I can think of two authors off the top of my head who did just that: Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game) and K.A. Applegate (Animorphs). Originally, Ender's Game was a much shorter story. Card added a little over 100 pages to it. Applegate is re-editing and re-releasing the Animorphs books to expand the storyline a bit and address continuity errors.

Lucas added a bunch of stuff to the original SW trilogy because he didn't have the funding needed to put it in the first time around. Did you know that the small army of Ewoks was originally intended to me a large army of Wookies, but the studio nixed the idea because it was too expensive? If I'd come up with an entire universe and a movie studio screwed it up over money, I'd want to revisit it too. I don't like all the changes he made (Han shot first, damn it!), but I understand his reasons.

Also, if authors/creators/whatever didn't own their stuff after it was released, SOPA, PIPA, OPEN and other such internet censorship proposals wouldn't be making the rounds.

The only part I even remember and maybe even noticed was some Jellyfish things that floated around for a moment.

Does that mean we should go back and change the whole scene to have it be Wookies instead of Ewoks now? Because that was the "original idea"?

Why can't they just let the poor thing be instead of trying to go back and edit it over and over again?

What if da Vinci was still alive and just walked into the museum holding the Mona Lisa and started "editing" it to be closer to his "original idea"?

Copyright means you get credit for and money for something you created, and nobody else can claim they created it or make money off of it without your permission. It doesn't mean you have a free pass to go and keep changing it and tweaking it and adding things to it for years, YEARS, after it's been out.

It really depends on the content that is displayed in 3D.

For instance, the game 'Dead Space' really benefits from 3D because of the way it's made. The actual in-game menus are like holograms within the game, not just some 2D Flash-HUD slapped ontop of it.

Funnily enough, the only 3D that has worked for me is Anaglyph (Red/Cyan)http://www.coolshop.dk/catalog/images/boxshots/20066-forside.jpg.
Everytime I have entered an electronics store where they have had those 3D TV's with the (i presume) 120 Hz 'shutter 3D', the 3D effect has never worked for me - and I have tried it many times to see if it would work
Maybe I'm just doing it wrong..

I heard that it was because George Lucas thought that an army of Wookiees would be too violent and would not fit with the spirit of the Rebels, who were supposed to look like super stereotypical good guys, so they changed the Wookiees for something cuter. While I have come to really, really dislike Lucas over the years, your explanation still sounds a lot more plausible. It's not like I need more reasons to hate George Lucas anyway.

Concerning 3d movies in general, I can't see 3d either in movies or RL so that doesn't do much for me. Still, I'm quite exited to see a whole bunch of movies in the theatre that I never had a chance to before (in most cases because I wasn't born yet).

I hate the 3D aspect being done on old movies, but I do like when they put a more modern flare on an older movie, but as long as they do not destroy the original story.
The thing that bugged me the most had to be whan the new tron came out, the lightcycles turned. I liked the jumping aspect, but turning made it FAR too complicated.

I like my 3DS, and that's about it.

No i dont like it, its a money making fad because movies are so crap nowadays, they need some sort of thing to try and draw crowds, because lots of people are vacating the cinemas. As rhekarid said in their post, about it causing headaches, its a common complaint ive heard from people, a freind who has glasses wont watch it because the glasses dont fit correctly over his glasses, and without his glasses he cant see the screen, myself personally i cant see the 3d effect constantly, it seems to flicker and i can go for long periods with no effect at all.

In isolation in my area they are losing customers because movies are to expensive here, plus finding decent parking is a problem, and sitting in a theatre with people talking, and using mobile phones during the movie, plus agressive teenagers either drunk or under the influence of drugs, you can sit at home and watch it on your tv for less greif. Plus organising getting to watch a movie at the set times, when with watching at home you can choose whenever, not to early barely enough time to eat after work and travel to the cinema, or to late when you have to go to work the next day.

As much as im happy to say this, but in the good ole days, it was worth going to the cinema, it was cheaper, better films, and people always knew cinema ettiquette and didnt talk and no such thing as mobile phones, if your were drunk you never even got in the building.

Don't like 3D. I will always choose 2D over 3D, sometimes 3D sends my eyes funny. I think it's wrong for films to only be released in 3D.

A recent example is Underworld: Awakening. The 3D effects actually weren't too bad in this film, but I still would have preferred to see it normally. Plus it irritated me that there was no 2D option, so I was forced to pay an extra ￡3 (about $5) on the ticket price for the privilege of seeing it in a dimension I didn't even want.

You won't catch me going to see the 3D re-boots of old films I've already seen either. I think it's a very lazy and money-grabbing thing for the film industry to do.

I hate it. Same goes for HD remakes of video games. Why can't they be left in their original form?

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Lucas had a vision and the studio he was beholden to screwed it up. Now that he has the money, he wants to make it what he originally intended. As the creator and author, he has the right to see to it that his creation matches his intent. Many mod authors do the same with their mods: They release something close to what they want, but not quite there due to any number of factors (not enough time to tweak, insufficient knowledge to accomplish the task, waning interest in the project, etc.). After a while, they release an updated version of the mod that's closer to their vision. Even video game companies edit (oh, sorry, I mean "patch") their games after release to get them closer to the original intent.

A detailed examination of the Mona Lisa revealed multiple layers of paint (and multiple images), indicating that da Vinci did actually "edit" his work after putting paint to canvas.

No dispute there.

Yeah, actually it does. If I build a car from scratch, I am the owner of that car and I can do whatever I please with it as long as it's legal. That means I can add whatever the hell I want to it, tweak it however I want and keep adding to it or tweaking it for as long as I want (again, providing that my additions and tweaks are legal). If Lucas wants to ruin his creation in the eyes of the fans to make it into what he wants, he has the right to do so since it's his creation.

The originals are available for purchase for those of us who don't like the re-releases, so there's no real reason for anyone to complain.

I don't really care. I do have a 3D TV, and I really do like playing games and watching movies in 3D. If I have the option, I'll take it. That said, I certainly don't condone the cash-in that some re-released movies and games obviously are.

same, I have one eye which makes 3D unviewable to me, and as you said as well, those asinine glasses are annoying since they also mute the color of the film. It's a pain since my family insists on seeing movies in 3D now >.<

I took my kids to see Star Wars the day it was released. I thought it was a terrific movie for two reasons.
One it was non-stop action - and Two - the most impressive thing of all... the spaceships looked USED. That really stood out it was the first time I had seen my favorite genre of movies - sci-fi - make the spaceships look as if they really had been used before.
However altho' I've watched a few more since they pale in comparison of the first movie.