Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 32

They're practically pixel-for-pixel identical on my screen, except the HDD one, which has identical colors but is softer. Are you using a mac by any chance? I've noticed on my macbook that sometimes colors in screencaps don't match up when they do on windows, which seems to also be the case here. Might be related to the browser/OS's color management.

I like reading Bill Hunt's blu-ray reviews over on DigitalBits...his Indy review is up now...

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewshd/bdreviews091712.html

For what it's worth, it's not the coloring of the logo that's the issue. The wites are blooming on it, though not as bright as the opening shot, which is very obviously blooming.

If you look closely at the logo, the lettering and the stars have a bit of a doughy look to them from the white push. There's clipping going on there. Color seems right, white levels seem off.

As a result, while the color seems right (or darned close), the whites seem clipped. The mids and darks seem mostly unnaffected, though.

Again, the logo isn't as affected as the opening scene, which seems pushed quite a bit more, to the point the sky is white where there used to be heavy clouds and even the credits lose fidelity. The intent was for the mountain and sky in the logo to essentially become the mountain and sky in the opening shot. It doesn't do that anymore since they no longer match each other. The effect is lost.

From my perspective, I'm not seeing an "orange and teal" cast. I'm seeing a yellow cast on certain shots, with boosted white levels on others.

Having said that, it's still worth buying since overall, it's looks great. It just could be all that much better, is all I'm saying. The frustrating part is that it's so darned close to being perfect that it could have been done that way.
Edited by NetworkTV - 9/19/12 at 9:25am

Watched Raiders last night on our 130" scope screen. There are some shots slightly out of focus, but overall it's by far the best it has looked in our home theater. I didn't find the color timing to be an issue. I'm not sure if it hadn't been brought up on here I would have even noticed. Maybe if I did a comparison between the Blu/DVD. As far as the Nazi flag debate, I did pay attention to the flags on the staff cars, the flying wing and at the sub base/island. I have seen several Nazi flags in person at museums. The color to my recollection, varied slightly between flags. Honestly I don't know if it is a product of time or production quality of the era. I've also seen markings on German WWII fighters in person. So based on that, only the flags in the finale stood out as having some possible color tinkering. The audio on Raiders was outstanding. I heard lines I don't believe I'd ever made out. The beefy German swearing as he comes out of the tent to fight Indy at the flying wing was one I hadn't noticed and made me grin.

Looking forward to seeing Temple of Doom and Last Crusade.

Agreed. Although a lot of text has been spilled over this, we're not talking about any problems that span large chunks of the film. Even the flag issue is quite limited to a few shots. All in all it's a very good release, in spite of the occasional fleeting color discrepancies.

Sorry, but the Paramount logo is blue, not teal. You have teal on the brain, I'm afraid. When did you first get this addiction - I'd guess that five years ago you'd never used the word before

Ah forgot. You're not the Internet generation. Can't follow links.

EDIT: Nevertheless, you're not the one I'm ever going to convince on this matter. I've provided the evidence for my position via a tricky new Internet method called URLs. You have provided the evidence for your position via the more traditional method of "Nuh-uh!". Others can weigh this evidence and draw their own conclusions. This thread really doesn't need any more on this.
Edited by CatBus - 9/19/12 at 10:17am

I honestly feel like no one actually even bothers to critique these older films anymore. It's pretty much this was so awesome 30 years ago and there is nothing wrong with it when there clearly is some pretty immersion breaking stuff. I mean, face melting effects? Uhh, no. Let's have some objectivity here. This stuff is far far far from anything resembling the cutting edge. That was decent how long ago? And it doesn't have the classic mentality that old films have. Effects laden films just look dated to me and not in a good way.

I guess it doesn't matter. I just don't feel the same way about these films anymore. A wild ride I guess but to me it just seems like an average low budget action adventure these days. Skin me alive but I don't watch films through rosy glasses.

Of course I love Indy I just wish they could have updated the whole thing without Spielberg throwing his schlock at it and trying way too hard to make it kids' stuff. They had the chance to really put one out of the park and they failed miserably to the point I don't trust Lucas at all and wish he would just go away.

I mean people seem more concerned with the color timing than if this film is even any good anymore.
Edited by khronikos - 9/19/12 at 11:38am

Dated effects aside what exactly is "low budget" about these films?

It's the blu-ray software forum *no comment about the film*, ever.


...what do you mean exactly by "I just wish they could have updated the whole thing"? As in new visual effects? In that case let me put it this way: NOOooooooo!!!!! A film is not a software that needs updating to keep it current.

Okay, I'll make an addendum to my review:
Raiders is still a great movie. And it is not "effects laden"

Here is an opinion piece on Jones that is not really popular. Most people forget there were more than a few prominent critics who disliked the ride as a whole. For the record I adored these films as a kid no doubt.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/11/23/raiders-of-the-lost-ark-is-the-spielberg-classic-overrated/

Low budget to me is some hammy acting, weird directing, and just lame special effects. I get into old films because they don't rely on effects much of the time and exist in their own territory. I AM NOT saying I dislike Indiana Jones as a character or that I think it was not innovative. I love the character and it was innovative. But a lot of time has passed. Getting ready to watch this wanting to be thrilled and I was left with a sigh. This just does not represent great film to me.

Now by that article there are plenty of people who watch this film like some kind of religion. And you cannot criticize their religion. I find these people hilarious. I am ADD AND I am without a soul because I don't enjoy a completely dated picture with mediocre acting?

That being said again why they could not update this franchise and bring in some quality people speaks volumes about its caretakers. Crystal Skull was completely and utterly awful.

No, I mean update it like Batman. Put somebody who knows film like Terry Gilliam or someone who can do fantasy well. Give it a good script and put some time into it. I just feel like they drove this franchise into the ground with that last one. It left a completely weird taste in me and watching these old ones even on Bluray I don't know I am ready to leave them in my childhood where they belong and where I loved them.

