I know I risk getting in trouble with the mods, but when someone tells me this rudely to mind my own business....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentAlien
You always go sticking your nose in other's affairs?
Your debate with Darth Vile is completely public, not to mention it's actually somewhat on-topic in terms of directors changing things (and their motivations for doing so), therefore it's the business of everyone who bothers to read this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentAlien
No, he attacked me, and he provoked me. The discussion was very calm until he came at me in post # 86 by condescending and flagrantly attacking what was a perfectly fair argument.
Actually, in that post, he attacked Ridley Scott, not you, and said he thought Scott was mostly interested in the monetary end of things, which isn't entirely unreasonable to assume.
So, unless you're extremely sensitive about Ridley Scott's integrity as a moviemaker, there's little I can see that Darth Vile did to provoke you.
Last edited by Kooshmeister : 05-13-2008 at 02:24 PM.
Me too. I refuse to believe they would feel the need to change this:
Especially, just for USA Network and from what I've heard it's still unchanged in the new DVD that came out today!
I believe in the new version of that shot the river down below isn't even seen anymore. Or, if it is, not quite as prominent.
I don't know why some people are refusing to believe a change has been made. If several people are saying they've seen the new CGI version, then it's obvious a change has been made. It still looks similar to the original matte painting shot, but it's noticeably new and different.
I believe in the new version of that shot the river down below isn't even seen anymore. Or, if it is, not quite as prominent.
I don't know why some people are refusing to believe a change has been made. If several people are saying they've seen the new CGI version, then it's obvious a change has been made. It still looks similar to the original matte painting shot, but it's noticeably new and different.
I don't get it. Is it a different matte painting in the USA Network version or not?
The scene you posted is the regular version, though. It doesn't have the new "USA CGI" version of the shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oki9Sedo
Because nobody has bothered their arse to actually UPLOAD the damn thing, after nine pages.
No one was probably recording it since they already have it on DVD and didn't expect it. Once it airs again as part of the USA Indy marathon on the 18th(?) somebody will likely have it up, hopefully as a comparison with the original shot to show the difference.
But, I saw it on back-to-back nights and yes, the shot is different.
I just did. I was wondering if anybody would notice the change. Guess not.
I just watched that clip, and the shot of the car falling looks the same to me. Likely because that clip has been on YouTube for some time prior to the USA airing, and was likely ripped from the (first) DVD.
I believe in the new version of that shot the river down below isn't even seen anymore. Or, if it is, not quite as prominent.
I don't know why some people are refusing to believe a change has been made. If several people are saying they've seen the new CGI version, then it's obvious a change has been made. It still looks similar to the original matte painting shot, but it's noticeably new and different.
Pan and scanned perhaps? Image enlarged and so looks a little different?
Even when it was on TV in pan-and-scan it was still noticeable somewhat. The camera move was also much more elaborate, whereas now the move seems more subtle and not as drastic.
In the original, the live-action elements with the truck stood out a little bit from the matte painting around it. The new shot looks more clean and polished, the way such a shot would look if the movie was made nowadays. It doesn't necessarily look better or worse, I think, just a little different.
All disbelievers will see soon enough that a new shot does exist. Hopefully somebody will have it up on or after the 18th. Then they can decide if they like the new version or not.
I don't think it was panned and scanned because when I did catch some of the Indy movies airing on USA network, they were letterboxed. I wish had watched the whole thing just to see for myself if anything had been changed.
The USA version was CLEARLY CG! The entire cliff was a 3D model, it was not a sharpened or tweaked version of the matte painting, it was a completely different shot. This shot does not appear in the Special Edition DVDs.
I read in the USA thread that several people were planning on Tivo'ing the USA broadcast, did anyone do it?
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 by God'sRadio : 05-13-2008 at 05:25 PM.
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 by Kooshmeister : 05-13-2008 at 09:46 PM.
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?
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.)
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.
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.......
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!!
