This is topic Altering a piece of history to make it politically 'correct'... 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=000790
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-29-2001, 06:43 PM:
Here's a couple of shots from the new ET, courtesy of dvdsewer.comHere's the original shot with the FBI agents holding guns...
...and now here's the new one. Now they are holding very dangerous looking walkie talkies!
I think they look too dangerous. They should re-re-edit it and have them holding peace signs or maybe just a bunch of daisies. Or maybe they could just wave E.T. bye-byes.
Geez...Is nothing sacred? 
Oh, and here's the new poster for those who haven't seen it...
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 10-29-2001, 07:30 PM:
"E.T., this is the FBI, there is someone who wants to talk to you on these walkie talkies."This is so sad and stupifying. I don't even know what to say. A couple years ago, I heard that Drew Barrymore was asking that all guns be removed from the film. At the time, it seemed like a ridiculous request, that would never be fulfilled. But now, here we are, images in hand. It honestly makes me very sad and upset. I am scared to see what's next on the digital chopping block.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-29-2001, 07:32 PM:
Pathetic! Just pathetic! 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 10-29-2001, 07:57 PM:
Come clean now John... come on. We know you really put those guns in that scene and them took them out again with your computer. It's the oldest trick in the book. The old walkie talkie/gun switcheroo. Shame on you------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 10-29-2001, 08:47 PM:
Also check out the DVD of Snow White....they did so much digital scrubbing they made many scenes look flat...oh that character shadow was some excess dirt in the frame ugh....my mother would turn in the grave since E.T. was her all time favorite....she was a serious two to three feature a week lady.
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & Video Products Inc. www.tvpmiami.com
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-29-2001, 09:11 PM:
Am I the only one on the planet who did not care for E.T.? Sure it's good for kids ages 9 and under, but I was just bored and extremely uninterested. It's not as bad as Close Encounters of the Turd Kind, though. Now THAT was a boring ass movie!Anyway, Drew Barrymore always gets what she wants because a few people on this planet think she's cute. I would think that being married to Tom Green would make her support guns so that she could shoot him!
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 10-29-2001, 11:06 PM:
Whats Spielberg gonna do next? Both Matt Damon and Tom Hanks (and Spielberg as well but he still makes films with guns in them...at least until the E.T. reissue) support politicians that want to abolish the Second Amendment... Why don't they pressure Spielberg to release a gunless edition of 'Saving Private Ryan'? Sound unbelieveable? After this, who knows what can happen?. THIS CRAP HAS TO STOP.Screw Drew. Shame on you Steven.
Hey Steven- Here's an idea! Why not leave in the guns and digitally remove DREW?!? Then you dont have to pay her any freaking royalties in the process! 
/rant
-Aaron
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-30-2001, 01:32 AM:
LOL! That way Drew wouldn't be "associated" with the guns and everyone would be happy! I'd probably see the rerelease without Drew just for shits and giggles!
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-30-2001, 03:19 AM:
Curses Greg! Foiled again! 
A gun-less Private Ryan...Very funny!
If it wasn't so sad it'd be funny. I am a big fan of Spielberg's work through to about 1985 when he hit producer and wanted an oscar. Temple Of Doom I think was the last film from him I truly enjoyed. I'm all for sprucing up the old rubbery guy (!) with some nice clean sound, maybe a couple of deleted scenes and some restoring of the print, but why oh why do he and George insist on altering these fine pieces of our culture?
I was reading elsewhere today of the scene in Star Wars Special Edition where George Lucas made Greedo shhot first in the cantina so Han wouldn't look like a scruffy looking Nerf herding scoundrel by shooting Greedo unprovoked. Hey, Han WAS a scruffy looking Nerf herder! Why change it so long after the fact? Did he think it would go un-noticed?
Why, indeed.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-30-2001, 03:51 AM:
I know the scene is Star Wars of which you speak. My first impression was "What da hell?" I mean he missed by a mile. I don't remember seeing his finger(?) pull the trigger.I think Jar Jar should be killed, even if he doesn't shoot first. Audiences around the globe would cheer in unison and the film would make twice as much money just from fans wanting to see the bastard die again and again.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-30-2001, 04:32 AM:
Jar Jar should fall into a Saarlac pit-beast. Anakin should help him. That could be his first "kill" that turns him to the Dark Side of the Force.
Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 10-30-2001, 04:52 AM:
I'll bet that not one of you noticed that the tires on those cars were retouched to change them from Firestones to B.F. Goodrich because of the safety issues! E.T. was also altered to make him more of an R78-15 with the water-repellent tread design.
Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 10-30-2001, 05:25 AM:
A while back, I heard this was coming, so I bought some used laserdisc copies of the movie, just in case. Now I'm glad I did.I simply cannot believe it. F--- you, Steven Spielberg! You think all that money in your personal fortune came out of thin air? A movie like this belongs to the public! The people who made you rich deserve to be able to see the movie in its original form!
Don't get me started on the Star Wars trilogy. I can only hope that the Indiana Jones trilogy arrives on DVD unmolested.
quote:
Richard Fowler wrote:
Also check out the DVD of Snow White....they did so much digital scrubbing they made many scenes look flat...oh that character shadow was some excess dirt in the frame ugh....
I haven't seen it yet, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'm planning to put together a web page in which I list, with screenshots, as many cases of digital "cleanup" errors in DVDs I can find. Perhaps a little public embarrassment will cause the idiots who work in DVD production to pay more attention.
Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 10-30-2001, 08:21 AM:
Brad is right. It is pathetic. PC is just another way to do away
with individual rights of expression that you Americans hold so
dearly. It seems that some of your fellow citizens, as evidenced by
recent efforts to censor Bill Mahar and others,only like free speech if they agree with what is in the speech.I don't think anyone shoult take Ms Barrymore too seriously, though.
After all, she has shown her lack of taste and intelligence by marrying Tom Green.
Posted by Heyward Garner (Member # 722) on 10-30-2001, 08:41 AM:
It's a shame that we can't get over this crap. Drew Barrymore (pardon what I'm about to say...) is a SLUT HOE. These films... If ANYTHING... Should be added to, not taken away from for stupid reasons. If a director wishes to change a scene or add stuff, that's his option to do so... Not to butcher the film and make it into a pile of horse dookie! I am in total compliance that this NEEDS TO STOP...
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 10-30-2001, 08:41 AM:
This trend is obviously going to lead to the retitling of movies eg:Top Walkie Talkie
Walkie Talkies of Navarone
Have Walkie talkie will travel
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 10-30-2001, 09:06 AM:
Yah, except what will they do to all the cowboy movies? They didn't have walkie-talkies back then.The Man Who Didn't Shoot Liberty Valance
The Unshootist. Wait, maybe The Nonshootist would be more PC
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 10-30-2001, 09:35 AM:
*slips into 1984 mode*
ET never had guns in it. ET has always been gun-less.
*goes on eliminating evidence of ET with guns in it*
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 10-30-2001, 01:22 PM:
Continuing on:Anti-'Gun':
"Young Walkie-Talkies" parts I and II
"The Way Of The Walkie-Talkie"
"The Man With The Golden Walkie-Talkie"
"Annie, Get Your Walkie-Talkie"
"The Naked Walkie-Talkie" parts 1, 2-1/2, and 33-1/3
Anti-'Shooting':
"Stop! Or My Mom Will Yell"
"Catching Fish"
"Go For The Moon"
If the peaceniks had their way they might want to remove all references to 'War' as well:
"Star Peace"
"The Peace of the Roses"
"The Milagro Beanfield Peace"
"PeaceGames"
Where does it end? 
-Aaron
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 10-30-2001, 02:00 PM:
This has nothing to do with bitching about the editing (although I agree that it must stop), but I have a question. Is this re-release going to be limited, or are most theatres going to get it?
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 10-30-2001, 02:50 PM:
It is sceduled to be released next march for it's 20th anniversary. I would guess they are planning a fairly wide release, but a lot can change before then.
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 10-30-2001, 04:47 PM:
Hey Greg Mueller!Your wrong about those old cowboy movies not being "hi tech!" Aren't you forgetting Wild Wild West?
