Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Premiere of ET special edition Review! Pssst... they're thinking of doing this with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK...

Hey folks, Harry here... I am not jazzed at all to see this new edition of E.T. - I'm just glad that they are going to include the non-fiddled with edition of the film in the upcoming DVD. It is nice to see that they decided not to kill Penis Breath as was originally reported. The Terroris/Hippie line change annoys me. The CG - lips thing will be an odd sensation to watch in the theaters... Personally the number one reason I'll see this edition in theaters is to hear John Williams' score digitally remastered. That score is amazing and I have no doubt it will sound like a dream in this version. The gun changes just... argh.. well, concentrate on the score. That's what I'm going to hear.

Hi, Harry.

Tonight just south of the Medals Plaza in Salt Lake City, Utah, Universal premiered the 20th Anniversary Special Edition of Spielberg's classic, E.T. The Extraterrestrial at Abravenel Hall, a place usually reserved for operas and symphonies. It was being shown as part of the artsy Olympic Festival thingy.

King and Queen of the producer world, Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy, introduced the screening, saying that we were the first audience in the world to see the completed version of the film. The audience was really riled up and applauded them after almost every sentence. Kathleen talked about the souped-up special effects and hoped that "like all good plastic surgery, we hope you don't notice the changes."

I've been a die-hard E.T. fan for years and years now. It's one of my favorite movies of all time. There were a lot of children in the audience and I was curious to see how they would react to a 20 year old movie.

The print was absolutely beautiful. Very clean, very clear. The digitally remastered score was incredible. In my humble opinion, John Williams best work EVER. There were only two new scenes that I noticed. One involves Elliot giving E.T. a guided tour of the bathroom. While Elliot talks to his mom on the phone, we see E.T. climbing into the bathtub in the background. His stubby little legs kicking up in the air was a real hoot. The other new scene was really short. Dee Wallace drives around Halloween night looking for her missing children. Nothing special.

As for the CGI, the digital touch-ups they did to E.T. were absolutely seamless and didn't call too much attention to themselves. When the scientists are chasing him through the woods in the beginning, instead of plowing through the brush in a straight-line, E.T. kind of runs with a little hop. His mouth is now animated to match the words he's saying. All very well done. I applaud the wizards at ILM. They didn't muck this one up.

And finally, what everyone's been waiting for, Spielberg made a wise, wise decision and kept "Penis Breath". I was holding my breath for that one after I heard he was going to remove it. They did change the line, "I will not let you go as a terrorist!" to "I will not let you go as a hippy!" Very small change, I understand why they did it.

During the movie, I watched how the children in the audience reacted to it. They all sat attentively, absolutely absorbed by what was happening on the screen. No crying babies, no restless tots. When E.T. dies I even heard some concerned children saying to their parents, "He can't be dead! He can't!" Spielberg has truly made a film that stands the test of time. The kids loved it just as much as I did the first time I saw it so many years ago.

E.T. is a classic and the new special edition is bigger and better. I loved it in everyway possible. When E.T. and Elliot flew past the moon, I almost shed a tear. It was an incredible experience to see it on the big screen again. This is Wilco4321, signing out from Salt Lake.

Here's the next look....

Hey Harry,

We don't know if you had anybody covering this, but we thought we'd send our review.

We had the opportunity of attending the special "Olympic Arts Festival" screening of the 20th Anniversary Edition of "E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial," in Salt Lake City. The screening was held in conjunction with the Winter Olympics, and, according to producer Kathleen Kennedy, who was in attendance (along with her husband and partner, Frank Marshall), was the first time the new version has been seen by an audience. The screening took place at Maurice Abravanel Hall, home of the Utah Symphony.

A year ago, when we first got wind of Spielberg’s plans to do a "Special Edition" re-release of "E.T.", our reaction was a mixture of excitement and dread. To understand our point of view, you have to realize that we are rabid Spielberg fans. His films are the reason we are the kind of people who waste countless hours on this sort of internet site today. To us, Spielberg IS film: it’s as simple as that. So, the opportunity to see one of his greatest masterpieces again on the big screen was a thrilling prospect. On the other hand, "Special Editions" have been somewhat problematic in the past. While we have a certain fondness for the "Star Wars Trilogy Special Editions," the razzle-dazzle overkill of the updated effects and "new surprises" actually sometimes take away from the movie. They distract, rather than enhance. The thought of "E.T." being tampered with in any way was disheartening. Why mess with perfection?

Nevertheless, when the Olympic screening was announced, we of course jumped at the chance to attend. After all, if we’re going to live in Utah and deal with the traffic, crowds, and bigoted and uneducated anti-Mormon protestors, we might as well get something out of this whole thing. Of course, when Spielberg and John Williams showed up at the opening ceremony, it gave us hope that they might actually attend the screening themselves. Unfortunately, this was not to be. Kennedy announced that Spielberg "really wanted to be there," but could not attend because he is currently shooting "Catch Me If You Can" in L.A. As disappointing as that was, hey, Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall were still there. Producers of "E.T.", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Schindler’s List", "Empire of the Sun", "The Color Purple," etc. And they couldn’t have been friendlier and more approachable (more about that later). Kennedy and Marshall provided a brief introduction to the film. Marshall thanked the people of Utah for the Olympic experience, and said he believed this would be remembered as "the greatest winter games ever."(we haven’t really followed it, so we’ll have to take his word on that one.). Kennedy asked the audience "not to do the math" of figuring out how old a 20th anniversary edition made her. She also explained that we were the first audience to see the "new movie," and that "E.T." had been "given a face lift." She added "I hope you won’t notice too much, like with any good plastic surgery."

So did they succeed on that level? Well . . . yes and no. You certainly do notice that "E.T." has been CGI enhanced, from the first moment when he has been chased by Peter Coyote and company, and he looks out over the city scape, his chest now heaving as he struggles to catch his breath, to the first moment when he and Elliott come face to face, to the most noticeable example, a newly restored bathtub sequence. However, these new effects are added with a subtlety and restraint that George Lucas could learn from; this is a restoration with a few tweaks, not a testing board for new FX technology. And throughout most of the film, Carlo Rambaldi’s amazing work is allowed to stand on it’s own. This time, the effects truly do enhance, and never distract. The bathtub scene is delightful (Marshall explained to us afterward that it had been cut the first time around because the effects had not looked very good.). There is also a very amusing new sequence with Dee Wallace picking up Michael and Gertie after trick or treating, that features young Barrymore at her cutest and most charismatic.

The one somewhat questionable change is the one which has already been well documented: the substitution of the word "hippy" for "terrorist" in reference to Michael’s Halloween costume. Given the current national climate, this was certainly understandable, and no one can doubt Spielberg’s motivations for the change. But at the same time, the assertion that Michael "won’t make it four blocks dressed like that" doesn’t make a lot of sense. And of course, it was a funny line, and it’s sad to see it go. But it’s a difficult situation, and it’s not surprising to see post-"Schindler" Spielberg err on the side of sensitivity. As for the removal of the guns in the flying sequence, it is seamlessly done. If you’re not looking for it, you won’t notice it. And you will be far too caught up in the film to look for it.

So, is "E.T." better for the changes? Well, maybe not. To a lot of us, it was flawless to begin with. But the new editions do add to the audience’s enjoyment of the film. John Williams’ re-mastered score alone would have justified the new edition. And the experience is as overwhelming and mesmerizing as it was in ‘82. You can still hear the audience hyperventilating in the second half of the film, whether it’s the kids who are seeing it for the first time, or the adults who are seeing it for the 100th time. "E.T." still has the audience completely under it’s spell, and may well be the "can’t-miss’ film going experience of 2002. The audience erupted in applause several times throughout the screening, and as the film ended the roar of approval made it clear that the "Special Edition" was a resounding success. We can not plug this with enough enthusiasm. If you love "E.T.", don’t worry. You will love it as much as ever. If you don’t love "E.T.", well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and yours is wrong.

As we mentioned before, after the film, Kennedy and Marshall hung around in the lobby, just talking to audience members. They were both extremely personable and friendly, and seemed very happy to talk to the enthusiastic fans. And Kennedy doesn’t need to worry: however old she is, she looks quite good.

Without a doubt, one of the high points of the experience was talking to Marshall about the future of "Indiana Jones." We simply that mentioned that "Raiders" had been the movie that started our lifelong obsession with film, and he seemed thrilled by the prospect of talking about it. "We’re thinking about doing this with ‘Indy’" he said, "bringing it back out and spiffing up the effects." Before seeing the new "E.T.," we would have had mixed feelings about seeing "Raiders" touched in any way. Now the prospect is mouth-watering. Marshall also confirmed what everybody wants to hear, that they are starting to get serious about "Indy IV." "Harrison told me ‘we need to do this before I’m in a wheelchair," he joked. (Okay, from you’re perspective, this is old news, but to get it straight from Marshall himself was pretty darn cool.). We also asked Marshall whether we would ever see Ford’s deleted "E.T." scenes as Elliott’s school principal. "No," he replied flatly, "we thought it would take people out of the film. And frankly, the way I remember it, he wasn’t all that good." He then stressed that the last part was a joke.

So, to sum up, "E.T." is as great as it ever was. See it five times. Then see it again. And, to the producers: bring on that "Raiders" special edition.

("Castor and Pollux Troy")

SLC, Utah

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:26 a.m. CST

    FIRST

    by timdog

    OH MY! DID I MAKE IT?!

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Fourth!!

    by CrapHole

    Yea well sometimes I am

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:32 a.m. CST

    Craphole

    by Darth Melkor

    Thanks to the crazy TB order looks like you're first instead... hell after I hit post maybe I'll be... woohoo!!

