Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 9 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #241 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 08:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

Do I really need to explain the difference between opinion and statement of fact?

Do you really think decisions made by directors are any more "objective truth" than those of anyone else?
RobertR is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 08:51 PM
 
RedOctober205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Do you really think decisions made by directors are any more "objective truth" than those of anyone else?

When you create a film of your own I will care about what you want done with it. Until then...not a chance.

Either you enjoy it or you don't. The content belongs to those who created and/or financed it. Whine all you want but that will never change.
RedOctober205 is offline  
post #243 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 09:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

The content belongs to those who created and/or financed it.

I can't count how many times people want to change the subject from "did the director make good, sound decisions" to "ownership". "Owning" something means exactly squat with respect to making good decisions.
RobertR is online now  
post #244 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 09:17 PM
 
RedOctober205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

I can't count how many times people want to change the subject from "did the director make good, sound decisions" to "ownership". "Owning" something means exactly squat with respect to making good decisions.

Thank you for proving once again that you do not understand the issue.
RedOctober205 is offline  
post #245 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 09:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

Thank you for proving once again that you do not understand the issue.

i understand it perfectly. What you've proven is that you want to completely avoid the issue of whether or not a director makes good decisions.
RobertR is online now  
post #246 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 10:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

Do I really need to explain the difference between opinion and statement of fact?

No. I'm quite aware of the difference.

Would you like to explain what your question has to do with this subject?
What "objective" facts are you talking about?

And, are these facts something about which one can not hold an opinion?
(Note: that is not the same as a fact CHANGING with opinion. It's a fact George Lucas wrote and directed The Phantom Menace; it's my opinion that much of that movie was terrible).

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

When you create a film of your own I will care about what you want done with it. Until then...not a chance.

So is your "caring" the objective facts you are talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

Either you enjoy it or you don't.

Hmm..no objective facts yet, it seems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

The content belongs to those who created and/or financed it.

Wait, is the the objective fact?

Does that somehow entail no one ought to have an opinion on that content?

Time to fold this forum I guess?
R Harkness is online now  
post #247 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 02:08 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
The ignore list is only good if people do not quote.


dvdmike007 is offline  
post #248 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 06:29 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
DigitalfreakNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11

"I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific." - Michael Caine, on Jaws the Revenge
DigitalfreakNYC is offline  
post #249 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 06:30 AM
Senior Member
 
amoergosum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
That cover looks terrible.
amoergosum is offline  
post #250 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 06:49 AM
Member
 
svenge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
So they're basically going to copy the same lame packaging from the 4-movie DVD set? It looks exactly like it except for the BD banner on top. If so, it could mean it'll 4 ultra-slim cases (like the Austin Powers BD boxset) and I hated those...



If they were going to copy-pasta something, the 3-movie thinpak set had a much nicer front...

svenge is offline  
post #251 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 07:10 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoergosum View Post

That cover looks terrible.

That's why we have the custom cover art thread!
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #252 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 07:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

If things were originally not meant to be there and they destract from the intended effect, I'm happy if they are removed, so wires, reflections, I'm good with those being removed.

I probably saw Bladerunner 40 times in the theaters and it was ALWAYS a bummer seeing the wires lifting the spinner. That world had been so meticulously, beautifully and realistically rendered and all of a sudden you see the wires lifting the spinner, so obvious it was impossible to ignore and clearly not something intended to be seen, and it produced a "cringe" moment that took me out of the movie every time. It's a total relief when I spin the Blu-Ray to have that issue removed.

When the Indy movies were announced I wondered if they'd take out the snake reflection, and figured they would (except, Spielberg said he wasn't going to alter his films anymore, so it may be surprising if it's gone). That was another "take me out of the film" moment that I wouldn't mind seeing gone.

Where I guess I draw the line is where revisionism is just as bad: where it takes me "out" of the movie, and changes the feel and spirit of the movie that I'd originally loved, and Star-Wars level revisionism is the golden standard for going to far in that respect.

Bingo. The goofs took me out of the films in the 80's even.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #253 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 07:56 AM
 
RedOctober205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Well that's it. That does it. Just look at that cover. It completely ruins my enjoyment of this no matter how great the films look and sound. I would literally vomit when looking at them. Of all things to consider when making a purchase...the cover art is THE most important. What a shame. No one will buy these now.
RedOctober205 is offline  
post #254 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 07:58 AM
 
RedOctober205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post


No. I'm quite aware of the difference.

