Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: Unholy Edition

Violet Indy said:

Nope!
I don't like any of those films even originally or revisionist wise and even looking at them as a filmmaker, I still feel LOTR and King Kong are way too long. To me, if the original is a turkey, then it's always going to gooble like one. Had an experience with a short film like that. No matter how many times we tried fixing it with a revisionist approach, it still was crap and sometimes you've just got to step away and move on and just learn your lesson and try not to let it happen the same way again.

If a filmmaker wants to bother to go the revisionist route, fine, that's their personal decision as an artist. I just think it makes too much of a mess of things.

I will however withdraw my statement about KOTCS needing a different edit. It really wouldn't change what it really is deep down anyway. I am dissatisfied with KOTCS but I fear a revisionist solution could in fact, make it worse. We can't like everything that's thrown at us with a particular brand name, it's called having taste.

Remakes are fine so long as there's some kind of artistic difference.

Click to expand...

I think there is a distinction between a ?fan edit? and a director who tinkers with his work for artistic reasons. Fan edits are largely pointless, and I?d be wary of anybody who derives pleasure butchering someone else?s work. ?Director?s Cuts?, are another beast entirely. There is clearly a financial/marketing driver for releasing a ?directors cut?, but lets just stick with the artistic reason? I?d agree with you that a bad movie can?t really be improved by going back in and re-cutting/editing? because usually the issues are endemic/systemic. A good example of this would be Highlander II, where we have multiple (a couple are radical) differing cuts of the movie, all of them no better than the first/last version. Jacksons King Kong is another good example, as he compounded the issue of an over bloated movie (IMHO), by adding an extra 30 minutes. However, I think Ridley Scott?s re-cut of Bladerunner and Kingdom of Heaven, for example, do make them better movies.

So, in principle, I have no problems with directors revisiting work for artistic reasons. However, whether the resulting piece is ?better?, or even warranted, is largely subjective? But I would always defer to an artists prerogative in the first instance.

kongisking said:

Which is infuriatingly, heartbreakingly, and monumentally unfair. Sure, let's all heap love on Raiders while we dump on the sequels until they drown in our hate-filled crap! Ugh!!!!!

Click to expand...

Awwww. Da poor sequel gone and got its feelings hurt.

kongisking said:

Which is infuriatingly, heartbreakingly, and monumentally unfair. Sure, let's all heap love on Raiders while we dump on the sequels until they drown in our hate-filled crap! Ugh!!!!!

Click to expand...

Wow...you sound just like Indy! As he yells at the Russians for leaving him in Doom Town, right before they nuked the...aw you thought I was going to say it didn't you. I just couldn't do that to ya! It would be like dumping my hate-filled crap, (nice compound!) on you. Eh, I CAN write it though! Nuked the Fridge!

When you stop stamping your feet and holding your breath from the enormity of the injustice, you should get off you enorma-horse and produce something!

kongisking said:

If you use that logic then, they never should have bothered to make the Blade Runner Director's Cut, the Superman 2 Director's Cut, the Alien 3 Director's Cut, the Lord of the Rings and King Kong Extended Editions, etc.

Wanna rethink that statement?

Click to expand...

I generally hate revisionism as well, but in those cases, one could argue that those versions restore the vision of the artists behind the films, visions that may have been compromised by outside forces - executive decisions, misguided marketing strategies or a host of other forms of interference.

That said, I still reserve the right to loathe the Star Wars special editions, which trample on the artistry of the ground-breaking original special effects team by papering over their work with uninspired CGI which is already just as "dated" as anything else in the films.

Oh, and more on topic, these Indy edits sound absolutely horrible.

Lance Quazar said:

I generally hate revisionism as well, but in those cases, one could argue that those versions restore the vision of the artists behind the films, visions that may have been compromised by outside forces - executive decisions, misguided marketing strategies or a host of other forms of interference.