  • Lucas got cold feet with Han and Greedo's face-off, Spielberg got cold feet with E.T.'s gun-wielding FBI agents -- stands to reason they'll both get cold feet together on RAIDERS. I'm so soured on director's cuts. 95% of the time, they do more harm than good.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:44 a.m. CST

    Indiana

    by Uga

    PLEASE - don't bring back "Raiders" as a special edition. The first movie is perfect - I can't imagine a liberal recreation of it. The Nazis as right-wing militia from Colorado? Please leave it as it is! One of the coolest moments of my life was interviewing Frank Marshall about "Congo," but talking ad nauseum about his experience with "Raiders," "ET," and the rest of the Spielberg filmography. And realizing that one of his favorites was "Empire of the Sun." I, as a film geek, have very romantic feelings about "Raiders." Please don't change a frame.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:50 a.m. CST

    Restoring is NOT the same thing as editing for content

    by Kieran

    I have no problem with film makers restoring film and sound quality, adding scenes which didn't originally make the cut or even tinkering with scene order. That's what makes a special edition special. But when you edit content of the film to make it more "fashionable", in a sense you are betraying that younger filmmaker's vision. You throw away who you were. Just because you are older and more conservative now Speilberg, that doesn't mean you have the right re-write the work of your younger self. As time goes on, and your inexerable slide to the right continues, are you going to insert a scene into Schindler's List where you get to say something about the general moral correctness of Facism, despite the unfortunate red herring of anti-semiticism? What comes next, Speilberg? Its a slippery slope you're sitting on.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:52 a.m. CST

    Exploding Coca-Cola?

    by Niaiserie

    I'm pretty sure I saw this scene in the trailer, the soda pop fizzing everywhere and CGI ET reacting to it, though I didn't read any mentions of it, am I imagining things? And TB order isn't screwed up, it's just starting from the bottom now.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:58 a.m. CST

    Hell yeah...

    by Zarles

    I'd love to see a Raiders redux. One of my favorite movies ever deserves it... Restore the print, remaster the score, add a few scenes, and blow up a few more Nazi heads! Yeah!

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:02 a.m. CST

    Oh ho ho ho.... If they put some f*cked up CGI in Indiana Jones,

    by IAmLegolas

    Yep, that's right, if Lucas is a smart man he'll leave Indy untouched, but remastered. No need to go f*cking up another trilogy.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:10 a.m. CST

    heyzeus h crap.

    by mr. grieves

    jebus christ. maybe it's because i'm drunk, or for whatever other reason, but can't anybody be happy? harry says the only reason he's going to see the film is for the score? understandably, john williams' score is incredible, but with the minute amount of shit they changed in this, can we honestly bitch and forget how good a movie it is? holy crap.. it's still the same movie minus some lines, plus some stupid insignificant cg shit. i could understand people being outraged if something like "a female ET love interest" was added, but this is SO insignificant!!! i'm all for the purity thing, but seeing ET in the theatres again is something we should count ourselves lucky to be offered.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:10 a.m. CST

    Changes to Raiders...

    by kid_ego

    Instead of having the guy get minced by the prop, he'll probably get knocked unconscious by the wing of the plane...then they'll add a scene where he gets up and shakes his head comically to tweety bird sounds...God i hope they leave this movie alone...next they won't even kill the monkey.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:13 a.m. CST

    and on that note..

    by mr. grieves

    ... i'd also like to say i agree 100% with what the talkbacker Kieren said. he raised points i also agree with but am not in the state to put into words.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:15 a.m. CST

    Spielberg tweaking...

    by The_Black_Hair

    I'll give it to Spielberg that he is much better at tweaking his films than just about anyone else, though I'm not a big tweaking fan. The last cut of Close Encounters was the best one.

  • In the novelization of the screenplay, the scene takes place after Elliot "lets the frogs out". He sits in a chair in the principal's office, and, since E.T. is still feeling tipsy after his sixpack, Elliot starts floating out of the chair, unnoticed by the principal. It was cut because having a star cameo takes us out of what was always considered Spielberg's "little film". (who knew?)

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:31 a.m. CST

    Correction, Kieran, if I may...

    by SutureSelf

    Replacing a shotgun with a radio, the word "terrorist" with "hippie" or making other changes as you suggest doesn't bespeak an "inexerable [sic] slide to the right." It bespeaks a slide to the left. These changes epitomize the type of horrid political correctness that passes for liberalness in today's Orwellian climate. There was a time when Spielberg, then an avid trap shooter, appeared on the cover of "Gun Games" magazine. He now appears to be closer to the Rosie O'Donnell/Barbra Streisand camp. A pity. Do you disagree? Suit yourself.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:32 a.m. CST

    What about the guns?

    by CRAZYQBN

    Nobody's mentioned the guns? Were they, in fact, removed? Did anybody miss them? How does it look without it? By the way... as a filmmaker, I understand that desire to "tweak" one's work over and over. Even if they are classics. Keep at it, Mr. Spielberg, I say. We'll always have the originals anyway, so who cares?

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:56 a.m. CST

    Greedo Shot First....Yeah,Right.

    by CHEWBLACCA

    If they "PC" up RAIDERS,I'm going to be fucking pissed.That movie is flawless.Well,except for the air whooshing out of the vacum of the Well of Souls.I mean, c'mon.There are living snakes in there.And a cavern that leads to an opening at ground level.Sorry. I got a little lost.I LOVE RAIDERS of the LOST ARK.I could watch it everyday,if I had any less of a life than I already do.Aww,what does it matter.Does anyone even read any postings but their own?

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 3:01 a.m. CST

    Spielberg-Kitsch

    by Mr.Gerbik

    I can understand the sentiments and the painof the ammerican people but serious, over a couple of years kids dress up as terrorists again, if they don't do so allready. Changing a 20 year old film over this is just a cowardly idea fearing that the money won't flow. So whats in for Indie? Making the nazis Afghans? Spielberg has just no taste or no pride or neither.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 3:09 a.m. CST

    Raiders....

    by Sodomy Redux

    Raiders is my fav film of all time. I don't think ANY scenes should be added or tinkered with as it is perfect as is. It really is one of the best-edited films ever - there is not a wasted moment in it. However I would appereciate a DVD release with spiffy new sound and perhaps a digital removal of that stupid pylon that knocks the explosive truck over (you can see it rather clearly). Other than that, my request to Spielburg/Lucas/Marshal is to please leave Raiders alone or, if a Special Edition must be released, please provide us with the original version (with remastered sound) as well. It really stands the test of time and is a wonderful film for all ages. I saw it when I was seven and even with the blood and such it was nothing that I could not handle.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 3:15 a.m. CST

    Why is the terrorist line change "understandable"?

    by jazzuk

    Are we saying that in "the current climate" it _would_ be acceptable for a child to go trick or treating as a terrorist? Why else would you no longer say "you're not going dressed as a terrorist"? This isn't understandable sensitivity, it's political correctness taken to the point of absurdity, especially when, as was pointed out, the change then makes nonesense of following lines - it draw attention to the change, raising the question of why it was changed, drawing attention to the whole sorry affair that cause the change in the first place. Oh yes, very "sensitive" (in a dictionary where sensitive is a synonym for "blind stupidity").

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 3:28 a.m. CST

    How about "You're not going dressed as a tourist!"

    by Regis Travolta

    Makes as much sense as not going dressed as a hippy! And if the evil government guys are bad why can't they be shown pointing guns at our kids and E.T. on the bikes? Guns are bad and they're aimed at our lovable E.T. it's not going to make kids want to shoot up their school anymore than any other pop culture influence already does. Oh what the hell I'll go see it anyway since i cried the first time 20 years ago!

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 3:34 a.m. CST

    When are we gonna see a "Gleaming the Cube" special edition?

    by VirgilHilts

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 4:16 a.m. CST

    I need a genie in a bottle ... NOW!

    by Aronld Scazziger

    My first wish: DON'T TOUCH RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. My second wish: DON'T TOUCH RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. My third wish: DON'T TOUCH RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. If the sucker's givin me a fourth wish: DON'T EVEN TOUCH THE TITLE OF RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 4:19 a.m. CST

    ET is overrated

    by darthflagg

    It's a good kid's film, nothing more. I wouldn't put it in the samr class as Star Wars, Jaws, Raiders, Close Encounters . . . even Jurassic Park is better, IMO. I was more moved by Starman that ET. I won't bother seeing the special edition on the big screen, but I might buy the DVD.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 4:28 a.m. CST

    this one goes out to....INDIANA JONES

    by Crazy Fresh DJ

    OK, Orson. Indy(points at swordsman's crutch): 'buddy, you're fly's undone' Swordsman(looks down at his pants) 'Huuuh?' Indy RUNS AWAY! This'll show he can solve problems without resorting to violence, he's cunning, it'll show up the swordsman to be a dumbass and will be a barrel of laughs for the kids to boot

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 4:33 a.m. CST

    "If you don't love E.T., everyone is entitled to their own o

    by a goonie

    and i know that's not the exact line, but it's close. you get the point. that beautifully sums up my take on these things. beautiful, beautiful bit of writing.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 4:36 a.m. CST

    wait, -I've GOT IT

    by Crazy Fresh DJ

    Forget my other one. What'll happen is, Indy will throw down his gun, the swordsman will throw down his sword and they'll challenge each other to a dance-off, to see who can pull off the phattest moves, like that Run DMC video with all the break dancing,'Its like that'. All the peasants will cheer Indy on. Needless to say, he'll win.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 4:48 a.m. CST

    This is how they'll "fix" the scene where Indy shoots the sw

    by Prof. Pop-Cult

    Indy will still shoot the swordsman. Then right as Indy turns around to run off, they'll insert a reaction shot of the swordsman (using a lookalike actor) still alive, shaking his head as if he's just woken up. Turns out that the bullet just grazed him above the head.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 5:15 a.m. CST

    that "terrorist" line

    by cifra2

    I can't understand why they changed it to "hippy". Really. Yes, I know there was September 11th, but can't people learn to deal with it? I mean, I hope they don't change it for the Spanish DVD... they didn't change it for the spanish original release back in 1982 when terrorist group ETA was killing people every week... and no spaniard felt bad about hearing "terrorist" in a movie. Seriously, this Political Correctness is going too far. Stop it. Don't treat people like that... Maybe that's why european kids can deal with matters like terrorism, violence and sex better than american ones. I remember watching a documentary about aids a decade ago in which the filmmakers showed a french comercial against aids to high school new yorkers and they went angry of how ANYBODY could put that on TV (the comercial showed to men naked between dunes, ready to have sex), and that french authorities should be ashamed... (hey, that reaction was hilarious)... and leads me to ask an interesting question: aren't american kids (and people) too protected from reality? But, hey, what can you expect from a country that still believes ETA is a separatist group and not terrorists (which is an insult for the thousands of victims)? We have learnt here that the best way to deal with terrorism is not to ignore it. It is to confront it, everyday.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 5:58 a.m. CST

    Raiders NEEDS to be updated...

