CGI added to Raiders TV showings

There's been some discussion of this over at TheRaider.net's message board, but I searched the forums here and found nothing, so:

A few days ago it was reported by observant fans that USA Network's recent airing of Raiders of the Lost Ark contained an all-new CGI shot inserted into the film. Specifically, during the truck chase where Indy goes after the Ark, the moment when the Nazi troop car plunges off the cliff has been redone. Originally it was shot using a model and a matte painting; however, in the USA airing, the whole shot was redone in CG!

I got a chance to check this out for myself today, when the SCIFI channel aired Raiders, and sure enough, the CG cliff shot was in there. They'll air the movie again tomorrow (Sunday) at 1 PM, if anyone wants to record it.

Be thankful this wasn't done when the DVDs were made!

 

I wonder if the new CGI shot is in the new RotLA Special Edition DVD?

 

What they really need to redo in CGI is the part in Last Crusade where the Nazi tank goes over the cliff. That's just some bad miniature work. Looks like it was done with models in someone's backyard.

 

From everything I've heard, no, the new DVDs are from the same masters as the last set. But if there's ever an HD release the new shot will probably be included there.

 

HAHAHAHA!!! The episode of South Park when they have the guns turned into walkie-talkies from E.T. just came to mind. I love that one!! They do the whole final scene in RotLA. But, I'm sure all of you guys have seen that.

 

ATMachine has posted comparison screengrabs/photos in this thread

[image=http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b241/ATMachine/Raiders/Raiders_DVD_orig_1.png] [image=http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b241/ATMachine/Raiders/Raiders_TV_CG_1.png]

Hit the link for the rest.

 

IMO it's just a bizarre thing to be fixing. I never noticed anything wrong with the shot. At least with Star Wars they fixed stuff that made sense like extending the cell block corridor further into the distance, but this just seemed unnessesary.

 

It's not a big deal. But the fact that Lucas (I am assuming it is him that was behind this) can't seem to let things go, no matter how small is peculiar. I don't see why this needed to be re-done. Why are they still 'touching up' films that were shot over twenty years ago? It doesn't make sense to me... the way they were presented in theaters the first time should be they way it is kept. No touch-ups.

-matthew

 

Maybe Lucas should touch-up on the bugs that were served on a platter in The Temple of Doom. They looked like plastic bugs. But then again, I have stuff in my own movie that looks fake too.

 

It may be related to prepping the movies for HD - insofar as the original composite shot with Matte painting just didn't blend with the surrounding footage at High Def.

But even if that was the case, I'm not entirely convinced it justifies the shot being completely remade, rather than just having the original touched up.

 

I agree that it probably has something to do with the upcoming Blu-Ray HD version of Raiders but I also agree that they didn't really have to touch it.

 

i think it's awesome. looks much better. hooray george.

 

Where does it stop? Leave the films alone. How about a CGI shot of Indy finding a porthole into the submarine? Or a new map that doesn't show Nepal, which did not exist in 1936? Or digitally remove the image of the cobra from the glass plate? Why bother with a movie that's 27 years old?

 

That change seems so trivial. If GL is going spend time on that shot than I hope he will fix the tank going over the cliff in The Last Crusade. The FX in that scene is really bad with obvious matte lines.

 

They already did.

Anyway why is everybody automatically assuming Lucas was the one who approved this. Remember Spielberg had already done a Special Edition with Close Encounters years before Lucas did with Star Wars. He also digitally altered E.T. for it's re-released. Steve tinkers with his films just like Lucas or Ridley Scott for that matter. As the director of the film I would imagine that he has the final say over changes to it.

 

It just seems like the sort of unnecessary thing Lucas would do Gobi-1. I could be wrong, but he seems like the go-to guy when it comes to this sort of stuff. If it was Speilberg's idea that wouldn't change things. I don't care who approved it...I just think it's unnecessary. It really bothers me when old films have CGI added into them to 'enhance' the experience. I think one of the things that made ROTLA stand the test of time so well is that it was so roughly shot... it feels timeless. So adding even a small CGI shot in there bothers me, because it doesn't keep with the tone of the film.

-matthew

 

I know that you guys have your opinions like: "Why do they go to all the effort to change something so small?" But I have a question: If the changes are so small why should they bother you? Especially when it's something that'll enhance the experience of watching the film rather than detracting.

