let the neg go to hell like Star Wars did. I was disappointed though as I have yet to find a dye transfer print of it. I thought it was supposed to be a dye transfer wide re-release.....
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 03-23-2002, 10:13 PM:

Steve, I will agree in principal about making any changes after initial, and therefore, copyright and release.

I think that the owner losing any and all rights to the original is a good idea, but only if you attach a few riders to the idea...

...a period of time must pass after the release of an altered version before the original can be up for grabs... say one to five years...

...revenues must still be paid to the original holder, but the original holder would lose all rights other than that. As close to public domain as you get while still maintaining ownership.

Some films can really benefit from touchups. But thats it, touchups. I do not agree with changing lines, context, whatever...

CASE IN POINT.

EMPIRE STRIKES BACK... a very critical and crucial line towards the end was replaced for the special edition, completely ruining the mood...

... Darth Vader has just watch his son drop to what could be his death... he walks away surrounded by his guards.. in the original he says "Bring my shuttle"... it is short, deep, and angry. It sets a tone for the fact that anakin is still in there somewhere. BUT... in the special edition, the line is changed to "Alert my shuttle craft and inform my destroyer that we will be departing" or something like that. THe line was said as if he didnt give a rats ass, as if he just had a great pizza with beer and needed to get to the bathroom, but not in a real hurry to do so.

WHY WHY WHY???

I want the original on DVD and screw these special editions. Damn them, damn them all to hell!!!! Can you imaging Charlton Hestons planet of the apes being re edited to remove the guns and putting in walkie talkies? I think even ol chucky there would get it much sooner when he saw the motorola logos. You think he would have gotten it with the remmington rifles the apes were using. Or the fact that he was in lake powell.

Dave

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-23-2002, 11:49 PM:

David said: "When I went to see Resident Evil today, I poked my head in the ET auditorium for a few minutes (it's playing in their "flagship" house, 300+ seats). There were about 50 people max. Probably not a good sign."

I bet if you poked your head into Ice Age you would have found the other 250 people.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-24-2002, 12:48 AM:

What Darryl says is true ... Ice Age is doing three times the business at our theater.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-24-2002, 01:46 AM:

Nope, I want it very much that you can only alter a film if you surrender the original copyright. In effect, no one would EVER change the film. I am in the crowd that films mark a place in history and shouldn't not be changed anymore than history should be changed. And just like George Lucas likes to change history so to do the PC Natzies.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-24-2002, 01:57 AM:

Yup. ET is a total disaster here, too. Ice Age is creaming ET. Today we had a total of about 74 attendees for the showing of ET, averaging 18.5 people per showing. Yesterday in another theater, we had an average of 20 per showing.

When the orginal E.T. first came out, I personally liked the movie. It was one of the few I would go and see over and over if the time was available to do so.

But with all the editing done to make it politically correct, the movie was ruined. I think the box office says the same thing - look at the grosses.

I can totally understand why Steven Speilberg wanted to remove the terrorist word. I accept that. But the rest of the editing? It went overboard.

I am truly sorry, Mr. Speilberg....I think it was a tragic error to edit your movie to make it politically correct. It ruined your true masterpiece which was once your pride and joy 20 years ago.

Paul

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 03-24-2002, 03:32 AM:

If mr speilberg really wants to remove guns from his movies, he should try it to Saving Private Ryan, and see just how you can take a film like that and make it a comedy.

Dave

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 03-24-2002, 10:22 AM:

Steve - Yes, I have the Used Cars DVD as well, but I wasn't aware of Zemeckis's statement to that effect in the commentary (I haven't listened to all of it yet), but I'm glad to hear it. I've also read that Terry Gilliam once said that "a movie is a time capsule", so there is at least one other director who agrees.

Dave Williams - Yes, that change bothered me tremendously when I saw the "special" edition of Empire. Completely baffling as to why it was changed. I too wish that future video releases of the trilogy included the original versions, but I just checked my VHS copies of the original versions, and there is a quote from Lucas on the outside of the box that says it is the "final video release of the trilogy in its original form". Ugh.