    by Bruce Leroy

    If there

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 6:41 a.m. CST

    'Course they shouldn't touch Raiders, but...

    by Superdudebobby

    ... a cleaned up, remastered version with some deleted scenes would be welcome, as long as they can keep the CGI paint brush firmly in the bucket. Even if they can't, seeing this sucker back on the big screen would be enough for me to plump down my $7 (used to be under $3 in '77)

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 6:42 a.m. CST

    What about the Nazi's?!?!

    by spiderblood1969

    They should remove all the Nazi's from the Indy trilogy because it might offend the German people. Political correctness will be the death of this country.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 6:45 a.m. CST

    Gotta agree with cifra

    by SpacePervert

    So the terrorist line is no longer appropriate? Terrorism didn't suddenly come into existence on September 11th. If that gag was good enough to send out to a world that had to cope with Bader-Meinhof, ETA, IRA, PLO, ANC etc, then what's changed? Not trying to start a row, just making an observation.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 7:02 a.m. CST

    Yeah, lots of hippies wore combat fatigues

    by Sabreman

    Maybe they'll replace Indy's whip with a string of sausages! The possibilities for fucking around with already great films are enormous! Let's get every film ever made and plonk it on the operating table to tweak all those little bits that we don't quite feel comfortable with - for whatever contemporary reason. I'll be buying the ET special edition, but I doubt very much if the new version will ever get played.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 7:53 a.m. CST

    re-editing work to do on "IJatRotLA"

    by MRupprecht

    If Spielberg is gonna try to clean up Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, he's got his work cut out for him. I stole this from the Internet Movie Database... Goofs for Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981): Continuity: The spiders on Indy's back appear and disappear. Continuity: During the firefight in Marion's Bar, Indy's gun changes from a .38 revolver to a Colt .45, back to a .38, then back once again to a .45. This might be the reason that he is able to fire his gun 7 times without reloading, though it appears he might be carrying a second gun which he draws at the end. Continuity: The clasp on the Bible that Indy throws down on the table. Continuity: Amount of hair in Marion's gag in the tent. Revealing mistakes: When Indy pushes a stone block out of a wall to escape from the crypt, it bounces as it hits the ground. Continuity: Position of medallion's chain when Marion pulls it out of her blouse. Revealing mistakes: The exploding truck has a pole launched out of the bottom of it to make it flip over. Factual errors: The issue of Life magazine that we see Toht reading has the front cover of the magazine's second issue (November 30, 1936), showing a West Point cadet, but the back cover of the following issue (December 7), advertising Stetson hats. The actual November 30 back cover advertised Lucky Strike cigarettes. Anachronisms: Set in 1936, the submachine guns used are German MP-38s (a.k.a. "Schmissers"), not adopted by the German Army until 1938. Anachronisms: Map showing the path of Indy's flight includes Thailand, which was called Siam at the time. Plot holes: Egypt was British-controlled in 1936 and the Germans would not have been able to mount a large military operation there as shown. Continuity: The staff is supposed to be 60 inches tall (6 kadams = 72 inches, minus 1 kadam). The pole that Indy inserts into the hole in the map room towers over his head, indicating (incorrectly) that Indy is less than five feet tall. The laserdisc edition disproves any claim that he's standing on a lower step. Continuity: During the basket sequence, the sweat marks on Indy's back shrink and grow from shot to shot. Continuity: After trapping Indy in the Well of Souls, Belloq's hat jumps from his hand to the ground. Factual errors: The snakes in the Well of the Souls come from all over the world. Revealing mistakes: Glass wall between Indy and the cobra. Revealing mistakes: The driver of Belloq's car winces before Belloq hits him. Continuity: Luggage rack detaches itself from the truck when Indy collides with the water trough, but it's fixed in subsequent shots. Revealing mistakes: The plane that is circling on the ground is driven by a chain around its wheels. Revealing mistakes: Trench dug under the truck that Indy slides under. Incorrectly regarded as goofs: Indiana seems to have clung to a submarine which was diving (we hear the klaxon and the order "Dive! Dive!" in German) for a trip of several hundred miles. However, it is possible that the dive was only to periscope depth, and the sub may have surfaced once offshore. Footage was actually shot, but cut before release, showing Indy lashed to the periscope with his whip, and he might similarly have hidden near the waterline during surface running. Incorrectly regarded as goofs: The Golden Gate Bridge was not opened until 1937, but the main structure was finished in November 1936. Evidently the movie takes place later in 1936 than that. This is confirmed by the fact that in the same scene with the bridge, Toht is reading Life magazine, whose first issue was dated November 23, 1936; see also above. Anachronisms: The Afrika Korps didn't exist until 1941. Continuity: During the truck chase scene: After the German soldier shoots Indiana in the arm, he punches him several times, Indy's blood appears and then disappears from the German soldier's knuckles. Anachronisms: When Indy threatens to blow up the ark, he is shown holding a Panzerfaust anti-tank weapon. The Panzerfaust was developed after WW2 started. Incorrectly regarded as goofs: The canopy in which Marion knocks out the German pilot is not the same canopy she is locked under with the machine gun. She was able to crawl between them. (This also explains the absence of blood.) Continuity: When Marion climbs in the basket, the lid is askew. When the shot cuts to the monkey on top, the lid is perfectly in place. Continuity: The position of the torches when Indy is descending into the well of souls. Continuity: When Indiana Jones enters the well with the mock up, he first throws his baton and then climbs down the rope. In the next scene, the baton is lying against the wall when he takes it back, which is virtually impossible. Incorrectly regarded as goofs: During the truck chase, the heads of the approaching German soldiers are level with the top of the truck. Just as Indy looks into his side mirror, they crouch down, so their position in the mirrors is correct. Crew or equipment visible: When Indy is pushing the stone from the window of the well of souls for his escape, when the camera shows the stone falling, you can see a man sitting on the ground at the window. Also as they are leaving the scene. Factual errors: Marion wins a drinking contest in her bar in which the Nepalese contestant passes out and falls over backwards. Within minutes she is in a serious and lucid conversation with Indiana Jones, doesn't slur her words, and then takes part in a gun battle calling for a certain amount of dexterity and nimbleness. Incorrectly regarded as goofs: While tradition has it that only ritually pure members of Jewish priestly families were able to even touch the Ark, let alone carry it, nobody is seen touching it directly (except when it's opened); it's either carried on poles while covered with cloth or inside a packing crate. Continuity: When Indy is climbing on the pontoon of the sea plane, his clothes appear completely dry, though he was just in the water and in the scene before the clothes appeared completely wet. Continuity: In the scene where Indy shoots the person with the sword, he arrives with his right shoulder toward the swordsman, but immediately in the next shot has his left side facing the swordsman. My vote is redo those horrible opening titles. My old ATARI 800XL had better fonts than that.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 7:57 a.m. CST

    I have no Jones for a p.c. Jones

    by Hrunting

    Thank you Steven for bowing down to the pc Hollywood gods and showing us all how the authorities in charge of this nation can always just digitally remove any offensive gun waving for mass media consumption. To bad you weren

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 8:06 a.m. CST

    Minty fresh

    by Hrunting

    I almost forgot Indy cant use a gun to defend himself against the sword swinging Egyptian dude sent down the wrong path by time and unforeseen circumstances. No, No, No he will just walk over to him give him a refreshing breath mint and a bit of kindness and they will stop and swap fencing stories while they swill Half caf double caf fudge mocha cappuccinos.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 8:19 a.m. CST

    you're not going dressed as a terrorist' is the most rel

    by TheGinger Twit

    Not to mention a little bit of a gag. Why in gods name would anyone go dressed as a terrorist. Surely you'd have to be a complete dickhead to be afraid of this line. I'm surprised at Spielberg. He should be aware that this line is actually funny in retrospect. Look at it this way. If in the original Star wars there was an alien smoking a bong in the cantina then I'm sure it would have been removed in the special edition. But it wasn't like that - and therefore gave a bit of a laugh, and showed some balls. Now if it was back in 1982 that the line was 'you're not going as a hippy' would it not be more relevant that in todays world it's no problem to go as a hippy, therefore hippy should really be substituted for... oh, i don't know... what's worse than a hippy? I got it - how about a terrorist. This seems to me to be the dumbest and only mistake thus far having not seen the new release. Screw the understanding of you people. Are we never aloowed to speak of the past again? How about wiping the name george bush from any future product for fear of offending any muslims? (I only said that last bit because i want to stire some one up - and if you're american i'm sure I just did)

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 8:29 a.m. CST

    Some Changes are truer to the original spirit than the original

    by Lobanhaki

    Have any of you seen the original Star Wars since its release? Have any of you seen many of the eighties films that used optical effects work? I think most posters here have little experience with that kind of effects work. I think many of you have enshrined Optical effects in a way that they don't not deserve. How many of you have actually looked back and seen what optical effects generally looked like. In some cases, they looked quite marvellous, granted, but that was with people like those from ILM, who practically founded much of motion control miniature photography. Looking at the other films, though, I am taken out of the movie by all the small little optical artifacts, by all the effects that seemed marvellous when realism was out of reach. Today, most of the limits of what can be done, and what is done in digital effects are economic, and competence based. That is, the reason why you don't get photorealism is not because it isn't possible, as with optical effects, but because the system speeds aren't high enough yet to pump the data needed to render the stuff in a timely fashion. Competence merely figures in to how well an animator can rig up the animation, as to whether the right physics and dynamics are applied, and whether the modelling and viewpainting of the objects is sufficiently detailed to look like something else than a model. Get competent people and enough hardware behind a project and you can get animation quality like that of Final Fantasy (And I am singling out animation, not praising the whole thing, which I agree is generally disappointing). In Final Fantasy, there were times when one could have been fooled into believing that they were watching photography, and not digital animation, and times where the imagery was just so beautiful that one simply didn't care what the difference was. That is the future of Digital Effects. Soon, everybody is going to have the hardware to do those things. Whether or not they have the competence is up to them, but I'm sure some people will get good at it. Seamless revisions of old movies, will all depend on who's working on them, not what.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 8:33 a.m. CST

    hooray for new p.c. Raiders!

    by crazybastard

    Finally, we now have the chance with modern technology to improve on all the great movies ever made to make them more appropriate for the current political climate! I can't wait for the new and improved Raiders, with all the weapons digitally removed and everything that might under any circumstances be offensive to anyone taken out! Thus we can all collectively sit down and watch the classics as a subjective whole, with no differences in opinion or experience! Won't that be grand? Suggestions for changes in Raiders: Removal of all weapons. This time, instead of a gun, indy should drop a pack of rubbers into his suitcase as he comments on what a careful guy he is. This way we will teach the adolescents to practice safe sex! Also, instead of shooting the swordsman, (who by the way no longer wields a sword but a white flag) Indy now engages him in polite conversation on the futility of solving arguments with force. The ethnically offensive german, hispanic, arabic stereotypes should of course all be removed, as well as the whole ending with the ark, as it might appear offensive to certain religious groups. In the scene where Indy is being chased by the inhabitants of the jungle, his pursuers should all be digitally replaced by non-offensive ethnically neutral whites. In the post 9/11 climate, it would also be appropriate to remove all scenes involving planes, as this might bring up some unpleasant memories in some people. And it goes without saying that no animal, neither monkey nor snake, should be harmed lest we offend any animal rights activists groups! In the poison dade scene, the poison should be replaced with alcohol, with brand new digital effects portraying the drunk monkey under the influence. Sallah stops Indy just in time and informs him of the dangers of drinking. This would teach the youth a nice lesson in the course of being entertained! The drinking scene with Marion should also be omitted so as not to promote the consumption of alcohol. What a great time we are living in, when technology has finally allowed us to improve the movies we all love!

