Spielberg's new mantra for Blu-ray?

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Paul Hillenbrand, Jun 5, 2011.

  1. Walter Kittel

    Walter Kittel Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 1998
    Messages:
    5,648
    Likes Received:
    532

    I am certain I won't change anyone's opinion on this point, but those are completely different things because the scope and the overall impact on the scene from the viewer's perspective are completely and wholly different. Visible attributes of an effect shot, such as a wire or unintended reflection are not the same aesthetically as a representation of an alien species or a set design, etc., etc. While Lucas may have the same feelings about the two items their impact on the viewer and presentation of the film are entirely different. Just my $0.02.


    - Walter.
     
  2. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,455
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    ^ For what it's worth, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate. It just seems odd to me that some people (I'm not saying that Edwin feels this way either) say that the original version of Star Wars should be preserved because of its place in history but then history seems to have much less importance when it's just a wire being erased from another movie. If someone says that the original version of Star Wars should be preserved because of its place in history then they should have that same view for Jaws or Raiders or any movie.
     
  3. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    I completely disagree that it was awful. I thought it was a very enjoyable movie and I want to see more. Doug
     
  4. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    I've said this before, but it bares repeating. Many things that are being removed from films, ie garbage mattes, and even wires, were NOT visible on film in the theater, because film has a much wider dynamic range than video. Garbage mattes for instance, those faint black squares you see jumping around space ships in the VHS versions of the Star Wars films, do not show up on projected film, because they are so deep in the black level of the film, that the human eye can't see them. When you limit the contrast so that the film can be properly presented on video, suddenly those boxes are just one step above the black level, and they stick out like a sore thumb. The same is true in most cases for the wires on the tail of the Lion in Wizard of OZ. On the original Technicolor IB prints, the wires were probably 90% invisible. I don't remember ever being able to see the reflection of the cobra on the glass in Raiders in the theater, and I saw that film probably 25 times that summer. I was quite surprised to see it when the film came out on video. So we are talking about removing things that were never intended to be seen, and in all likely hood were NOT seen in their original theatrical presentations. Its only the limitations of video that cause these things to pop out. Doug
     
  5. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,455
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    I'm aware of what you're saying (I think we've both made the same basic posts in another thread a week ago :) ) but I can say that, without a doubt, the wire on the buoy in Jaws was visible on 35mm prints.
     
  6. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    I wasn't specifically talking about Jaws, because frankly I've never noticed the wire. Doug
     
  7. Worth

    Worth Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    629
    Real Name:
    Nick Dobbs

    I saw Raiders countless times that summer, too, and the reflection of the cobra was painfully obvious to me even on first viewing.
     
  8. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,690
    Likes Received:
    159

    "Decades" simply doesn't have the historical weight of things such as the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail or Sankara Stones. Indy had to literally be coerced into going after the skulls (he was so uninterested in them that another archeologist had to be put in the story to look for them).


    There is one scene from the original movie that will always illustrate the ENORMOUS difference between it and KOTCS. Indy threatens to blow up the Ark to save Marian's life, but backs down when he realizes how historically important it is. Faced with the identical choice in KOTCS, there is NO doubt in my mind that he wouldn't have hesitated for even a second to destroy one or more of the skulls to save Marian's life.
     
  9. Aaron Silverman

    Aaron Silverman Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 1999
    Messages:
    10,727
    Likes Received:
    566
    Location:
    Florida
    Real Name:
    Aaron Silverman
    That people don't see a difference between erasing an F/X wire that manages to remain visible and changing the overall look of an effect or even the content of a scene is baffling to me.
     
  10. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,455
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    I certainly don't think that. What I said was that I didn't understand how people can claim to want the original version of a movie because of its historical value but then that concern for history apparently goes away when it's a minor change like removing a wire. If someone says that they're worried about historical preservation for one movie then that concern should extend to all movies and not just apply it to cases where they like the original better or where a minor change 'fixes' a flaw.
     
  11. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    I just don't see the distinction. After all at least crystal skulls really exist. There is no evidence that Shankara Stones ever existed in anything but stories, and they clearly made up parts of that mythology out of whole cloth. Doug
     
  12. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    What if the minor flaw only appears as a result of the new technology that its being presented on? Doug
     
  13. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,455
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    In the case of the movies being discussed (like Raiders and Jaws), they're not though.
     
  14. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    Maybe yes, maybe no. However I have NO problem with removing something that was clearly never intended to be seen by the audience. Doug
     
  15. WillG

    WillG Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,613
    Likes Received:
    129
    In fairness, Indy wasn't really that interested in the Holy Grail either. He was trying to rescue his father, who was the one who was truly interested in the Grail. Actually he really wasn't interested in the Shankara stones either, he pretty much (well, really literally) fell into the situation.
     

Share This Page