Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Spielberg's new mantra for Blu-ray?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
54 replies to this topic

#21 of 55 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter



  • 2,630 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted June 07 2011 - 04:40 PM



Originally Posted by Douglas Monce 

I think the expectations for that film were WAY too high for many people. Folks just had ideas of what it SHOULD be rather than just enjoying what it was. 


Agreed.


I also found something curious - I liked the film way more the second time I saw it than the first.  The first time (at the midnight showing) I thought it was OK - and then I saw it a week or so later and thought it was much, much better.  It took me a while, but I think I figured out what that was for me.  With the first three films, I had seen them so many times, that the surprises of the plots at the time were the least important things about the movies - it was about the characters, and watching them interact with each other, and just enjoying the ride.  Crystal Skull was the first one that I saw as a new movie in theaters, so for the first time in memory, I was watching an Indiana Jones movie wondering what was going to happen next, what the movie was about, instead of enjoying the characters, actors and set pieces that I loved.  So once I had seen the new movie, saw how it ended and all that, it was suddenly a different experience: for every viewing since, I've just enjoyed the movie without thinking about the mystery involved or whatever.


I happened to have liked that they did something with aliens (or "interdimensional beings" as Spielberg was able to get Lucas to concede).  The original moves took place in the 30s and played as old serials from that time, which I am familiar with; the new movie took place in the 50s, and played more like a b-movie from the 50s.  It was appropriate to the time it took place in, and I both got and liked that about it.  I also liked that it did take place the appropriate number of years later, instead of acting as if everyone had still been the same age.  I'd also love for them to keep making more... when there's a new one coming every few years, it's less important for each film to seem "important" or to somehow be expected to sum everything up.  I really hoped that they'd get cracking on a new one, but being that the last came out in 2008 and it's now 2011 and there's been no word of even considering another one, let's just say I'm not holding my breath.



#22 of 55 OFFLINE   Aaron Silverman

Aaron Silverman

    Lead Actor



  • 9,535 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Silverman
  • LocationFlorida

Posted June 08 2011 - 04:39 AM


Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg 

I happened to have liked that they did something with aliens (or "interdimensional beings" as Spielberg was able to get Lucas to concede).  The original moves took place in the 30s and played as old serials from that time, which I am familiar with; the new movie took place in the 50s, and played more like a b-movie from the 50s.  It was appropriate to the time it took place in, and I both got and liked that about it.

IIRC, that's exactly what they were going for. I thought it was a decent movie, if not in the same league as the original Raiders (but then again, what is?).


Thanks for linking that interview -- it's a good one.


"How wonderful it will be to have a leader unburdened by the twin horrors of knowledge and experience." -- Mr. Wick

#23 of 55 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,041 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted June 08 2011 - 04:52 AM

I've said this before, but while I really hated Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in general, I thought the "alien" theme worked.  It really evoked the 50s vibe and fit into the Indiana Jones universe rather well, I thought.  I've never understood the complaints about that aspect of the movie.


 

 


#24 of 55 OFFLINE   Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter



  • 1,581 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted June 08 2011 - 07:02 AM



Originally Posted by cafink 

I've said this before, but while I really hated Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in general, I thought the "alien" theme worked.  It really evoked the 50s vibe and fit into the Indiana Jones universe rather well, I thought.  I've never understood the complaints about that aspect of the movie.


It is quite simple for me.  In the first three movies he was an archaeologist of ancient human / religious artifacts and used that knowledge to get to the end goal.  He would explain to the characters (and us) what the artifact was, its purported powers, and general knowledge about it.  There was basically zero of that in KotCS.  He was just a human compass that somehow happened to get to the right place instead of an expert in the field and he was the muscle and is a bit too old for that.  If they had somehow established that he also had studied ancient alien artifacts and legends and used that knowledge in the movie immediately after Area 51 (now knowing what the Russians were after) then it would have gone a long way to making it feel like an actual Indy movie and not just in namesake.   As I have stated, to me KotCS makes Temple of Doom seem like a really good Indy movie.




#25 of 55 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted June 08 2011 - 03:05 PM



Agreed.