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 8:35 a.m. CST

    ET

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    ...first movie I ever cried at. Big leaking tears of that dreadful blue mascara that was de rigeur in the 80s all over my face. ET was a cracking film, I'd turn out and see it again - on the proviso it has not been hugely fucked with. And what's so damn bad as dressing as a hippy for Halloween? Terrorist would have been in character, and funny. The sooner people face up to the fact that there are, have been, and will continue to be terrorists in the world, the sooner everybody will be able to grow up and deal with it.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 8:36 a.m. CST

    Spielberg is a PENIS BREATH!!!!!!

    by rumpieguy

    LOL....um...not. Hes a genius of course, and the reason I became a filmmaker. I was a kid during the early 80&#39;s when he reigned supreme and ET was one of my favs. I will DEFINATELY go see the "SPECIAL EDITION". HOWEVER.... THAT being said...I have mixed feelings. Part of the charm of ET is the fact that he was a live action creature created by Carlo Rambaldi. Your brain KNOWS his physical form was there on the set. Even "subtle" CGI stuff will compete with that charm...and that worries me. I mean...would u go back and CGI KING KONG? No. Kids today won&#39;t mind though....and I will enjoy them enjoying it....but I wonder. Personally, I think the erasing of the GUNS in the FBI&#39;s hands is subtle...but at the same time HUGE. To me the guns represented the HUGE threat the "ADULTS" had on ET...the antithesis of what the KIDS represented. <sigh> And the whole TERRORIST line being taken out is overreaction. THAT is something a MOM WOULD say...PRE or POST 9/11....COME ON!! Leave it alone. As a filmmaker, I constantly wish I had done things differently after finishing a film. But this trend to go back and "FIX" things to make a film more palatable for the times is just WRONG in my book. I mean this trend of going back and erasing the twin towers in movies....of changing lines....is plan SCARY. Its almost as if they are trying to DENY anything happened. People are smart....we don&#39;t need to be PROTECTED. We can THINK for ourselves and I for one find it scarier when stuff like this is done. Film preservation is important....because it freezes in time....the mood...the feeling of that period. To alter it is to deny it. I&#39;m not comparing the two, but remember how the Chinese government DENIED the "Tienamen Square" incident ever happened. They attempted to ERASE it from the social consiousness. Fortunately, the outside world remembers. I&#39;m going off here....but my point is STOP tampering with our past.....STOP trying to "protect" us...just STOP. Polish it up....do the digital sound thing....but please....don&#39;t go overboard. Peace out... Rum Pie Guy

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 8:39 a.m. CST

    the right to bear arms, or arm bears, or whatever

    by SpacePervert

    Thank you, Charlton Heston. That&#39;s sarcasm, by the way.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 8:48 a.m. CST

    And the Nazi&#39;s will now be armed with...

    by RenoNevada2000

    ... flyswatters. Jebus they better just clean up the print, remix the score and let it out in the theaters. I bet you it&#39;d still clear anywhere between 50 to 75 million. As most people here agree (The smart ones anyway) RAIDERS is a perfect film the way it is, even with the little flaws. Hell, its the imperfections that help root it firmly in its satire matinee serial roots.If you slick it up it caeses to be an homage and insted becomes pastiche, and we don&#39;t want that. (Now go pull out a dictionary and try to figure out what I just said.)

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 8:48 a.m. CST

    ET was great because of the subtext...

    by RockyHorror

    about being a kid in the 80&#39;s. Living in fear from the Cold War, divorce, being a latch string kid, mistrust of the big government, etc. By making it PC (taking away the guns, putting in the scene where the mother is looking for the kids instead of passed out drunk at home, etc.) you destroy this subtext and just have an amusing tale with no more importance than Shrek or Monsters, Inc. Not that there is anything wrong with that Penis Breath :)

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 8:51 a.m. CST

    ET dies??

    by TheGinger Twit

    To the dipshit who was so distressed that this was a spoiler like they&#39;d put it in to the new film........ ET always died! And as for revamping indianna.... What can one say? Temple of doom distinguished the bad guys from the good guys with red turbins and blue turbins. These films don&#39;t need to be re-released. They are just fine. Star wars and ET are the exception. They are big effects films. I say re-vamp the last star fighter with the most amazing new effects and digital additions of crowds to make 10 starfighters into a huge room of 10000.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9:04 a.m. CST

    Little Green Man, prepare to be blocked...

    by CoolDan989

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9:26 a.m. CST

    Harrison Ford is already in ET

    by MCobretti

    Harrison Ford didn&#39;t play the principal in ET, he played the biology teacher who says that the frogs won&#39;t feel a thing. His back is to the camera, but it looks and sounds like him in a not distracting way. I don&#39;t know anything about a principal scene.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9:30 a.m. CST

    ET never did it for me.

    by atomic-bananas

    You think it would have, considering I was an impressionable 8 year old when this movie came out. But I have to be honest- Star Wars, which I saw when I was 3, spoiled it for me. Everything I have seen since then has been less amazing and less awe inspiring. I literally walked out of the theater when I was 8 thinking "whatever". If I never see ET again as long as I live, I won&#39;t be disappointed.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Elliot Writes All Over The Walls OOP

    by Mako

    My parents actually bought one of those storybooks of E.T. when the film came out. It had a few pictures of the scene where Elliot is in the principles office. I don&#39;t know anything about a floating chair, but Elliot does take a red marker and draws odd diagrams all over the walls of the waiting room while he waits for Harrison Ford. Kinda cool stuff. So I know 100% that this was shot since I had/have the book. (It&#39;s probably somewhere in my attic collecting dust).

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9:36 a.m. CST

    The Terrorist Line Has Been Missing Since 1988

    by PadmesLoveSlave

    Just to let folks know(and I haven&#39;t read all of the posts in this thread so if I&#39;m repeating someone else forgive me), the line "You&#39;re not going out as a terrorist" has been missing since ET was released to Home Video in 1988. I remember it being gone when the tape came out, and I watched my laserdisc the other night and the line isn&#39;t there either. So Spielberg tampered with that line well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I have no idea why he changed it so long ago but who knows? Anyway, ET is a masterpiece and I wish they wouldn&#39;t have tampered with it. But the changes don&#39;t sound too bad and I&#39;ll definitely go see this next month-and buy the sure to be great DVD!

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9:42 a.m. CST

    What the fuck is wrong with hippies...and Raiders? NNNNOOOOOOOO

    by Buddy.Lembeck

    Why the hell would a parent in this day and age object to their kid going out on Halloween dressed as a hippy? That doesn&#39;t make any fucking sense!!! The terrorist line is not offensive, because the parent did not like the idea...the parent thought the costume was offensive! Which is why the line is okay. I think a prent that would strongly object to their kid going as a hippy has problems. "Oh, you can go as Dracula, a blood sucking, murdering monster...but no kid of mine is going out as a peace lover!" Spielberg sucks! Someone stick a fork in eye and see if he&#39;s done! Please! And changing Raiders? NNNNOOOOO! Someone please lobotomize Spielberg before he has the chance! Please! I beg you. *Falls down in a hump and starts sobbing uncontrollably* Love you, Smooshie!

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9:43 a.m. CST

    cifra

    by HarisKTelemacher

    you&#39;re wrong about Americans and the ETA, we don&#39;t give a flying f about what they are....

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9:48 a.m. CST

    Walkie-talkies of death and destruction

    by Hrunting

    Please no one else try to turn this into a political talk forum. I know you tried space perv. My point politics and art make one crap flavored mixed drink. Removing the guns(a symbol of authority) is not something a child would do and E.T. is truly a great film because it is told from a child&#39;s view. When Stevie thought like an adult and removed this he just took a little of the magic away from me because I will always notice it and know why it was done. Whats next, Schindler&#39;s list the musical?