Would you like to explain what your question has to do with this subject?
What "objective" facts are you talking about?

And, are these facts something about which one can not hold an opinion?
(Note: that is not the same as a fact CHANGING with opinion. It's a fact George Lucas wrote and directed The Phantom Menace; it's my opinion that much of that movie was terrible).

So is your "caring" the objective facts you are talking about?

Hmm..no objective facts yet, it seems.

Wait, is the the objective fact?

Does that somehow entail no one ought to have an opinion on that content?

Time to fold this forum I guess?

You can not prove the claims that 3D is only a gimmick. It's only an opinion. Not fact.
RedOctober205 is offline  
post #255 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 08:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

Well that's it. That does it. Just look at that cover. It completely ruins my enjoyment of this no matter how great the films look and sound. I would literally vomit when looking at them. Of all things to consider when making a purchase...the cover art is THE most important. What a shame. No one will buy these now.


If indeed sincere, it simply proves how irrational and unreasonable your interactions are and to continue any semblance of discourse with you will solely devolve into incoherent rabble-rousing.

"...the cover art is THE most important. What a shame. No one will buy these now."

That is an opinion not a fact, whereas providing strong statistical data that represents a prevalent trend of dislike or ambivalence by the general populace towards 3D presentations holds more merit for the premise that it is a gimmick.

Regards
KvE


Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #256 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 08:49 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post


If indeed sincere, it simply proves how irrational and unreasonable your interactions are and to continue any semblance of discourse with you will solely devolve into incoherent rabble-rousing.

"...the cover art is THE most important. What a shame. No one will buy these now."

That is an opinion not a fact, whereas providing strong statistical data that represents a prevalent trend of dislike or ambivalence by the general populace towards 3D presentations holds more merit.

Regards
KvE

* SPOILER *

The latter normally.
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #257 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 08:59 AM
 
RedOctober205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

* SPOILER *
If indeed sincere, it simply proves how irrational and unreasonable your interactions are and to continue any semblance of discourse with you will solely devolve into incoherent rabble-rousing.

"...the cover art is THE most important. What a shame. No one will buy these now."

That is an opinion not a fact, whereas providing strong statistical data that represents a prevalent trend of dislike or ambivalence by the general populace towards 3D presentations holds more merit for the premise that it is a gimmick.

Regards
KvE

* SPOILER *

...really? I was being sarcastic following the whining over the cover.
RedOctober205 is offline  
post #258 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 09:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

They ARE the same in kind, they differ only in degree. A film is more than just a story told visually. It is also a historical document, a snapshot in time of public opinions and technical capabilities.

Over sentimentalizing a technical error that was easily missed in a time before large display video taps. Although I cannot recall at the moment whether they even had video tap on Raiders, assuming they did the display was rather tiny and easy to miss such errors, least of all through a viewfinder.

Quote:


The fact that reflections could not be edited out is a technical fact of some historical value, and the fact that the presence of the reflections failed to detract from the suspension of disbelief is documented in the popularity of the film.

It really is not, again over sentimentalizing an unintended mistake, because of the simple fact Spielberg used a transparent barrier for the actors safety, not a screen door or any other visible medium. This is a complimentary correction of increasing the original intent of creating a suspension of disbelief and reinforcing the dramatic tension of impending danger.

There are many things most folks will not notice on first viewings but with the advent of home video subsequent viewings will reveal previously unnoticed information, especially with such a popular franchise. Yet even all the way back when Raiders was first released people did see the reflection especially after subsequent rereleases.

Quote:


Black and white is in no way a realistic visual effect and (at first) a mere technical limitation of the time that the original filmmaker would have avoided if they could have, and the colorization of those films would certainly be equivalent to other effects cleanups. I truly don't think removing the reflection is different from colorization in any way except the number of frames changed (assuming the B&W film was made at a time color film was not a feasible option).

Once more your premise is flawed in assuming films shot in B&W are equivalent to an unintended error that can now be rectified.

