Should creators be able to revisit and alter movies decades later?
Does it ever turn out well?
Never
Never
I bought samurai champloo bluray recently, bad purchase or not?
It depends on the viewer, I guess. Most don't care about special edition Star Wars with all that new whistles and bells cluttering the screen with shit.
Ghost in the Shell 2.0 is shit tho
They can. They shouldn't and nobody likes them but they're definitely allowed.
>>72087737
Pretty good. I think that, episode to episode, it's more enjoyable than Cowboy Bebop, though it doesn't quite reach the same highs that a few Bebop episodes had
>>72087676
If a director's vision is significantly altered by the studio, then yes. Cosmetic improvements are generally not a good idea, but their is some wiggle room for cleaning up matte lines or other optical errors.
Should they be ABLE to? Yes because it's a free fucking country.
But should they? Of course not we'll all mock them incessantly and the later versions will always be shit.
>>72088856
Not all later versions are shit.
Superman II
Alien 3
Blade Runner
Yes
>>72089215
OP isn't talking about Sequels, Alien 3 was shit and Blade Runner was never a movie before that.
>>72089332
completely unnecessary remake
>>72089365
You misunderstand me. All three films I listed were re-released after having been changed from the theatrical release. For Superman II, its the Richard Donner Cut, for Alien 3, its the Assembly Cut and for Blade Runner, its the The Final Cut.
In all three cases the later release is superior (IMHO).