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Somebody needs to update that IMDB "goofs" entry for RotLA

    by JTylor

    Cause I just realized that the "factual error" of Marion being able to speak clearly and use a gun shortly after winning a drinking contest pretty much means A: she can hold her liquor, or B: she&#39;s a hustler and wasn&#39;t drinking the same stuff the other guy was, that&#39;s for damn sure.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 10:15 a.m. CST

    Why all the Special Editions?

    by Chainsaw_Ash

    All of the classics of cinema&#39;s past are not in special edition formats. The audience made due with their good and bad points, not wondering when they&#39;ll release another edit. Every time I see a "new" special edition, I can&#39;t help but think, "This is nice, but it&#39;s not the movie I fell in love with as a kid (Star Wars)." Besides, don&#39;t studios waste enough time with special editions and re-makes as it is? Let&#39;s get some new movies out there.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Harris, I was talking about American Media

    by cifra2

    By the way, L.A. Story is one of my all time favorites.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 10:18 a.m. CST

    This doesn&#39;t sound too bad

    by Batutta

    Personally, it always bothered me the way E.T. ran in the opening. In a few shots you could see the dolly he&#39;s gliding on. RAIDERS, though, doesn&#39;t need any tinkering, except maybe to get rid of the snake&#39;s reflection in the glass. TEMPLE OF DOOM could use some clean up work. There&#39;s a lot of bad matte lines and blue screen in that one.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 10:26 a.m. CST

    A must-see?

    by The Vok

    I enjoyed E.T. in 1982, and again later when it eventually came out on video, but I don&#39;t feel any motivation whatsoever to walk into a theatre and plop down full price admission to see it again ... any more than you&#39;ll catch me wasting even more money on the IMAX version of Beauty & The Beast. Yes, these are very good movies, family classics. And sure, take today&#39;s generation of kids to see them. But as an adult with varied tastes, I&#39;m much more interested in seeing movies I&#39;ve never seen before. There has been a wave of great imports lately, like Amelie, Metropolis and Brotherhood of the Wolf, that form a trend of mainstream hits from abroad playing on our maintream screens with subtitles. And they&#39;re all visually rich. These (and innovative English-language movies) are the films I wait for. Give me something I&#39;ve never seen before. I&#39;d rather try to see every movie in the world once than sit back and watch the same movie over and over again. I just don&#39;t get the excitement over an E.T. re-release. It&#39;s not like it&#39;s even a long-lost director&#39;s cut like a restored Orson Welles classic or such.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 10:58 a.m. CST

    THEY SHOULD DO THIS MORE OFTEN!

    by BudWhite

    Instead of bombarding us with terrible sequels and crappy remakes, like they did all of last year, the studios should just re-release OLD MOVIES more often. It wouldn&#39;t cost them much, and they&#39;d make lots of money. Personally, I&#39;d love to be able to catch all my favorite films on the big screen again. They&#39;d be new to a lot of the younger crowd.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Little Green Man....

    by Sod Off Baldric

    YOU BEAUTIFUL BASTARD! Thank you so much for your post. I&#39;m american and I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. I&#39;m so sick of all this molly-coddling politically correct B.S. It doesn&#39;t serve to protect me or shield me from the memories of 9/11...it simply reminds me that it DID happen (not like I could forget anyway). Can we please, please, PLEASE stop rewriting history? Terrorists and terrorism have existed for a long time, it exists now, and will exist for a long time to come (despite Bush&#39;s war against the "Axis of Evil"...sometimes I wonder which is scarier; the terrorists or the Bush administration&#39;s anti-terrorist propaganda). You know, in some ways, this type of media tampering really frightens me. How will we know that things we see in the news or whatever haven&#39;t been altered in some way to put a politically correct or positive spin on a given situation? This is very frightening to me (of course, I&#39;m just naturally paranoid to begin with...just because you&#39;re paranoid that doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re NOT out to get you). Anyway, I won&#39;t be paying to see E.T. in the theater and I won&#39;t pay to see Raiders of the Lost Ark if it is tampered with or edited in any way, shape or form other than remastering the film and remixing the sound. I figure that&#39;s about all I can do, no matter how small a gesture. I neither need nor want all these fancy bells and whistles. I just want the movies I grew up with...not some spruced up imitation.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Why Didn&#39;t They Do This For "Raiders" Last Year On Its 20th?

    by jollydwarf

    Raiders wouldn&#39;t have needed nearly as much work, but I suspect they&#39;ll make it a 25 year edition, so that would put it out in May &#39;06, so don&#39;t hold your collective breaths for the DVD. Christ, the BTTF trilogy just got an official DVD website, and we&#39;re hearing, what, Christmas &#39;02? Tack on the possible three month &#39;no good reason given&#39; delay, and THAT might not be out until Spring &#39;03. So don&#39;t think that the Indy trilogy is coming out in the foreseeable future. Plus, in &#39;06, they&#39;ll probably have started principal photography on Indy IV, so look for the DVD set to have a preview excerpt on the making of the film, if not a DVD-ROM link. With Lucas tied up until then, it all makes sense to me. Yeah, Christmas &#39;06. Anyways, I would expect the cobra&#39;s reflection (as mentioned elsewhere) to be erased, and the whole climatic Ark-opening scene to be where the real CGI treats are. Especially the exploding heads and melting faces. Oh, and the shot of the Ark burning the Nazi symbol on its crate. But really, how much of a facelift can this movie have. "Indy, perhaps man was not meant to find the movie and restore it..." And I get queasy when I think that Willie will be in the fourth one, as she is Jar Jar-caliber annoying.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Hrunting

    by SpacePervert

    hey, I had no problem with the guns in ET. I played with toy guns as a kid, and I still own a mondo f*** off water pistol, which I keep for Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses and double glazing salesmen. When I have kids, I&#39;ll let them play with toy guns. You&#39;re the one making the political statements like "guns(a symbol of authority)" and "face it that it is the flesh behind the metal that is at fault", which a) I don&#39;t agree with, b)suffer from flawed logic and c) have no particular place in this talback. So to reiterate, I condone fantasy violence as catharsis and because its fun. No need to go further on this one.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 11:46 a.m. CST

    "Not so special" editions?

    by Renata

    I&#39;ve had mixed feelings about the so called "special editions". I think it all started back in 1988 with the re-release of "Lawrence of Arabia", when the great James Katz and Robert Harris did such a gorgeous job restoring that masterpiece. Not only did they save the negative for future generations, they added in scenes that had been lost or cut out in the original release. After the success of that release, I think filmmakers realized what restorations could do for their oeuvre. Unfortunately, many of these haven&#39;t been as immaculate as the Lawrence edition. Restorations have become Special Editions, which really don&#39;t go back to saving the negative; instead, the film is merely touched up and repackaged. In Hollywood&#39;s infinite talent to jump on any bandwagon, they&#39;ve turned a noble endeavor into a business trend. So what we have now are "Special Editions" of every beloved movie (I guess that&#39;s a better word than "Redux"). Are they worth it? Any chance to see a great movie like the original Star Wars Trilogy, or ET, or Apocalypse Now in a large theatre is worthy. Many may carp that the "touch ups" taint one&#39;s memory of the original experience, but in the case of Star Wars and ET, I think the re-releases were meant as much for a new generation as they were for the previous one. Many children going to see ET will have no concept of missing lines or excised guns. And Spielberg did make the wise decision to release both versions on DVD. One hopes Lucas will do the same when releasing Star Wars on DVD. Its sad but true. Hollywood appears to be saying us old fogeys have had our day in the dark theatre and now they want to give our successors a chance to see these great movies the way we saw them; except they&#39;ll have better projection and sound. If anyone really cares about great restorations, please turn out to support movies like Vertigo and Spartacus when they are re-released. These are the truly special editions.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 11:49 a.m. CST

    INDY was good in the past,but don&#39;t ruin it by making anymor

    by mooncake

    INDY has fallen & can&#39;t get up.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Damn this tampering!!

    by BlueGecko

    Leave Indy alone!!! The FX especially - there isn&#39;t much in there that doesn&#39;t meet today&#39;s standards, except perhaps the climax with opening the arc. But that HAS to be left the way it is, especially the wax Ronald Lacey screaming and melting, that&#39;s pure class! I&#39;d pay money to see the original, unbastardized version playing on the big screen - what a great film... Maybe I&#39;ll watch it this weekend...

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 11:56 a.m. CST

    psst, wanna see the aforementioned ford scene?

    by locky

    you crazy kids! i saw the ford scene over 10 years ago! granted i had to pay for a two week holiday in orlando and watch the damn scene whilst queuing up for the ET ride for 2 hours but hey! it was worth it!

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Regarding"IJatRotLA"

    by Vegas

    Just fucking say RAIDERS, people. Seriously, this acronyming everything has gone too fucking far for too fucking long. Life is not THAT short, type out a fucking title, or at least an actual WORD once in a while! I mean it, the needless use of acronyms pisses me off far more than whether or not a kid is called a "terrorist" or a "hippie."

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Special Editions SUCK

    by Wee Willie

    Like QT said on the DVD of Pulp Fiction, "I made the movie I wanted to make THE FIRST TIME!!!" A movie with updated special effects is just a cash grab and nothing more. Raiders was done right the first time, why fuck with it? Same goes for ET. And Star Wars. And even Close Encounters. Spielberg and Lucas, who&#39;s careers were initially built on childhood nostalgia have now become nostalgic for their own work. I&#39;m not going to waste my time...

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 12:32 p.m. CST

    What&#39;s next? The Wizard of Oz Special Edition.

    by Wee Willie

    With all-new CGI effects?

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Little Green Man you said a mouthful.

    by Wee Willie

    That line change is the worst idea since Greedo shooting first, as Kevin Smith wrote.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 12:48 p.m. CST

    more thoughts on special editions

    by Renata

    It seems that everyone&#39;s complaint are the new scenes and the touch ups. Well, remember back in 1978 when Spielberg approached Columbia about re-editing Close Encounters? They said they wouldn&#39;t give him the money unless he shot a new ending. Spielberg agreed, and gave us the "We Go Inside" version. Even he admits this was a mistake. But what everyone forgets is that CE3K&#39;s middle act, when Richard Dreyfuss goes nuts, is much tighter and dramatic than it was in the original version. Yes, we had to sit through a lousy climax, but the movie as a whole felt leaner and more suspenseful. Anyone who owns the DVD will have seen the definitive version of this great movie. So, there&#39;s give and take. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is that studios won&#39;t put money into these films unless there&#39;s something new. That&#39;s why we have new Exorcist and new Apocalypse Now. In LA a few years back, they re-released cleaned up versions of Chinatown and Godfather and nobody came. Because they were, in essence, the same movies. Perfect films that didn&#39;t need reworking, but the fact is, nobody saw them. Those are just the facts. And it&#39;s hard for me to blame directors for wanting to revisit and touch up their old projects. We think of them as millionaires and celebrities, but they&#39;re filmmakers first and foremost, probably constantly playing the mental game of "If I had this then, I could&#39;ve done that...". Hell, I&#39;ve made a few short movies I wish I could go back and touch up. Anybody wanna give me money?

