This is the way.
Erasing any proof of the bad things we used to do is not good for the future. You need to leave them there and add a warning so the context of the time is considered, but it should ultimately be left alone.
I like the other peoples ideas of offering both the original cut and the recur edition that way people can choose how they want to see it.
stray@pawb.social 5 weeks ago
How is it dystopian?
ctenidium@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Someone else gets to decide what you may see and what you must not see based on their very own morale values. Also a (kind of a) historic document is being altered.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
I mean, that did that before the movie was released the first time.
When the movie is written, there’s someone deciding what they think you should see based on their morals and values. When it’s being filmed, that’s a part of it. When it’s being edited, those decisions are being made, and the entire movie ratings system is based around who can see what based on an arbitrarily picked set of morals.
I get that changing a movie after initial release is rarely going to be met with enthusiasm, but pretending that movies aren’t already very influenced by an arbitrary set of morals is just silly.
In this case, at least it’s the people that made and distributed the movie making the decision rather than some essentially anonymous board pushing shitty judeo-christian morals onto the rest of the world. This decision is a good one, to reduce bigotry in a character that is supposed to be a common man’s hero.
That’s an artistic choice, a narrative choice. And it’s being made with decades of improved thinking about how we should treat people.
Squizzy@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Societal pressure if changing a movie after the fact. The creative process is different to post release. It cant be compared.
Squizzy@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Going back and changing the record on how things were;is the main character’s job in 1984. It might not be as malicious but it is not the right course of action.
warbond@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
If I was re-releasing art that didn’t age well, especially if the part that aged like milk was otherwise insignificant, I would probably alter it as well. It’s not changing anything that’s already out there, it’s just a newer version.
Squizzy@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Is it under a different name? Is the previous version equally available. Can a consumer make an informed choice about getting the same quality of either version. Are they made aware at purchase it is not the original version?
Art is reflective of its time, be fair shit if they went back and put the snapchat dog filter on Night Fishing at Antibes, more contemporary…cubism is so out.