raiders of the Lost Ark..........To be digitally edited!!!! (1 Viewer)

[Glenn Overholt]

Ok, I sort of got carried away with it, but - and you can take this to any extreme that you want to, Lucas has taken this liberty. Other directors could decide to change any of their films, going back years and years.

The reflection was there, and I know it and expect to see it. When I don't, my mind - well, I won't get into that, but in any event, changes of any kind change history in a way.

A few years back I mentioned that what if a painter showed up at the Met (New York) with a bottle of paint and a brush and told the guard that he had made a mistake on one of his paintings and was here now to fix it?

Glenn

 

[Brenton]

Yeah, I thought about that too. It would be pretty weird.

SELECT HERE TO WATCH THE ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSION OF THE MOVIE.

SELECT HERE TO WATCH A VERSION OF THE MOVIE THAT IS **ALMOST!!*** EXACTLY LIKE THE ORIGINAL VERSION EXCEPT THAT ABOUT A HALF A SECOND OF THE MOVIE HAS BEEN CHANGED WHEREIN A REFLECTION HAS BEEN DIGITALLY REMOVED FROM A PIECE OF GLASS THAT SEPERATED A SNAKE FROM ACTOR HARRISON FORD DURING FILMING. THE REFLECTION WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE THERE. (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS VERSION OF THE FILM IS DIRECTOR STEVEN SPIELBERG'S PREFERRED VERSION.) (PLEASE NOTE ALSO THAT THIS VERSION TAKES ADVANTAGE OF "SEAMLESS BRANCHING" TECHNOLOGY WHICH YOUR BRAND OF DVD PLAYER MAY OR MAY NOT BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING SEAMLESSLY)

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

A few years back I mentioned that what if a painter showed up at the Met (New York) with a bottle of paint and a brush and told the guard that he had made a mistake on one of his paintings and was here now to fix it?

Apples and Oranges. If the DVD is in fact altered, it will simply mean that there are corrected copies of the original product out there. A more proper comparison would be the painter taking a print of one of his paintings and painting the corrections on that. Then having any further prints be derived from that rather than the original work. Meanwhile, the original artwork still exists.

That said, I'm absolutely with you on changing films to meet the current political climate or whatever. The SE of E.T. is a big no-no for me. But when no part of the plot and characters and meaning of the scene has been changed, I can't really see the problem. It's not even like their making CG changes to bring it up to speed; they're simply fixing a mistake that could have been fixed then had they noticed.

 

[AaronMan]

I wish they'd leave everything the same (cobra reflection, big bouncing block, extension pole under truck, fly in Belloq's mouth, Indy stting on the chair in front of the truck, hook on whip, speeded up film while Indy is dragged, etc.), but I'll still buy it on DVD. I have the laserdisc, anyway. However, if they do fix it, it better be perfect! I don't want to see a blurry haze over Indy's face as they try to get rid of the reflection. Do it absolutely flawless or don't do it at all.

You know what is funny though? I went to a midnight showing of Raiders a few years ago, and everytime one of the famous flaws came up, it got some of the biggest reactions from the crowd. Now when people watch it, the flaws will stick out because of their absence. I guess you can't win either way.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

And what about the millions of people that go back to see the original again, and discover that it is not the same now? What will they be thinking, - Crap, my print isn't any good anymore?

It is easy to say - Well, ok, they changed it, but as noted before, future generations will know nothing of it. The VHS copies will have long since all worn out, and now this minor flaw has been totally removed from history.

That's almost like cheating on a test, isn't it?

Glenn

 

[GregGS]

Obviously, it's not the end of the world if they change it, but I really wish they'd just leave it alone...I've loved the movie all these years, reflection and all (and as some others have said, if it's ok to eliminate "gaffs" why not eliminate bad special effects, and bad acting as well--maybe in Godfather 3 they could just digitally replace Sophia Coppola, since many feel she ruined the movie).

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I dunno. I guess this really doesn't bother me that much, certainly not enough to not buy the disc(s).

However, I think the reason you get a stronger reaction to this than the car in Fellowship or the cameraman in Eyes Wide Shut, is that those things were corrected on their initial video releases, before most people were even aware of them. Raiders, however, has been seen over and over by many people who have grown up watching it on TV and video. And that reflection has become a classic movie goof for fans to go back and look at.

Oh, well, though. If they mention it in the retrospective and show the unaltered clip, then I will be fine with it.

 

[DeanWG]

Wouldn't it be awesome if they digitally updated the movie, "Wargames" and have Matthew Broderick playing Global Thermonuclear War on a current Windows XP system?

Impossible. That computer is on a LOT in the movie . . . they would have to film new scenes with Broderick CTRL-ALT-DEL-ing background programs that are not responding, and maybe even a blue screen of death creeping up and forcing a restart.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't have a problem with them removing the glass interface from Raiders. At least the snake isn't shooting at Indy first - then again, the snake would have probably had a walkie talkie instead of a gun.

