Originally Posted by CatBus
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by dvdmike007
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.