Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 35

Not only is there DNR, but there's quite a bit of it and it's permanently baked into the DI. Can you imagine if Raiders looked like THAT? What about Lawrence? Ben-Hur? Titanic? There would be riots! Yet this piece of garbage gets a complete pass. Unbelievable.

That is the way the filmmakers made it...with digital cameras and whatever noise reduction process they used to arrive at the DI. I hate that look to but I'm not going call it a travesty and demand anyone change it.

I watched the disc today and there is a ton of fine detail

If it looked terrible in the theatre, I'd be a hypocrite if it didn't also want it to look just as terrible on Blu-ray.

I just watched Temple of Doom and I thought it looked flawless. No aliasing to be seen ANYWHERE, great, faithful color, depth and detail, and for the record I have an Epson 6500ub and a 106 inch screen. People are harping on Raiders, and justly so to an extent, but watching Temple was like watching a great film print without any hint of digital manipulation. Haven't checked out Last Crusade yet.

If there is a way to tone down the color bias using available software to the file stream then remuxing it then this would have been a very good transfer. They went overboard "warming" up the movie to cater to the modern audience used to this kind of look. Some scenes now have a different "look and feel". The same remaster is also being shown at IMAX today. To the "reviewers" around the web getting these freebies and declaring "The best it's ever looked!" is a signal that its okay to manipulate movies like this because it's acceptable. This phenomena I suspect will infect more catalog releases in the future.

After all these years some people still has no clue. Here in AVSforum we strive for quality. We have threads that have thousand repilies, millions of views and terabytes of images transfered to prove our case. We let the studios know what are not acceptable and they sometimes listen. I don't need to list them but I can count less than ten the number of re-release where the studios went back to the drawing board to please the film nerds. We take what we can get.
Edited by Xylon - 9/20/12 at 9:35pm

Indiana Jones is so last Tuesday. Time to count the days until Bond!

Mark

The Terminator, 4K Lowry/Lightstorm/Cameron master coming out on October 1st, 2012 in Europe.

Interesting idea........ Who would make a good Indy today? I think Mathew McConaughey could pull it off.

He would work, but I would love to see someone like Aaron Eckhardt get a shot... Collin Farrell?

Nathan Fillion, the most wasted actor in Hollywood's history. Hurry, before he gets old.

That would be an excellent choice indeed!

+1 to him being Indy in a reboot.
+1 to agreeing that he is a wasted talent

-10,000 for you thinking the the Avengers Blu-ray looks horrendous, unless you thought it looked horrendous in the theater, because it's identical to the theatrical release in PQ. How do I know this? because I saw it four times in theater, then watched the full Blu-ray ISO torrent of it on my Epson 8350 @ 100" immediately after seeing it a fifth time (or was it the sixth? I lost track) at the theater on Labor Day (Sep 3). Gobs of detail and sharp as a tack, but soft CG shots and some flat imagery. Par for the course with digital video. I can't wait for my Blu-ray to arrive next week!

That was hilarious.

My point was this is THEIR art not yours. If I write a book and want to revise that damn book as in Leaves of Grass I will do that and I will not care what you as the end user think. If I want my film to suddenly look bright pink well then bud you are **** out of luck because I am the the creator here.

The idea that Rome is now being compared to Film escapes me slightly although I see your point.

Again, I like what Blade Runner did for that set and that should be what people aim for. In the case where they are not going beyond simple restoration well then Spielberg has the right to revisit what he never had the chance to do and do whatever he pleases with it.

Yeah, Lucas has killed his films but that is because he has not taste. If he spend 200 million to restore the Star Wars films with updated effects and stuff and to make them blend seamlessly, and most of all, have some damn taste while doing it I would never revisit the old ones again.

But obviously the guy will never do this. We can only hope for 4k that Star Wars has elmo bots running around and the tint is a nice brash pinkish flavor so we can all talk about it until the end of our lives.

And if there were someone out there arguing that you couldn't do it, that (straw) man would be wrong--because your old copy would still be out there in the highest-quality possible for people to enjoy if they chose. You would only cross the line when you start to go out to the libraries that still have copies of your old version, and either take them away, swap them with your revised version, or replace them with grainy illegible photographs of the old edition. The line isn't crossed when you decide to make changes, the line is crossed when you actively seek out and destroy cultural works.

