Indiana Jones UHD Collection

[Dek Rollins]

Digitally turning the lamp on above Indy and Marion at the end isn't an invisible change. It's not what the movie looked like and it's nothing but a distraction. Sure they were fixing a continuity error with a following shot, but then the UHD version makes an entirely new continuity error by also digitally lighting up the lamp in another shot that comes after all the lights explode. So nothing was gained while something was surely lost. It may sound silly, but that first shot of Indy and Marion tied to the post in the dark was always a very striking visual to me, and sticking an obvious fake digital light on top of it takes that away.

The end of the shovel that was digitally replaced when they're digging for the well of souls is another example of a completely unnecessary fix that's just distracting. The original composite made the end of the shovel handle semi transparent, but the CG replacement looks awful and is way more noticeable than the original error.

Same thing with all the digital tinkering in the out of focus bit in the temple entrance. They patched a distracting error on the negative with even more distracting digital processing and digital still image morphs all over Satipo's face.

But of course, these changes aren't directly comparable to a CG dinosaur's butt being plastered over the entire shot, so they aren't allowed to be criticized. I don't even mind the erased boulder rig and snake glass reflections so much, since those truly are invisible for the most part, but some of the stuff they've been doing to Raiders since the Blu-ray is just atrocious.

[ac3]

Oh the humanity

[ac3]

Meh I'd be more bothered if they replaced the guns with walkie talkies like et. Differences In the Color grading never bothered me much either as long as the movie looks good. If they changed everything to pink maybe then I'd worry.

[captainsolo]

It’s not just fixes but unnecessary tweaks on films that are supposed to have rougher edges because or their attempts to mimic Republic serials. Things have been adjusted, moved, recomposited or simply redone all over.

Ebert wrote in his Raiders great movies review “I hope they never change the effects” and he was right because they’re SUPPOSED to be a bit dodgy and handmade and visceral.

I’m a purist and archival minded but this also goes against the spirit of the films. Imagine if you took a classic Republic serial and touched up all the effects and optical shots just because you could. It would not be the same thing any longer.

[Doctor M]

It’s not just fixes but unnecessary tweaks on films that are supposed to have rougher edges because or their attempts to mimic Republic serials. Things have been adjusted, moved, recomposited or simply redone all over.

Ebert wrote in his Raiders great movies review “I hope they never change the effects” and he was right because they’re SUPPOSED to be a bit dodgy and handmade and visceral.

I’m a purist and archival minded but this also goes against the spirit of the films. Imagine if you took a classic Republic serial and touched up all the effects and optical shots just because you could. It would not be the same thing any longer.

Link please. I've never heard that the effects were intended to look cheap/dated.

[zoidberg]

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great...t-ark-1981

It's literally the first search entry that comes up, not some arcane article in a long lost journal.

FWIW I don't believe the FX work was intended to be dated at the time of production, if you read Ebert's initial review from 1981 he refers to 'flawless movie technology brought to a combination of stunts, special visual effects, and sheer sweat'. The VFX were made by ILM and supervised by Richard Edlund, using every trick under the sun to get the shots they needed. A sense that things only had to be not good but 'good enough'. Which is what I think is the spirit of Raiders, obviously borrowed from the saturday serials style of filmmaking, i.e. cliffhangers, death-defying stunts and spectacles. Basically the pace is such that there's no time to think about how preposterous/unlikely the last situation was before the next situation/stunt, and likewise things like compositing flaws would have only been truly scrutinised once released on home video (which in many cases highlight things which would go unnoticed or be much reduced on positive print film). At the very least to redo the VFX digitally is a kick in the teeth to all the optical technicians who worked like gangbusters to get the film into theatres on time.

