raiders of the Lost Ark..........To be digitally edited!!!! (2 Viewers)

[Damin J Toell]

Every time I have watched it with people over the years, they all say, "Look at the refelection! WEAK!"

It sounds like you need better movie-watching companions.

DJ

 

[Jesse Skeen]

But again, if you allow this, how far do you let it go? Does it then make it OK to redo special effects that look fake, or to re-shoot scenes with bad acting? I say once the theatrical prints are made, that's the final version of the movie.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I say once the theatrical prints are made, that's the final version of the movie.

I say when you make your own movie, you can feel free to make up the rules for it. I say that when someone else makes a movie, please don't try to put limits on them based on what you want.

DJ

 

[JoshB]

My personal opinion: If it wasn't the director's intent, or was never meant to be in the film, then it doesn't belong. Of course, this doesn't always apply. Sometimes actors adlib dialogue or improvise certain scenes for various reasons, but when a crew member or piece of equipment that is meant for the production of the film is visible, it should not belong. Maybe you like to see crew members or boom mikes or other things in your movies, but the overall feel and enjoyment is hurt when you see soemthing like the reflection. Why would someone want somethign liek that visible in the film? If it wasn't supposed to be their, and was discovered afterward, then it should be removed if possible to do so. The excuse "I say once the theatrical prints are made, that's the final version of the movie" is a joke. If this was to be so, think how many movies would have had revealing mistakes in them, and think how they would have turned out and ow they would later be ridiculed?



"I say once the theatrical prints are made, that's the final version of the movie"



Their would be no LOTR: FOTR EE if this were to be so.

Director's can't always have the completed works put to the screen the way it was meant to be shown. This is why thjeir is home video. So that later on when the movei is doen in thaters and is being sent to video where it will be the rest of its life, it can be fixed so that it is the version that was meant to be, and doesn't have any errors or mistakes that weren't meant to be their.



"I say once the theatrical prints are made, that's the final version of the movie"



This reminds me of two films in particular: Ridley Scott's Blade Runner and Legend. What if we were stuck with those versions forever? Or, the soon to be released although not yet confirmed Alien 3, the version Fincher wanted. Should we be left with what we've seen all these years, when a better version is available quality wise?



"I say once the theatrical prints are made, that's the final version of the movie"



If this were meant to be so, I think our overall impression of films would be changed, and we would never know that a better more correct and proper version was their all along, but since the so called "final version" was made, it shouldn't be changed at all whatsoever. What hits the theaters is not always what is meant to be their. IT has to be changed so that it can accomodate certain things like run times, ratings, and viewers expectations. The reflection in Raiders was never meant to be their, yet it was. Losing it is not losing the film. Unless its E.T. or Star Wars, where scenes are removed or edited to be more PR or to put in new effects or new scenes, then that is another issue. In Raiders case, it is not taking something out of the film, its fixing something that should not have been their. It wasn't supposed to be, so it shouldn' be their.



"I say once the theatrical prints are made, that's the final version of the movie"



What if their are missing frames or sound effects in the film that are in error. Would you really want to hear dialogue that if off or sound effects that don't match? How will you be able to enjoy a film if all you concentrate on is the mistakes that were made? Do you want to pay money on a DEFECTIVE product, but not want it fixed because its what the company gave you, thinking it was the "Final Version." How far will the companies go then? Replacing defective products with proper ones, doing factory recalls? You want to drive a car that has faulty brakes, but not want it fixed because thats what they gave you, and you think that maybe this was their intent? Once the product hits the shelf, thats the "final version." Is this what you are trying to say?

if a mistake slips past someone before it reaches theaters, then as far as I'm concerned it's too late- you've offically got a mistake in your movie and no fair changing it for a video release!

That sounds like the same thing someone would say if they work for a company that makes a defective product that kills people, but since thats what hit the street, thats what people are stuck with. What if one of your DVDs is defective? Thats the final version, so thats what were stuck with?

 

[Larry Talbot]

I always remembered this scene, since the very first time I saw the movie in the theater. Indy crouches, looks up, right into the face of a rearing hooded cobra, and there is a brief reflection revealing a clear plastic divider between them. It's very fast, but it is there and it is unmistakable. There are many moments in many films where the secret of how the shot was created is inadvertently revealed. It's no big deal, just as long as it isn't jarring enough to disrupt the movie's spell completely.


My vote would be to take it out, it was a mistake, it doesn't add to what the director was trying to, it detracts from that, so get rid of it.

I wouldn't feel outraged if the reflection was left in however. It doesn't seriously mar a great film so what do I care?

I DO care about being forced to buy a trilogy of films when one of them suffers from severe defects and should have been shot at birth. Why do I have to buy the one maladapted sequel in order to buy the great original? It's a rip off I tells ya.

As for those who say removing the unintended reflection is some how marring the original experience, to you I say Pshaw! If the lab accidentally tinted a scene light pink, would that have to stay in too? Makes as much sense.