This is another premise of false equivalency. Yes the reality was filmmakers wanted color in the beginning but history shows plenty of filmmakers actually specifically worked towards the strengths of B&W, Film Noir comes particularly in mind. Even when color film was readily available and affordable many continued to work in B&W.

If we take your premise further any representation of ‘silent’ films without an actual live musician playing the soundtrack is anachronistic and contrary to the original intent of the experience. Is this also not a revision, rather compensation or correction, of a technical limitation of the time if we can now sync a recorded soundtrack with those early silent films? Must we now decry any home video release that provides a recorded soundtrack?

Back in respects to Raiders, I hope that the complimentary and organic corrections are retained.

Best Regards
KvE

PS My apologizes RedOctober205. In my defense some of your comments have made it rather plausible to interpret that post as being your actual opinion.

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #259 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 01:03 PM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

Although I cannot recall at the moment whether they even had video tap on Raiders, assuming they did the display was rather tiny and easy to miss such errors, least of all through a viewfinder.

Noticed or not, audiences clearly managed to enjoy the film, with the error, on their very very large screens. The need for the correction is also very much in question IMO, not just the rectitude of doing it. From a simple economic standpoint, re-editing old films usually makes no sense. If you had both versions of Raiders playing next to one another, one with the reflection, and one without, what is the price differential you could afford to charge on the tickets? Zero. There's no quantifiable added value for the vast majority of viewers. Now compare that to Blade Runner with and without the voiceover. That's an edit that actually made sense (and I'm still glad the original is still available for historical purposes).

I disagree with your assertion that it was only ignorance of the existence of the reflection that prevented them from fixing it originally (presumably by reshooting the scene from different angles until the reflection was less visible), but that's not provable either way. I think they knew very well they were shooting against reflective glass and this sort of thing happens, and they probably saw it too, and they didn't really care because the reflection wasn't (and still isn't) a big deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

If we take your premise further any representation of ‘silent’ films without an actual live musician playing the soundtrack is anachronistic and contrary to the original intent of the experience.

And YOU'RE accusing ME of false equivalency?!? I've actually been to a Buster Keaton film with an actual live musician. Most of the places you sat, you couldn't even see the musician when the lights were on, let alone off. Pre-recorded music is not any different at all, it's a canned performance you were only ever going to hear anyway. The only difference is between a good performance and a bad performance, and that can split either direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

Back in respects to Raiders, I hope that the complimentary and organic corrections are retained.

And I hope they are not, because I happen to enjoy my level of sentimentalization for this great film. Either way, I'm buying the films, as I consider it not a hill to die for.
CatBus is offline  
post #260 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 01:04 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
I take Spielberg's opinion over everyone here.
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #261 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 02:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

I take Spielberg's opinion over everyone here.


About what?

Do you think Spielberg's decisions are, in every case in every movie he ever made, beyond all criticism?

I'm guessing not.

A filmmaker has the right to all his artistic decisions. The paying audience has the right to all their opinions about those artistic decisions.

Pointing out that the snake reflection in the Indy movie was a distraction to me is no different from pointing out that Spielberg's decision to cast Kate Kapshaw was a distraction to me in Temple Of Doom.

No one is saying any film-maker HAS to act on the opinions of the audience; but that in no way invalidates our right to have opinions, and express which elements of a movie annoy us.

The deliberate choice of leaving in a snake's reflection when given the option of taking it out is just another choice made by the film-maker; and like every other choice, it is open to criticism.
R Harkness is online now  
post #262 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 02:17 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post


About what?

Do you think Spielberg's decisions are, in every case in every movie he ever made, beyond all criticism?

I'm guessing not.

A filmmaker has the right to all his artistic decisions. The paying audience has the right to all their opinions about those artistic decisions.

Pointing out that the snake reflection in the Indy movie was a distraction to me is no different from pointing out that Spielberg's decision to cast Kate Kapshaw was a distraction to me in Temple Of Doom.

No one is saying any film-maker HAS to act on the opinions of the audience; but that in no way invalidates our right to have opinions, and express which elements of a movie annoy us.

The deliberate choice of leaving in a snake's reflection when given the option of taking it out is just another choice made by the film-maker; and like every other choice, it is open to criticism.

