Dek Rollins said:
It’s still the same film.
Fair enough. In this instance, even the title change is enough for me to distinguish one as a stand alone & the other as part of a series.
I don’t think that logic applies to every situation. I watch the original version as part of a trilogy. Not the 1981 version. Yes, watching it as a standalone is simpler if you watch the original, but neither version functions only within such an exclusive setting. It’s just a movie, and it can be viewed under whatever lens the viewer chooses. The '81 version doesn’t have a “to be continued” added at the end, a la Back to the Future. 😉
I think it’s worth noting that people usually don’t say this sort of thing about other films that have “director’s cuts” that only change a couple of scenes. The DC of Star Trek II isn’t a different movie, it’s just a better version of the same movie. In the case of Star Wars, we’re talking about a release that had literally zero editing or content changes throughout the film, other than the opening shot being recomposited with a subtitle added. Again, Star Trek II didn’t have the “II” in the opening title on some prints, but nobody would argue this changes the film fundamentally.
I guess it has more to do with nerdy semantics than anything. : )
Of course. Semantics can always be discussed.