Merged Thread: Raiders of the Lost Ark: Problems, Title and Chapter Issues (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

The problem with this skit is the setting is a STAR TREK convention. It would stand to reason that an appearance by Shatner would entail answering questions about STAR TREK. Admittedly, the skit exaggerates the kind of questions that are asked at such a convention.

At a STAR TREK convention, or any convetion dealing with a specific subject, no one would be concerned about non-related matters: in this case, Shatner's desire to grow as an actor. I didn't see at any time Shatner being self-deprecating. The skit was specifically aimed at belittling the TREK fans.

If the writers had put this skit in a different setting it would have made more sense. For example, if Shatner was speaking at an actors convention. All of suddenly the "fans" show up and start asking all those stupid questions. Shatner then goes into his spiel, insulting them and generally making them look stupid. I would find that funny because he would be zeroing in on these specific twits. Setting the skit in a STAR TREK convention was just stupid, because you expect the hardcore fan, asking essentially irrelevant questions, to be in attendance.

The skit was designed to show all "trekkies" as morons, and Shatner helped to reinforce that conception by participating. As the host of the show he could have refused - if he had any class- to take part, because it is quite obvious that the intention of the skit was derision, not self deprecation.

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

Anyone have any insight on the chapter numbers being left out, and what this means for any future "Young Indiana Jones" DVD release and in what form they'll be released (episodic as on TV or re-edited into 22 chapters as for VHS)?

 

[todd s]

I remember going to a Trek convention right after that skit was aired. And it was constantly being shown to the fans. And they all loved it. Also, remember he also did a skit where he sat in front of a mirror and kept telling his wife that he had a good looking butt.

 

[Jake Johnson]

Part of me doesn't like the change to Raiders, but it makes the dvd match the other dvd's in the box, which I like. Since they didn't change it in the opening credits, I'm ok with the box being the way it is.

 

[John Alderson]

I use a chronilogical system. Far easier. But I still keep sequels and additonal parts together, ie. Fletch and Fletch Lives are together. Things like the Herzog & Kinski and Polanski (Region 2, Anchor Bay) boxed sets are trickier, but I'm, satisfied with the system. Looks neater. And at a glance, you can see just how dramatically the movies I like changes through the years! It's cool.

I once advocated such a system to my wife, but she just glared at me. She'd never be able to find anything, she doesn't memorize movie release years. Yeah, weird.

We did compromise; all of my Hitchcock films are arranged chronologically (I own 37 of them). I have a friend who arranged all his CD's by COLOR. Looked very cool (followed the order of colors in the rainbow as closely as possible); made it a bitch to find anything though.

About this off-topic Shatner thing, if you were offended/made mad/lost respect for him over that skit, you are precisely who the skit was ridiculing. And with good reason. I'm a die-hard Trek fan, and I think it's hilarious. Laugh at yourself for once.

 

[Mark-W]

Regarding the name change on the box only:

"A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."

I don't have any qualms with Lucas changing the
title of the film on the DVD cover to keep things
consistant with the other two films.
Actual changes to footage of the movie,
raises other issues that as a "non-hyper sensative"
film purist either do or don't bother me based on
my purely subjective criteria.

I also think the idea of "picking your battles"
comes to mind, and if one protests, what to my mind
are silly things like what the box calls the film,
all of your protests are going to be seens as
unwarranted.

The squeeky wheel gets oiled, but if
it squeeks all the time, eventually one would just
restort to sporting earplugs and ignoring it.




mark

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Also, remember he also did a skit where he sat in front of a mirror and kept telling his wife that he had a good looking butt.

"It's a young butt - a tight butt."

 

[JustinCleveland]

We did compromise; all of my Hitchcock films are arranged chronologically (I own 37 of them). I have a friend who arranged all his CD's by COLOR. Looked very cool (followed the order of colors in the rainbow as closely as possible); made it a bitch to find anything though.

"Autobiographical"

"Oh, wow."

High Fidelity, wonderful book/movie.

Personally, I have no preference on the name change, as long as it's correct on the film. I don't mind snappers, too, while we're on the subject, since the CONTENT is all that matters to me. I've got a moderate collection, at 300 DVDs, and they all fit well on my bookshelves.

 

[Beast]

It would have been great if they had left the box title untouched. Since the movie title itself is still Raiders of The Lost Ark, I can ignore the modified box title.

STAR WARS -A NEW HOPE (Episode IV) is a different story.

