Spielberg's new mantra for Blu-ray? - Page 2

So what if it was the 50's?  This is Indiana Jones, archaeologist of ancient religious artifacts.  No basis had been laid down that he was also Daniel Jackson of Stargate, not previously nor in the movie itself.  It isn't that aliens are any more unrealistic than supernatural ancient artifacts, it is simply that IJ hasn't been looking for such things or that he is in any way an expert in that field.  The basic plot line of an IJ adventure is that a bad guy/group is looking for a powerful ancient artifact.  IJ knows all about the artifact and legend, which he then uses that knowledge to get there first to prevent said bad guy/group from using it as a weapon with a big fight at the finale.  All KotCS had was the big fight at the finale with some almost random action scenes getting there.

I think the reason that there is the backlash with Temple, is that is where the most radical tone change happened. Raiders was done very straight. Nothing really silly in that film with the exception of the saluting monkey, which I thought was just amusing and they didn't spend much time on it. There is really nothing in Raiders that seems to be out of the realm of human ability. With Temple you suddenly get the silly bug dinner, humans surviving exposure to with in feet of a live volcano with no side effects, jumping out of a plain with a raft to break your fall, etc. Temple was just suddenly over the top where Raiders were very grounded.

Now I think I know why this is. I believe that the tone of Raiders was dictated by the very harsh conditions under which it was shot. They were in Africa in the summer, half the crew was sick, and Spielberg just wanted to get out of there. One example is the truck that supposedly has the basket that Marion is in and blows up. Originally that truck was supposed to flip end over end, but the pyro didn't work right, and it just rolled over. The stunt guys wanted to do it again, but that was the last shot in Africa, and Spielberg wanted to get out of there so bad he said, no its good enough. If conditions had been different, he might have said yeah rig it again, and the truck would unrealistically have flipped ass over teakettle just because Jones shot the driver. Many of the over the top elements were cut from Raiders, and ended up in Temple. They were cut from Raiders because of time and money.

Frankly the limitations on Raiders, are in my opinion, its best asset.

Doug

I'm not sure why there needs to be much more ground laid that already was. He was interested in crystal sculls in the past. Crystal sculls are a REAL archeological mystery and have been tied in pop culture to "ancient astronauts" for decades. Same thing with the nazca lines. What more set up do you need?

Hell I had no idea what the Ark of the Covenant was before Raiders. It could have been completely made up, I wouldn't have known.

Doug

 

It isn't about you knowing it, it is about Indiana Jones knowing it.  The groundwork in Raiders shows IJ is an expert in archaeology and ancient religious artifacts.  In KotCS, IJ doesn't show he knows anything about crystal skulls, their origins, purported powers, or anything that would make you believe he would be able to track it down, whether they are real ancient artifacts or not.  It is no different than making an IJ movie about tracking down Sasquatch.  Studying ancient cultures, languages, and artifacts really wouldn't help him at all in such a quest.  Atlantis, Shangri-La, or The Lost City of the Mayans would at least seem to be in his field of expertise.

Well he did know the ancient languages that allow him to solve the riddles that lead to the goal. Having been involved in the Roswell clean up, he seemed to have at least SOME knowledge of the whole "alien visitation" thing even if he did fain ignorance on the subject and or perhaps just didn't believe in it, just as he didn't believe the stories of the Ark or the Shankara Stones or The Grail.

I don't think its such a stretch.

Doug

Mmmm...I think you're letting the end sequence,  and your dislike of it,  color your assessment too much.

 

The Crystal Skull is an ancient religious artifact,  in truth and in the film.  The City of Gold is also an ancient wonder he even admits to having looked for previously,  so he had already investigated at least part of the issue when he was a young man.  That it turns out to be related to aliens,  well,  that leads to my earlier post.

 

But as far as not having knowledge goes?  It fits with his field of study,  and his background.

 

They should let sleeping dogs lie. The last one was one was awful. It was no better than 99.9% of the stuff that is being released today. As for Spielberg's new stance in not modifying Blu-ray releases, I will agree so far as not changing elements that were originally meant to be seen. Wires, ropes and certain glass reflections were never meant to be seen, so I do not see a problem with removing them for a blu-ray release. In the theatre, we were watching nth generation copies where print and projection quality made a lot of those flaws less noticeable, but on blu-ray we are getting reproductions that are much closer to the original negative IF the film is properly mastered and transferred.

 

I don't mean to single you out (plenty of people seem to feel the same way) but I don't understand this attitude from someone who, based on previous posts, is against the changes made to Star Wars. Unless you feel that changes that you like are OK and changes that you don't like aren't OK, any changes made to the original version of a movie is still a change.

Comparing erasing wires and matte lines to erasing or adding to the actual intended content of the film is apples to oranges. Greedo shooting first or smoke rings around the exploding Death Star changes the look or intent of the original content. Erasing a matte line or wire that was never intended to be seen does not change the thematic content or visual look of the film. If wires or matte lines were supposed to be a part of the visual record, filmmakers wouldn't bother taking pains to cover them up and render them invisible in the first place. If one gets through, I do not see a problem with digitally removing it, as long as it does not result in the loss of high frequency detail throughout the rest of the picture. I am not such a purist that I would consider that an unintended artifact actually changes the film's story or visuals if it was removed and therefore shouldn't be eliminated. IOW, I don't watch a film and say, "holy crap, they removed a wire that always used to be there, they've visually ruined this film"; whereas, when I see Greedo shooting first with a poorly integrated special effect, I do say, "that sure in hell isn't the way I remember this scene occurring".

 

You're only highlighting the changes that Lucas clearly thought of years after the fact. He's always talked about being dissapointed in some of the effects shots and wanting better looking aliens in the cantina. Those things didn't happen though due to the limits of time or technology and that's the same reason that a wire is visible in Jaws or a reflection is seen in Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Outside of it being more noticable, I don't see a difference between changing a special effect shot and erasing a wire because they both are changing the original version of the movie.

 

 

 

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. 

 

^ 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.

I completely disagree that it was awful. I thought it was a very enjoyable movie and I want to see more.

Doug

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

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.

I wasn't specifically talking about Jaws, because frankly I've never noticed the wire.

Doug

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

 

"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.

 

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.

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.

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

What if the minor flaw only appears as a result of the new technology that its being presented on?

Doug

In the case of the movies being discussed (like Raiders and Jaws), they're not though.

Maybe yes, maybe no. However I have NO problem with removing something that was clearly never intended to be seen by the audience.

Doug

 

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.