I can see both sides of the debate. On the one hand, Lucas, the artist, had the right to alter his films as he saw fit. On the other, STAR WARS (1977), was created, marketed and released as a finished film. It made history, changed cinema forever, and was enshrined by generations of filmgoers and fans. To say that original version, that history, and that particular STAR WARS experience are now somehow invalid is…disconcerting.
In his “The Special Editions ARE The Movies, Get Over It” video on YouTube, Rick Worley uses films like 2001 (which had 20 minutes cut after its premiere) and THE SHINING (which had an epilogue cut a week after release) as precedent, since the revised versions became the ONLY versions. But this is a false equivalency. Aside from the variant sound mixes, the “A NEW HOPE” title crawl, and the fabled 70mm cut of EMPIRE, the original trilogy remained editorially the same films for two decades. The original cuts were not rare curiosities which were quickly discarded and replaced by altered versions.
The Special Editions have legitimately great changes. Others are debatable. And the hybrid of 1970s production with 1990s/2000s CG is an uneasy mix. All art is the product of its time, and the flaws and limitations of STAR WARS in its original form are a part of its identity and history.
The BLADE RUNNER boxset did it right. Ridley Scott’s Final Cut is probably the best overall version of the film, and is of course his preferred version, but the older cuts are also included, both for completeness, and so people CAN compare, enjoy, and discuss/debate the pros and cons of each.
What’s more important—the artist’s changing whims, or the historical record? After a film escapes and is released to the public, does the public “own” it?
No easy answers, here.
