DVD Review HTF REVIEW: The Adventures of Indiana Jones (Highly Recommended) (1 Viewer)

[Bill Williams]

One of the more notorious bloopers in "Raiders" I don't think anybody's mentioned yet is in the scene where the truck turns over onto its side before the explosion. Indy thinks that Marion's been kidnapped, he shoots the driver, then the truck turns over onto its side and explodes.

In the original film I clearly remember seeing the trick stunt pole that was used to trip the truck over and crash onto its side. For a few moments, the stunt pole is clearly seen on film. Has that been digitally removed as well?

 

[Chris Atkins]

In the original film I clearly remember seeing the trick stunt pole that was used to trip the truck over and crash onto its side.

I have tried for the life of me to see this over the years and was never able to see it.

Can anyone shed any light on the Short Round/violence/editing issue alluded to on the bottom of the 2nd page in this thread?

 

[Sergio Martorel]

So what other edits do you think were made...would you care to list them?

I have to dig up my old tapes of the TV broadcast (before the films were released on video) and compare ´em side by side. Problems are:

1) I´m not in the mood to watch VHS ever again,
2) I´m not the kind of person who does that kind of thing.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

Originally posted by Sergio Martorel:
Both scenes were sweetened. In the second one, Indy hits Short Round twice.

Since 1997 I've seen vintage prints of this movie about 6 times. I even built one of the 35mm prints in 1999. Indy does not hit Short Round twice. He slaps him down once the gets burnt wakes from his trance and then picks up Short Round to hit him again, but only as a show to the Thuggees.

If there were any differences between a theatrical print and the LD I'd know, as I've seen this movie many many times over the years.

Neil

 

[Sergio Martorel]

He slaps him down once the gets burnt wakes from his trance and then picks up Short Round to hit him again, but only as a show to the Thuggees.

Oh yeah, you´re correct at this.

But Short Round is whipped a lot more times than shown on the DVD.

 

[Dustin Wind]

I may be one of the biggest fans in the world and love them all, but:
1. Temple of Doom
2. Last Crusade
3. Raiders.

I have no idea why i like them in this order, but they!
I can't wait until Tues.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Last Crusade - there's EE everywhere, but not really noticeable. A few out of focus shots, and overall softness compared to Raiders and Doom. Contrast slightly washed as well.

IIRC correctly, Last Crusade was shot Super35, while Raiders and Temple used anamorphic lenses. Don't know if this has something to do with it. Douglas Slocombe did shoot all three films.

Cheers,

 

[WillG]

Last Crusade was shot Super35

I'm pretty sure you are mistaken about this, Felix. IMDB states it's anamorphic (granted they often screw up the distiction between anamorphic and Super35) On widescreen.org, there are plenty of comparison shots that are cropped in a way to suggest anamorphic. I also heard somewhere that the frustration that S.S. experienced while trying to compose an "Acceptable" P&S version was a huge factor for S.S. to abandon anamorphic filmmaking

 

[CraigL]

Three times, and he cried. Since then, that scene was reduced for every LD and VHS release.

I just saw a theatrical print of TOD a mere month or two ago and it was exactly as it's always been. I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Chris Atkins]

I just saw a theatrical print of TOD a mere month or two ago and it was exactly as it's always been.

CraigL:

Did Short Round get whipped just once in the print you saw?

 

[Britton]

Are you guys sick or something? Do you want to see Short Round get whipped as many times as possible?

 

[Chris Atkins]

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

Temple of Doom isn't inferior because it's darker -- it's inferior because it's cheesier!

To me the cheesiness is a plus; I mean, stories like this are supposed to be a little cheesy. The Indiana Jones movies are, after all, based on old serials that were themselves very cheesy.

The thing about ToD is that it is much more of a "kids'" movie than Raiders. The gross-out humor, the heavy participation of children in the story (including one kid who gets to drive a car and kick the asses of adults), the elements of pagan magic (as opposed to the Judeo-Christian miracles of the other two movies), the scariness... this is all stuff that appeals to children, so it's ironic that the film was condemned as being inapproprate for kids. But to me, the "kiddie" nature of ToD isn't a disadvantage; it distinguishes it from its more grown-up predecessor, and gives Spielberg the chance to use his ability to appeal to the kid in all of us (and to do his usual excellent work with child actors). Pauline Kael, who loved Spielberg but disliked Lucas, preferred ToD to Raiders because she felt that ToD was more of a Spielberg film, while Raiders had more of Lucas's style. I think Raiders is a better-made and certainly better-written film, but ToD is quite wonderful as a scary/funny kids' film. And the first ten minutes are hilarious. Last Crusade is the one that interests me the least because, while it's well-made and has a pretty well-written script, it's primarily a rehash of Raiders in terms of its style, its structure, its religious elements, its villains... I enjoy Last Crusade, but there's nothing special about it. There's something quite special about ToD.

 

[Patrick McCart]

One way to determine if Last Crusade was S-35 or Panavision is to look for lens flares. While the effect shots were shot in VistaVision, I think, non-effect shots with oval-shaped flares would reveal that an anamorphic lens was used.

 

[CraigL]

Did Short Round get whipped just once in the print you saw?

Yes. I have pretty much every second of these movies memorized and SR has ALWAYS only gotten whipped once. There is no crying. In fact, he's not even crying when they turn him around and he whimpers "Dr. Jones." So this is all BS.

Another one of these "I SWEAR I saw the Biggs scene when it was first released."

 

[Sergio Martorel]

Oh no. Another one of these "I have pretty much every second of this movie memorized".

 

[Chris Atkins]

Oh no. Another one of these "I have pretty much every second of this movie memorized".

Well it's 2-1 so far....

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

I haven't viewed the DVD yet, but the theatrical prints that I've seen (and none of them were new, suggesting they are from 1984) matched the film as shown on LD, which I've had for 11 years, and the VHS tape which I had since it came out, in either 1985 or 1986.

Neil

 

[BrettB]

A Canadian website (CJAD) has an interesting article regarding the set (Lowry is Canadian).

One important bit of news for diehard followers: unlike the restorations performed on Lucas' Star Wars and Spielberg's E.T. re-releases, there has been no CGI enhancement of the original special effects nor any director's cut scenes inserted. The three films are exactly as fans remember them in theatres or earlier VHS editions.

Also, some good John Rhys-Davies quotes.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

I also don’t understand why Spielberg slams “Temple of Doom” in the documentaries so much. I mean come on; it’s because of that movie that he met his wife. It’s one of the most important turning moments of his life. A little respect please!