Raiders of the Lost Ark: Special Edition
Mercerton
Matthew Melis <th...@pop.erols.com> wrote:
<<Why is everyone so worried? Any changes done to the Indy trilogy, Jaws,
Close Encounters, ET, etc. will be done (or at the least supervised by
Spielberg). George Lucas is even on the board of directors of a group
fighting for artistic rights.<<<
And that didn't stop Lucas from ignoring the rights of Irvin Kershner or
Richard Marquand in altering two films he did not direct. And how does
this guarantee anything regarding Spielberg's films?
>>>The group wants a law made so that when a
film is tampered with it will not be by one person, but a collective
decision by all who origionally made the film. He didn't change the
Empire without input from Irvin Kirschner (Kirschner was in an interview
talking about the changes, which he knew about and helped with) so why
would he change Raiders without input from Spielberg.<<<
Regardless of Kershner's apathetic stance of the altering of Empire (like
there was anything he could do about it anyway), the late Richard Marquand
had absolutely no say in how Return of the Jedi was handled. If Lucas
truly respected the rights of the director, he wouldn't have touched it.
How would Lucas feel if, upon his death, one of his daughters decided to
add little pink bunny rabbits to Star Wars? He'd be rolling in his grave
-- then again, based on some the moronic changes in the Star Wars Trilogy
Special Editions, he might actually like pink bunnies. Who knows?
>>>As for changes on other Spielberg movies:
-The guns in E.T. was Spielberg thinking aloud. He has already said that
he would only add scenes, not redo scenes.<<<
Spielberg had total control over the E.T. laserdisc. If he were only
"thinking aloud" and his comments were irrelevant, they certainly would
not have been included on the disc and made public record. In fact, on
the laserdisc, he seemed pretty enthusiastic about the changes.
>>>-A CGI shark in Jaws is unlikely but if it did happen it would improve
on the ILM's already impressive effects. It wouldn't take over the movie
like some have said.<<<
ILM, while certainly a pioneer in visual effects technology, has not had a
perfect track record by any means. Nor have I seen anyone here say that a
CG shark would "take over the movie." It *could* however detract from the
narrative the same way many of the changes in the Star Wars Special
Editions did.
>>>-And Close Encounters is in desperate need of a rerelease. The tape
versions are horrible, and I assume that the negatives are too. And CGI
ships would be a nice addition, to the film.<<<
Why is CE3K in "desperate need of a re-release?" I mean, I would love to
see it in a theater again -- but why does it HAVE to be re-released? How
would CG ships improve the film? The existing models are beautiful, thank
you very much. How do additional ships enhance the story or characters?
The strength of Spielberg's films have always been their heart, their
humanity -- and no amount of technological whiz-bang can supplant that.
The ever-growing techno-fetish mentality among some CG-hypnotized
moviegoers is becoming increasingly disturbing.
>>>You all have to remember that this is Spielberg we're talking about
here, he's no idiot.<<<
Nor is he perfect. One year ago, I wouldn't have doubted George Lucas
either, but with the Special Editions, he proved with a vengeance (along
with Spielberg with his comments of late), that these childhood icons of
fantastic filmmaking are mere mortals and not only capable of bad
decisions, but also capable of far more sinister plots against artistic
integrity.
>>>If he's going to tamper with HIS OWN FILMS then I'm
possitive that the changes will be for the better.<<<
I envy your blissful attitude. I wish I could share it, but like the old
saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I can't afford to be fooled again.
Doc3rdkind
merc...@aol.com (Mercerton) wrote:
<<And that didn't stop Lucas from ignoring the rights of Irvin Kershner or
Richard Marquand in altering two films he did not direct. And how does
this guarantee anything regarding Spielberg's films?>>
kershner and marquand directed those films as much as tobe hooper directed
poltergeist. ie, they didnt. lucas was the real director of all the star
wars movies, not just the first one. yes, maybe lucas did technically
violate artistic rights by doing changes without kershner and marquand,
but in spirit of the idea of artistic rights he did not. the vision behind
and creation of the star wars trilogy has, and always will, belonged to
one man- george lucas. there is no way- absolutely no way- that lucas
would change indy without spielberg, because he knows that spielberg is
every bit the author of the film that lucas is.
<<It *could* however detract from the
narrative the same way many of the changes in the Star Wars Special
Editions did.>>
to quote vinny barbarino, what? when? where? what changes to star wars too
away from the narrative? i can understand being upset about the changes in
terms of affecting the purity of the works- though i would disagree with
that notion- but in what ways did any of the changes destract from the
narrative?
