I hear Ridley Scott has been tinkering with Blade Runner again. Obviously not content with the directors cut he released a while back, he's about to unleash The Final Cut. I gather he's erased a few wires from the flying cars, corrected a few continuity errors and added a couple of new scenes with Zhora, the snake dancer. I'm sure die-hard fans will appreciate the little extras, but I'm sure they do little to make this classic any better than it was when it was originally released over twenty years ago.
Despite it's age I would argue that its visual style has more than stood the test of time, and in most cases rarely been bettered. The whole reason it did work was because the interiors, costumes, vehicles and sets were real and not created on a computer. When you see Deckard running through the teeming streets of this nightmarish future city, you get a real sense of time and place. The complete opposite in fact of Anakin Skywalker chasing after the baddies in what is clearly a virtual environment.
Of course it's easy to blame George Lucas for this desire in filmmakers to revamp past works. Spielberg was guilty many years earlier of messing with Close Encounters and even Francis Ford Coppola had to go and spoil Apocalypse Now.
What's interesting though is that all the films I've mentioned are great films in their own right and really don't need any changes. Why don't directors go back and improve films that really need it?
Imagine how much better Casino Royale would be without the ridiculous Venice coda. Or Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade without the immortal guardian knight. And dare I say it Phantom Menace without Jar Jar binks.
(Sorry George, it's just so easy to blame you for everything)