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 12:55 p.m. CST

    re: Little Green Man

    by Vegas

    Not all of us Americans are overly sensitive to the terrorist line, as is evidenced by the majority of these talkbackers. However, if you have a fucking problem with how "us Americans" make our movies, then DON&#39;T FUCKING WATCH THEM. STOP YOUR BITCHING AND GO WATCH YOUR OWN FUCKING MOVIES.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:11 p.m. CST

    "Sorry, the line was busy E.T."

    by rabid_republican

    What is it about special additions that gets everyone so darn riled? Producers make a few cosmetic changes and turn a quick buck of a re-release. Essentially, I agree with most of what the second review was saying on how the audience ends up concentrating more on changes, rather than enjoying the film. I would think by now, this may be some signal to studios and film makers in general that it&#39;d be better to just a)clean a film up visually WITHOUT the use of CGI--a remastered score etc. and b)release it with modest fan fare. __________________________________ As for Indiana Jones, I sincerely pray, that any re-release we watch does it justice.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Computer Kong

    by tbrosz

    I got a great idea--a Special Edition of the original King Kong, with all new digital effects, so that we don&#39;t have to watch all that stupid stop motion animation with the moving fur. Yeah, right. I think that DVD releases should always have a copy of the movie as it was released in the theater. Clean up some blue outlines or other obvious louseups, maybe, but release it in its original form. Then they can add whatever Director&#39;s Edition of the Week they want to another disk.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Jesus!

    by i'mYOURman

    Shut the $#$% up you pieces of crap! Let Spielberg and company do what they want, it&#39;s their movie. Who gives a shit what you all think anyway. If you want to watch the &#39;real&#39; ET version, watch it on videotape or wait for the new dvd. Same goes for Indy. Stop bitchin and start livin.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Terrorists and guns

    by Bramton1

    Really, I don&#39;t understand the uproar. Movies like this are supposed to offer you a distraction from real life. Mentioning the word terrorist would likely suck a lot of people out of the movie and back to real life. And for those who feel we need to "get over it," try telling that to someone who lost a close friend or a relative on Sept. 11. Now, regarding the guns to walkie-talkie switch. Who cares! Did you really ever notice the guns in th first place? Did you watch the movie and say, "Oh look, guns." Of course not. And while we&#39;re talking about this, why ar they pulling guns on a bunch of kids who haven&#39;t harmed anyon anyways? If that happened in real life, do you realize the outcry that would result?

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:55 p.m. CST

    Freedom to choose

    by Bruce T Shark

    I&#39;ve mentioned this before in a discussion of the proposed further edition of Bladerunner, but I&#39;ll say it once more. I personally don&#39;t care how many editions a director produces of his film as long as they are all available for us to choose from. In this respect it looks like Spielberg has got it right this time, with both versions to be included on the DVD. However I&#39;m still pissed at him for cutting the word "Bitch" from the DVD of Jaws.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 1:57 p.m. CST

    CRAZYQBN,both reviews mentioned the guns

    by Jack Ryder

    and the lake thereof. and how do we "always have the originals anyway, so who cares?" were do you see the old version of the Star Wars movies for sale ? you can still rent them at some mom & pop video rental places, but their as worn out as my old copies.now my mind just has to refuse that Greedo shot first. any ways the terrorist line is a lot more appropriate now than in &#39;81. as far as Indy goes, I can&#39;t think of any FX shots that are bad. yes get rid of the snake reflection and the post that turns over the truck. but since they didn&#39;t fix the light sabers in star wars ( you know when Ben and Darth are fighting and the sabers point at you and you can see the sticks ) so I doubt they&#39;d do any real fixing and just not have Indy killing any one. I always thought it was funny how everyone bitched about Temple of Doom and forgot how gross the end of Raiders was. so Spielberg and Lucas FIX don&#39;t FU*K! and the order of the posts is not bottom to top. it&#39;s kind of from the middle out.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:05 p.m. CST

    I don&#39;t know...

    by Billy Talent

    When I look at &#39;2001&#39;, &#39;Star Wars&#39;, &#39;Empire&#39;, &#39;Blade Runner&#39; or even &#39;Top Gun&#39;, they look perfect. None of those movies cost anywhere near $100 million either. I never thought E.T. was a puppet. But now I will have to think of him as a cartoon. Special Effects suck now. I&#39;ve lost interest in the state of the art, I think film makers need to study the past a little more. Spielberg uses digital effects better than most, but &#39;E.T.&#39; is already perfect. I hope he hasn&#39;t completely fucked it up. I know that I will NEVER watch &#39;Apocalypse Now Redux&#39; again. Ugh.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:42 p.m. CST

    CGI Temple of Doom

    by Moose

    Maybe they could CGI ToD into a *good* film?

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 2:57 p.m. CST

    &#39;penis breath&#39; got a lot of cred as a kid....

    by X-Girls

    I laughed in front of my die-hard Christian mother at like, 5-8 years old. Someone understands how we actually talk! I couldn&#39;t believe it. The guns and terrorist edit suck. Some scenes don&#39;t need insertion into the actual film.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Regarding special editions...

    by rubby

    I&#39;m a bit amazed at all this since essentially it is Spielberg&#39;s film and he can do with it what he wants to do with it, same with Lucas, Coppola and the rest of them. Regarding the E.T. stuff, I&#39;m surprised there&#39;s so much talk of it being ruined since I thought everybody thought it was lame compared to THE IRON GIANt. Personally, I thought IRON GIANT was very good work that had me smiling, yeah I own it on DVD but E.T. is my favorite Spielberg bar-none and I agree with Kael&#39;s review of the film, it is enchanting to see a movie that is just as rare and wonderful as the alien vistor of the movie itself. Or something she said similar to that. I&#39;ll see the special edition and I don&#39;t agree that Spielberg should have done it but the scenes with the E.T. enhanced and Harrison Ford principal scene will be worth watching. More than than I am grateful my favorite scene, the bicycle riding by moonlight has not been touched, it is one of the definitive movie moments of my life that makes me feel alive. Renata, you&#39;re right about the real special editions being the original work of TOUCH OF EVIL, CITIZEN KANE, SPARTACUS being re-released to movie theaters. I remember seeing a restored CITIZEN KANE complete with theatrical trailer shown before film at the Cineplex Odeon Uptown and on the same time, I watched the restored re-edited TOUCH OF EVIL which was said to be closer to Welles film but is not available on DVD/VHS for rent but has only been shown on AMC in widescreen once (the DVD/VHS is the studio cut of the film) and both experiences (the EVIL I saw with my mom, the other by myself in a room full of people who applauded the movie) were memorable in a way I won&#39;t forget. As for RAIDERS getting a special edition as with E.T. it does not deserve it. Besides I already saw it just recently on the big screen in 70 mm at the Cineplex Odeon Uptown last year at April 1st and still own my ticket as a souviner of the experience of what a great ride it was. Though, I would love to see all 3 BACK TO THE FUTURE films back on the big screen. I still fondly remembering see BTTF part 2 right after my family&#39;s Thanksgiving dinner and seeing BTTF part 3 in summer but I forget seeing BTTF on the big screen but only remember watching it on TV/video so it would be a kick to see one of my favorite films the way it was meant to be seen on the big screen.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 3:14 p.m. CST

    To Wee Willie

    by rubby

    They already did a special edition of WIZARD OF THE OZ with restored THX sound and picture, it was released in 1998 to movie theaters and the print was no different than the one used on the WB DVD of the film. I saw nothing wrong with this special edition of the film, cleaning up the sound and color image which I agree is how these special editions of the film should be. Nothing changed with effects or plot points or dialogue, just the original film restored to the original glory as it was meant to sound and look.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 3:35 p.m. CST

    *lol* *lol* :D "he wasn`t all that good" ...hehehe.... AAND...

    by drjones

    ohhhh pleaasse do it steve..just do it!!! ok...wihtout these crazy goddamn cuts ...but ....DO...IT!!!

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 3:52 p.m. CST

    E.T. Overrated??

    by zenchaos

    Hey Darthflagg, if you think E.T. is an overrated kid&#39;s film, nothing more, why would you spend $20 or $25 to buy the DVD, but not spend only $7.50 to see it in the theater? The logic isn&#39;t there.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Aah, there&#39;s nothing like traumatizing the wee ones by killi

    by Fatal Discharge

    The review&#39;s mentioning of a mother consoling a child in the theater reminded me the same thing happened in the row in front of me when I saw the 1985 re-release. Disney masterfully knew (Bambi&#39;s mom, Snow White, etc.) that there&#39;s no better way to emblazon a movie&#39;s memory in a kid&#39;s mind, regardless of the trauma inflicted. Although I saw the re-release back then, I have no need or want to see this "re-done" version. E.T. works most as a children&#39;s fable and most of the audience for this version won&#39;t be viewers of the original (like the Star Wars re-releases) unless they have brats of their own to take to the theater. As for "special editions", "added scenes", all the bullshit they&#39;ve created to get people who already have videos of the film to buy the same film on DVD because they think they&#39;re missing something...don&#39;t fall for it. Once DVD&#39;s have become standard and high-definition tv comes along, they&#39;ll release films in their original wide-screen format instead of the chopped-off versions we&#39;re getting now, in order to get people to buy the same films all over again.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Thanks for letting me know my opinion is wrong!

    by BigW

    But ET bored the crap out of me. I know it&#39;s a great movie, and it&#39;s a classic, a work of inspired genius, etc. I&#39;m not saying it isn&#39;t a great movie, it just never turned my crank. Hey, I don&#39;t like Jack Daniels either, but I know it&#39;s good booze! Anyways, for all you fans, I sure hope Spielberg does release an uncut DVD version of ET for you. I am still bitter that Lucas has said he will never cut an original Star Wars trilogy to DVD.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Big Deal

    by Mac Styran

    So, all the Nazis will have 1930s Walkie-Talkies and are threatening with calling Indy&#39;s daddy! (Or something like that) I don&#39;t like E.T. (kiddie movie) in the first place, so I&#39;m completely NOT INTERESTED in the new version. BUT: Indy is a really classic great film. Touch that and ... by Grapthars hammer, you shall be avanged, Indy. A little polishing is good... as it comes to quality of the picture, the sound and perhaps some special effects... BUT THAT IS FUCKING ENOUGH. Don&#39;t dare to water it down or delete some of the (mostly necessary) violence. My 2002 cents

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Keep "terrorist", lose p-breath

    by DopeSmokinMoron

    Personally, I think they got it backwards. The terrorist line is fine, but to me the p-breath line always sounded gratitous, like it included as insurance against the (at the time) dreaded G rating. It really stands out from the rest of the movie. Sort of like the severed arm shot in the cantina scene of "Star Wars".

