> Painting out these movie mistakes as part of a restoration is wrong. What's in the movie is in the movie, and altering the movie to this extent is a form of revisionist history.
How many times has Lord of the Rings been revised? Dune? <Insert other long-lived actively managed novel>. Is the active management of these novels "wrong"? Is fixing grammar, spelling, or clarifying story beats "wrong"?
I personally don't think so, and I'd rather read something which has been corrected, especially if done for story clarity.
I’m not necessarily opposed to all fixes like this, but in film most of these strike me as totally unnecessary and making the movie strictly worse.
Normal viewers almost never notice these things, and movie nerds like little glimpses behind the curtain. So it’s doing almost nothing for one sort of viewer, and making it worse for another.
That’s absurd. The incident with the fresco was an outrage because it ruined the original. If the well-meaning vandal had merely defaced a copy, nobody would have cared.
If you want to see works as originally published, get a copy of the original publishing. Buying a re-issue and expecting it to be identical in every way is silly.
Is it? I can install every version of Minecraft all the way back to Alpha if I want. I can roll Factorio back to any version until 0.12. I can pick exactly which of thirty seven thousand OpenSSL commits to install. Many arcade ports of games targeted at enthusiasts come with every revision on disc and let the user decide. My copy of Blade Runner came with three different versions in one box. We have had the technology to preserve every version of every significant work for decades. If the re-issue doesn’t preserve the option to experience the original, it’s entirely because the publishers chose to not make it available.
You’re making my point for me. The original is still available. Issuing a new version does not destroy the original the way that person destroyed that fresco.
In most cases, the original is not available. I was listing exceptions showing that it was possible. People don’t reprint if there’s still lots of copies sitting on store shelves. Even going to eBay and dealing with scammers, fakes, damaged discs, and scalpers, the new thing and the old thing have the same title, so finding listings for a specific printing isn’t always possible, and information about what’s changed isn’t readily available. And of course, if you’re ‘buying’ digitally, the new version does often destroy the original, even if the original was what you paid for.
Listen to yourself. You’re equating the destruction of an original piece of art to the horrors of buying something from eBay. It’s utterly pathetic. The world isn’t obligated to cater to your desires. “But there are scammers!” Sometimes getting what you want takes a bit of effort. Requiring you to spend more than thirty seconds obtaining the original is not equivalent to destroying it.
I never said that; you’re just straight-up lying about me equating those two things. I wasn’t even responding to that. Maybe you should listen to what people are saying before telling them to listen to themselves.
You're in a comment thread where correcting errors in a movie was compared to the destruction of a fresco. I argued it was not the same because the original is still available in the former case. Your argument is that it is not actually available. I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret this. If the original is not available then it's an act of destruction. If the original is available then it's fine.
Where it goes off the rails is when you say the original is not available when it plainly is, you just don't want to deal with the very minor hassle of buying a used copy.
According to Ridley Scott, it is -- the studio used his name by implication ("Director's") but it wasn't his vision and he was barely involved.
To be honest I don't like the Special Edition much, which he does consider his vision.
My favorite version of BR would be a mix: the dialogue fixes and crisper image of SP, the color grading and milder violence of DC. The extra seconds of footage are unnecessary, too. I admit correcting the face of Zhora was a big deal though (but I could have lived with keeping the stunt extra anyway)
How many times has Lord of the Rings been revised? Dune? <Insert other long-lived actively managed novel>. Is the active management of these novels "wrong"? Is fixing grammar, spelling, or clarifying story beats "wrong"?
I personally don't think so, and I'd rather read something which has been corrected, especially if done for story clarity.