What's new

Spielberg's new mantra for Blu-ray? (1 Viewer)

Walter Kittel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
9,770
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.

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.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,427
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.
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
Edwin-S said:
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 completely disagree that it was awful. I thought it was a very enjoyable movie and I want to see more. Doug
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
TravisR said:
Edwin-S said:
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.
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'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
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,427
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Douglas Monce said:
TravisR said:
Edwin-S said:
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.
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'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.
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
TravisR said:
Douglas Monce said:
TravisR said:
Edwin-S said:
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.
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'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
 

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
5,230
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

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.

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

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

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'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.[/QUOTE]

"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.
 

Aaron Silverman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 22, 1999
Messages
11,411
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.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,427
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Aaron Silverman said:
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.
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
RobertR said:
"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.

 
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
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
TravisR said:
Aaron Silverman said:
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.
What if the minor flaw only appears as a result of the new technology that its being presented on? Doug
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
TravisR said:
Douglas Monce said:
What if the minor flaw only appears as a result of the new technology that its being presented on?
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
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,563
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).
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,739
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top