Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 10

I like this one here >>>

Interesting point. I don't know if the Panaflex of that day (quite early models) yet had a tap; and you are right that it would have been rather crude. Another factor is that Speilberg would sometimes operate shots himself...with various degrees of success and at risk of "missing" something that an experienced operator probably would not.

I might make a custom one that takes off of this poster...

As far as the official cover goes, I think the indiscriminate combination of photographs and paintings looks very cheap and tacky (and not in a material-appropriate pulpy throwback way).

If I can distill our disagreement down to its essential points...

1) Intent vs. tolerances. You believe that unintended errors are fair game for correction. I believe films are full of unintended errors and only the ones that are outside the tolerances of the time are fixed, and they are fixed at the time. So by my definition, no films contain errors worth fixing because if they made it onto the final print, they are, by definition, within tolerances. Neither point is provable, and my position probably seems as naïve to you as yours does to me.

2) Historical value of errors. This is actually derived from the first point. I think errors have historical value because they show what the tolerances for error used to be at various points in history. If you don't think it was within tolerances, of course there's not much historical value.

3) Public right to art in the public space. I think once a piece of art enters the public space, the public has a right to see that this piece of art is preserved in the state in which they saw it (e.g. Library of Congress, etc). I'm not sure you care one way or the other about this.

Correct, for general public exhibition and consumption. Ideally those decisions would be supervised by the pertinent filmmakers; otherwise by individuals that have the appropriate appreciation for (the) film and understand the difference between scrubbing away film grain versus say unintended errors. Such as wires which more often than not were never intended to be visible to the audience.


This is a mistaken assumption that all errors were noted or observed at the time of the take and could be resolved by improving the next take. Even if reshoots are permitted and a particular mistake has been discovered, it may not be practical to get a better take or it is determined that it is tolerable enough to let slide and focus resources elsewhere.

Those who actually have worked on a film project, such as myself, know that errors occur and no one notices at the time but those mistake rear their heads down the road when it may not be feasible to redo. If the error is egregious enough then yes it would be a candidate for a reshoot.

Yet if you had an elaborate set and it has already been torn down and the hypothetical shot is fairly wide you go with the take that has the best performance, hopefully without any obvious issues. Especially before the advent of powerful digital tools.


That is one assumption and can be correct periodically but I disagree that it is the rule rather than the exception. Coming from experience being on actual shoots and film school.

This is a flawed premise, although it does retain a fair amount of truth to it. Again mistakes actually can be missed until the film is released or when it is too late in post-production, it happens and in order to meet deadlines the filmmakers must resign themselves to that state and hope no one notices.


In respects to archival copies I fully endorse retaining the highest quality versions possible, including errors. What I disagree with is retaining certain issues for home theater consumption.


A different animal but I agree with you partly here. As mentioned prior in this response and earlier in the thread. The highest quality archival copies should be retained for the sake of posterity, with the inclusion of various errors. I believe Library of Congress attempts to retain various versions of works that have been revised. Books that have been changed by the author for example or Star Wars where I believe they do have several versions.

I feel that for general public consumption certain issues can and should be addressed so long as they are subtle, organic, congruent, unintrusive, and complimentary to the suspension of disbelief. I do understand why some feel that corrections are inappropriate revisions. Although I believe the heighten sensitivity has more to do with the imprudent, incongruent, superfluous, inconsistent, and obnoxious changes Lucas applied to Star Wars.

I hope this provides clearer common ground.

Best Regards
KvE

PS I love those alternate cover suggestions, amoergosum and Evangelo2. Perfectly depicts the spirit of the series.
Why subtlety and simplicity escapes Lucasfilms these days is perplexing.

I think if someone sees the error, really wishes they could fix it, but budget, time, and logistical restrictions make it infeasible so they let it pass, then they've just made the call that it's within tolerances. And if they failed to see it at all, then it's within tolerances too. It's a subjective terminology disagreement at this point is what I'm saying, your terms and mine are not in accord, and I'm not sure there's much to be done about changing that.

What photos do ye speak of? That's all drawn poster art on the official cover.

Edit: Just double checked, yep, it's all drawn. Crystal Skull and Last Crusade are from Drew Struzan's posters, Temple of Doom is by Bruce Wolfe (got that one on my wall, it's badass) and Raiders is Richard Amsel's poster.

The bottom left corner (Last Crusade?) image is either a photo or looks substantially more photo-realistic than the other images.

Such is the power of Drew Struzan.

http://www.impawards.com/1989/indian...sade_ver1.html

Look again. The image on the cover mock-up is the photograph on which that Struzan art is based.

Hmmm. It's not Struzan's art, you're right, but it still doesn't look like a photograph to me, neither does this one which I presume is the same base image of Indy: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00147AK76
Actually, that larger Last Crusade cover kinda looks like a stylised head has been 'shopped onto the real torso from the photograph.

It's Stuzan's work, it's just been touched up for the cover.

Whatever the case, it looks incongruous with the other, more figural/representational images. It makes the cover look sloppy and thrown together, IMO.

Worlds biggest Struzan fan here, but never loved his original Raiders work.

The art he did for the Japanese poster was awesome.

It was good, but the original one sheet was iconic

Classic. Richard Amsel. Bought a used folded poster a few months after the movie came out through a Canadian seller. In the 80's you bought posters from seller ads in publications, magazines, etc.

Mr.G,
your pic is not showing up.....

This one?

Just as we have the Hippocratic oath popularised as "first do no harm", I think we need an equivalent one for film "first ensure the original is preserved".

To me, that is the classic Raiders art and what I remember growing up around.^^^

One of the very best one sheets ever produced

+1

That one-sheet has been hanging on display in our home theater room since 1989! It still looks great! And I agree it's one of the best one-sheets of all time!

Mark

Struzan got way better with raiders the more he tried, I am not a fan of the wind swept first version.
I own all the book collections of his work and a couple of original one sheets, but his later Raiders and the other movies became and embodied Jones as a series.

Blu-ray trailer.

Good stuff looking forward to it.

I could care less what's on the front, I only see the spine when it's in my collection. Now LDs had some beautiful covers and those you could frame and hang. I have 2 framed, both autographed. Ann Robinson "War of the Worlds" and Paul Manti "Robinson Crusoe on Mars."

Never seen a BD cover hung on a wall...who'd want to?

Are we arguing that the poster in post #290 is the original one-sheet?

The original (cropped) is the one in post #271.