<<How would CG ships improve the film? The existing models are beautiful,
thank
you very much. How do additional ships enhance the story or characters?
The strength of Spielberg's films have always been their heart, their
humanity -- and no amount of technological whiz-bang can supplant that.
The ever-growing techno-fetish mentality among some CG-hypnotized
moviegoers is becoming increasingly disturbing.>>
i agree with that. but i'm not sure that lucas or spielberg is arguing
that the cg effects make the movie better, just that it would make certain
elements more realistic, or that certain elements can be closer to the
original vision as intended. its not about making the movie better, its
about adding something, or giving something else to it. its like you can
watch star wars on video on a 12 inch tv screen, but it certainly adds
something more to get to watch it on a 26 inch one, even though it doesnt
actually make the movie better.
<<>>>You all have to remember that this is Spielberg we're talking about
here, he's no idiot.<<<
Nor is he perfect. One year ago, I wouldn't have doubted George Lucas
either, but with the Special Editions, he proved with a vengeance (along
with Spielberg with his comments of late), that these childhood icons of
fantastic filmmaking are mere mortals and not only capable of bad
decisions, but also capable of far more sinister plots against artistic
integrity.>>
damn, the melodrama around here would make david selznick proud. you gotta
learn the difference between opinion and absolutist fact. you dont like
the changes? fine. you think lucas was wrong in his actions? fine. but
dont act like the judge, jury, and executioner in defining the absolute
right and wrong of the morality of their decisions. "sinister plots"?
youre going too far. youre starting to sound like jerry falwell talking
about ellen.
Clio WWVV
Too see a really good version of Close Encounters on video...get the
Criterion Collection laser disc.......it's very impressive and you can
program it to watch the original version...the special edition....or all
of the footage!
Doug
Doc3rdkind
mercerton wrote:
<<doc3r...@aol.com (Doc3rdkind) wrote:
>kershner and marquand directed those films as much as tobe hooper
directed
>poltergeist. ie, they didnt. lucas was the real director of all the star
>wars movies, not just the first one. yes, maybe lucas did technically
>violate artistic rights by doing changes without kershner and marquand,
>but in spirit of the idea of artistic rights he did not. the vision
behind
>and creation of the star wars trilogy has, and always will, belonged to
>one man- george lucas. there is no way- absolutely no way- that lucas
>would change indy without spielberg, because he knows that spielberg is
>every bit the author of the film that lucas is.
I can't even begin to digest the trainwreck of conflicting logic and
falsehoods above. First, regarding the Kershner and Marquand, although
Lucas was certainly the primary force behind the films in the conceptual
and post-production stages, all one has to do is read the 'Making Of"
journals on Empire and Jedi to know that Marquand and especially Kershner
had FAR more control over the films than you're crediting them with. I
can't even believe you would post such blatantly false claims in public.>>
your capacity for hyberbole and exxageration is rather dazzling. a
trainwreck of conflicting logic and falsehoods? blatantly false claims? to
say they are blatantly false claims is to say that i am intentionally
lying, and even if i am wrong, i am not intentionally lying, and everybody
knows that, and everybody knows im just expressing my opinion. when you
present your arguements in this manner you lose all credibility and come
off as immature and childish. it doesnt help your case.
now as for your point, yes, Marquand and Kershner had input, but then so
does the cinematographer, the editor, and so on, meaning film is obviously
a collaborative art process and many people have input. in this particular
case, though, fact is regardless of their input, Lucas is the man who
created Empire Strikes Back and Return of Jedi and he is the author of the
movie regardless of the official designation of director titles. and i
dont think anyone can reasonably deny that Lucas deserves to be thought of
as and is the author of the film. unless youre going to argue that
everyone should have the right to voice their opinion on alterations- from
camera man to editor- which would be an arguement i could understand and
appreciate but still disagree with, then it is Lucas' film as author to
make the choices about.
