Special Edition Truck Chase?

Michael24

New member
I must say, from what I was able to see of it (somewhat-crappy reception), it didn't look too bad. Noticeable as being something new, but not bad. It's probably something that, after seeing it a few more times, I'd get used to and not even give a second thought to anymore. It did appear as if they tried to match the original shot as closely as possible. I wonder why they made the decision, though? Perhaps will be hearing about this soon enough if the shot is in the new DVD coming out.
 

eroc

New member
I didn't feel it was out of place at all. I thought it messed quite well with the rest of the film.
 

Adamwankenobi

New member
Yet another reason for me not to buy the new sets. (n)

But guys, if this is true, try not to put all the blame on Lucas. Spielberg's been known to change around his films too (E.T., Close Encounters).
 

Adam McDaniel

New member
It *was* a CGI touchup, but one that was very well done and faithful to the look and feel of the original shot. I for one was pleasantly surprised.

When my friend and I saw it, we immediately worried that they also had tinkered with the Ark opening finale, or erased the fly going into Belloq's mouth. Fortunately they remained untouched.
 

JerryKing

Member
If true, it would indeed be a wonderful decision; and since it is obviously going to be accepted, it will hopefully be the first, testing step towards some really necessary changes - Sallah's face being replaced with Hayden Christensen's, walkie-talkies being put in place of the Germans' Schmeissers, and a de-aged Shia la Boof being inserted into "Raiders". Go, Steve and friends!
 
The whole point is that it looked fake just like the old Republic serials. Spielberg said he didn't want CGI in the new film, then reluctantly ended up using about 30% CGI. If they want to do a homage to the old serials from which Raiders derives itself from then they have to acknowledge that part of the charm is the flaws and not try to make everything look so perfect. That's what good old-fashioned movie-making was about. Both Lucas and Spielberg seem to have forgotten that these days.
 

Tsar

New member
Agent Spalko said:
The whole point is that it looked fake just like the old Republic serials. Spielberg said he didn't want CGI in the new film, then reluctantly ended up using about 30% CGI. If they want to do a homage to the old serials from which Raiders derives itself from then they have to acknowledge that part of the charm is the flaws and not try to make everything look so perfect. That's what good old-fashioned movie-making was about. Both Lucas and Spielberg seem to have forgotten that these days.

Excellent point. The original sequence was fine the way it was, even with its flaws.
 

oki9Sedo

New member
Agent Spalko said:
The whole point is that it looked fake just like the old Republic serials. Spielberg said he didn't want CGI in the new film, then reluctantly ended up using about 30% CGI. If they want to do a homage to the old serials from which Raiders derives itself from then they have to acknowledge that part of the charm is the flaws and not try to make everything look so perfect. That's what good old-fashioned movie-making was about. Both Lucas and Spielberg seem to have forgotten that these days.

The matte painting effect was presumably state-of-the-art at the time.

Anyone care to upload it so we can all see?
 

Crack that whip

New member
Tsar said:
Excellent point. The original sequence was fine the way it was, even with its flaws.

I'd go further and say that not all such scenes are really "flaws," even if one can tell they're effects. People are so conditioned these days to effects that do look perfect that they're no longer willing to tolerate anything that doesn't, and unfortunately it means they no longer give any credit to some really good effects work that just doesn't quite look absolutely undistinguishable from the real thing.

The jeep going over the cliff in the original version of Raiders of the Lost Ark is not only a great effect for its time, but one I think holds up well, even if it's easier to see now that it is an effect. I personally don't need it changed...

... but OTOH, I do know many people now, particularly younger viewers who've seen CGI and digital composites their whole lives, have a real problem buying older effects with miniatures, matte paintings, photochemical / optical composites, etc. It sucks, but there you go. Given that reality, I don't know that I can fault Lucas for tweaking his movies in ways that (hopefully) make them more palatable to contemporary audiences while still retaining their essence. Raiders and other movies exist first and foremost not to document their own creation and history, but to present a narrative fantasy to the viewer, and anything that detracts from that is potentially a liability, a shortcoming. I'm pretty torn over this instance of revision, though, since as noted the shot worked fine for me.

I haven't yet seen this new version of the shot yet, but I imagine I will when I watch the new DVDs (yes, I'm going to get them). I won't know until I see it just how I feel about this particular tweak.

I'm surprised, though, that I hadn't heard anything about it before now...
 

Indy Jones

Active member
Knowing the backlash of the Star Wars SEs, do you really think they'd advertise it?

This angers me. The effect was brilliant as-is. Just because we have CGI now doesn't mean we have to go back and ruin movies that were state-of-the-art in their time. The only thing that keeps me from cursing Spielberg and Lucas for allowing this, is the fact that the DVD version from 2003 is untouched for this scene. But will we be getting the original version on the eventual Blu-Ray release?

Vintage special effects are to be respected, not reviled. And the attitude of youngsters to say "it's better now" disgusts me. If you want to see CG effects, stick to new films and don't bother watching older ones.

In the end, I don't care about any changes as long as the original version of the films are in restored quality and are readily available in the same way the revisionist versions are. Something that Lucas has failed to do with the OT. The original cuts are on DVD, but in intentionally-poor quality. If he presented the OOT in anamorphic with cleaned-up picture, nobody would be complaining about the SEs, because people wouldn't be being denied the version they prefur.

Rant over.
 
Top