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Frank Marshall is SCUM...Twilight Zone

    by theemiracleman

    When the helicopter crashed onto Vic Morrow and the two kids, Frank immediately turned and left. Left the COUNTRY that is, for TWO YEARS!!! Supposedly to scout locations for Temple of Doom, but in reality because he was the one who &#39;approved&#39; the illegal after hours filming of the kids, and was the producing link between the film and &#39;Exec. Prod. Speilberg&#39;. Without marshall testifying, they had no link to Steve. Nice, Frank, go from doing magic tricks for these kids to running away when they died.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 5:44 p.m. CST

    When they re-do Raiders

    by bswise

    They should include a CGI scene of Indy holding his breath as he clings to the hull of the submarine the entire way to the island.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 5:57 p.m. CST

    "Bigotry"... how very L. Ron Hubbard

    by Eudoro

    "After all, if we

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 6:25 p.m. CST

    call me an old grump if you want . . .

    by ol' painless

    but I am a bit uncomfortable with all this "special edition" diddling with film classics, a practice which unfortunately Spielberg and Lucas feel the need to carry out. It&#39;s like . . . . shit, I dunno, CHEATING or something. Digital Remastering? Sure, love it, brings a film back to life as it was originally seen. Adding CGI and &#39;improving&#39; old SFX? No way! L & S should keep the cards they were dealt at the time, and be proud of their original accomplishments, not embarrassed at the perceived &#39;dated&#39; nature of, for example, the X-wing battle at the Death Star and the way ET runs through the bushes. Both films were monuments of their times, past of a body of work demonstrating that story will always win out over a Film That Has Lots Of Cool Effects, But The Plot Sucked. Make more new stuff, S & L! Otherwise, shock, horror, I will think you areo nly in it for the money . . . .

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 6:53 p.m. CST

    Clearing up the PC CRAP!!!

    by BillyRayValentne

    Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Spielberg was, and in fact may still be a genius filmaker. His greatest problem as well as the greatest problem with many in Hollywood is that they subscribe to a "new" liberal ideology of political correctness. This form of political correctness does not allow for any sort of material offensive to any group i.e. race or religion of people to be offended, even if it is at the sake of the story. Old school liberals in the 60&#39;s,70&#39;s and even 80&#39;s were very anti-censorship by the government and by themselves. Spielberg, Geffen and other large Democratic contributers endorsed the Gore-Lieberman ticket right away, while clearly knowing the Lieberman is the most pro-government censorship of all the politicians in Wahsington. It all comes back to not wanting to offend anyone and Speilberg and Company have no balls anymore. At least Joe Esterhasz witheld his endorsement of Gore-Lieberman because of the pro-censorship that both men endorsed. Bush will most likely leave Hollywood alone, because he believes it to be a business, which it is, and the Conservatives, well at least the Republicans have now become the more Hollywood-Friendly party. Take this for what it is worth a little essay by an independent, who is sick and tired of all of the B.S. and political correctness going on in Hollywood, the movies and this great country, that so values free speech.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 7:08 p.m. CST

    who the hell is "penis breath"?

    by Hypestyle

    I haven&#39;t seen the flick since it first came out back in the days-- what gives here?

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Wouldn&#39;t "Criminal" make more sense than "Hippy"?

    by Drath

    He&#39;s carrying a f***ing GUN and wearing a hood! I don&#39;t think "Hippy" when I consider that ensemble, I think criminal, or felon, or robber, or even gangster, all of which would have been perfectly acceptable changes to "terrorist" given current history. "Hippy" makes no sense given Elliot&#39;s costume.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9 p.m. CST

    I would have to say

    by ol' painless

    that with regards to myself, I have no real issue with what is generally known as &#39;PC&#39;. I don&#39;t know why, but things like using the word "Man" to describe all of humanity, women and children included, manages to really set my teeth on edge. No easy answers to the whole issue, of course, and i am not offering any. But come on, Messrs Lucas and Spielberg. Only restore the print, and not the SFX. Don&#39;t change the dialogue to float with whatever prevailing wind is blowing in Holloywood. It&#39;s the film equivalent of me breaking into my old high school and scrawling a big fat A over my D in 5th form (10th grade) mathematics. Hey folks: any predictions about what they&#39;ll change in RAIDERS? My two cents: the truck will no longer bounce as Indy drives over the blonde Nazi. And all references to God will be altered to "non-denominationally specific deity and/or object of worship." And with that last little joke, I shot apart the first part of my post. Can anyone spell hypocrite?

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 9:51 p.m. CST

    jollydwarf

    by TheBorg

    Why do you disguise your nature "jollydwarf" unit? We are TheBorg. You are either with us or against us. Resistance is futile. Nothing can change the shape of things to come. Max Frost died for your sins. End of line.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 10:12 p.m. CST

    perhaps this would be better if they refilmed the whole movie wi

    by yeah i'm a jerk!

    as someone who saw this film in the theatres 20 years ago, i really have to say that i hate this movie. it was the film version of a carpenter&#39;s album. i really wished the damn alien had stayed dead. the best movie from that period was blade runner. spielberg is very overrated. john williams best score is for the first superman movie, in fact it is much better than the film itself. fuck e.t.!

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 10:18 p.m. CST

    One-hundred and Twenty-first!

    by jethroc

    I remember seeing ET in the theatre when it was first out. Two things stood out as really stinking. One was the guns in the trunk. I didn&#39;t understand why the G-men were going for the guns. As if they needed that to blow away some 7th graders. The other was the Uranus joke, which they could cut out. Hopefully the Harrison Scene is an extra on the CD.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 10:46 p.m. CST

    HELLO!!!?????!!!

    by BillyRayValentne

    Is anybody out there? Don&#39;t you all agree with me? if you don&#39;t I think that you are part of the problem and will only make it worse. Robert Zemeckis is an example of a fine filmaker. He refused to go back and alter his Back to the Future films, and the very politically incorect Used Cars (now on DVD). He should be saluted for not going PC. This political correctness thing is going way to far, it is a cancer on the film industry, and I&#39;ll be damned if I am going to give them my money for a pile of trash like the Star Wars Special Edition (PC) or the ET Special Edition (ultra PC). Don&#39;t be a part of the problem, be part of the solution, don&#39;t go see ET when it comes out, don&#39;t bow to Lucas or Spielberg, hold them to a higher standard. Harry Knowles has created a great resource for all of us film lovers, we can openly express our opinions in cyberspace. Let it stop, if we don&#39;t stop it it will just shoot all films too hell!

  • It was noted years ago right after the movie premered that Harison Ford got his scene cut.He was shot at the Principal not the chemistry teacher. Entertainment Tonight a few years back showed a clip from the scene and said it would be in the special edition. My theory is that the scene would never work since he was talking to Eliots mother on the phone and the way the scene was edited you only saw what was happening in the household. To insert the other end of the conversation would have butchered up Girtie watching Sesame Street with ET. The ET bubble gum cards showed a photo of Eliot in a chair in the Principals office levetating off the ground assuming ET was at home getting drunk ang levatating himself. This scene was almost as famous as the cut Anchorhead and Jabba scene cut from Episode 4 or the coccon sequence from Alien(1). Yes the trick trivia question: Name the only actor who was in all top 5 films of the 1980&#39;s. Hopefully we may be able to see this in the DVD.

  • Feb. 21, 2002, 11:25 p.m. CST

    more thoughts on special editions

    by Renata

    Remember back in 1978 when Spielberg went to Columbia and asked for 2 million to polish up Close Encounters? Columbia said no unless Spielberg shot footage showing the inside of the ship. Well, it was a bad idea, something Spielberg has even acknowledged in interviews. But what people who bash the "Special Edition" forget is that the middle act of that movie, when Richard Dreyfuss is going nuts, was much tighter and suspenseful than it was in the original version. One of Spielberg&#39;s intentions was to restructure the movie in a way he didn&#39;t have a chance to due to the rushed release date. Anyone who has the DVD knows how well the definitive version plays. Just a thought: Sometimes, going back and making changes can result in some improved scenes. Kubrick did touch ups to 2001 and The Shining in the days after their release. David Lean did various edits over the course of years for Lawrence of Arabia. I don&#39;t think its a clear cut case of greedy directors, though I&#39;m sure there is some of that, as well. Also, its not a Spielberg/Lucas issue, as much as people would like to make it one. Freidkin did it for The Exorcist, in addition to the ones I mentioned above. Sometimes, there altruistic reasons for &#39;special editions&#39;. It&#39;s just that--like Columbia in 1978--they won&#39;t pony up the cash unless there&#39;s new footage they can advertise. In LA a few years back, they spiffed up Chinatown and The Godfather. Two beautiful films showing in beautiful prints. Know what? Nobody came. So the audience--yes, that includes you the Talkbackers--also carries its share of blame. If there were new footage in The Godfather, you&#39;d turn out like you did for Apocalypse Now Redux. Lastly, I can&#39;t really blame a director for always going back and fiddling. Hell, I have a couple of short movies I&#39;d like to go back and polish up. Anybody wanna donate some cash? Hello? Hmm?

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 3:40 a.m. CST

    Raiders WITHOUT guns.... Great idea Stevie!

    by ZombiePresley

    I know what he should do with Raiders??? Remove all the guns like he did with ET, yeah that would be cool... It might cut the film down to a cozzy 25 minutes but hey, it&#39;s the new millenium, you know can&#39;t be nasty or voilent anymore... What a load of shit. Speilberg you fucking reak for doing that to ET. And you are a hypocritcal cunt. So apprently its an huge PC no-no to aim guns at aliens/kids but it&#39;s perfectly fine for Indy to slaughter about 5000 Nazi&#39;s??? Have you actually noticed just how violent Indiana Jones films are? Indy just kills indiscrimnantly. But apparently Steven is fine with that becuase they are Nazi&#39;s, and Nazi&#39;s are bad.... Jesus, talk about an angry Jew on a quest of celluloid vengange. Now I love on-screen violence, I&#39;m not saying it sould be universally removed, hell I want to see more of it, but removing guns from ET is just plain retarded. Also, have you noticed that Speilberg films tend to contain levels of violence that would have any other film bumped up to the next classification level... I think he has the US film classification board in his pocket. Wouldn&#39;t surprise me.

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 4:23 a.m. CST

    Space perv I love the taste of leather

    by Hrunting

    Like Charlie Chaplin I just ate my shoe. I went too far in the exact opposite direction I intended. Sorry, just don&#39;t squirt me off the porch I am scared of water guns.