Besides, if you recall in the first Superman film, a number of times that he flew in a scene, his costume was turquoise green. When they got it ready for the DVD release, they tweaked the costume to its original blue. Nobody hemmed and hawed about that correction - they saved it for the whole soundtrack replacement.

And what of the cosmetic CGI changes made to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, for that matter? Those were approved by Robert Wise with no problem on his part.

If Spielberg wants to correct the flaw, that's his prerogative. I'm all for it.

 

[Richard Kim]

Besides, if you recall in the first Superman film, a number of times that he flew in a scene, his costume was turquoise green. When they got it ready for the DVD release, they tweaked the costume to its original blue. Nobody hemmed and hawed about that correction - they saved it for the whole soundtrack replacement.

And what of the cosmetic CGI changes made to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, for that matter? Those were approved by Robert Wise with no problem on his part.

You bring up a good point. When a filmmaker makes an alteration that people like, nobody complains. But, when he makes an unpopular change, people are going on about how films are "historical documents" that should be preserved. If that's the case, then the popular changes like the ones in Superman and Star Trek I should not have been done, either. Superman's costume should have remained turquoise green, since that's the way it was in the original theatrical release.

 

[Patrick McCart]

You bring up a good point. When a filmmaker makes an alteration that people like, nobody complains. But, when he makes an unpopular change, people are going on about how films are "historical documents" that should be preserved. If that's the case, then the popular changes like the ones in Superman and Star Trek I should not have been done, either. Superman's costume should have remained turquoise green, since that's the way it was in the original theatrical release.

Very true. The funny thing is...there are more complaints for filmmaker-approved alterations than for alterations done by the studio.

For example, you have thousands of signatures on a Star Wars petition so Greedo gets fried quicker. I think I got about 50 people to sign my petition to get Fantasia re-released minus 30 seconds of visual censorship. Past posts revealed that a good many had no problem with the "racist" footage altered. I wonder how many of those same people object to Greedo returning fire or a simple removal of a glass reflection.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

Past posts revealed that a good many had no problem with the "racist" footage altered. I wonder how many of those same people object to Greedo returning fire or a simple removal of a glass reflection.

The Fantasia alterations bother me a lot more than the Indy reflection removal.

 

[John_Berger]

The Fantasia alterations bother me a lot more than the Indy reflection removal.

I fully agree.

However, it still comes to the fact that the reflection removal could have been done during filming, whether by doing another take from a slightly different angle or by altering the lighting so that there was no reflection. We're not talking about something that could not have been corrected when it originally happened.

To go back to this twenty years later after several "uncorrected" releases on VHS and laserdisc is stupid to the extreme. Even the rather recent widescreen VHS releases were not modified, so doing it just for the DVD is unnecessary revisionism, particularly since this "problem" has been known for a great many years.

 

[Richard Kim]

To go back to this twenty years later after several "uncorrected" releases on VHS and laserdisc is stupid to the extreme.

So do you acknowledge that it was also "stupid to the extreme" for Richard Donner to change Superman's costume from turquoise to blue twenty years after the uncorrected VHS and laserdisc versions?

 

[MikeSilver]

I thought it was a good idea to change Superman's costume colour. Now the flying scenes have Superman's costume the colour it was supposed to be: blue.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Yup. Costume color and reflection removal (but I'm glad Donner didn't take out his "cameo") are good things.

CHANGES on the other hand are not

 

[Chris Farmer]

Or for all the complaints about the Star Wars Trilogy SE, I've never heard anyone complain that R2 was color corrected in ESB to appear his proper blue instead of black. Was this is a stupid and worthless change?

 

[John_Berger]

So do you acknowledge that it was also "stupid to the extreme" for Richard Donner to change Superman's costume from turquoise to blue twenty years after the uncorrected VHS and laserdisc versions?

That depends. As this is news to me, exactly why did Christopher Reeve wear turquiose? If he did it because special effects at the time required a turquoise outfit to make the special effects work or some other reason that required a turquoise uniform, then the change as far as I'm concerned is acceptable.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Yup. Costume color and reflection removal (but I'm glad Donner didn't take out his "cameo") are good things.

CHANGES on the other hand are not

Aren't those changes?

DJ

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

And what of the cosmetic CGI changes made to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, for that matter? Those were approved by Robert Wise with no problem on his part.

By all accounts, TMP was not a completed movie in 1979, due to a very rushed post-production schedule. Films like Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Superman are different because they were completed when they were released and only changed (or reportedly changed in the case of Raiders) years later by their creators for dubious reasons. Star Trek - The Motion Picture - The Director's Edition is a completed version of the rough cut released in 1979.

Neil