Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 9

Originally Posted by RedOctober205

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

Originally Posted by RobertR

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

Originally Posted by RedOctober205

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

Originally Posted by RobertR

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.

Originally Posted by RedOctober205

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

Originally Posted by RedOctober205

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

Originally Posted by RedOctober205

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

Originally Posted by RedOctober205

Either you enjoy it or you don't.

Originally Posted by RedOctober205

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

Originally Posted by amoergosum

That cover looks terrible.

Originally Posted by R Harkness

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.

Originally Posted by R Harkness


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?

Originally Posted by RedOctober205

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.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya


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 *

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

* 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 *

Originally Posted by CatBus

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.

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.

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).

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

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.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

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.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

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

Originally Posted by dvdmike007

I take Spielberg's opinion over everyone here.

Originally Posted by R Harkness


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.

Originally Posted by R Harkness

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by dvdmike007

I take Spielberg's opinion over everyone here.

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

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.

Originally Posted by sirjonsnow

Austrian.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

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