I always find it interesting that there is a general disapproval of George Lucas going back and making changes to the ‘Star Wars’ movies, but a general acceptance of the re-mastered versions of the original series Star Trek episodes. Granted, there were some effects that just did NOT hold up since 1966 and the new version of the “paradise” planet in ‘The Way To Eden’, for instance, helps to bring a terrible episode up to almost-passable status. (The space hippies are still pretty ridiculous, though.) It may be that the changes to Trek are merely cosmetic in most cases, while Lucas has shown repeatedly that he is never satisfied with his finished work and wants to take any and all opportunities to “fix” aspects of the work. It’s kind of an admirable view, really, given the number of people who seem to take a laconic, “That’s probably good enough” view of their work, but it does raise the question of whether the updated versions should be considered as different art entirely… If, for instance, John Byrne were to redraw ‘The Dark Knight Returns,’ would it still be the same as the original Frank Miller madness?
The MS-QOTD (pronounced, as always, “misquoted”) is a doctor, not a human-resources specialist, asking:
Given the option, what classic pop culture would you go back and enhance? Could it still be considered the same work afterwards?