Ultimate Special Remastered Colorized Extended Edition for Families with Children and Pets


Random thoughts not quite worked out in my head:

It probably started in the 1980s, and there were movies like Blade Runner or Aliens that suddenly were realized in altered form as "Director's Cuts" or whatever, either to "present the director's original vision", make money, or some of both.

Then came the Star Wars Special Editions in 1997, where suddenly Lucas took his old films and added scenes, redid visual effect shots, etc. to produce what was hailed as the definitive version of the films. Of course, he changed them again seven years later. But, it's not it's the first time he did this - the original Star Wars film was actually altered a bit for its 1980 theatrical re-release - and frankly, I like the new versions better (with the exception of the new dance number in Jabba's palace - ack). I think this is also a case of where we have to use Francis Schaeffer's method of judging art, where we don't look at the individual work per se, but at the artist's sum total of work. Besides, who are we to say when a work of art (or film) is done? When it is released to the public or when the artist says it's finished?

Anyway, what I find interesting is the new "Star Trek Remastered", because here is something that appears similiar, but I think is actually quite different. "Star Trek Remastered" is the new high-definition re-release of the old-school "Star Trek" from the 1960s, except with updated visual effects shots. From the previews I've seen, it looks great, actually. But what is weird about it is that it's not the original filmmakers that are doing this project - rather, it's being commissioned by the corporation that owns the "Star Trek" franchise, so it's like "Wait, whose art is this? Who is this third party making these changes?"

At first, it's a bit disturbing, but then again, I guess people have been doing this for years, anyway. I mean, without even mentioning the "Bowdlerized Shakespeare", one might argue that having a third party translating an ancient text into a modern language might be similar thing, but I think maybe the key thing here is that there is basically a fine line between changing the original and simply making an adaptation of the original: an artist can change his/her original, a third party cannot; but a third party can make an adaptation of the original. I think simply having a knowledge of the history of a work, along with any adaptations, helps to satiate any worries about the integrity of a work, but I think when this knowledge is lost is when it becomes a problem.

Anyway, random thoughts.

Labels: film/tv/books/arts, geek stuff, religion/theology/philosophy