Movies are an artform with a uniquely long lifespan. A film can connect with viewers decades later just as much as it did when it was new, perhaps even more so. Cinema is a great cultural time capsule, but it’s also evergreen with its heady mixture of thoughts and emotions. The danger, however, lies in feeling that the power of cinema’s reach should exceed its grasp.
That’s precisely what legendary filmmaker Steven Spielberg learned when revisiting his 1982 smash “E.T. The Extra Terrestrial” for its 20th anniversary in 2002. The opportunity arose at a perfect nexus point between movie culture and visual effects capabilities. By the early ’00s, it was clear that home video (or at least home viewing) was here to stay, and many ordinary families as well as cinephiles were building personal film libraries thanks to the popularity of VHS and the then-new DVD format.
Part of the attraction of a new release of a classic film was getting bonus material or even a new cut, something that auteurs like James Cameron indulged in. Spielberg’s colleague George Lucas went one further with his theatrical release of the “Star Wars” trilogy special editions in 1997, debuting versions which were intended to fully replace the original releases (which they still have done … for now). Spielberg then seized upon the chance to make some changes to “E.T.” to try and update its sensibilities to the modern era. While these alterations seemed prudent in an immediate post-9/11 world, a more sober Spielberg later admitted his error in trying to mess with cultural history too much.
The changes to E.T. were small in nature but significant in effect
After George Lucas’ “Star Wars” trilogy special editions were released and Lucas made a point of taking the original cuts out of circulation, many fans and cinema preservationists alike cried foul. In addition to the blow against preservation, folks were less than pleased with some of the egregious and very obvious changes Lucas decided to make. When the news broke that Steven Spielberg would essentially be making an “E.T” special edition, producer Kathleen Kennedy told the Los Angeles Times that “there’s no comparison” between the two, given that the changes to “Star Wars” were extensive while “E.T.” would only be getting “a wide variety of subtle changes.”
Those changes may have been subtle, but they were impactful all the same. In addition to cosmetic alterations like making digital adjustments to the 1982 E.T. animatronic, Spielberg elected to change the guns brandished by government officials in the film to walkie-talkies. In fairness to the filmmaker, he’d been vocalizing his wish to do so since at least 1995, where he explained his reasoning:
“I regret that a gun was used as a threat to stop children on bicycles (…) And if I ever reissue the picture, I’ll use the digital miracle of, you know, CGI to take the guns out of the cops’ hands. (…) I think those were, you know, distasteful moments to me.”
While that change was already in the works before 9/11, the choice to delete a flippant off-screen line of dialogue involving a character trying to dress as a terrorist for Halloween was made as a response to the then very recent tragedy. Though understandable, these changes had a cumulative effect of making “E.T.” feel significantly different altogether.
Steven Spielberg made sure to reinstate the original E.T.
Despite making these changes to “E.T.,” Steven Spielberg deserves a lot of credit for not making the same mistakes that George Lucas or some other filmmakers have made when tinkering with their work long after the fact. For one thing, Spielberg did have the original 1982 cut of “E.T.” included on the film’s DVD release in 2002. More than that, however, is Spielberg’s retraction of the 2002 edition years later. Around the time of the release of “The Fablemans” in 2023, Spielberg gave a masterclass at the Time 100 summit, and expressed his regrets at ever having made the alterations to “E.T.” in the first place:
“That was a mistake. I never should have done that. ‘E.T.’ is a product of its era. No film should be revised based on the lenses we now are, either voluntarily, or being forced to peer through. (…) Years went by and I changed my own views. I should have never messed with the archives of my own work, and I don’t recommend anyone do that. All our movies are a kind of a signpost of where we were when we made them, what the world was like and what the world was receiving when we got those stories out there. So I really regret having that out there.”
Spielberg, being the wise and observant person he is, came to the Ian Malcolm-esque realization that just because he could change things doesn’t mean he should. While the temptation to alter or “fix” a movie is natural, a revision can only work in addition to the original, and cannot replace it. Only by observing our past can we understand our present and, hopefully, build a better future. Film is forever.