Indiana Jones gets a "restoration"?

[ahalpert]

I’m not certain that some products gain anything. The original Star Trek did, I feel, when they replaced the optical effects that were less good than the live action. It worked better.

I agree. I'm a big Trekkie, and I feel like Star Trek TOS is better off with the spaceship and outer space/planet visuals being replaced by more modern effects. Because the original versions were comically bad compared to modern effects. And that's not even restoring the original, it's altering the original but keeping with the original intent.

I feel like these sorts of changes need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. And with TOS, there are still way too many aspects of the production design/style and value that feel so dated. As much as I love the show, I don't really ever watch it for casual entertainment as I do the Next Generation and later

 

[DLD]

I’ve been enjoying a rewatch in 4:3 of a series from tv that I watched in 1973 and 1974. While binge watching, I’ve notices tube camera lens flares, VT alignment issues, camera talkback audible when a camera was near a live mic. Not a radio mic in the studio, and it matches my memory perfectly, if not better ...

Last week, for the first time in 40+ years, I decided to treat myself to a cone of the Soviet era ice cream ("Plombir"). At first bite, the taste was instantly familiar. Just like I remembered it from my youth. Except I wasn't exuberant at the taste. It was just OK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plombières_(dessert)

 

[ahalpert]

Last week, for the first time in 40+ years, I decided to treat myself to a cone of the Soviet era ice cream ("Plombir"). At first bite, the taste was instantly familiar. Just like I remembered it from my youth. Except I wasn't exuberant at the taste. It was just OK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plombières_(dessert)

the difference is that they were aware of the flaws/imperfections of what they were watching at the outset and found them endearing. not that they didn't notice them because they didn't know better

 

[Batutta]

I don't know what they hell that reviewer was watching. I just watched all 4 of the UltraHD versions on my 4k projector. They look as perfect as I've ever seen them. The have just the right amount of grain. The color timings are perfect (the blu-ray of Raiders is too yellow). The gamma is very filmlike and the sound is amazing. There was no digital tinkering, except removing the glass reflection of the snake in Raiders which they did a long time ago for the dvd. They are A plus transfers. I've seen these movies dozens of times (except Crystal Skull), in every format including 70mm, and these are literally perfect versions that remain faithful to the original films. I'm betting her experience had more to do with the HDR settings on the monitor she was watching it on being set for maximum vibrancy, as they often are out of the box.

 

[Run&Gun]

Maybe the author just liked the Indy movies better in a softer version. There were sometimes nice things about watching VHS...

I remember being impressed by the beautiful look at the opening of Mandingo (a horrible movie) when I watched it on Netflix. But then the credits sequence ended and the clarity and contrast shot up. The credits had probably been done with an optical printing process that reduced the detail and contrast of the underlying footage... The rest of the movie looked quite normie, though that was not one of its major problems

I remember someone telling me that the degraded quality of the old Nosferatu transfer they had seen contributed to its vibe of discovering a lost movie from the crypt, and thereby contributed to the authenticity of the tale

No, no there wasn’t. Hi-Fi VHS had great sound, but we’re talking about visuals, here.

 

[Batutta]

I will say that the only film I've seen that lost something by having too good of a transfer is Romero's Night of the Living Dead. The new criterion 4K transfer is stunning but it kind of robbed the movie of its newsreel quality.

 

[Mitch Gross]

The screenrant reviewer likely only knew the film from previous home video formats. If all she ever knew was VHS then she had a different impression of them. However that is not how the films were first released. They were put out in first and secod generation prints to thousands of theaters, many of which projected them at proper brightness with excellent focus, jitter stability, and other technical specs. That was the original intent of the filmmakers and that is what is intended with this 4K version. So sorry to the Screenrant author but the criticism is unfair and labeled as coming from a fairly narrow perspective and not one that purports to be of some objective truth.

 

[Run&Gun]

I don't know what they hell that reviewer was watching. I just watched all 4 of the UltraHD versions on my 4k projector. They look as perfect as I've ever seen them. The have just the right amount of grain. The color timings are perfect (the blu-ray of Raiders is too yellow). The gamma is very filmlike and the sound is amazing. There was no digital tinkering, except removing the glass reflection of the snake in Raiders which they did a long time ago for the dvd. They are A plus transfers. I've seen these movies dozens of times (except Crystal Skull), in every format including 70mm, and these are literally perfect versions that remain faithful to the original films. I'm betting her experience had more to do with the HDR settings on the monitor she was watching it on being set for maximum vibrancy, as they often are out of the box.

This was a problem with a LOT of Blu-Ray’s, especially the earlier days. I remember watching some movies on BR and thinking, WTF? It was like a tobacco filter had been thrown on. I also have some movies on both DVD and BR and the DVD versions were superior visually.

 

[paulears]

In that case - these reviewers really have actually caused a problem, not helped people! That's really good that somebody who has watched them has commented. Cheers!

