Indiana Jones gets a "restoration"?

[filmguy123]

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

Nothing wrong with enjoying the lower quality transfer, it's that the reasons cited are inaccurate.

What is a valid viewpoint and what is not? Are there not as many viewpoints as there are viewers? (Or even more.)

There are infinite interpretations of everything, but finite valid interpretations of everything.

I can say I prefer strawberry ice cream over chocolate ice cream, but I cannot say "and that's because chocolate ice cream is made from human feces."

(Also, I've always taken issue with the "infinite interpretations" argument because it ignores the scientific process of a factor analysis, which is where you ignore factors that are essential identical and varying in only trivial ways. (i.e. if a survey says "how tall are you" and also asks "if you laid down on the floor, how many inches are there from the bottom of your feet to the top of your head" - sure, it's two different questions, but it's also just the same thing). So the whole "there are an infinite number of interpretations to this piece of art" could probably be deduced to several dozen meaningfully different interpretations).

How does this relate to Raiders? Oh gees, I don't know... this is DVXuer!

The author of Screenrant can think whatever she wants of the remasters and prefer whatever version she wants for all I care. If watching it on VHS with a 27" CRT tube TV that's now slightly discolored with a set of speakers behind her is what floats her boat, rock on. The problem is posting an article on a major film site containing inaccurate information... which in many ways is hardly that important given THEY ARE JUST MOVIES, but again, this is DVXuer, where we scrutinize the most banal and trivial of details for hundreds of pages. Here's to the forthcoming page 100, and achievement of Godwin's law by only page 4 :grin:

 

[ahalpert]

As I see it, she makes 2 points, one of which is a matter of opinion that can't be proven or disproven:

Indiana Jones is fundamentally a movie about the past. At its core, a pulp adventure — and it should look like a pulp adventure.

The above is sort of her reasoning for preferring a lower quality transfer (which, of course, was how she first saw the movie.)

I will agree with you about her other claim:

The restoration may update the picture, but it takes away some of the original charm, raising questions about the benefits of upgrading media versus the principle of maintaining historical integrity.

A lot of people in this thread have offered testimony and evidence that the restoration hasn't altered the film and is the closest in quality to the original theatrical run. So, this second point of hers may be incorrect and misleading.

But still - if that's her honest perception, then it's telling. If she's the only person in the world who felt that way, then her opinion is of little consequence. But ultimately, films build their audiences from legions of individuals and they have to stack together as many fans as possible to claim success. And the fanbase probably harbors many misconceptions. Her clickbait article may be inaccurate but I wouldn't call it irrelevant

 

[scorsesefan]

"The problem is posting an article on a major film site containing inaccurate information" I don't think someone sharing their subjective visual perception of something counts as giving inaccurate information...

 

[Mitch Gross]

Nothing wrong with enjoying the lower quality transfer, it's that the reasons cited are inaccurate.

Thank you. That says it in a nutshell.

 

[Run&Gun]

"The problem is posting an article on a major film site containing inaccurate information" I don't think someone sharing their subjective visual perception of something counts as giving inaccurate information...

The problem is that the writer implies that the new transfer was bad(the studio messed up), because they didn’t like the way that it looked to them compared to the version that they watched/liked, which more than likely, the version that they originally watched was, in fact, an inferior transfer compared to the original and the new transfer(which is supposedly the closest available to the original theatrical release on film).

So, if they don’t like the way that the new transfer looks, because they prefer the way that the older, poorer transfer looks, that’s fine. But they also need to state that they never saw the original version and that the latest transfer is the closest to the original version that has been available and not imply that they(the studio) somehow F’d up.

 

[Mitch Gross]

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.

To each their own. I agree that Raiders was the best and far more rough & tumble. I personally prefer Last Crusade over Temple of Doom as it has the lovely father & son relationship and also a far better MacGuffin than the second film. They were literally on the most legendary of quests, seeking the Holy Grail. The Last Crusade is full of such fun, blatant metaphors -- Indy doesn't believe in the religious aspects and then to rescue his father he has to literally make a Leap of Faith. There is a far stronger throughline of character development and themes in Last Crusade than any of the other films in the series. But as much as I enjoy that film, when Indy & Marion escape the Well of Souls and see that Flying Wing in Raiders, well let's just say it brought a little tear of joy to the eye of 14-year old Mitch one Saturday afternoon. Exactly as it was meant to. Pure adventure joy.