That said, I still reserve the right to loathe the Star Wars special editions, which trample on the artistry of the ground-breaking original special effects team by papering over their work with uninspired CGI which is already just as "dated" as anything else in the films.

Click to expand...

One either has to agree with an "artists" prerogative to tinker/fix or not... One can't have a rule for one and not the other... And to be fair to Lucas, I don't think he's "trampled" over the effects that were already there... he's simply enhanced them. Of course that doesn't mean you have to like the result.
For example, the battle of Yavin (ANH), IMHO, is far superior in the special edition, than it was in the previous version... and there are a multitude of little tweaks and changes that have, by and large, improved the OT (I'm of course referring to effects changes rather than the more gratuitous "Han shot first" etc.).

Darth Vile said:

One either has to agree with an "artists" prerogative to tinker/fix or not...

Click to expand...

No I don't.

Darth Vile said:

One can't have a rule for one and not the other

Click to expand...

Yes I can.

Darth Vile said:

I don't think he's "trampled" over the effects that were already there... he's simply enhanced them.

Click to expand...

No, he hasn't "enhanced them", he replaced them. Particularly in the Yavin fight that you cite. Some old effects have been completely eliminated.

Darth Vile said:

Of course that doesn't mean you have to like the result.

Click to expand...

Good. Because I don't.

Darth Vile said:

For example, the battle of Yavin (ANH), IMHO, is far superior in the special edition, than it was in the previous version

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

The larger point is that, there's a huge difference between someone saying, "Hey, the studio made me put in this crappy voice-over, so I want it cut out," or a film maker saying "they wanted the movie a shorter running length, so I had to get rid of all these extra scenes" and what Lucas did, which was to completely replace certain shots with "modern" (at the time) FX.

I know that's an oversimplification, especially in the case of "Blade Runner"'s many editions (and since Scott actually filmed a few replacement shots as recently as a couple years ago), but in the case of "Star Wars" the tampering is particularly egregious.

Among other things, a film should stand as a captured moment in history, a reflection of the styles, sensibilities and artistry of the period it was made in.

The "Star Wars Special Editions" are now a weird bastardized version which is neither classic nor modern.

No longer can we marvel at the ingenuity and skill of the original scrappy special effects masters who literally invented ground-breaking special effects as they were going along in 1977, but have to accept a pointless hybrid of technology between 1977 and the now just as dated 1997 updates.

The result is an inconsistent, historically worthless mess. We could go back to "fix" the problems in any movie from the past, but it doesn't mean we should.

Lance Quazar said:

No, he hasn't "enhanced them", he replaced them. Particularly in the Yavin fight that you cite. Some old effects have been completely eliminated.

Click to expand...

I welcome the elimination of some old effects work. Indeed, I'd encourage more.

Lance Quazar said:

The larger point is that, there's a huge difference between someone saying, "Hey, the studio made me put in this crappy voice-over, so I want it cut out," or a film maker saying "they wanted the movie a shorter running length, so I had to get rid of all these extra scenes" and what Lucas did, which was to completely replace certain shots with "modern" (at the time) FX.

Click to expand...

I don't believe there is a huge difference at all. Any moviemaker will find themselves in a position where compromises, they’d rather not make, have to be made. Lucas is no exception. The only real difference is that Lucas has the power to go back and change things. Wether those changes improve the movie or not is largely academic.... it's a much more philosophical/artistic point than that.

Lance Quazar said:

I know that's an oversimplification, especially in the case of "Blade Runner"'s many editions (and since Scott actually filmed a few replacement shots as recently as a couple years ago), but in the case of "Star Wars" the tampering is particularly egregious.

Click to expand...

2 shots, 20 shots… the artist has revised their work… therefore an artistic decision has been made. Again, whether the “tampering” is egregious or not is largely academic.

Lance Quazar said:

Among other things, a film should stand as a captured moment in history, a reflection of the styles, sensibilities and artistry of the period it was made in.

Click to expand...