What this release does highlight in a very obvious way is attitudes toward revisionism. Put simply most people are happy with revisionism if it doesn't bother them, or if they like the new revision. This covers everything from visual effects fixes, colour timing/grading, audio remixes, new/omitted scenes/shots, even things like remade optical fades/dissolves and digitally generated titles/credits. You have to see it on a scale, little tweaks (like the yellow bucket) may be a v1.02 but your full-blown Lucas stuff would be a v2.0. Both are revisions but again, it depends on whether you like the changes I guess

[captainsolo]

Exactly. I should clarify it was the best possible work done at the time under those conditions. Raiders did marry together the new LFL and ILM techniques with the tried and true classic methods.

The same goes for the Republic serials. In their day the flying effects in Captain Marvel were astounding and still work today even though you can tell how they were done.

[Doctor M]

Digitally turning the lamp on above Indy and Marion at the end isn't an invisible change. It's not what the movie looked like and it's nothing but a distraction. Sure they were fixing a continuity error with a following shot, but then the UHD version makes an entirely new continuity error by also digitally lighting up the lamp in another shot that comes after all the lights explode. So nothing was gained while something was surely lost. It may sound silly, but that first shot of Indy and Marion tied to the post in the dark was always a very striking visual to me, and sticking an obvious fake digital light on top of it takes that away.

The end of the shovel that was digitally replaced when they're digging for the well of souls is another example of a completely unnecessary fix that's just distracting. The original composite made the end of the shovel handle semi transparent, but the CG replacement looks awful and is way more noticeable than the original error.

Same thing with all the digital tinkering in the out of focus bit in the temple entrance. They patched a distracting error on the negative with even more distracting digital processing and digital still image morphs all over Satipo's face.

But of course, these changes aren't directly comparable to a CG dinosaur's butt being plastered over the entire shot, so they aren't allowed to be criticized. I don't even mind the erased boulder rig and snake glass reflections so much, since those truly are invisible for the most part, but some of the stuff they've been doing to Raiders since the Blu-ray is just atrocious.

I still watch the 2003 box set release. I'm fairly certain a lot of what you mention here isn't in them.

[Dek Rollins]

Digitally turning the lamp on above Indy and Marion at the end isn't an invisible change. It's not what the movie looked like and it's nothing but a distraction. Sure they were fixing a continuity error with a following shot, but then the UHD version makes an entirely new continuity error by also digitally lighting up the lamp in another shot that comes after all the lights explode. So nothing was gained while something was surely lost. It may sound silly, but that first shot of Indy and Marion tied to the post in the dark was always a very striking visual to me, and sticking an obvious fake digital light on top of it takes that away.

The end of the shovel that was digitally replaced when they're digging for the well of souls is another example of a completely unnecessary fix that's just distracting. The original composite made the end of the shovel handle semi transparent, but the CG replacement looks awful and is way more noticeable than the original error.

Same thing with all the digital tinkering in the out of focus bit in the temple entrance. They patched a distracting error on the negative with even more distracting digital processing and digital still image morphs all over Satipo's face.

But of course, these changes aren't directly comparable to a CG dinosaur's butt being plastered over the entire shot, so they aren't allowed to be criticized. I don't even mind the erased boulder rig and snake glass reflections so much, since those truly are invisible for the most part, but some of the stuff they've been doing to Raiders since the Blu-ray is just atrocious.

I still watch the 2003 box set release.  I'm fairly certain a lot of what you mention here isn't in them.

I never claimed that wasn't the case. I was referencing mostly changes that have been made on the Blu-ray and UHD, considering this thread is about the UHD version. The 2003 DVD, to my memory, only has a few changes. Those being: removal of boulder rig and snake glass reflections, recomposited Pan American matte painting, and recomposited map sequence immediately after that. The Blu-ray actually returned the original composites of those last two, though the matte painting shot was still altered to smooth over some static painted shadows in the water the original shot had.

I might be forgetting something else, but that's all I remember being changed in the DVD version.

[zoidberg]

The blu ray would have had the new CG Jeep and soldiers going off the cliff shot in Raiders, were it not for the fact that that shot debuted on HDTV and the backlash was such that the change was reversed. If I'm not mistaken the BBC still use that HD master when they broadcast Raiders.
It's a superb model FX shot and CGing it achieved nothing