I had to write a college writing 102 paper on John Updike's The A & P -- 
! Anyhow, Drew Barrymore's physical appearance kindasorta reminds me of the lead character -- Queenie !
ET GO HOME! 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-30-2001, 06:17 PM:
>>Is this re-release going to be limited, or are most theatres going to get it?<<It's bound to be wide a-la Star Wars Special Edition. They make all their money in the first week by overloading the cinemas with it before everyone realizes how sad the 'new' version is.
Yes, 'new' must be better because 'new' generally = 'digital' so it simply must be better.
I read an Eeeyore t-shirt today that said something like:
'Sometimes a sigh just says it all...'
That's exactly how I'm feeling right now...(sigh)
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 10-30-2001, 06:43 PM:
E.T. gets a wide re-release (a la Star Wars, Grease, The Exorcist) on 3/22/2002.FWIW, Upcoming Movies did a "first choice" survey on what people want to see for the end of March. The runaway winner? Blade 2: Bloodhunt. When does it open? 3/22/2002.
Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 10-31-2001, 12:12 AM:
I can just imagine Clint Eastwood saying, "You feel lucky punk?" while aiming a walkie talkie at a criminal's head.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-31-2001, 07:21 AM:
Not to mention Robert De Niro threatening to perform a very unpleasant act on Cybill Shephard with a walkie talkie in 'Taxi Driver'. Tarantino would have had trouble with the final scene in 'Reservoir Dogs', too...I noticed that the dancing piccaninies seem to have been removed from the recent DVD of 'Fantasia'.
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 11-03-2001, 09:58 AM:
This is like the 30's-40's cartoon violence issues. We saw them uncut until the early 1980's, then WHAM!Are we different now? Hell NO...
Bill Mahr is still missing from the local ABC affiliates line-up. We get to see Victoria Principal make-up infomercials instead. Talk about an incentive to turn off the TV!
I am against censorship PERIOD. It's going to get worse before it gets better.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-04-2001, 08:50 PM:
I think it is time to bug our congresspeople...I propose a new copyright law...
Once a piece of work is published/released...an author or copyright holder MAY change any part of it or completely...however...the previous version moves to the pubic domain in it's entirety.
After all, if the new version is so much better, what is to fear about anyone wanting to still see the old one?
That should put an end to this absolutely horrible butchering of history.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Patrick J. McCart (Member # 1043) on 11-04-2001, 09:37 PM:
I think Steven Spielberg is behind the re-editing and gun removing.At least the DVD will have the original version and the edited cut.
Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 11-05-2001, 12:46 PM:
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 03-19-2002, 06:39 PM:
It took me a while to find this thread, but I think the images that John Wilson provided will remind us about how ridiculous this "re"release really is. So here it is, back at the top. It probably should get moved to "yak" though.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-19-2002, 07:28 PM:
Hmmmm, you're right. This DOES belong in Yak.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-21-2002, 10:36 PM:
You're right, it DOES belong in Yak. Who was the moron who put it in Film Handler's Forum in the first place??? This is from www.theonion.com
------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-22-2002, 03:34 AM:
Has E.T. come out and gone back away yet? God I hope so.
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-22-2002, 12:11 PM:
E.T. looks like it is a dud. I had 80 people total today, for four screenings. Hope the rest of you are doing better.We got a second-hand print that came from someone's screening. The SDDS, SRD, and analog tracks were badly damaged. The splices were identified with Shoe Polish for the better part of a full convolution. The shoe polish apparently was not allowed to dry when whoever it was used it while assembling the print. In places, the wet shoe polish oozed into the picture area, and also screwed up the DTS track. In addition, when the heads and tales were chopped off, as many as three frames were removed from both ends.
Well, I talked to a gentleman by the name of Mark from Universal today, and he is going to make sure we get a new print. I hope Universal tracks that print we presently have, and nails that SOB to a wall who ruined it.
I understand Mark is a Film-Tech member. Mark, thank you for your help in getting us a new print.
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-23-2002, 01:15 AM:
Bringing it back to the top.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-23-2002, 04:07 AM:
Bringing this back to the top
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-23-2002, 06:02 AM:
Mark who? That's pretty cool he is a member here, but even more cool that he is going to get that print replaced!