Who says? Did I miss the meeting where this was decided? I don’t think a piece of “art” has to exist in a vacuum. There are many great works of literature that had addendums/new chapters incorporated after first publication. Can’t that be applied to movies? Besides, the Bladerunner that became the cult movie in the 1980’s, is substantially different to the “Director’s Cut” available today. Ridley Scott was quite prepared to forgo that “captured moment in history”. So what makes him defendable and Lucas not?

Lance Quazar said:

The "Star Wars Special Editions" are now a weird bastardized version which is neither classic nor modern.

Click to expand...

The Star Wars Special Editions are the versions that my nephews (and their friends) watch repeatedly and love even now. I’m not sure of your point? That the Star Wars movies are somehow sullied for future generations? My experience suggests otherwise i.e. there will be a generation of adults, in circa 10/15 years time, who will feel the same way about Star Wars as my generation does (probably).

Lance Quazar said:

No longer can we marvel at the ingenuity and skill of the original scrappy special effects masters who literally invented ground-breaking special effects as they were going along in 1977, but have to accept a pointless hybrid of technology between 1977 and the now just as dated 1997 updates.

Click to expand...

Has the iconic opening shot to ANH been changed? Are the Stormtroopers, imperial walkers, tauntauns all now CGI? I don't believe so. That 70’s/80’s effects work is still there in abundance.

Lance Quazar said:

The result is an inconsistent, historically worthless mess. We could go back to "fix" the problems in any movie from the past, but it doesn't mean we should.

Click to expand...

Who is the “we”? I was talking about an artists prerogative to re-explore/examine and refine their work… not some faceless exec deciding they can make a better movie in the editing suite. Two distinct and separate points. Of course I would not agree with anyone but the artist refining/changing their work. Who'd welcome that???

^Cogently argued, but still wrong.

I weep for your nephews.

Lance Quazar said:

^Cogently argued, but still wrong.

I weep for your nephews.

Click to expand...

He's so wrong that you can't argue back...

Fanedits are creepy. And the added digital stuff in Star Wars is so 90s, they might as well put stone wash jeans on the characters.

Way of the dodo said:

Fanedits are creepy. And the added digital stuff in Star Wars is so 90s, they might as well put stone wash jeans on the characters.

Click to expand...

Brilliant and so very, very true!

If you were able to edit out Willie, how would it affect the film? She may as well not be there.

Lance Quazar said:

^Cogently argued, but still wrong.

I weep for your nephews.

Click to expand...

You really shouldn't weep for my nephews... It's a kid?s movie and some modicum of perspective is needed after all. What is depressing though, is the idea that we live in a world where our children, nephews/nieces, are encouraged to believe they have the right to covet and own someone else's artistic ideas and ideals. Love someone's work, hate it, feel indifferent... but don't ever think ones opinion matters to anybody but oneself

Dr.Jonesy said:

He's so wrong that you can't argue back...

Click to expand...

Touché... and they say the art of intelligent discourse is dead. "How sharper than a serpent's tooth" etc. etc.

Darth Vile said:

You really shouldn't weep for my nephews... It's a kid?s movie and some modicum of perspective is needed after all. What is depressing though, is the idea that we live in a world where our children, nephews/nieces, are encouraged to believe they have the right to covet and own someone else's artistic ideas and ideals. Love someone's work, hate it, feel indifferent...

Click to expand...

Art is only important in the eye of the beholder. When one puts out a work of art, whether its a sonnet, an oil painting or even a film, it is only meaningful in the reactions it creates in its audience and ceases to be the sole property of the artist.

(It is important to make the distinction that I am not arguing that Lucas doesn't have the legal right to alter his films, but that he may lack the artistic and moral right to do so.)

but don't ever think ones opinion matters to anybody but oneself

Click to expand...

I never said it mattered more, simply that it was more correct.

