None of it ruins a movie per se, but when does the artists right to change his own art end? At some point it "belongs" to the audience (at least in their minds and hearts).
This actually raises an interesting question. When is an artist supposed to let go of a piece of art, stop revising it and let it stand on its own? I think we can all agree Lucas has crossed that line long ago, but when is an artists supposed to stop fiddling? Director's cuts can be make a movie better (Alien3 comes to mind) or even worse (Dune), so I'm not sure what the answer is.
I am fairly certain that time is a factor. No one is the same person they were say 5 years ago. Artists even more so, in my experience. That means that a different person is now fiddling with that masterpiece when the revision comes decades later. That's the path towards butchery and bowdlerization, i.e. the dark side.
I'm sorry, but I suspect your Gawker overlords bowed to the media powers-that-be and are forcing you guys to take the heat. Just blink twice for "Yes". Or have Gina right something in her blog...
Well, that eliminates Minnesota from Microsoft's GPS systems.
Peoples' belief in Zeus, Cthulhu or whatever fantasy makes them feel special is completely different than the application of the tools of science to understand reality.