 

[scorsesefan]

really, i think it's a personality thing. some people are attracted to "maximum" quality and some are more interested in overall gestalt/effect

I agree with Abe. The article I sighted was probably more of an emotional take than technical. The context/conditions under which you first viewed a film are so important. Martin Scorsese watched Bicycle Thieves, Rome Open City and Citizen Kane on a tiny black and white TV as a kid but that didn't blunt his enthusiasm for those films and he has spent his life restoring great films to the director's original intentions. But sharpness/detail doesn't equal an accurate representation of the original. I guarantee Spielberg had no idea 40 years later Raiders would be put under a pixel microscope... For example, in the face melting scene the writer references, I'm pretty sure the makeup people tested on the same stock they shot the the rest of the film on. I highly doubt they could have anticipated their work being shown in this context....I would also like to see the BRD for myself...

 

[ahalpert]

. The color timings are perfect (the blu-ray of Raiders is too yellow). .

I think she actually liked the yellowishness. Her article was more a hipster commentary on lo-fi than a technical appraisal

 

[ahalpert]

No, no there wasn’t. Hi-Fi VHS had great sound, but we’re talking about visuals, here.

I wouldn't choose to watch a VHS over a newer format today either, but the fact remains that I have had far more and more pleasing movie-watching experiences with VHS than with any other format. sure, that had a lot to do with being a kid and having more time to watch plus a lower bar for suspending disbelief. Nevertheless...

And occasionally I do think that work is accidentally enhanced by being obscured

 

[Batutta]

I think she actually liked the yellowishness. Her article was more a hipster commentary on lo-fi than a technical appraisal

Previous versions weren't yellow though. In fact, the VHS is probably cooler in color temperature than the other formats. The UltraHD is closest to the original film presentation in my opinion. It's been about a decade since I've seen a film print of Raiders but this is how I remember it. I'll add that I think they did fix one thing. In the sequence in the beginning when they first enter the caverns and get covered in spiders, there has always been an intermittent vibration in the image, I believe from bad sprocket registration as the film goes through the camera. It's in the original film and has been in every home video version (probably not noticeable in the VHS), but in this version they minimized it to almost not be noticeable. You can still see it somewhat if you know to look for it but it's been lessened considerably, so they must have done some digital tinkering to fix it.

 

[Batutta]

Comparison between the blu-ray and UHD version. As you can see the blu-ray has a yellowish sheen to it, and the UHD has more visible grain--

UHD

Bluray

Bluray

UHD

 

[ahalpert]

. That was the original intent of the filmmakers and that is what is intended with this 4K version. So sorry to the Screenrant author but the criticism is unfair and labeled as coming from a fairly narrow perspective and not one that purports to be of some objective truth.

I think that the intentions of the director are significant. But I don't think they're the end all be all. At the end of the day, the work exists to serve the viewer. And each viewing is a sort of unique event. Spielberg probably didn't intend for people to watch Indy on a smartphone on the toilet, but so what? Ultimately it's beyond his control

I read a lot of BS in college, but one essay that seemed insightful to me and made an impression was "The Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes, which basically argues that if you interact with a work solely by trying to uncover the intent of the creator, you're confining your ideas of what the work is and what is supposed to happen when you read/watch it

a text consists of multiple writings, issuing from several cultures and entering into dialogue with each other, into parody, into contestation; but there is one place where this multiplicity is collected, united, and this place is not the author, as we have hitherto said it was, but the reader: the reader is the very space in which are inscribed, without any being lost, all the citations a writing consists of; the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination

https://web.archive.org/web/2020041...com/aspen/aspen5and6/threeEssays.html#barthes

PS for the record, I would probably prefer the UHD version. But I think the screenrant author's perspective is valid even if it's not universal

 

[filmguy123]

I’ve had every edition of the Indy releases from VHS to DVD to Blu Ray. This is a weird article, I have the 4K discs and they look great - and true to the originals. She’s seems to be comparing it to poor/degraded transfers as others mentioned, not the actual original prints and intended look of the film. The specific scenes mentioned I went back and looked at, there is no problem IMO. And FWIW every other review I’ve read on them has essentially said the opposite of this article as well.

There nothing offensive in the restorations - ie there’s good color, no unexpected creative changes, pleasant grain, no over zealous noise reduction. Thumbs up from me.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I think that the intentions of the director are significant. But I don't think they're the end all be all. At the end of the day, the work exists to serve the viewer. And each viewing is a sort of unique event. Spielberg probably didn't intend for people to watch Indy on a smartphone on the toilet, but so what? Ultimately it's beyond his control

I read a lot of BS in college, but one essay that seemed insightful to me and made an impression was "The Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes, which basically argues that if you interact with a work solely by trying to uncover the intent of the creator, you're confining your ideas of what the work is and what is supposed to happen when you read/watch it



https://web.archive.org/web/2020041...com/aspen/aspen5and6/threeEssays.html#barthes

PS for the record, I would probably prefer the UHD version. But I think the screenrant author's perspective is valid even if it's not universal

Yeah, I studied Roland Barthes in college as well, along with reading John Berger's Ways of Seeing and other such work. I think the author's intent can be differentiated from the original form of release, which can be defined as the standard of measure for future exhibition forms.

