The Instigator
SecularMerlin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
NathanGimel
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does it destroy an important part of history if directors alter films from the original release?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2017 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 229 times Debate No: 105312
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

SecularMerlin

Pro

In the original theatrical release of E.T. the authorities are brandishing shotguns, not toting radios. Likewise in its original form the mos eisley canteena scene Han shot first. Should Stephen Spielberg, and most especially George Lucas, who I remind you headed up the movement to stop the colorization of classical films, be allowed to alter their own films if it means the total loss of the film in its original form.
NathanGimel

Con

It most certainly does not "destroy" an important part of history, for the following two reasons: 1. these scenes that are changed are not "destroyed" " they are merely changed. It"s not as if they are erased from history. You can still read about them. You can still know what they are, as evidenced by your post. And 2. to say that these incredibly minor details, in movies that are interesting but mostly irrelevant with respect to history, are an important part of history is nonsensical.

Also note that of course they should be be allowed to change their own films: it"s a crucial part of our civilization that we are allowed much freedom in our actions, regardless of what you call Lucas" hypocrisy.

Gimel
Debate Round No. 1
SecularMerlin

Pro

As was pointed out in the comments "allow" was a poor word choice. Let us say is it preferable and honest instead.
As for destroying a piece of history I wonder if you could tell me where I might find the original Star Wars trilogy in its original form. You could argue that the scenes in question were at one time available and that the past and so history are unalterable but if the statue of liberty were to fall into disrepair a beautiful historical land mark would be at risk and it would be preferable if we could preserve it. I feel it would be dishonest however to replace the torch with a cellphone just because that is more modern.
As to Lucas and others changing their work, fine, but is it really necessary to make the original release unavailable?
If for example Bob Dylan changes the lyrics to one of his songs it doesn't mean that the original albums are unavailable.
NathanGimel

Con

But again, this goes back to mere opinion, and the right of the owners to assert their will on their property. The analogy about the Statue of Liberty fails because the citizens of the US as the collective owners of that landmark think that the torch fits it quite well, and anyway wouldn"t bother with spending money to fix it.

If Lucas, the creator of the work, doesn"t want to let others see something he"s created, you have neither the legal or moral right to ask him for it so much. It would be like you begging me to see some mock-Picasso crayon works I used to do when I was young: inappropriate, plain and simple.

And you have technically conceded half the point at issue by saying "as to Lucas and others changing their work, fine, but..." since the topic entirely revolves around that: the two issues we are debating are

1. Is it an important part of history, these litte changed scenes, and
2. Should the authors be allowed to change it?

So you have conceded 2, they should be able to change it, and I don"t see any push back from you on 1 " aren"t we done?

Gimel
Debate Round No. 2
SecularMerlin

Pro

So the point of contention now is are they an important part of history. Only if they inspired a generation of engineers, astronauts and scientists as well as changing the way we view market and make movies. If You can refute all of those points then yes we will be done.
NathanGimel

Con

Alright. So, to make it clear, I agree that Star Wars, when taken altogether, was a landmark work that probably affected the world in ways that, though they can"t be measured, were probably large.

BUT, what is not an important part of history is that Han shot first, or that the authorities brandished shotguns. These are minor details: you can hardly say that in the case of E.T., is we had the original version we"d all like shotguns a lot less (which would be a somewhat interesting part of history) or if we had the Star Wars original we"d be more prone to impulsiveness (which even if true, would not matter much in this day and age). And since these details, which the entire topic is concerned about, are not important to history, I rest my case.

So do you concede?
Debate Round No. 3
SecularMerlin

Pro

You haven't proved any of my points false only dismissed them, and so I remain unconvinced. I do however concede that I have no further arguments.
NathanGimel

Con

We must leave it up to the voters, but I don"t think I just dismissed them: in my Round 3 post about one of the two points at hand I gave reasons for why the small changes couldn"t have had an impact on history that could be measured as important, dealing, I think, a fatal blow to your side. And you yoursef conceded the other point in Round 2.

But anyway, good debate.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con sounds less scared than pro!

[*Reason removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by SecularMerlin 1 month ago
SecularMerlin
Thanks. Doesn't mean I'll never be a jerk, but thanks.
Posted by NathanGimel 1 month ago
NathanGimel
That"s a good way to look at it. And a lot of people were interested, it seems like, looking at the view count.
Posted by SecularMerlin 1 month ago
SecularMerlin
That's okay. It was a rousing conversation either way. I care far less about how the debate turns out than in coming closer to truth.
Posted by NathanGimel 1 month ago
NathanGimel
And when I say "do you concede", I assure you that I didn"t mean for it to sound that aggressive.
Posted by NathanGimel 1 month ago
NathanGimel
And off-topic for a sec, kudos to Levi for a well-fought out debate on Hitler and art that I enjoyed.
Posted by SecularMerlin 1 month ago
SecularMerlin
Thanks for the point about Dylan Levi.
Posted by SecularMerlin 1 month ago
SecularMerlin
Maybe I'm not sure. Wouldn't be the first time a debate helped me organize my thoughts or come to a better understanding of something. Including my own feelings.
Posted by levi_smiles 1 month ago
levi_smiles
OK, but you've employed the passive voice "be allowed". Who or what is doing the allowing? Artists have & ought to have the right to edit their own work, even after public appraisal, even if the edits are stupid. Personally, I'd like to tell Bob Dylan that some of his lyrics cannot be improved upon but I have no capacity or authority to keep him from redrafting Tangled Up in Blue whenever he chooses. Likewise Spielberg. I can object to the changes but I can't stop the changes. Does this debate amount to you wish they wouldn't?
Posted by SecularMerlin 1 month ago
SecularMerlin
Not at all Levi this isn't a legal argument it's a historical preservation argument. Is the original theatrical release a part of history and therefore important to preserve
No votes have been placed for this debate.