[mandmandam]

You said "I don't mind the alternative moralist edits".

I do mind, and my point is that basically every creative would also mind having their work subjected to "alternative moralist edits", especially without their consent and/or after their death.

That's not the same thing as George Lucas adding random CG crap; false equivalence.

If I understand what you're saying, it's that as long as the original is available it's fine, if annoying, for publishers to re-edit and profit from bastardized, censored, altered versions of creators work.

That's why I ask if you're a creator - because no creator, ever, anywhere, at any time, has expressed a preference - or even a tolerance - for having their work fucked with like this.

[janmarsal]

Well, to me those moralist edits are like those reader's digest books with shortened edits of novels. I really don't mind their existence, as long as they're labeled as special edits for a niche market rather than an attempt to replace the original.

[mandmandam]

... But it's not like that.

That's not what Spielberg is talking about at all. These rewritings and revision are quite different; in scope, in manner, in presentation and in purpose.

What happened to Dahl, or the 1984 audiobook, etc, are nothing like a Reader's Digest regurgitation.