I'm old enough to have seen the O-OT first run and I make no effort to hide the fact that I feel the 2004 DVD versions of the OT are the best the OT has ever been and the enhancements are one of the big reasons why. I haven't seen this new version of Raiders but I doubt there's anything damaging in it and I applaud Spielberg and Lucas for tinkering in an attempt to improve the film.

I mean I've never understood why people insist that filmmakers just settle on the version of a film they've made that they're clearly not happy with. So it's a classic? So what? It's still a classic. One shot here and there doesn't take away from that. But it could add to it and that's just fantastic.

 

Special Editions are annoying but fine. The real problem arises when changes are made yet there's no distinction made between the original work and the changed one.

One of the great aspects of film is that it features moving human performances like theatre but with a permanence that theatre can't offer. I can watch Chaplin's Modern Times after learning it was my late grandfather's favorite movie, and I'll be seeing the same thing as someone with whom I never shared a single concurrent day of life. That is nothing short of amazing.

If Lucas has his way, my grandchildren won't even be able to guess that one of my favorite parts in the original Star Wars is when Han Solo shoots Greedo after keeping him from firing a single shot, because that scene will no longer exist. They'll see "Star Wars (1977)" and think they're watching the same movie I grew up on, but they won't be. The permanence of film will have been perverted by a deceit.

So sure, go ahead and make all the changes you want. Just call it Raiders Special Edition or something. Don't masquerade the cosmetic update as the real thing.

 

I totally agree. I mean Raiders is a film made in 1980, it has many "dated" things about it, how does adding this CGI improve things? The original shot was fine. And theres many other shots in the film equal in quality. If you start changing this then you open the pandoras box to change them all, and thats just dumb, I mean whats the point? I feel like some cranky old man because I'm under 25 but all this revisionism frustrates me, not because its badly done but because its totally, utterly and completely unnecessary.

 

I'd go so far as to say don't make the changes at ALL. However, I understand the point here. If they must touch the films and alter them at least put a tag on it saying that it has been changed and still give us the opportunity to have access to the originals, because essentially, no matter how insignificant the change is...it's still not the original film. What Lucas did with the Special Editions, having them become the definitive version of the films was very troubling because the 'Star Wars' film (or what we call ANH now) that is recognized on many lists as one of the greatest films of all time is not the same film as the one he released on DVD and that he claims is the definitive version. It's two separate films.

That what I want to know too. What is the point of the changes? And where does it stop? It is the slippery slope analogy. Lucas touched up the original trilogy in 97'. Okay. We thought it was a bit of fun because it was a Special Edition. But then all of a sudden the VHS release of the original un-altered versions come out around the same time with a little commercial at the front of it saying this is your opportunity to own the original version of the films for the last time. So we all sort of scratch our heads wondering what that means...few years later we figure it out when LFL refuses to release the originals and when the films come out on DVD there are FURTHER changes made to them. And we know from reports and speculation that it is all but certain future releases of them films will have even more changes. When does that stop? When does Lucas finally say: Hey, you know what...they are what they are. I am not going to alter them any more. That's what concerns me. Pretty soon those films are going to look nothing like the original films that most of us fell in love with.

And now we see a glimpse of this happening with the Indy films. I truly hope they don't start getting carried away with changes to them as well. Let them be.

-matthew

 

So he improved a shot. It's not the end of the world.

 

Lucas, not matter how much it might pain him, defers to Spielberg when it comes to the Indy films. He's the producer, Steve's the director. Steve gets the final say. If anything, Steven's the one who probably approved of this new shot...so let's stop with the Lucas "annual" bashing for a moment...

 

Lol. Dude, that's not how it works in Hollywood. The Executive Producer is the boss. He has hiring/firing power over everyone, including the director. Now in this case Spielberg is also an EP, so that gives him power with George and since he's also the director he has more creative chips. But it is a gross misunderstanding to think, as most people do, that directors are in charge of productions. They are not. Producers are. That's how it works, even though most people never hear about producers.

In any case, I imagine this would be a joint decision to a degree in this particular case. As to the change itself, eh. I'd have to actually see it in motion. I probably wouldn't have noticed it. In general I'm not for changes, but I'm also not going to get pissed off because of a cosmetic effects shot. It's story changes I really object to.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Yes, it is true that producers have more power over the directors in Hollywood. Not disputing that, except for this case. Steven Spielberg isn't just another director. And again, George has stated that, while he has a strong opinion on the directing of the series, he still deferes to Spielberg in the end on final decisions with concern to Indy.

So, yeah, this new shot is more than likely a joint decision...

...but Lucas gets the brunt of the abuse in this decision. Weird, isn't it?