Special Edition Truck Chase?

God'sRadio

New member
OK. I will believe it when I see it. Apparently the USA showing was HD - did anyone who says they saw it see it in HD? Or was it an HD artefact when seen in SD I wonder?
 
Last edited:

Kooshmeister

New member
Just wanna say, on the last day of school one time our teacher put on Raiders and when that car went over the cliff and fell down that humongous gorge, the other kids (who had either never seen Indy before or not very often) literally gasped.

I think it was the suddenness of it. The gorge literally comes out of nowhere. In a good way. I got the feeling a lot of the other kids were wondering why in the world Gobler was screaming, and then just as they were processing the fact the car was launching off a cliff, it cuts to the massive wide shot of the whole gorge, so I got a definite, "Wait, why is he--What the?! Oh, holy sh*t!" vibe from some of their reactions.

Some of them were kind of "meh" about the movie up until that point. After Gobler's death, though, the movie had their undivided attention. Someone somewhere (probably here) said that when that one guy gets lucky and shoots Indiana in the arm, the movie suddenly became serious for them. Same thing with my classmates, although it happened a minute or two sooner with the gorge scene.

So I don't see any reason why it should be changed, if it was. If it can make a bunch of teenagers who at the time had just gotten done seeing the Star Wars Special Editions and their much-hyped CGI effects gasp in awe at the grandeur and scope of the gorge, there's nothing wrong with it. Because the quality of the effects don't matter one bit. It's how it's shot. Two quick cuts and one loooooooooong (comparatively speaking) fall.
 
Last edited:

Way of the dodo

New member
It was absolutely, positively different. It's not on the new dvds because they were created from the same old source as the 2003 discs.
 

Darth Vile

New member
way of the dodo,

I agree. The new DVD's are just a copy of the previous one's (as far as the movies are concerned). So it would have been unlikely that anything new would have been incorporated in that last DVD release.

The only question I would have is why make a single change to the version aired on TV? I know Raiders is almost perfect, but if they went to the trouble of changing that shot, why not enhance a couple of the others?
 

Michael24

New member
Perhaps it was some kind of test? Slip a new CGI-enhanced shot into a TV airing unannounced, then guage on-line fan reaction before deciding to go forward with more changes? (Though, with Spielberg, I can't imagine there'd be a lot he'd want to go crazy on and change. Who knows? He may have only wanted to "fix" that one shot or something.)
 

God'sRadio

New member
I've googled around and nothing in the trade press about any CGI fixes to the movies. I still can't see why it would be done, or why it would be done like this, but if people say they saw it, I hope so.
 

Tsar

New member
Michael24 said:
Perhaps it was some kind of test? Slip a new CGI-enhanced shot into a TV airing unannounced, then guage on-line fan reaction before deciding to go forward with more changes?

Well then people better stop posting "I don't mind the change, it's only a 3 second shot" comments....... :p
 

Travis85

New member
I did tivo the movie, and I tried to export it to my computer, but tivo desktop was not functioning properly. I will try to do it again today :).
 

Michael24

New member
God'sRadio said:
I've googled around and nothing in the trade press about any CGI fixes to the movies.

Yeah, I'm surprised it hasn't turned up online anywhere yet. I keep checking sites and forums to see if it's created a buzz yet, but so far nothing. I guess most of the people who complain about such things weren't watching? Haha!!
 

InVader

Member
Maybe a little off topic...

This doesn't have anything to do with the CGI, but it does have something to do with Indy showing on TV. prior to the most recent VHS release of the series, did anyone else seem to notice that Indy says something like, "What, did they think I was dumb?" Right before he jams his whip in bottom of the truck and gets dragged behind it? It seems like I could only hear it on the TV versions prior to those new VHS releases.
 

Michael24

New member
YES!!! I had always noticed that!

Back in the '90s whenever I saw Raiders on TV, I always heard that line added, though I think he actually said "What, do they think I'm stupid?" as he jams the whip handle into the undercarriage. And it sounded like Harrison Ford, so it must have been an ADR line that was later dumped from the film but then put back for the TV version. Another addition to that scene is the sound of breaking glass when the big German swings down through the driver's-side door, which is funny because the window was open already! But it was the same breaking glass sound effect heard from when Indy's thrown through the windshield moments later.

However, both of these added elements have since disappeared. I haven't heard them in any TV airings since the late-90s.
 

InVader

Member
It's good to hear I'm not Crazy. :) I wonder if they added those lines to distinguish a pirated copy or something. Just a thought that came to me as I thought over the line and now CGI.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
That's pretty amazing guys! I've never heard about this before. Network broadcasts of movies
do sometimes tend to differ from the theatrical versions. The ones I can think of off-hand are
"King Kong" (1976), "First Blood" & "Excalibur".

Now, I want this!:whip:
 

InVader

Member
I know someone had brought it up here about 6 years ago I think. I tried to respond to it when i finally decided to join a couple weeks ago. (lol, yeah i'm a little slow with the joining. :eek: ) However, I was unsuccessful at finding the old post.
 

Michael24

New member
MR Round said:
Why cant people just leave movies alone to how they were released?

You know, in a way, I can see their personal reasons. In 1998 I made two shorts for some college film classes, but I was never satisfied with how they turned out because I had to rush the post-production to meet the project deadlines. (One in particular was just a mess to begin with, qualitywise, because of certain settings on the editing deck I was unaware of.) In 2004 I completely reedited them, almost starting from scratch. I trimmed some stuff here, added some bits here, and redid all the titles and music. Then in 2005 I again went back and tweaked a couple things here and there, then I said, "Okay, that's it. Now they're finished."

So I can certainly see the filmmakers' POV on this issue. But at the same time, when it's as groundbreaking a film as Star Wars was, I think it's wrong to try and "erase" the previous film from existence and pretend it never existed and deny people the opportunity to still have those versions. Spielberg still lets us have the original 1982 version of E.T., and Ridley Scott lets us have all five(!) versions of Blade Runner. There's no reason Lucas can't do the same, and I just don't understand his reasoning.

Just my two cents. :hat:
 

loganbush

New member
You know, in a way, I can see their personal reasons. In 1998 I made two shorts for some college film classes, but I was never satisfied with how they turned out because I had to rush the post-production to meet the project deadlines. (One in particular was just a mess to begin with, qualitywise, because of certain settings on the editing deck I was unaware of.) In 2004 I completely reedited them, almost starting from scratch. I trimmed some stuff here, added some bits here, and redid all the titles and music. Then in 2005 I again went back and tweaked a couple things here and there, then I said, "Okay, that's it. Now they're finished."

So I can certainly see the filmmakers' POV on this issue. But at the same time, when it's as groundbreaking a film as Star Wars was, I think it's wrong to try and "erase" the previous film from existence and pretend it never existed and deny people the opportunity to still have those versions. Spielberg still lets us have the original 1982 version of E.T., and Ridley Scott lets us have all five(!) versions of Blade Runner. There's no reason Lucas can't do the same, and I just don't understand his reasoning.

Just my two cents.

Yeah I made a short film and continually tweaked it for a year. But the Indy films really shouldn't need tweaked except for their bad bluescreen.
 
Top