Force.net : Indy Digital Cleanup by ILM (1 Viewer)

[Tom De Rosa]

From
TheForce.net:

SPY REPORT: Indy DVD - Special Edition
Wed, Apr 09, 03 09:42:18 AM EDT


Many Indiana Jones fans have been elated to hear that the Indy franchise will soon be arriving on DVD. And while not much has been known about the project so far, we've got some sources on the inside that are starting to spill some details.
Industrial Light and Magic are working on the Indy DVD Trilogy right now. Hard to believe, isn't it? Hopefully, it will be worth the wait. Here's what I do know - apparently ILM is having to conduct a major restoration of the original print. There's quite a bit of digital film cleanup they're conducting as well.
No, there's not new scenes added (and the guy with the sword doesn't shoot first, thank goodness), but they are removing certain errors and weak elements from the picture. Expect wiring, equipment and reflections to be removed digitally - anything that distracted or looked weak in the final release may be evaluated again. Basically they've come up with a list of what gets fixed. When you see the DVD, hopefully the only thing you'll see is a beautiful movie with great sound, not lots of little annoyances that Steve and George want out.

Interesting!


Take it for what's it's worth.

 

[Richard Kim]

This is already being talked about in this thread:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=112590

 

[Terry St]

Raiders just won't be the same without the infamous bouncing rubber brick. :frowning:

But seriously, does anyone else feel that these little mistakes are a part of the origional film? If they're going to be digitally removed then hopefully they'll at least be included as a special feature.

 

[Paul Case]

But seriously, does anyone else feel that these little mistakes are a part of the origional film? If they're going to be digitally removed then hopefully they'll at least be included as a special feature.

This is a joke, right?

 

[JulianK]

Thank goodness. I've always said Raiders would be a decent movie, if it weren't for those pesky weak elements.

 

[Paul Arnette]

This is a joke, right?

This thread is bound to be closed, but, what the heck, I'll pipe in on this one.

Why would you assume his request is a joke? If they are going through the effort of this type of restoration, I would definitely be interested in see a documentary on the effort and what was cleaned up.

 

[Gary->dee]

Hopefully they can remove the reflection of the Cobra in the glass that separates it and Harrison when he falls into the chamber where the Ark is. I suspect that might be one of the digital clean-ups ILM will perform.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

Why can't they just leave "well enough" alone. Now we'll be looking for what they "fixed" instead of trying to enjoy the movie.

And the film was a product of 1981 technology, not 2003 technology. I don't like this idea of "fixing" flaws.

Neil

 

[Dale Ridgeway]

quote:
"Why can't they just leave "well enough" alone. Now we'll be looking for what they "fixed" "
Greta Van Susteren comes to mind!
Um, nevermind!

 

[oscar_merkx]

oh well I never knew about the Cobra & the reflections

never mind

 

[James L White]

seemless braching is the answer include te unualtered version and the "fixed" version on the same DVD and veryone will be happy

 

[John Alderson]

seemless braching is the answer include te unualtered version and the "fixed" version on the same DVD and veryone will be happy

Seamless branching is VERY difficult to do right and full of compromises; don't expect to see it too much in the future.

 

[Gary->dee]

oh well I never knew about the Cobra & the reflections

The reflections coming off the glass between Harrison and the snake aren't a major deal. But once you notice the reflections it kind of draws attention to itself. Sort of like the opening of the Ark. :p)

 

[Patrick McCart]

I don't see what the big deal is. ILM did the original effects work, so why not?

It's not like the film needs optical effect flaws to maintain the status of the film...

Oh yeah...filmmakers supervising this again. Can't have those evil filmmakers work on their films, can we?

 

[Gary->dee]

Most people are just afraid of the word "change". Even if they don't realize what changes were made, at first the idea can be intimidating. On the other hand, considering some of the lame changes Lucasfilm made with the Star Wars trilogy, I don't blame people for being a little jumpy at the thought of LFL and ILM making any changes to the Indy movies.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I don't mind them cleaning up the original elements. I just have a problem with the addition of NEW elements because the originals "just aren't good enough anymore." Since we've had no evidence that new elements are being added, I'm a contented lil' geek.

 

[James Reader]

This is nothing more than a joke. It just shows that Lucas and Spielberg don't have any confidence in their film anymore. Anyone who knows my posting history knows my opinion on retroactive changes to films.

It is a big deal - cleaning up mistakes or not. It is changing history... and only those with big egos think that they can change history.

Would you have the same opinion if Alice Walker decided to change passages in her Award Winning Color Purple Novel? ("I think I can include much more emotion in that paragraph now, based on how my writing has matured since it was first written").

I don't know of one single novel which has been rewritten is such a way. Why do moviemakers (in particular George Lucas) think it is necessary to do so? It's a trend that has to be stopped.

My main problem is, no matter how little time is taken up with the alterations, I'm sure we'd all agree George Lucas, Steven Speilberg and ILM would be better off investing their time and energy into new projects instead of altering a film everybody is perfectly happy with.

The way thing are going, we won't have many new films in 20 years time - computer effects will make it possible to alter existing films ad nausem, something it appears lazy filmmakers would rather do than push themselves creatively to make new films.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[Gary->dee]

I completely understand and respect Lucas or Spielberg's right to go back and adjust, tweak or change things, regardless of the amount of time that has passed since they first presented their movies. Speaking for myself as a graphic designer, I frequently go back and make alterations to a piece I've already created and thought I'd finished because I think I found a way to make it look better. I can guarantee that there's always something that I think I could fix on one of my graphic designs, whether it's a piece I've made for myself or a website like theforce.net. I'm never completely satisfied with anything I've made and always see room for improvement. For me and I also suspect for filmmakers like Lucas and Spielberg, the passage of time isn't a deciding factor and doesn't deter the creative process from stopping to want to make changes. Basically when you combine creativity and the striving for perfection the result can be a constantly changing canvas, whether it's a film or graphic. And because technology allows for such changes to take place with such ease, it frees the creator from a confined point of having to deal with what they've made forever as opposed to going back and dealing with something that perhaps has nagged them since first seeing their work.

So it would be hypocritical for me to think any filmmaker or anyone creating something doesn't have the right to make changes to their creation. Even if it does mean making what I think are stupid changes like Greedo shooting first in A New Hope or Vader uttering new useless lines in Empire. I never hold the original material so close to my heart that I can't allow room for the creator to make changes, regardless of how much time I've had to live with what they've made.

 

[Francois Caron]

A bouncing rubber brick?

Does someone have the approximate time where this happens? I need to check this out on my LD copy.

As for the subject at hand, I don't mind them cleaning up the movie a bit. But when they start to remove physical objects from the screen instead of just smoothing out bad matte effects and such, that may become a problem. I have quite a few old movies that were lovingly restored with missing scenes added back into the picture, but I don't remember any of them having physical objects added or removed during the restoration process. And despite their age and sometimes cheesy special effects, they're still among the best movies I've ever seen.

It seems modern moviemakers have forgotten the meaning of the expression "in the can". :frowning:

 

[TedT]

Are they going to replace all the guns in the movie with walkie talkies?