<<And regarding your convenient dismissal of Lucas' double standard (it's
okay to make the changes if HE owns the films, but it's not okay if others
do), I realize that Lucas would PROBABLY clear any Indy changes with
Spielberg before he did it (as I have said many times now), but my point
is, legally, he doesn't have to (as he proved with the Empire and Jedi
Special Editions) and Spielberg might not even mind (as proved by his
family-friendly revisionistic attitude on the E.T. laserdisc.)>>
i never said that its ok for Lucas to change films he owns. you should
read carefully what i say before making such accusations. if anything is
posting blatantly false claims, then its you with that statement. what i
said, and its right there for anyone to read, is that Lucas is the author
of the movie (according to my arguement), so in spirit of protecting
author's rights its ok for him to change the film, because he created it,
not because he owns it. my point is its ok for the author to make the
changes, not the owner, and thats what ive always contended.
and as for you saying that your point isnt that Lucas would change the
film without Spielberg, but only that Lucas could do it if he wanted to,
thats bull. in fact this is your exact statement- "And that didn't stop
Lucas from ignoring the rights of Irvin Kershner or Richard Marquand in
altering two films he did not direct. And how does this guarantee
anything regarding Spielberg's films?" obviously you are stating a concern
that Lucas may change the film without Spielberg's approval. i see no
other way of interpreting your statement.
<<>to quote vinny barbarino, what? when? where? what changes to star wars
too
>away from the narrative? i can understand being upset about the changes
in
>terms of affecting the purity of the works- though i would disagree with
>that notion- but in what ways did any of the changes destract from the
>narrative?
We've been through this several times, and you simply refuse to
acknowledge the facts I've presented. You've claimed that Han Solo isn't
supposed to be a cold-blooded mercenary even though Han himself tells Leia
late in the film, "I'm not in this for your revolution and I'm not in it
for you, Princess. I expect to be well paid, I'm in it for the money."
Oh yeah, and Leia tells Luke, "Your friend is quite a mercenary. I wonder
if he cares about anything...or anybody." No, not cold-blooded at all.>>
hyperbole and exaggeration again. i never refused to acknowledge the facts
youve presented, i simply disagree with your interpretation and opinion on
them. once again, you really gotta learn to stop presenting your views as
absolutist fact rather than opinion.
anyway, no, i dont think han solo is cold blooded. ive said i think han is
a rogue, a loner, a drifter, in it for himself, yadda yadda yadda. however
that does not make him cold blooded. cold blooded is clint eastwood in the
good, the bad, and the ugly. cold blooded is charles bronson in death
wish. cold blooded is killing people when you dont have to, killing people
when its not in self defense, killing people unnecessarily, etc. han never
does those things. hence i dont think han is cold blooded. and the most
obviouse proof that han is not cold blooded is the fact that Lucas himself
did not want han to come off as cold blooded. so clearly he wouldve
presented the character in a non-cold blooded manner.
<<>i agree with that. but i'm not sure that lucas or spielberg is arguing
>that the cg effects make the movie better, just that it would make
certain
>elements more realistic, or that certain elements can be closer to the
>original vision as intended. its not about making the movie better, its
>about adding something, or giving something else to it.
And again we go back to the old argument about whether CG is better or
not. Been there, done that, bought the Happy Meal.>>
did you get the hamburger or the chicken mcnuggets?
<<>damn, the melodrama around here would make david selznick proud. you
gotta
>learn the difference between opinion and absolutist fact. you dont like
>the changes? fine. you think lucas was wrong in his actions? fine. but
>dont act like the judge, jury, and executioner in defining the absolute
>right and wrong of the morality of their decisions. "sinister plots"?
>youre going too far. youre starting to sound like jerry falwell talking
>about ellen.
Funny, I could have sworn that EVERYTHING I posted was my opinion. You,
my friend, need to learn the difference between informed opinion and
fanboy cheerleading. If you choose to ignore the facts (which you have),
fine. But don't get your E.T. Underoos in a stitch if not everyone agrees
that the revisionistic Spielberg and Lucas of the '90s are not the same
Spielberg and Lucas some of us grew up on and were so deeply inspired
by.>>
maybe what youre posting is your opinion, but you present it in a
completely absolutist fashion, as if its defininite fact rather than
opion. i am not a fanboy cheerleader, im a lover of films. i havent
ignored the facts, what you dont realize is that you present facts, then
give your interpretations as further facts, rather than being subjective
opinions. i have simply countered your opinions with my own. and im not
the one who's getting upset over people disagreeing with me. i have been
in a number of arguements with many people on this list and no one has
accused me of being overly sensitive or defensive in my reactions, but
simply disagreeing with them as they disagree with me. ive never even
attacked you for your opinions, ive often said i understand what you say
and respect your opinions, but ive simply disagree with them, and most
especially your means of expressing your opinions. youre the one thats
making accusations of me lying, presenting intentional falsehoods,
ignoring your arguements, etc. ive never flamed you for your disagreeing
with me, ive only countered your opinions. youre the one thats been acting
all uptight and crazy over my disagreements.
and thats all i gots to say about that.