As an aside, The Last Crusade is also a curiously Christian film from a Jewish filmmaker, just as much as Raiders is a Jewish one. I don't think that particularly means anything, but in both films this steeps the story in something more meaningful than whatever those stones were supposed to be in Temple of Doom and the pointless interdimensional aliens in Crystal Skull.

 

[Run&Gun]

As I see it, she makes 2 points, one of which is a matter of opinion that can't be proven or disproven:



The above is sort of her reasoning for preferring a lower quality transfer (which, of course, was how she first saw the movie.)

I will agree with you about her other claim:



A lot of people in this thread have offered testimony and evidence that the restoration hasn't altered the film and is the closest in quality to the original theatrical run. So, this second point of hers may be incorrect and misleading.

But still - if that's her honest perception, then it's telling. If she's the only person in the world who felt that way, then her opinion is of little consequence. But ultimately, films build their audiences from legions of individuals and they have to stack together as many fans as possible to claim success. And the fanbase probably harbors many misconceptions. Her clickbait article may be inaccurate but I wouldn't call it irrelevant

Those may be their honest perceptions, but their perceptions are not based on “all the facts”, so to speak. It’s kind of like if you saw a two second video clip of someone with their back to the camera kicking a dog repeatedly, your perception would probably be that the person is an @$$hole and animal abuser and deserves to be punished. But what if the entire video shows the person walking down the street with their little kid and the dog runs up and starts trying to attack their kid and the person picks their kid up to protect them and then is kicking the attacking dog to keep it at bay. Yes, this is sort of ludicrous and slightly outlandish, but my point was that the writer may have given their honest perception, but the perception was not based on what “really happened”, i.e: they didn’t see the original film and how it originally looked.

 

[ahalpert]

Those may be their honest perceptions, but their perceptions are not based on “all the facts”, so to speak. It’s kind of like if you saw a two second video clip of someone with their back to the camera kicking a dog repeatedly, your perception would probably be that the person is an @$$hole and animal abuser and deserves to be punished. But what if the entire video shows the person walking down the street with their little kid and the dog runs up and starts trying to attack their kid and the person picks their kid up to protect them and then is kicking the attacking dog to keep it at bay. Yes, this is sort of ludicrous and slightly outlandish, but my point was that the writer may have given their honest perception, but the perception was not based on what “really happened”, i.e: they didn’t see the original film and how it originally looked.

Sure but she saw the shitty transfer and the good transfer and she knows which one she prefers. She may be wrong about which is more true to the original. Or, more likely, she wrongly considers the shitty transfer to be the original because it's the original to her. But she has all the facts of seeing two versions and knowing which she prefers and why

 

[paulears]

I suppose it’s all about perception. I just read the comment about Christian vs Jewish content and in all these years that element had not been noticed by me at all. Just goes to show that we are all reviewing the same thing, but from multiple perspectives. Maybe that reviewer’s focus was simply different?

 

[ahalpert]

. Maybe that reviewer’s focus was simply different?

Or maybe she can discern more hues than we can and has better eyesight. Or maybe she has cataracts

 

[Batutta]

To each their own. I agree that Raiders was the best and far more rough & tumble. I personally prefer Last Crusade over Temple of Doom as it has the lovely father & son relationship and also a far better MacGuffin than the second film. They were literally on the most legendary of quests, seeking the Holy Grail. The Last Crusade is full of such fun, blatant metaphors -- Indy doesn't believe in the religious aspects and then to rescue his father he has to literally make a Leap of Faith. There is a far stronger throughline of character development and themes in Last Crusade than any of the other films in the series. But as much as I enjoy that film, when Indy & Marion escape the Well of Souls and see that Flying Wing in Raiders, well let's just say it brought a little tear of joy to the eye of 14-year old Mitch one Saturday afternoon. Exactly as it was meant to. Pure adventure joy.