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 4:23 a.m. CST

    Zemeckis vs Spielberg

    by DrKodos

    inetersting to see the ugliness of their divorce going public.... The rawness of Used Cars is what makes it great (the audio commentary is just as unPC and just as funny)....Amazing how the Kitsch of Spielberg always seems to fool the under thirty crowd into thinking they are seeing something original or "classic"...never really cared for the cheesyness of ET: too predictable and pulling at the heartstrings in a most over obvious and insulting way...agree 100% that the remaking/reimaging/re-whatevering is a sell-out of the visions these guys had as young men....Take either to its extremes, and conservatism and liberalism always seem to meet at the same bank to blow it up, but for slightly different ideolgical issues: thus both extreme left and right feel the need to censor the same material, but for different ends (just look at all the confusion over whether Gump is anti-Liberal or anti-conservative. All the arguments prove how powerful the film really is and why Astrology is still popular; you can obviously read into whatever you want). Its a shame movies such as Used Cars will never be made again. Everything is measured against the marketabilty to the majority of morons on this site that are overly in love with their own ideas. It&#39;s a real shame to see the exchange of ideas go down in the flames of the "I&#39;m right and you&#39;re an asshole" mentality that permeates these talkbacks....

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 4:28 a.m. CST

    Spielberg & PG 13

    by DrKodos

    didn&#39;t they invent this "new" rating because of the violence in Temple of Doom? Can&#39;t have his "Holiness" given an R rating to a film being marketed to kids....

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 6:44 a.m. CST

    Hrunting

    by SpacePervert

    If you think that&#39;s scary you should see what I load it with. Glad to know you&#39;ve got a sense of humour. I was going to retract that remark about comments having no place anyway, free speech and all that.

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 11:58 a.m. CST

    zenchaos, i didn&#39;t say I would pay full price for the DVD

    by darthflagg

    I do like ET, but I&#39;d rather pay $15 to get the DVD with all the extras than pay $7 to see it once at the cinema. Especially when my 7 bucks will only help it pass Star Wars at the box office.

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Of terrorist and hippies, or hippie terrorists...whatever

    by WarDog

    Considering how Michael is dressed, the choice of "hippie" in that changed line is the STUPIDEST FUCKING possibility. Actually, in light of recent events, "You&#39;re not going out dressed like a terrorist" is more appropriate. Just think how embarassed or horrified a parent could be if their son wanted to go out that way, dressed to look like something as obviously scary as that, since it&#39;s part of the real world??? Jeez, I understand Spielberg wants to be sensitive, but he&#39;s swinging to the extreme in his avoidance or anthing that smacks of Sept. 11th. That&#39;s just being a wussy in my book. So our kids are going to be molly-coddled and fed pap so their widdle minds won&#39;t be at risk for psycho-trauma? How the hell can they grow up with the inner strength to face down the terrors or terrorist of our real modern existence? And no, it&#39;s not Republicans or conservatives who want to censor that kind of thing. It&#39;s the liberals who are afraid of anything harmful in society that they constant want to be protected or shield from harm as many as possible. I got news for you: IT AIN&#39;T POSSIBLE! And the adult thumb-suckers are going to be kicked in the face by horrible circumstances or the monsters lying in wait out there, and all they&#39;ll be able to do is sit pissing and moaning about their fate, instead of getting up and fighting back.

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 1:16 p.m. CST

    DrKodos, I agree with your post but...

    by BigW

    The US "liberals" are hardly left-wing in the traditional sense. Just slightly less right-wing than the "conservatives" (not that I really subscribe to left / right wing).

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 1:22 p.m. CST

    They going to give all the Nazis flashlights?

    by DouglasAH

    Are the guns going to be removed in Raiders, too? Maybe not. If Lucas gets involved, they&#39;ll digitally insert a gun in place of the big Arab&#39;s curved sword, and have him shoot at Indy first.

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 2:54 p.m. CST

    The "terrorist" line

    by BrianS

    Uhm... I just watched the scene in question on my E.T. tape from 1988. There is no terrorist line there, so it&#39;s been gone for a long time, as another talkbacker already mentioned. The mother says "you wont get two blocks dressed like that" or something. Where did the story about the line "hippie" being put in come from? Cause I agree, that would sound stupid. The "dressed like that" line is just fine. I dont see why some people are getting their panties in a bunch over a line that&#39;s been missing for at least 14 years, if not longer.

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 4:48 p.m. CST

    P.C. E.T.

    by Spoons

    The changes are stupid, and I think even less (if possible) of Spielberg for doing it, but it&#39;s hard to find anything Hollywood does surprising enough to be enraged about. I will say, though, that the argument that "Speilberg can change it because it&#39;s his movie so shut up!" is one of the stupidest things I&#39;ve ever heard. Of course he CAN change it, as evidenced by the fact that he has. However, there&#39;s no reason people can&#39;t criticize him and call him an idiot for doing so. Hell, if that logic held, we couldn&#39;t criticize ANY crappy movie. Can you imagine, "How dare you criticize &#39;Freddy Got Fingered,&#39; it&#39;s Tom Green&#39;s movie and he can make it however he wants!"? We&#39;re not trying to throw Speilberg in jail here, we&#39;re just saying he&#39;s an asshole. Oh, and Cifra, if you&#39;re still around, I agree with your general anti-P.C. sentiments, but where on earth did you get the idea that Europe was less P.C. than the U.S. Hell, you can go to JAIL in some Eurpoean countries for simply saying that you dislike someone for their race or religion.

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 7:57 p.m. CST

    "Terrorist"

    by mascan

    The line "I will not let you go as a terrorist, you won&#39;t make it four blocks dressed like that" actually is more accurate now than 20 years ago.

  • Feb. 22, 2002, 9:48 p.m. CST

    E.T. restoration

    by MattHooper

    That original theatrical cut on DVD better be digitally restored as well !

  • Feb. 23, 2002, 12:45 a.m. CST

    To the fella who wrote "Terrorists" over and over again....

    by Renata

    Rest in Peace Daniel Pearl. The fella who wrote that Americans should "Get over it because the rest of us want to get on with our lives" probably didn&#39;t understand that you won&#39;t be getting on with yours.

  • Feb. 23, 2002, 4:02 a.m. CST

    ANSWER: Why Mess With These Movies?

    by DANTE CUBIT

    It&#39;s simple people. Money! Greenbacks! Stacks ans stacks of folding green. When Master Lucas added to his original Star Wars trilogy, it made a ton of money. Now, faced with making another sequel to the Indiana Jones franchise, the filmmakers realized that the best way to create a stir is to "restore" "Raiders" and update the effects for a more hip audience. Really, all it&#39;s meant to do is get people all excited about INDY 4. An entire generation of kids have grown up not knowing a damn thing about Indiana Jones, besides the fact that it was a TV show once. It&#39;s like your favorite band making a Greatest Hits CD and inserting ONE NEW SONG in there to sucker you into buying a disc where you are already bored with 95% of the songs. It&#39;s ALL about the BENJAMINS, folks. Embrace that simple truth, and you will be that much closer to total nirvana. (The state of being. Not the punk/pop band.)

  • Feb. 23, 2002, 4:14 a.m. CST

    Why is ET getting f***ed with?

    by CRITICAL MASS

    If anyone has been to the Universal Hollywood&#39;s attraction, "The ET Adventure," it is a tiresome bore of a ride. You ride bicycles, with ET as your copilot, and you avoid the Feds to save ET&#39;s home planet. WOO! Oh, and there is the most DATED video of Steven Spielberg acting with ET and explaining the ride to park visitors. It&#39;s obvious that Universal Hollywood wants the lines of this tepid ride to be longer, so they decided to revamp the film in rerelease in order to boost theme park attendance. Well, it ain&#39;t happening in MY home! No sirree Bob.

  • Feb. 23, 2002, 10:04 a.m. CST

    Sounds cool, but...

    by ewem

    This political correctnesss thing is really pissing me off, though. They should have kept the guns and God it scares me to think of what they might do to Raiders!

  • Feb. 23, 2002, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Don&#39;t alter FRAME ONE of "Raiders!!!!" And where the hell is

    by spider15

    I was dubious about the "Star Wars" special edition five years ago; I figured it would just be padding. But it in fact looked great with the new additions (although when it was first announced, I did assumed we&#39;d finally be seeing the early "Biggs" scenes on Tatooine which is recounted in the novelization. About which: if anyone doesn&#39;t know by now, while being credited to George Lucas, was actually written by the ever-novelizationing Alan Dean Foster). But I digress... "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" BEYOND IMPROVEMENT. Just re-release it in theaters. I guarentee I&#39;ll pay to see it at least three times. I saw "Tomb Raider" for the first time last night; better than I expected, but of course owing TONS to "Raiders." This new generation really needs to see the origins of that genre (at least in the modern context; I realize that "Raiders" was influenced by classic film serials and other sources). Well, a couple of years ago I had it on what I thought to be good authority that the entire Indiana Jones series would be (finally) issued on DVD in observance of the original film&#39;s 20th anniversary in 2001. That came and went with no sign of them. Then I read it would be early 2002. It&#39;s almost March and no announcement. Are they now saving the whole thing for the silver anniversary of "Raiders" in 2006? Don&#39;t torture us, Lucasfilm or whoever else could make the DVDs appear in stores by this summer. Keep "Raiders" pure and bring it back soon. Pretty please.

  • Feb. 23, 2002, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Not going dressed as a PC Nazi Movie Maker

    by Hate_Speech

    yeah.

  • Feb. 23, 2002, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Hippy Rise in Protest to new ET film!

    by Hate_Speech

    Hippys are PO&#39;d and they have good reason to be. Thanks Mr. Schpeelberg

  • Feb. 24, 2002, 10:33 a.m. CST

    Well, I mean what I think you mean!

    by Kielland

    To leave out the terrorist line is bordering on paranoia. I think it&#39;s the duty of every sane person to fight mindless PC. Remember that streamlineing of public expression can easily lead to marching.....

  • Feb. 24, 2002, 10:56 a.m. CST

    And, about the removed guns.....

    by Kielland

    Do you know who else used to do stuff like that? STALIN, he wanted to remove Trotsky from all pictures of Lenin. A light version of book burning....