He said he is done with tampering and will leave the films as made, wires and all.
Since this is the Indiana thread, I was shock horror referring to his Indiana Jones movies!
Also was quoting the director of said movies, and agreeing with him over people on a forum.
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #263 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 02:31 PM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

The deliberate choice of leaving in a snake's reflection when given the option of taking it out is just another choice made by the film-maker; and like every other choice, it is open to criticism.

Those lucky filmmakers who die before they have an opportunity to go back and **** with their movies are beyond reproach on this subject, however...

I hope Spielberg keeps to his word. I agree with him because he is right, not because he is the filmmaker.
CatBus is offline  
post #264 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 04:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

Noticed or not, audiences clearly managed to enjoy the film, with the error, on their very very large screens. The need for the correction is also very much in question IMO, not just the rectitude of doing it. From a simple economic standpoint, re-editing old films usually makes no sense. If you had both versions of Raiders playing next to one another, one with the reflection, and one without, what is the price differential you could afford to charge on the tickets? Zero. There's no quantifiable added value for the vast majority of viewers.

Then if the visible error is so innocuous how come the digital correction is such a contested issue? I fail to see the relevance of your latter example, or non sequitur.

Quote:
Now compare that to Blade Runner with and without the voiceover. That's an edit that actually made sense (and I'm still glad the original is still available for historical purposes).

Now this opens up the pandora's box of who dictates what version of a film is released and which should be considered the definitive version. Today, especially for established directors with clout, frequently studios will mostly differ to directors judgement for creative decisions; yet not long in the past however, directors were no more than hired technicians and many creative decisions and final cut were dictated by the studio, or producer.

In the case of Blade Runner, the studio had cold feet and felt they knew better than Ridley Scott and created the theatrical cut and forced Harrison Ford to record that tacked on Voice Over. Now if Scott had been permitted final cut originally then twenty years later decided to have Ford record a Voice Over and made that the only defacto version of the film readily available to the masses then yes I would object to that revision. Whereas wire removal is an appropriate change that reinforces the intent and vision of the filmmaker, again not the same league of Lucas tweaks.

The whole concept of Auteur Directors making all the sacrosanct creative decisions is a relatively recent development which is still often isolated to established successful directors.

Quote:
I disagree with your assertion that it was only ignorance of the existence of the reflection that prevented them from fixing it originally (presumably by reshooting the scene from different angles until the reflection was less visible), but that's not provable either way. I think they knew very well they were shooting against reflective glass and this sort of thing happens, and they probably saw it too, and they didn't really care because the reflection wasn't (and still isn't) a big deal.

Those who have actually worked on a shoot knows first hand that this sort of thing does indeed happen and do go unnoticed, even with all measures to avoid such mistakes and errors.

Perhaps Spielberg did notice but the take as a whole was the best variant or he only did several takes and moved on. Once more the likelihood of Spielberg or his DP, depending on who was operating the camera, simply missed the reflection in that take is very possible. The reality that he did have it removed when given the opportunity proves that he found it objectionable.

Quote:
And YOU'RE accusing ME of false equivalency?!?

Simply provided another example that follows your flawed premise of equating to different things as though they were the same.

Quote:
And I hope they are not, because I happen to enjoy my level of sentimentalization for this great film. Either way, I'm buying the films, as I consider it not a hill to die for.

I love Raiders as well but I fail to see the validity in justification of sentimentalizing a technical error that can now be rectified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

I take Spielberg's opinion over everyone here.

Now you and I frequently meet eye to eye on things dvdmike007, but you are only agreeing with Spielberg's current position this instance because it matches your own bias. Yet you disagree with James Cameron's decision to adjust and change a few things for Aliens.

Best Regards
KvE

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #265 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 04:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
In my opinion why removing The reflection is the right thing to do is that when watching it, your eyes should either naturally be drawn to the snake or Indy. What the reflection did (at least for me from day 1) is draw all my attention to... The reflection. And the tension was completely deflated and I missed most of Harrison's performance during what was supposed to be a very tense moment.