When it comes down to it, I think that any "new" versions of movies should be released in addition to, not in place of, the original. The original should always be available. I have no right to tell the directors not to make new versions of their own movies, but they have no right to try to erase or alter cultural history.

I've read a few news stories that say the DVDs of E.T. will have both the original and the new version, which is encouraging, but I still won't be satisfied until I actually get it in my hands.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 03-24-2002, 12:56 PM:

It's a lock: Blade II and Ice Age have both creamed E.T.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-24-2002, 02:20 PM:

Aaron:

On your dvd, check out the audio commentary at about 111min 30sec (give or take 10 seconds) it is during the credit scroll, they discuss "director's cut"

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-31-2002, 12:35 PM:

I don't like the idea of changing the movies either.

The STAR WARS Special Editions were tragic, IMO.

However, I think they did about as tasteful a job as they could with ET. Personally, I would have left it alone...it was fine. But removing the guns didn't bother me as much as I was expecting.

The music cross-fade where they cut the shot of the rifle being cocked is annoying, but they had to do that for sync purposes. And I wonder if anybody else notices this...I've been listening to the ET soundtrack for years and years and I know it by heart.

The scene with ET playing in the bathtub doesn't add much to the story, but it sets up a sense of contrast for when ET is dying and he's in the (empty) bathtub.

The newly-added facial animations for ET are subtle. I can live with them.

BTW, Spielberg confirmed on NBC that the DVD will indeed have both the original and the current re-issue.

------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there.

~Manny.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-31-2002, 12:41 PM:

Manny, was that the orginal theatrical version he was talking about? If so, I'll buy it...

Posted by Paul Harnden (Member # 1034) on 03-31-2002, 12:54 PM:

*Phew!* I cannot tell you when was the last time I saw the orignal ET, and with the lack of crowds in the re-release I doubt I'll watch either soon. What alerted me to the issue was the guns that were taken out and repleced with walkies. I watched a rather hilarious "Back In Black" on Comedy Central where the topic of digital editing was brought up and how kinda stupid it is. My opinion: why mess with it? It's already been made, and if that's what made people love it 20 years ago, why change anything? Regard it as a classic and leave it as that.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-31-2002, 03:14 PM:

Ya know, ET isn't totally gun free. The scene where the kids have ditched the van in the playground by the preschool...the FEDs still approach the back of the van with guns blazing.

As to the later scene with the walkie-talkie switch, Elliot's closed eyes expression is less meaningful with mere walkie-talkies in the FEDs hands.

The line change from "you are not going out dressed like a terrorist" to "you are not going out dressed like a hippie." Is just plain stupid. What parrent would give a damn if a kid went out dressed with tie-dye and bell-bottoms with peace symbols all over. Heck kids USED to dress like that! If you think about it, it is MORE appropriate that a parent would scold their child for trying to dress up like a terrorist.

The added scene with mom going after the kids because they didn't return on time from trick-or-treating was just plain awkward. Gertie blurts out a line that seemingly had no provocation nor any logical response was given. Very odd.

As with most of the DVDs that have extras, I find that this version offers nothing over the original cut and that the cuts made were justified as to not add to the story and at best slowed it down.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-31-2002, 05:47 PM:

Paul:

Spielberg stated in the NBC interview that he acknowledges the wishes of the purists who believe that nobody - not even the creator of the work - has the right to change anything. For that reason the original version would be presented on the same DVD when it's released.

Guys: Forget about those empty theatres...The studio is just trying to get to $1Billion and they didn't have that far to go. Last tally for ET in theatres was over $900Million before this re-issue.

Spielberg wasn't born yesterday. He knows the DVD is where they're gonna make a mint!

Now...Which "original" version will make it to the DVD? The actual 1982 version? Or the more recent one without the "terrorist" line?

She could've just said: "You're not leaving this house dressed like that!" I don't think the hippie reference makes much sense.

------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there.

~Manny.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 04-03-2002, 11:46 AM:

First week of re-release: Creamed by Blade II and Ice Age.

Second week of re-release: 57 percent drop nationwide.

Third week of re-release: Double-up where I live (daytime only -- A Beautiful Mind at night).