That essayist can talk about how she ate a lot of M&Ms whenever she watched the movie at home and when Paramount sent her the 4K versions it didn't include candy so her experience just wasn't the same. While her distinction may be accurate that doesn't particularly make it valid.

 

[Batutta]

Since we're on the subject of the Indiana Jones films, it was more clear to me watching this time why the series got less effective as it went along. Harrison Ford and Spielberg started leaning more and more into the comedy as the films progressed, neutering the films bite. Raiders has its funny moments to be sure, but they were fleetingly situational and Harrison's performance is mostly dead serious, especially during the action. With Temple of Doom, he started making funny faces here and there, and Spielberg indulged with full blown comedic set pieces like the dinner scene and Indy wooing Willie. I still prefer Temple of Doom to Last Crusade, as it's more audacious, relentless, pulpy and the extreme horror moments balance out the comedy. Last Crusade always felt too tame to me, the comedy more silly and the danger less palpable. But I still like Last Crusade. It mostly works as a movie and a story, unlike the next one. By the time we get to Crystal Skull, Harrison is crossing his eyes at the camera, doing broad physical humor, with the filmmakers straining for comic beats and what gritty realism Raiders had about it has gone out the window. Crystal Skull is about half of a good Indiana Jones movie, the other half is kind of lame. Mac is a useless character they should have cut out at the script stage. The Crystal Skull ends up not being a very interesting MacGuffin and I don't love how they portrayed Marion. I actually don't mind Shia, with the exception of the monkey scene. But I think he and his character were fine and had potential, were they in a stronger movie.

 

[ahalpert]

Since we're on the subject of the Indiana Jones films, it was more clear to me watching this time why the series got less effective as it went along. Harrison Ford and Spielberg started leaning more and more into the comedy as the films progressed, neutering the films bite. Raiders has its funny moments to be sure, but they were fleetingly situational and Harrison's performance is mostly dead serious, especially during the action. With Temple of Doom, he started making funny faces here and there, and Spielberg indulged with full blown comedic set pieces like the dinner scene and Indy wooing Willie. I still prefer Temple of Doom to Last Crusade, as it's more audacious, relentless, pulpy and the extreme horror moments balance out the comedy. Last Crusade always felt too tame to me, the comedy more silly and the danger less palpable. But I still like Last Crusade. It mostly works as a movie and a story, unlike the next one. By the time we get to Crystal Skull, Harrison is crossing his eyes at the camera, doing broad physical humor, with the filmmakers straining for comic beats and what gritty realism Raiders had about it has gone out the window. Crystal Skull is about half of a good Indiana Jones movie, the other half is kind of lame. Mac is a useless character they should have cut out at the script stage. The Crystal Skull ends up not being a very interesting MacGuffin and I don't love how they portrayed Marion. I actually don't mind Shia, with the exception of the monkey scene. But I think he and his character were fine and had potential, were they in a stronger movie.

Sounds kind of like what happened to Mission: Impossible

 

[ahalpert]

Yeah, I studied Roland Barthes in college as well, along with reading John Berger's Ways of Seeing and other such work. I think the author's intent can be differentiated from the original form of release, which can be defined as the standard of measure for future exhibition forms.

That essayist can talk about how she ate a lot of M&Ms whenever she watched the movie at home and when Paramount sent her the 4K versions it didn't include candy so her experience just wasn't the same. While her distinction may be accurate that doesn't particularly make it valid.

It might be a standard of measure but that doesn't mean it's the only or best form, at least not for every viewer.

What about Blade Runner? Clearly, the original form didn't conform to the director's intent. But he got a few more passes at it. Which is the authoritative version? I think the Final Cut is best, but there are a few BR buffs on this site who don't even seem to know it exists and continue to praise the Director's Cut. What if, for some reason, you prefer the theatrical or the director's cut to the Final Cut? Are you supposed to deny it and never watch the outdated versions again? Maybe we're all losers because we don't have 35MM projectors at home and rent film prints so we can see these movies the way they were actually meant to be seen

What if we find out that Spielberg is a closet Nazi and a child molester, and then we can't go back to enjoying these mildly racist gems the way we used to? (Though some people would argue that we shouldn't let the director's sins stop us)

What is a valid viewpoint and what is not? Are there not as many viewpoints as there are viewers? (Or even more.) and if she enjoyed the lower quality transfer better than the higher quality one, how is that wrong? It's certainly honest. Even if it offends the sensibilities of purists/originalists