 

I also found something curious - I liked the film way more the second time I saw it than the first.  The first time (at the midnight showing) I thought it was OK - and then I saw it a week or so later and thought it was much, much better.  It took me a while, but I think I figured out what that was for me.  With the first three films, I had seen them so many times, that the surprises of the plots at the time were the least important things about the movies - it was about the characters, and watching them interact with each other, and just enjoying the ride.  Crystal Skull was the first one that I saw as a new movie in theaters, so for the first time in memory, I was watching an Indiana Jones movie wondering what was going to happen next, what the movie was about, instead of enjoying the characters, actors and set pieces that I loved.  So once I had seen the new movie, saw how it ended and all that, it was suddenly a different experience: for every viewing since, I've just enjoyed the movie without thinking about the mystery involved or whatever.

 

I happened to have liked that they did something with aliens (or "interdimensional beings" as Spielberg was able to get Lucas to concede).  The original moves took place in the 30s and played as old serials from that time, which I am familiar with; the new movie took place in the 50s, and played more like a b-movie from the 50s.  It was appropriate to the time it took place in, and I both got and liked that about it.  I also liked that it did take place the appropriate number of years later, instead of acting as if everyone had still been the same age.  I'd also love for them to keep making more... when there's a new one coming every few years, it's less important for each film to seem "important" or to somehow be expected to sum everything up.  I really hoped that they'd get cracking on a new one, but being that the last came out in 2008 and it's now 2011 and there's been no word of even considering another one, let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

Your take on Crystal Skull it is interesting, because that is exactly the way I saw Raiders in 1981. I was a member of the Star Wars fan club, and got an invite to see a sneak preview of something called Raider of the Lost Ark. I had no idea what it was. I thought it might be about Noah's Ark. But it said from Lucas and Spielberg, so I went to see it. After the 15 min intro, people were clapping and cheering so loud that you couldn't hear the scene in the class room. This was about 5 weeks before the movie opened. To this day it is my favorite film of all time. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#26 of 55 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted June 08 2011 - 03:07 PM



It is quite simple for me.  In the first three movies he was an archaeologist of ancient human / religious artifacts and used that knowledge to get to the end goal.  He would explain to the characters (and us) what the artifact was, its purported powers, and general knowledge about it.  There was basically zero of that in KotCS.  He was just a human compass that somehow happened to get to the right place instead of an expert in the field and he was the muscle and is a bit too old for that.  If they had somehow established that he also had studied ancient alien artifacts and legends and used that knowledge in the movie immediately after Area 51 (now knowing what the Russians were after) then it would have gone a long way to making it feel like an actual Indy movie and not just in namesake.   As I have stated, to me KotCS makes Temple of Doom seem like a really good Indy movie.

 

Well they did state that he was obsessed with crystal skulls as a young man. Personally I put Crystal Skull second behind Raiders, then Crusade, and Temple bringing up the rear. Having said that, all 4 films are head and shoulders above most of the junk being made today. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#27 of 55 OFFLINE   Ethan Riley

Ethan Riley

    Producer



  • 3,391 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2005

Posted June 08 2011 - 06:05 PM



Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg 

In this (not-so-humble) poster's opinion, George and Steven should get together with Harrison and do another Indy film.  Because good or bad, it's still more fun than 99.9% of the other things out there, and I liked the last one.


They keep hinting that they're thinking about it, but no, nothing set in stone as of yet. I hope they don't wait another 19 years between movies this time.



 

 


#28 of 55 OFFLINE   TheHutt

TheHutt

    Agent



  • 44 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 15 2009

Posted June 08 2011 - 10:25 PM


So... does this mean the Blu-ray for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" will have the reflection in the glass put back in for the scene with the Cobra? Wonder how old George will feel about that!

Also, would he revert to the original "car falling into abyss" scene which was digitally re-done for HDTV for no reason at all?