STOP THE PRESSES
someone on the internet thinks a movie is OVERRATED

That was not the point. The point is people cannot even speak about this film with any kind of objectivity or they are labeled as heretics.

I mean I do still like some scenes in these film for sure. I don't hate them or anything understand. I just don't enjoy them as much anymore.

Part of it the Lucas syndrome. I don't really feel this guy has ever made a decently serious or engrossing film imo. Star Wars is dated as hell as well. It could be really good but he is too busy half-assing it. They could devote a hundred million or so of his fortune to those films and give them the ultra blade runner edition and also give fans the originals too. But he has no taste and I don't even want him to try anymore if he doesn't have advisors and people that are simply better at their craft than him to do the job.

Art is nearly impossible to judge objectively.

Seriously... Al I know is I watched the first movie as a kid, and guess what, ran around the house for months pretending to be Indy with a fake whip, fighting Nazi's..

Fast forward to now. I have a 7 year old boy who is running around the house pretending to be Indy...

I don't suspect some critics to ever get this movie as they forgot what it was like to be a kid again and enjoy them for what they are. Are there are those critics that will simply post differing opinios just to get people to read them....

Objectivity, meaning the effects are garbage. This is not subjective. The effects are dated, old, and don't blend in at all. This is not my opinion.

The sound design is laughable. It's not realistic in any way. Subjective I guess if you must but the opening scenes of Raiders are funny to me. I mean can you hear the two tracks they have going in the jungle that don't sound at all like a jungle? Not to be mean but you pushed for an answer.

If I had kids there is no doubt this is a film franchise I would expose them to. No doubt at all.

And in 10 years people will say them same thing about the LOTR movies, Avatar, etc. so what? All special effects date themself at some point as technology evolves.

I don't really think LotR will be THAT dated. They built a lot of that stuff and it holds up well. Avatar is just a weird film. I would rather watch Indy than that any day of the week. No doubt other films have dated effects. This one is really old though and from a period that so to speak just doesn't come off well these days. Blade Runner is F'ing Lucky to hold up as well as it does. It's amazing really.

Robocop is another that is somewhat dated but I still totally enjoy it and see it as a masterpiece.

I also love Ford in these films. I just don't really like the scripts that much.

I mean I am just trying to discuss how I feel about these films. All there has really been is arguing over color timing in this thread.

There are definitely still scenes I love from Temple and Raiders that are pretty much engrained into my mind though.

Plus they totally inspired the Uncharted series on PS3 which is pretty awesome. And uh, most action adventure films too.

LOL Your posts are cracking me up. I'm guessing you're about 16 or 17?

Let me ask you....

Were you even alive in 1981? I not only was, but saw this in the theater.

The things they did back then with practical effects were pretty awesome then. I look at those effects now and see the craftsmanship of what they did to create those effects compared to the digital stuff today. You couldn't just tweak stuff until it's just the way you wanted. Often, with special effects, you got one take to get it right.

That final shot of raiders was a huge undetaking considering 95% of the shot was a painting - you know, painted with a paintbrush and paint. That's craftmanship. These days, they would have created it with CGI, then used some impossible swooping "camera" move to shoot it because it would look cool.

For what it's worth, I'll take the work involved with sucking a model house into a giant vacuum cleaner or a puppet Yoda any day.

Further, the film cost $18 million to make in 1981 dollars, which was about average for that time. It's just under $45 million now, which isn't blockbuster money, but far from low budget.

First, Indy 4 wasn't an "update". It was a continuation of the story.

Second, we all know Indy 4 was ruined by nuking fridges, Tarzan-style vine swinging and "interdimensional beings".

We're more concerned with color timing because that's all that's wrong with the movie.

If you don't like it, why do you care?

Again, and this time I'm serious (see #940), it may just be that people prefer to focus on the technicalities in that particular forum, otherwise things would get ugly pretty fast. That's why we also have the movie forum... Having said that I understand we're all passionate about movies (there goes the objectivity ), I am myself more than once tempted to comment on the film rather than the Blu-ray release itself.

Yet that's consistent with the timeline... Roswell, Cold War... It would have been silly to have Indy fighting nazis for 20 years

To be honest, Crystal Skull may not be my favorite, but it's just too cool to see these characters again...

Of course LOTR will look dated. As good as it looked when it was made, for the same reason any movie made with CGI will over time. Just consider Moore's Law, I mean we will see these being done with computers in 10 years that are not even fathomable now.

The original Star Wars (A New Hope) won numerous Academy Awards for special effects back in 1978, and now if you made a movie using those same effects, the critics would kill you with the criticism.

It is just the way it is, and I simply don't focus on the special effects when watching catalog films. It would drive me nuts and take away from the enjoyment of the movie.

Actually, for me, it's theat the color timing is something that was altered and should not have been. It's changeable if the studio wanted to.

The rest, including the effects, is in the can. No one is going back and creating them again. The movie has been made, is done and it's what we're left with.

After reading reviews of Crystal Skull, I put off watching the movie as long as I could. While I did not find it as bad as most reviews, I felt the film to be the worst of the series by quite a bit. I also enjoyed it more than I expected. But my expectations were very low...

Hopefully this can be redeemed with the fifth movie, but I have serious doubts as long as Lucas is involved.

raiders is the greatest movie ever made that isnt called star wars thats the final answer on that one

well they better get to work quick... Harrison Ford is getting a bit too old and Shia is concentrating on artsy flicks now, he's done with blockbusters, or so he thinks

Noooooooooooo!

I would actually like to see a reboot.. Harrison in some sort of cameo role and Shia gone... Not a fan of him...