Chuck Kahn
In article <19970502084...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
merc...@aol.com (Mercerton) sez:
>And that didn't stop Lucas from ignoring the rights of Irvin Kershner or
>Richard Marquand in altering two films he did not direct. And how does
>this guarantee anything regarding Spielberg's films?
The STAR WARS Universe is Lucas' baby, no matter who directs it. He
can change whatever he wants there. The INDY movies are a
collaboration between Lucas & Spielberg. Neither would change anything
without the other's approval.
>Regardless of Kershner's apathetic stance of the altering of Empire (like
>there was anything he could do about it anyway), the late Richard Marquand
>had absolutely no say in how Return of the Jedi was handled. If Lucas
>truly respected the rights of the director, he wouldn't have touched it.
Lucas is the author, Marquand was a hired hand. Hats like "director"
or "executive producer" don't mean anything when it comes to STAR WARS.
>Spielberg had total control over the E.T. laserdisc.
Lucas had total control over EMPIRE and JEDI.
You think Spielberg deliberately ensured that the "guns" comment made
it to the laserdisc? I don't think he cared whether it made it or not.
>If he were only
>"thinking aloud" and his comments were irrelevant, they certainly would
>not have been included on the disc and made public record. In fact, on
>the laserdisc, he seemed pretty enthusiastic about the changes.
Spielberg thinks aloud alot during interviews. There's a lot of what
he says in interviews that doesn't come to fruition. His mouth runneth
over.
>The strength of Spielberg's films have always been their heart, their
>humanity -- and no amount of technological whiz-bang can supplant that.
Are you saying that computer artists have no soul?
--
Chuck Kahn / od...@interlog.com / http://www.interlog.com/~odin
Chuck Kahn
In article <19970503045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
doc3r...@aol.com (Doc3rdkind) sez:
>merc...@aol.com (Mercerton) wrote:
>i agree with that. but i'm not sure that lucas or spielberg is arguing
>that the cg effects make the movie better, just that it would make certain
>elements more realistic, or that certain elements can be closer to the
>original vision as intended.
This is true. CGI is just a tool which can insert something into a
film image that wasn't there before. Ultimately, as with any tool, it
must cater to the vision of the filmmakers. What makes creative
decisions about JAWS in 1974 inherently more valid than creative
decisions about JAWS in 1997? It's still the same director, working on
the same movie.
Doc3rdkind
Chuck Kahn wrote:
<<This is true. CGI is just a tool which can insert something into a
film image that wasn't there before. Ultimately, as with any tool, it
must cater to the vision of the filmmakers. What makes creative
decisions about JAWS in 1974 inherently more valid than creative
decisions about JAWS in 1997? It's still the same director, working on
the same movie.>>
EXACTLY!!! this is one of the points that ive been trying to get across,
using the romantic poets as a reference, concerning their belief that an
artistic work is never static and not meant to be put out there and thats
it, never to be reworked on again. but rather, as an artist grows and
evolves and changes, then he returns to his previous works at times and
reworks them to reflect what his going on inside of the artist, by using
the old (art work and artist) and applying the new (art work and artist).
its much like a musician that does different versions of their previously
released songs. art, in this theory, is like humans- organic and always
changing.
and, in some cases, such as in the case of star wars and the possibility
of the cgi shark in jaws, its not even about the creative decisions of 20
or 25 years ago as compared to the creative decisions of today, but being
able to use today's technology to actually enforce the creative decision
of yesteryear that were not possible then, such as putting jabba the hut
in star wars, which is what lucas originally wanted to do, and if he did
put jabba in the original, then nobody wouldve complained when jedi came
out that damnit, lucas just shouldnt have had jabba in star wars. all he's
doing is making the film as he wanted to.
one more question for the cgi naysayers. one arguement many of you make is
that whether the shark or jabba or whatever else i realistic or not doesnt
matter, the technology of the filmmaking is not whats important or gives
it its soul, but its the story, the character, the themes, etc. but then
many of you also state that the cgi effects are not as realistic or of the
quality as the original effects and thus that it worsens the picture. but
if the technology and realism of the effects is not important to the film,
and only the narrative and characters matter, then why would it matter if
the cgi effects are less realistic? it shouldnt matter at all.
my position on these issues, of course, as ive stated, is that the new
special effects dont make the film better, and of course they arent
primary to the films soul as the characters and story and so on are, but
rather that it just adds a prefferable element, such as getting to watch a
movie in a thx theatre than without, but it doesnt actually make the film
better or worst.
thank you very much and may the force be with you.