View Poll Results: Should films be changed?
No. Films should NEVER be touched. They must always remain in their original form in context with the time they were originally created.
2
3.45%
Yes. Only if it will significantly improve the film.
4
6.90%
There should only be technical improvements, the original story/plot should NEVER be touched.
2
3.45%
They can make as many editions as they want as long they do not eradicate the original versions.
35
60.34%
Certain films need to be changed around every so often in order to cater to continually evolving expectations and tastes.
0
0%
Films should only be completely remade. Original versions should remain untouched.
1
1.72%
Only if the new editions reflect what the filmmaker ORIGINALLY intended, for better or for worse.
11
18.97%
Only if the new editions reflect what the filmmaker CURRENTLY intends, for better or for worse.
0
0%
Any combination of the choices above. (please specify)
3
5.17%
Other (please specify)
0
0%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll
Should films be changed? (e.g special editions, extended editions, etc.)
01-07-04, 10:13 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
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!
I think this will make for a very interesting discussion!
Last edited by smirnoffski; 01-07-04 at 10:30 PM.
01-07-04, 10:43 PM
#3
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
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??????
01-08-04, 04:45 AM
#7
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Oh...and never EVER make shot for shot remakes. EVER.
01-08-04, 07:58 AM
#8
DVD Talk Hero
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
So, I guess a combination of #4 and #7.
das
01-08-04, 08:37 AM
#9
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
01-08-04, 11:59 AM
#11
DVD Talk Limited Edition
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.
01-08-04, 01:09 PM
#12
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 34,087
Received 723 Likes
on
528 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
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.
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.
01-08-04, 06:53 PM
#14
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by jaeufraser
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 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.
) 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.
01-08-04, 10:56 PM
#15
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
01-08-04, 11:03 PM
#16
Banned
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.
01-08-04, 11:08 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
01-09-04, 12:09 AM
#18
Senior Member
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.
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.