As an aside, The Last Crusade is also a curiously Christian film from a Jewish filmmaker, just as much as Raiders is a Jewish one. I don't think that particularly means anything, but in both films this steeps the story in something more meaningful than whatever those stones were supposed to be in Temple of Doom and the pointless interdimensional aliens in Crystal Skull.

I just find the whole vibe of Last Crusade to be kind of weak tea. I don't dislike it, but it feels a bit timid, like Spielberg was pulling his punches, and as for father and son relationships, for whatever reason I respond more to the father/adopted son relationship between Indy and Short Round. I get some of the criticisms of Temple of Doom -- it's loud, bombastic, culturally insensitive and Willie is annoying -- but it isn't weak tea. Last Crusade just bores me over repeated viewings. I rank it lower than Temple of Doom mostly on execution, not content.

 

[Run&Gun]

Sure but she saw the s*%tty transfer and the good transfer and she knows which one she prefers. She may be wrong about which is more true to the original. Or, more likely, she wrongly considers the s*%tty transfer to be the original because it's the original to her. But she has all the facts of seeing two versions and knowing which she prefers and why

But the order in which she saw them can change everything...

This is the question that can never be answered without a time machine... If she had seen the original theatrical film release first, would she still feel the same way? Because we've kind of established a large part of this(all of this?) is nostalgia. Kind of like someone that hears a remake of a song before ever hearing (or knowing of) the original, so when they do hear the original it doesn’t “sound right” to them.

 

[ahalpert]

But the order in which she saw them can change everything...

This is the question that can never be answered without a time machine... If she had seen the original theatrical film release first, would she still feel the same way? Because we've kind of established a large part of this(all of this?) is nostalgia. Kind of like someone that hears a remake of a song before ever hearing (or knowing of) the original, so when they do hear the original it doesn’t “sound right” to them.

Yes, hard to say how she would have responded if she had seen them in a different order.

However, I think there is a basic idea here that is generalizable: she thinks the new version looks too sharp and clean for the source material. from her perspective, this is a movie that came out before she was born; it's a period piece; and it's about a character delving into ancient history. It doesn't make as much sense to her that it should look so sharp and modern.

Of course, she also harbors a misconception about the resolution (but probably a common misconception): that the film has been UPGRADED to 4K. Because "4K" is a new thing that wasn't around when it was made. She doesn't realize that the film was shot and shown with at least 4K or higher equivalent resolution than that to begin with.

Speaking of nostalgia, would these movies be made the same way today? In this political climate? Depicting indigenous people as simple-minded barbarians who will kill anyone for Belloch because he speaks their language and wields their sacred statuette? Maybe that's why they went with aliens in crystal skull...

I realized while reading Batutta's post that I can't even mount a critique about the use of comedy in Last Crusade because I saw it at such a young age that I accepted my parents' pronouncement that it was good and then set out determining why. The movie is so naturalized for me that it can't be other than it is. I just accept it

 

[Mitch Gross]

I just find the whole vibe of Last Crusade to be kind of weak tea. I don't dislike it, but it feels a bit timid, like Spielberg was pulling his punches, and as for father and son relationships, for whatever reason I respond more to the father/adopted son relationship between Indy and Short Round. I get some of the criticisms of Temple of Doom -- it's loud, bombastic, culturally insensitive and Willie is annoying -- but it isn't weak tea. Last Crusade just bores me over repeated viewings. I rank it lower than Temple of Doom mostly on execution, not content.

As I said, to each their own. I personally find Temple of Doom a bit sour and negative. Both Spielberg and Lucas were going through divorces at the time and the negativity shows. They were kinda in a dark place. The sense of adventure and fun present in Raiders and Last Crusade isn't as strong.

I agree that Last Crusade plays up the comedy far more than the previous films. It's almost Roger Moore's Bond v Sean Connery's Bond, but not quite as hammy. But I still find the execution of #3 better & more satisfying than #2. Again, to each their own.

 

[jonpais]

I'm just curious why the OP only shared a link to what appears to be an outlier in the community and why other reviews, nearly every one of them positive from what I can tell, weren't included. I'm guessing because it appears at the very top of Google search.

 

[scorsesefan]

^ It was in my news feed and even if she wasn't completely correct about the Raiders BR remasters (I would like to see them) she touched upon some salient points, many of which have been discussed by Abe and paulears.