#29 of 55 OFFLINE   Ryan-G

Ryan-G

    Supporting Actor



  • 621 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2005

Posted June 09 2011 - 01:24 PM



Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey 




It is quite simple for me.  In the first three movies he was an archaeologist of ancient human / religious artifacts and used that knowledge to get to the end goal.  He would explain to the characters (and us) what the artifact was, its purported powers, and general knowledge about it.  There was basically zero of that in KotCS.  He was just a human compass that somehow happened to get to the right place instead of an expert in the field and he was the muscle and is a bit too old for that.  If they had somehow established that he also had studied ancient alien artifacts and legends and used that knowledge in the movie immediately after Area 51 (now knowing what the Russians were after) then it would have gone a long way to making it feel like an actual Indy movie and not just in namesake.   As I have stated, to me KotCS makes Temple of Doom seem like a really good Indy movie.



I think the thing was that they kind of tried to find a theme that would fit with the timeperiod in question,  the 1950's had a bit of UFO hysteria and Little Green Men going on,  and this storyline kind of fit the legends from that time period.  It was kind of a risk to take,  tieing the mythology to the myths of the time period,  rather than the previous religious ties.


I like the movie for what it is,  but I understand how some people can find it a jarring shift.


They keep hinting that they're thinking about it, but no, nothing set in stone as of yet. I hope they don't wait another 19 years between movies this time.



DarkHorizons had a news bit up yesterday or the day before in their news shorts,  with Shia Lebouf saying that he talked to Harrison and that Harrison was "Staying in the gym" in preperation for Indy 5,  and that they were waiting for George to "Come up with his McGuffin".


I guess it's a good sign Harrison's staying it shape,  means there might be some movement to get it done sooner rather than later.



#30 of 55 OFFLINE   Brian Borst

Brian Borst

    Screenwriter



  • 1,137 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2008

Posted June 11 2011 - 03:39 AM



Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey 




It is quite simple for me.  In the first three movies he was an archaeologist of ancient human / religious artifacts and used that knowledge to get to the end goal.  He would explain to the characters (and us) what the artifact was, its purported powers, and general knowledge about it.  There was basically zero of that in KotCS.  He was just a human compass that somehow happened to get to the right place instead of an expert in the field and he was the muscle and is a bit too old for that.  If they had somehow established that he also had studied ancient alien artifacts and legends and used that knowledge in the movie immediately after Area 51 (now knowing what the Russians were after) then it would have gone a long way to making it feel like an actual Indy movie and not just in namesake.   As I have stated, to me KotCS makes Temple of Doom seem like a really good Indy movie.



I agree. The script was too convoluted, too many characters, etc. But the aliens fitted nicely with the supernatural things from the first three.


And I still don't really get the backlash that Temple of Doom always gets. I love it. At least it didn't try to replicate the first movie too much (I'm looking at you, Crusade).


Never go out with anyone who thinks Fellini is a type of cheese

My Blu-Ray/DVD Collection

#31 of 55 OFFLINE   Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter



  • 1,581 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted June 11 2011 - 10:14 AM

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.



#32 of 55 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted June 11 2011 - 11:47 AM



I agree. The script was too convoluted, too many characters, etc. But the aliens fitted nicely with the supernatural things from the first three.

 

And I still don't really get the backlash that Temple of Doom always gets. I love it. At least it didn't try to replicate the first movie too much (I'm looking at you, Crusade).
 

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 in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#33 of 55 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted June 11 2011 - 11:55 AM

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. 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
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#34 of 55 OFFLINE   Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter



  • 1,581 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted June 11 2011 - 01:16 PM



Originally Posted by Douglas Monce 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey 

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. 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.



#35 of 55 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted June 11 2011 - 01:31 PM



 

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
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#36 of 55 OFFLINE   Ryan-G

Ryan-G

    Supporting Actor



  • 621 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2005

Posted June 11 2011 - 09:00 PM



Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey 





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.



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.




#37 of 55 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer



  • 5,647 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted June 12 2011 - 04:22 AM



Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg 




In this (not-so-humble) poster's opinion, George and Steven should get together with Harrison and do another Indy film.  Because good or bad, it's still more fun than 99.9% of the other things out there, and I liked the last one.


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.



"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#38 of 55 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,191 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted June 12 2011 - 05:10 AM

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.

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.

#39 of 55 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer



  • 5,647 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted June 12 2011 - 05:39 AM



Originally Posted by TravisR 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwin-S 

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.



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 bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#40 of 55 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,191 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted June 12 2011 - 06:37 AM



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.


Back to Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow