.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,301]

I'd say it depends and the film and why. I have contradictory thoughts about it.

But I'm mostly on the "don't touch special effects just because" camp.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

No. A film is many things, and one of those is a representation of the time in which it was made. Technology is always improving, you have to draw the line at some point or else you'll be updating your film every year.

[filmmusic 1,823]

No. A film is many things, and one of those is a representation of the time in which it was made. Technology is always improving, you have to draw the line at some point or else you'll be updating your film every year.

EXACTLY!!

(still hoping for the ORIGINAL Star Wars in Bluray! Someday!!!)

[A24 4,327]

(still hoping for the ORIGINAL Star Wars in Bluray! Someday!!!)

Of which the CGI were never updated.

[Quintus 5,399]

The Last Starfighter would be awesome again.

[Datameister 2,037]

Filmmakers have every right to do whatever they want with their films, but allowing the original versions to remain available is a good way of showing respect to the fans. A revision of a film might earn some criticism, but actual anger at the filmmaker doesn't usually happen unless there's an effort being made to suppress the original version, as is the case with the Star Wars OT. Spielberg's changes to E.T. were little better, but he released the original right alongside the revised version (and later renounced his ways anyhow). People never got up in arms over that.

Personally, I think a revised version can be interesting to watch, but I usually prefer the original. A little tasteful touch-up doesn't hurt, though. For instance, I love most of the model work in the Star Wars OT, but some of the compositing was less than perfect, and I had no problem with the visual effects team re-compositing the original elements with newer technology. (Again...just don't try to shove the original under the rug!)

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Filmmakers have every right to do whatever they want with their films, but allowing the original versions to remain available is a good way of showing respect to the fans. A revision of a film might earn some criticism, but actual anger at the filmmaker doesn't usually happen unless there's an effort being made to suppress the original version, as is the case with the Star Wars OT. Spielberg's changes to E.T. were little better, but he released the original right alongside the revised version (and later renounced his ways anyhow). People never got up in arms over that.

Personally, I think a revised version can be interesting to watch, but I usually prefer the original. A little tasteful touch-up doesn't hurt, though. For instance, I love most of the model work in the Star Wars OT, but some of the compositing was less than perfect, and I had no problem with the visual effects team re-compositing the original elements with newer technology. (Again...just don't try to shove the original under the rug!)

This is pretty much how I feel about it...as long as the original continues to be available, I'm fine with minor technical improvements, like the one you mentioned. I actually think this is more of a case by case thing, rather than a hard rule, depending on the film we're talking about and the changes being made.

Certainly most of what was done to the original Star Wars, including all of the CGI and story (e.g. Han shooting first) changes were unnecessary and unacceptable. Only the other hand, I'm fine with cleaning up the mattes, re-compositing the elements, etc. to make the existing effects cleaner. In the case of LOTR, I think I'd be OK with a new CGI Gollum in Fellowship to make him more consistent with the other films, because this is a relatively minor, and tasteful change. However, I don't think I'd want Martin Freeman stuck in for Ian Holm in the prologue sequence. On the Raiders DVD I had no problem with removing the snake reflection in the glass, or the log sticking out of the truck in the market chase scene. I also had no problem with Spielberg going back and leaving them as they were, mistakes and all, for the BD. But the vanishing guns in ET were a big mistake. I think the new SFX they created for ST:TOS weren't needed and already look a little dated, but I'm fine with the new HD version of TNG with the re-composited effects. To me how much I'll accept these types of changes depends on whether it impacts the story, and how well they are able to blend the new elements in with the rest of the film.

Overall, I think Spielberg's instinct to just leave well enough alone now is the right one. But as long as the original is available, I'm OK with minor fixes.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Parts of Lord Of The Rings looked bad even when they were released. Legolas killing the elephant in Return Of The King made me cringe in the theater.

[Quintus 5,399]

I never cringe at stuff like that in movies. It clearly wasn't real, but I found the moment no less thrilling and fun to behold. Nah, it's the gay slow mo reunion and things like that which make me crease up now.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The problem with that one is that it just kept going on and on...

Always think of this now:

[Datameister 2,037]

How long before the same happens to Data with Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone, one of his most favourite films of all times?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,301]

But... But, guys! What most of you are saying all sound very wise, but what you seem to forget is that, compared to practical effects, CGI are a very different beast. Because of them, movies now age and look dated far more quickly! And as their quality fade away, the wonderment they once generated is gone with it.

What pisses me off is we a filmmaker embraces a way of doing things because it seems good and average at the moment but won't in the future. Not because of the limitations of current tecnology, but because they didn't use another possible way for them which would still look all right.

2001 is an example of avoiding that all you can. Some of it looks like its from its time, and some of it still looks FINE. I don't see effects like the wormhole or many shots of spaceships starting to look bad anytime soon.

I normally don't ask for effects to look realistic, but to look cool (Rule of Cool). Maybe because I grew up at the same time CGI was developing, I normally find most outdated CGI to look the least cool of all posible options. It might be that someone in the future will look back with some nostalgia to it but I find it hard to do.

I wouldn't do anything to Jurassic Park though. It doesn't look real, but it looks quite cool. As in, look, we did dinosaurs with CGI in 1993 and it actually worked. It's had to match its old CGI charm. Then there's a period in between which a bit, um, ugh.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Filmmakers have every right to do whatever they want with their films, but allowing the original versions to remain available is a good way of showing respect to the fans. A revision of a film might earn some criticism, but actual anger at the filmmaker doesn't usually happen unless there's an effort being made to suppress the original version, as is the case with the Star Wars OT. Spielberg's changes to E.T. were little better, but he released the original right alongside the revised version (and later renounced his ways anyhow). People never got up in arms over that.

Personally, I think a revised version can be interesting to watch, but I usually prefer the original. A little tasteful touch-up doesn't hurt, though. For instance, I love most of the model work in the Star Wars OT, but some of the compositing was less than perfect, and I had no problem with the visual effects team re-compositing the original elements with newer technology. (Again...just don't try to shove the original under the rug!)

I don't necessarily agree with this.

Especially when said film is inducted into the US Film registry and is considered a national treasure.

what Lucas did was basically defacing a public treasure.

There is no reason to go back and redo the effects.

I understand about the editing. re-editing already shot and existing film because you're unhappy with specific narratives of the film is part of the creative process, but once a film is actually completed is harder to justify. As you say giving the original and the altered version makes it more palatable.

George didn't improve Star Wars.

removing the reflection of the snake in Raiders didn't improve the movie.

films are charming for the perfections and imperfections.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Exactly.

I guess people should get plastic surgery every year once they hit 40. Those effects look horrible!

[Brónach 1,301]

Not a valid comparison. Films don't change. A valid comparison to that would be a film deteriorating, found in bad state, etc

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Not a valid comparison. Films don't change. A valid comparison to that would be a film deteriorating, found in bad state, etc

it is a very good comparison. for whatever reason you just don't get it.

[Brónach 1,301]

No. Films are like elves. They keep looking the same, although they are stuck in their plane of existence. You can however kill them or making them age if you keep them in a wet storage room and don't bother to restore it.

That's why some people like films, and elves.

[Wycket 36]

I for one hate the changes to Star Wars. Lucas deserves all the criticism and hate for it.

But not because he made the "special editions", but because he's suppressed the original versions. He can do a new edition every year for all I care, but as long as the originals are released properly in turn I couldn't care less what he does with the films. Their his films and that's his right. But he became a billionaire off of the fans support and love for the franchise. Having proper versions of the originals is our right.

[Brónach 1,301]

Is there any good print of the originals that can be restored at all?

Although if there was, it might have to be kept secret, so we might not know...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[mrbellamy 6,272]

I think filmmakers should be allowed to do whatever they want with their movies, but it's not something I'm particularly interested in seeing more of.

[Uni 306]

I'm with Koray (and others). A movie isn't meant to be a presentation of a story that evolves with the rest of the world. It's something of a time capsule. It reminds us of where the world was at the time it was made and released. Leave it alone. You'd make better use of your time and resources telling a new story altogether. (Unless, of course, you're George Lucas, and each new story is only an opportunity to remind the world what a galactically awful storyteller you are.)

But... But, guys! What most of you are saying all sound very wise, but what you seem to forget is that, compared to practical effects, CGI are a very different beast. Because of them, movies now age and look dated far more quickly! And as their quality fade away, the wonderment they once generated is gone with it.

I disagree completely. If it was a good movie originally, with strong characters and a solid story, then it's charm will endure.

And frankly . . . if it's that easy for you to lose your wonderment, one must wonder what your wonder meant.

The Last Starfighter would be awesome again.

The Last Starfighter remains, and shall always remain, perfectly awesome.

- Uni

[Naïve Old Fart 9,508]

I remain neutral. It all depends what "updating" means. The new stuff in Eps. IV, V, and VI don't add to the films at all, but being able to watch Joanna Cassidy crash through all that glass, rather than an oh-so-obvious stunt double, brings a heightened realism (not to mention sadness) to "Blade Runner". If a director is going to do thing like that, then he/she should really THINK about what they are going to do, want they want to say with the new footage, and whether the film needs "updating" at all. I'm all for extended editions, etc., but doing something because you can (yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. Lucas!) is NOT a good enough reason for doing it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I think filmmakers should be allowed to do whatever they want with their movies, but it's not something I'm particularly interested in seeing more of.

who is the filmmaker you speak of?

Not all directors have that right.

What's really interesting is by saying this then the studios are the filmmakers too and you are advocating colorization.

[Ollie 1,059]

There's only one film I would allow changes to and that's the visuals for Trek V, although nothing can save that POS film.

Nothing good has ever come from "fixing" a movie.

Even the visual changes to ST:TMP look worse than the original effects, and they were done to look like 79 effects.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,508]

"Nothing good has ever come from 'fixing' a movie".

What?! Not even "Blade Runner", Mark?

Btw, William Shatner went cap-in-hand to Paramount for $1,ooo,ooo to fix "ST: V", but was refused.

Somethig that has made me think about all this "fixing" palava is: how far do you go in replacing practical effects with CGI? I for one, would refuse to look at a CGI'd Hollywood Boulevard, or Santa Monica ferris wheel from "1941"!

[BloodBoal 7,538]