Darth Vile said:

What is depressing though, is the idea that we live in a world where our children, nephews/nieces, are encouraged to believe they have the right to covet and own someone else's artistic ideas and ideals.

Click to expand...

But this is assuming that there was anything artistic about changing Star Wars, and that it wasn't purely a business decision to make those old movies more viable and appealing to kids and to re-sell old stuff in a new package. That's not artistic, that's like repainting and reupholstering the Chuck. E. Cheese. (there are are about 3 shots that genuinely would have been redone in 77 given more time and money, I mean apart from that).

Lance Quazar said:

Art is only important in the eye of the beholder. When one puts out a work of art, whether its a sonnet, an oil painting or even a film, it is only meaningful in the reactions it creates in its audience and ceases to be the sole property of the artist.

Click to expand...

That is more about the mechanical reproduction of art, which is tied up in the fundamentals of Capitalism, and not the aesthetic experience achieved by the artist. At the end of the day, the artist shouldn't care less if you love or loathe his/her work, they wouldn't even care if you used it to wipe your ass on (as long as you paid for your copy first). The point being is that the artistic experience is achieved through the conceptualization and creation... be it doing something new, or refining some older piece (refining often done with classical composers). Once it's released to the audience for consumption, it's really then a commercial venture and not artistic.

Lance Quazar said:

(It is important to make the distinction that I am not arguing that Lucas doesn't have the legal right to alter his films, but that he may lack the artistic and moral right to do so.)

Click to expand...

I understand that... I think we are both agreed on the former... It's the latter element of the statement where we digress. I.e. I just don't understand why, for example, Da Vinci would have been morally suspect to paint a sunset behind the Mona Lisa (if the desire took him).

Lance Quazar said:

I never said it mattered more, simply that it was more correct.

Click to expand...

You wish…

Way of the dodo said:

But this is assuming that there was anything artistic about changing Star Wars, and that it wasn't purely a business decision to make those old movies more viable and appealing to kids and to re-sell old stuff in a new package. That's not artistic, that's like repainting and reupholstering the Chuck. E. Cheese. (there are are about 3 shots that genuinely would have been redone in 77 given more time and money, I mean apart from that).

Click to expand...

True... But that can be leveled at anything. Besides, there is enough documented evidence to suggest that Lucas wasn't happy with many elements of the movies (and to be fair there were way more than 3 dodgy effects shots in ANH). That being the case, I don't think changing something for artistic/personal aesthetic reasons, and the consequential commercial exchange is mutually exclusive. That's cinema after all.

The mix of art and commerce is fine, I'm just saying there was zero art involved, nothing to mix. I think Lucas would have been perfectly happy artistically to never hear the words Star Wars again if his company didn't need the money at that point. (and it really, really did.)

Way of the dodo said:

The mix of art and commerce is fine, I'm just saying there was zero art involved, nothing to mix. I think Lucas would have been perfectly happy artistically to never hear the words Star Wars again if his company didn't need the money at that point. (and it really, really did.)

Click to expand...

But you couldn't possibly know that for sure... We are both surmising. One thing is for sure; you can't second guess what fuels another's artistic desires. Lucas was rich enough in his own right to never touch Star Wars again, if that had been his want. He didn’t need to spend the next 10/15 years of his life doing SE’s and prequels.

Lucas' artistic experience and the commercial venture were/and still are very much entwined e.g. “How can I push the boundaries of movie making and make money out of the experience? I know… Star Wars”… But I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest he did it purely for the bean counters. To the contrary, Lucas was/always has been very much an experimental filmmaker, who likes to push the boundaries. I’m not sure there is any evidence to suggest that the acquisition of wealth has been his primary driver in life, other than the wealth to be a truly independent film maker (which in itself is an aesthetic aspiration).

ResidentAlien said:

Awwww. Da poor sequel gone and got its feelings hurt.

Click to expand...

Awwww, your pwecious feewing of superiority makes me feel so smwall!!!!

I can do baby-talk too. Impressed?