Should films be changed? (e.g special editions, extended editions, etc.)
 

Should films be altered, changed, updated, remade or just be left as they were originally intended?


I think this will make for a very interesting discussion!

Wow. :whofart:

No choice for Films Should be remade and originals should remain untouched with the option of a special edition with added footage inserted digitally many years later but with both version availible on home video??????

If Peter Jackson's doing it, sure. Just getting it out of the way. :D

why not, the more the merrier, as long as they release all the versions (or the good ones, ex: I could do without the love conquers all edit of brazil) I could care less

I don't care what they do to a film: colorize it, add deleted scenes, make whomever shoot first, as long as there is access to the original cut. No film (imo) is so sacred that it can't be tinkered with by the filmmakers. That's their choice. But don't deprive people of the original cut.

Oh...and never EVER make shot for shot remakes. EVER.

I guess I'm voting for "combination." I think it's silly the way some films have been "updated" but I wouldn't care less as long as the originals remain available. I don't really have a big problem with Director's Cut vs. Producer's Cut or Theatrical Edition vs. Extended Edition, so long as it's predominantly part of the original vision and within a relatively short period of time. Going back and changing shit decades later should never be done, but if that nonsense does occur, as long as the originals are made available we can at least ignore it.

So, I guess a combination of #4 and #7.

das

Give me the option to watch the original un-altered and you can do whatever the hell you want with any film. As long as that's up in the air for me to watch, I could care less what you do with the film.

They could add an alien battle scene to Casablanca and I wouldn't care as long as the original still exists so that I can enjoy it.

Unfortunately, it's hard to say . . . I think it varies from situation to situation. I went with the "combination" option . . . probably would have been more effective as a multi-choice poll.

Just don't hold out releasing the original one while pumping out the super deluxe, mega bucks, multiple, special, ultimate, extreme editions every other year.

Would it be easier if we just started replacing the words "a film" or "a movie" with "Star Wars movies". -ohbfrank-

I have to say something about that last point, as in I completely disagree with it. I think the easiest solution to this issue is remakes, shot by shot if need be. I'd much rather have remakes of the original Star Wars trilogy (talemyn ;) ) with the flavor of the week teen stars and soundtrack by Linkin Park, then the current Greedo shooting first atrocity.

I assume you're referring to the Psycho remake? One of the reasons I seem to recall reading as to why they did it, was to have a color version of Psycho for the psycho's out there that absolutely refuse to watch black and white movies. Would you rather they have gone back and colorized the original? Sure you people talk about "just make sure the original is available" but do you really want to leave that in the studio's hands? Honestly, do really think if they had colorized Psycho, that the original would be as easy to find as it is?

Makes much more sense to me.

May be slightly off topic, but I see no need for constant remakes.

See: Physco > Physco > and now Gus Van Sant wants to remake Physco AGAIN.

Or..

King Kong > King Kong > Peter Jackson's King Kong.

How many time's do we need the same movie with just the newest effects?

To answer the header, if the original is still made available, then sure, it's the director's film. In the case of that idiot George Lucas who seems to want to piss off his fans in every which way, I say no to what HE'S done.

I'm surprised that more people haven't chosen the combination of these two choices. If they always followed these two rules, then everyone would be happy:

They can make as many editions as they want as long they do not eradicate the original versions.

Only if the new editions reflect what the filmmaker ORIGINALLY intended, for better or for worse.

I would say a hybrid of those two that would best state it is - They can make new editions that reflect what the filmmaker ORIGINALLY intended, for better or for worse, as long as they do not eradicate the original versions.

My vote was for "they can make as many editions as they want as long they do not eradicate the original versions."

To use the example people stated above in Star Wars, George Lucas can make as many damn "enhancements" to "his" movies that he wants...just as long as the originals are preserved as well. The filmmaking techniques of the 70s, while usually visually inferior to the digital effects of today, represent the history of film-making, artistry, and creativity. To lose that history to oblivion would be, in this artist's opinion, a tragedy.