Removing mistakes that weren't supposed to have been there is fine. Removing elements that WERE supposed to be there is not fine. I think it was stupid for Spielberg to remove the guns from ET. Yes, in the wake of Columbine, guns in kids movies take on a slightly different tone, but ET was made BEFORE Columbine and should stand as an accurate reflection of what was happening at the time, not forced to conform to new concerns raised decades later. Art should not have to be recast in the media spotlight of the moment. It should have the courage of its own convictions, the courage to be eternal, to stand on its own.

Now if Spielberg were to add, say - CGI snakes to the Raiders scene, THAT would be awesome!

Just kidding.

 

[DaveGTP]

Removing mistakes that weren't supposed to have been there is fine. Removing elements that WERE supposed to be there is not fine.

Just a 23-yr old college student here, not a film buff, but I agree totally with these comments.

 

[Chris Dugger]

It is one thing to change the intent of a scene (Solo/Geedo or removing guns from fbi agents).... It is another when you clean up a mistake (removing booms, people, etc).

One I find totally acceptable.....

 

[John Alderson]

When 'The Fellowship of the Ring' was released on dvd, a car was digitally removed from a wide shot of Sam and Frodo walking across a field.

Except it wasn't. There was never a car there to begin with. Peter Jackson says so on the commentary on the EE. I cannot fathom why he would lie about such a thing, so I believe him. Also check the "trivia" (EDIT: I meant "goofs") section for FOTR on imdb. This has never been substantiated (and I've looked for it myself, several times theatrically, never having seen it).

But even if he did do it, it'd be ok If they do indeed remove the snake reflections, I'd miss the little snafu that I've always pointed out to people, but I'm still in favor of it. Why they'd bother spending the money to do so, I couldn't say.

 

[Ray H]

On the commentary for FOTR, PJ says he never saw it, but then on the technical commentary, the editor says they digitally removed the car for the DVD.

 

[Mark_vdH]

RE LOTR:

Just check the soundtrack featurette on disc 4. The car is definitely in the shot!

Peter Jackson is a liar...

 

[TerryW]

I would be perfectly fine with the removal of the reflection in RAIDERS as long as there is a discussion of it elsewhere on the supplemental disc along with screen shots comparing the two. I'd hate for future generations to never have knowledge of this famous error.

 

[ToEhrIsHuman]

What about Belloch's inhaled fly or the infamous bouncing stone block? Will they stay or will they go?

 

[Dan Lindley]

TerryW: a very good point, best yet. Sure take out the goof, but note it elsewhere on the disc for posterity. Excellent.

And I agree with many that altering movies in substantive but ultimately political ways (removing guns, un-PC references) is bad. Things change. Any involved parent can capitalize on the change. Ie, "back then, people didn't know how bad smoking was" and so forth. Bad things are out there, it is up to parents to deal with it. Not post-hoc directors/editors!.

As for EE's etc, bring them on. Just so long as the original is also out there, too.

DL

 

[GregK]

What about Belloch's inhaled fly or the infamous bouncing stone block? Will they stay or will they go?

In a previous thread on the rumored Raiders CGI clean up enhancements, many HTF member weighed the pros and cons of this approach. It seemed the majority thought 'the fly' was a good line-in-the-sand scene that should not be tampered with.

No fly ..no sale.

 

[Darren Pillans]

Usually I'm against altering movies, but I see this as an exception.

Harrison Ford acts totally petrified whilst staring at the snake. The reflection totally negates any tension the moment is intended to have. It's just plain lame.

I suspect many younger viewers will be introduced to this movie via this upcoming DVD. Could you imagine how'd they'd react to the reflection?

If you can fix it and the scene is otherwise EXACTLY the same, why the hell not?

I've always felt this mistake was the only technical thing preventing Raiders from being action cinema perfection.

 

[Paul_Stachniak]

As long as the Indiana Jones logo isn't pasted over top of 'Raiders of the Lost' in the film's opening credits. I will be fine.

 

[Michael Martin]

If it wasn't the director's intent, or was never meant to be in the film, then it doesn't belong.

I agree with this, and it's why my ideal release of Dragonslayer would have all the crappy bluescreen work cleaned up. I DON'T want an all new digital Vermithrax, but having the matte lines cleaned up and the color corrected would go a long way to preserving the illusion. And I have a hard time believing the director of the film WANTED the dragon's flight and movement to look so "pasted in."

 

[Scott Littlefield]

Well, that and the large bar that guides the rolling boulder down the path at the beginning of the movie when Indy is escaping the cave.

 

[Matt Birchall]

I've seen Raiders more than a few times, and have no idea where in the movie this happens. Can someone remind me, please?

You can see it while Belloq is giving his "blow it back to God" speech during the bazooka stand-off, just before the finale. It's on a closeup of Belloq, and I believe the fly lands on his chin, kind of underneath a corner of his mouth, and just crawls in.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

The fly occurs on the line, "You're going to give mercenaries a bad name."

Neil