Well, unlike Indiana Jones which had the name on the box changed for the 1999 VHS re-release, this is a different matter. Lucas always had the chapter titles planned, but didn't want to put it on the first movie until he was sure it was a success and could ensure the sequels/prequels could be done. So when Star Wars opened in 1977, it was just 'Star Wars'.

But when Star Wars re-opened in 1980 before Empire Strikes Back premired, he finally added the episode title. As the first movie had been a big enough box office hit to allow for the production of sequels. That's also why ANH doesn't end with a Cliffhanger ending, like ESB does. It wraps the story up well, incase it bombed or didn't do well enough to get the sequels off the ground. Makes perfect sense to me.

The same thing was done with Raiders of the Lost Ark. But for some reason, instead of changing the title as soon as the first one was a big enough blockbuster to ensure the sequels would be done, it was left alone. Also because unlike Star Wars, there really isn't a storyline continuing through each film. Especially since Temple of Doom was basically a prequel to 'Raiders of the Lost Ark.'

So I have no issues with the Star Wars change, as it's been 'Star Wars - Episode IV: A New Hope' longer then it ever has been just 'Star Wars'.

 

[Seth--L]

Eh, I think they changed the naming formula for "Temple of Doom" for marketing purposes. If the title was just "Temple of Doom", you wouldn't know that it was another Indiana Jones film. The title "Indiana Jones and the..." pretty much markets itself.

 

[Basi Nanda]

The opening sequence in the Raiders DVD appeared to be too dark to me. To verify this, I popped in my VHS tape to see if it was the same on the tape. To my surprise, the VHS tape showed details in the picture that were completely blacked out on the DVD.

For example, after the paramount logo changes into the real mountain, they show Harrison Ford's back. On the VHS tape, I could very clearly see that he is wearing a jacket. I could clearly see the two back pockets on his trousers. I cpould clearly see the edge of his jacket and the border of his jacket . But on the DVD, all I see is a completely black shape walking. No amount of increase in brightness could show the details I see on the tape.

A comparison of the entire opening sequence between the VHS tape and DVD showed an incredible amount of detail that I see on the tape being completely blackened out on the DVD.

Why is this?

 

[Magnus T]

Screengrabs would help build your case.

 

[Basi Nanda]

Actually I do not have the equipment to grab the VHS picture. I can easily capture the DVD picture though.

Only way to prove my case is to ask other people here in this forum who may own a copy of the original VHS tape from paramount, and observe and compare these scenes.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

Many early video transfers were always too bright and showed things the film makers didn't want people to see. For instance in the Star Wars films the transfers were so bright that special effects flaws you never saw in the theater became apparent. Also some sequences like R2 being captured by the Jawas on video looked like broad daylight, while in the theater it was a night scene.

The opening sequence of Raiders is supposed to be dark, so my guess is the new 16x9 transfer got it right and the old transfer used for the VHS release got it wrong. You might see more on the VHS, but it's stuff you're not supposed to see.

Neil

 

[HankM]

I also remember watching my Star Wars Trilogy CAV laserdisc box set and seeing transparent squares around the tie-fighters. It was very annoying to say the least. I know now with DVD those will be gone.

 

[Basi Nanda]

I see. But having watched the tape all these years while waiting for the DVD, I got used to the details showing up. Now when I see the DVD, it feels as if I am watching a different movie. I need to get used to this new look.

The darkness of the picture is only in the opening scene where they are walking through the forest, until the point where Harrison Ford's face is revealed. Afterwards, the picture looks better. But there were no special effects in the scenes that were darkened. So I wonder why they had to be darkened.

 

[Basi Nanda]

I also remember watching my Star Wars Trilogy CAV laserdisc box set and seeing transparent squares around the tie-fighters. It was very annoying to say the least. I know now with DVD those will be gone.

Most likely they will be digitally erased, rather than darkening the picture to hide them.

 

[Darren Haycock]

I remember when I was younger I noticed those transparent squares. They drove me nuts, and nobody else seemed to notice them. I found that turning the darkness level way up on the TV helped, but yeah, hopefully that gets fixed.

 

[Seth--L]

So that the brightness/contrast would more loyal to how the it was on film.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

So that the brightness/contrast would more loyal to how the it was on film.

Why does everyone instantly defend the release of a movie on DVD? It's as if nothing is EVER wrong when a movie is mastered onto DVD, and older versions are NEVER better.

Sometimes mistakes are made....look for yourself before judging this guy's POV. He may be onto something...