That assumes there's intrinsic value in preserving history. One of my favorite works of art is Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn by Ai Weiwei. To me it symbolizes breaking with the past and not being held prisoner by tradition. Spielberg doesn't want his own art to be changed because it's his and he wants the original artist's intent to be preserved. I don't think future generations are under any obligation to honor artist's intent.
I have strongly mixed feelings about this because:
1. I completely agree with you, art is changed as people change, and just because something is historic doesn't necessarily make it good or meaningful today (although nor does it make it meaningless).
2. Modern copyright law completely undermines point 1. If "we" are not allowed to change a thing because the right to change it is in the hands of a very small privileged group, then I wholeheartedly think the thing should be left the fuck alone.
---
Basically - Want to rewrite that novel to use modern wording and sentiments? Go right ahead, but now that original work must be considered public domain.
Re: 2, why should someone recreating a work of their own invalidate their right to the original? I think current copyright laws are ridiculous, but within that framework why can’t a creator have two version of something they name the same thing at the same time?
While I’m not a fan of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, should the movie invalidate the copyright on the radio shows that invalidated the copyright on the books that invalidated the copyright of the original radio shows?
I have more concerns about companies sitting on works in a “vault” for decades. If a rightsholder isn’t making public a work they’ve been given exclusivity to to encourage developing collective culture, they should forfeit that right, IMHO.
On the other hand, if I was paid royalties for all of the code I have that’s still running somewhere on some system and generating revenue somewhere, I’d probably fight to keep that money coming in, too!
There is value in that. One thing is tradition and one thing is media or history. I agree that traditions and culture should advance but by means of creating new things not overwritting existing ones.
The Wire would not be the wire without the accent, manerisms including slurs, drugs and police brutality.
Dazed & Confused would not be the same without the 70s issues and fortunes but you have the show Skins replacing those with the 2000 "revisions" or Euphoria with the 2020 ones. There is no need to rewrite any of those.
It could be argued that in movies like Blade Runner the rapey scene of Deckard and Rachel does not add anything to the story or characters. Ignoring the technical difficulty of changing those scenes without altering the story narrative or the character morals and flaws at the end of the day is a product of it's time with it's flaws.
In this case it was designed that way on purpose although I consider the reasons weak and it could have been done better if that was the intent. It doesn't help that the actress did not enjoy making the scene. https://youtu.be/vIdlYzbugT8?t=261
It can also be interpreted as Deckard being a lowlife scum that purposely rapes Rachel taking advantage of the fact that she is being hunted, he is the only one who is going to protect her and she knows it.
In this case maybe not you or me would care if the scene was rewritten but I'm sure someone trying to study older movies, a director or Harrison Ford cuestionable love scenes would if only the rewritten movie had survived.
If remakes add something to the table it's the ability to reimagine stories in a less flawed way by our standards without deleting the past.
TLDR; rewriting media is very nuanced and we should take the easy way out of remaking it or creating new stuff instead.
It's funny you should cite Blade Runner which was the canonical case of a Director's Cut being very different from the editor's cut. A studio-produced film is made by a committee as a commerical product. One they can recall. There's actually tons of subtle edits than can happen between a theatrical release and a home video release that barely get noticed.
Not to mention Blade Runner was a book first and a remake most recently. There's no canon, it's fiction. And man, canon. The Christian Bible is edition of pure convenience based on centuries of oral fable. Trying to stamp a canonical version is anathema.