To quote an expert on the subject of destruction of cultural works: "In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be 'replaced' by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."

Honestly, though, this film never looked that great in the first place. The new color timing suits the film and Indy's style imo. I can however see why people get upset because they have some close affinity to how it was. If you want that old film you can watch the DVD. I don't know what else to say. There are many first editions of books that were later revised that are not available. It's how it is. It's not your film to tinker with and that is not a straw man argument it's the flippin' truth.

That old film is not available on DVD, and even if it were, it would be a pretty shoddy reproduction of 35mm under the best-case scenario. A lot of people were hoping the Blu-ray would be their first chance to see that old film looking like it used to, in any format other than 35mm.

I don't know of many books that are unavailable for purchase. The first editions of many books are still for sale in bookstores nationwide. The only books I know that are unavailable are the ones that went up in flames when the library at Alexandria was sacked. I'm against burning books, but editing books is fine. Same with film. I love many Director's Cuts, I think they add a lot to the film, and I'm glad they do it. Shame about burning the old ones though.

But really, your argument is a straw man argument. You keep saying we're somehow opposed to tinkering with, modifying, editing things. And yet there's just no evidence for it. They have that right, and we have zero people arguing against it.

If you say that we're opposed to director's destroying films that they've already released to the public so that the public can no longer see them at all, that would be accurate. Heck, we've even got cases where a producer at the studio has stepped in and done this to other people's films, so authorship has never really been a factor in the discussion.
Edited by CatBus - 9/21/12 at 3:17pm

I think Josh Holloway (Sawyer from LOST) would make a good Indy. Any of the other actors mentioned could pull it off, but I'd rather not see a reboot.

I don't want to see another Indy unless they have a quality writer. I am not too sure they ever have so won't hold my breathe on that. It is kind of strange to me how bad CS was. Usually Spielberg is not associated with films that bad. It's almost if Lucas was the main guy behind it but who knows.

IMO, this would never work. As much as think Harrison is really a pretty sub par actor, he none the less is Indiana Jones. It's his signature role. The problem is not that he's old - it's that the script and story were not well conceived or executed.

They also need a good and unique story. CS could have been much better, even with same basic story. I still maintain the biggest weakness was having a female villian, and a totally unconvicing one at that. Cate Blanchett was totally miscast, IMO. She comes across as more of a spoof of villian than a real villian. For whatever reason, her character just flat out did not work at all and really brought down the movie. Don't get me wrong, there were other significant flaws, but I still think this is the biggest by far.

Well, we are talking about Hollywood here.. Reboots and sequels are pretty common, so it would be possible if Lucas and Spielberg were onboard.

Nathan Fillion recommended above woud be an awesome choice!

And Harrison Ford IS too old now.. 70 year old action heroes.... Not getting it done anymore, I say just give him a cameo...

The Lost World: Jurassic Park!...Spielberg has had his share of duds

Actually, The Lost World was generally excellent up until the San Diego part at the end. I thought at least.

Lucas wrote KOTCS, and he and Spielberg are buddies. If you have KOTCS, watch the extras... There is a lot of background on Lucas writing the story and Spielberg's reception of it.. The thing is, the Indy movies have always been fun and hokey, but the KOTCS took it too far... It could have been a good movie but it was overdone and too long.

Opening night 1997. Theater was packed. 30 minutes in people getting restless. I'm thinking, "ok it's going to get really good any minute now." About 45 minutes in I'm getting a sinking feeling in my stomach. It never did.

That was the second biggest movie going dissapointment of my life.

Lucas used a lot of the many many scripts that existed and cobbled them all together

It was a hodgepodge of bad ideas from all directions.

Obviously the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences thought otherwise as it was nominated for best cinematography.

Anyway, people should realise that the new color timing has not improved the look of the film, on the contrary. Without going into the details again, just by comparing the Raiders, Temple and Crusade Blu-rays the latter two look noticeably better (as far as colors are concerned). But there really is no reason why Raiders shouldn't look just as good.