But that's just me. I enjoy losing myself in a film. Looking for flaws is not my thing as it takes me right out.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #266 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 06:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

In my opinion why removing The reflection is the right thing to do is that when watching it, your eyes should either naturally be drawn to the snake or Indy. What the reflection did (at least for me from day 1) is draw all my attention to... The reflection. And the tension was completely deflated and I missed most of Harrison's performance during what was supposed to be a very tense moment.

But that's just me. I enjoy losing myself in a film. Looking for flaws is not my thing as it takes me right out.

Ditto.

It's a weird thing for me to see how fascinated people are with trying to spot
mistakes and inconsistancies in films, almost like some sport.

I guess because I'm in the industry, I see films being "made" all day long, and mistakes all day long that we are letting go or covering up or distracting from. I just have no illusions that films aren't going to have such errors, as if I would have any glee in spotting them. (I'm not saying that precisely describes the people on this thread, btw).

I guess for me I'm always looking to forget the process of making films to get into the illusion, rather than keep trying to spot the mechanics and seams of the process.

That's one reason why I typically don't watch behind the scenes stuff. Once I see it, it can ruin the illusion.

(One of my favorite all time set of shots is the opening of Bladerunner. When I was young I bought all the making-off books, including Cinefantastique, which had the behind the scenes shots of the unadorned models of that landscape, forced perspective and all. Once seeing that, it was hard not to see the landscape as a model rather than the convincing world. It's so far in the past now that I can get into the FX of Bladerunner without thinking too much of the behind the scenes I watched. Though...the making of Bladerunner documentary that comes with the Blu-Ray is SO good it's hard not to dip into it)
R Harkness is online now  
post #267 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 06:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Well said. I'm in the middle of editing a mini doc on one of Hugh Jackman's backup singer, digeridoo players from his broadway show. We shot an hour interview at his apt and are now chronologically shuffling shots around and all I can see is that his teacup keeps changing position on the table or disappearing in the edit!!!

Once you see that. You never unsee it
Dave Mack is offline  
post #268 of 1202 Old 03-04-2012, 06:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirjonsnow View Post

Austrian.

Anschluss. Same year as the movie.
Doctor is offline  
post #269 of 1202 Old 03-05-2012, 01:15 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

Then if the visible error is so innocuous how come the digital correction is such a contested issue? I fail to see the relevance of your latter example, or non sequitur.

Now this opens up the pandora's box of who dictates what version of a film is released and which should be considered the definitive version. Today, especially for established directors with clout, frequently studios will mostly differ to directors judgement for creative decisions; yet not long in the past however, directors were no more than hired technicians and many creative decisions and final cut were dictated by the studio, or producer.

In the case of Blade Runner, the studio had cold feet and felt they knew better than Ridley Scott and created the theatrical cut and forced Harrison Ford to record that tacked on Voice Over. Now if Scott had been permitted final cut originally then twenty years later decided to have Ford record a Voice Over and made that the only defacto version of the film readily available to the masses then yes I would object to that revision. Whereas wire removal is an appropriate change that reinforces the intent and vision of the filmmaker, again not the same league of Lucas tweaks.

The whole concept of Auteur Directors making all the sacrosanct creative decisions is a relatively recent development which is still often isolated to established successful directors.

Those who have actually worked on a shoot knows first hand that this sort of thing does indeed happen and do go unnoticed, even with all measures to avoid such mistakes and errors.

Perhaps Spielberg did notice but the take as a whole was the best variant or he only did several takes and moved on. Once more the likelihood of Spielberg or his DP, depending on who was operating the camera, simply missed the reflection in that take is very possible. The reality that he did have it removed when given the opportunity proves that he found it objectionable.

Simply provided another example that follows your flawed premise of equating to different things as though they were the same.

I love Raiders as well but I fail to see the validity in justification of sentimentalizing a technical error that can now be rectified.

Now you and I frequently meet eye to eye on things dvdmike007, but you are only agreeing with Spielberg's current position this instance because it matches your own bias. Yet you disagree with James Cameron's decision to adjust and change a few things for Aliens.

Best Regards
KvE

Nope, point was it's not changing so people need to get over it.
Also there is a thread for blade runner.
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #270 of 1202 Old 03-05-2012, 01:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TitusTroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I agree that the cover art is terrible...they did not need to have 4 shots of Indy from the different movies...just 1 iconic shot of him would have been perfect
TitusTroy is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off