so lucas now thinks it is okay to add cgi to indiana jones?
they just slipped it in there without even noting that is was changed.
just for that i vote a boycott for the new dvd's if this is on there.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
just for that i vote a boycott for the new dvd's if this is on there.
The new dvd's are the same as the old 2003 release.
This looks like its only a part of the HD version so far. Not a good sign if you're looking forward to a Blu-Ray release.
I've been following the discussion of at the raider.net and this is the first I've seen in regards to a screencap.
It doesn't look bad, but I ask why bother. None of the effects in any Indy movie (talking about the first 3 here) are bad. There's some dodgy matte lines and bluescreen work but it's a product of their time. We are not talking about new films.
Have Temple of Doom and Last Crusade also aired in HD in the U.S?
I'm guessing there is no changes to them if they have. Which makes this single change even more odd.
"Well here's a big bag of rock salt" - Patton Oswalt
To be fair, there were reportedly some changes from the 100% original versions that were done for the '03 dvd. The obvious one is the reflection in the snake pit, but I also heard that the boulder shot was touched up in some way. One review I read said that there were a dozen or so changes throughout the three movies, but I've yet to see them listed anywhere.
so lucas now thinks it is okay to add cgi to indiana jones?
1. Who said it was CGI? The only comment I've seen is that it's a different matte painting. Whether the matte painting is done in the computer or not doesn't necessarily make it CGI.
2. Who says Lucas made the decision and not Spielberg? Spielberg made all those changes to E.T., so who's to say he didn't make this change to Raiders?
I agree that this is an odd change if it's the only one. Why do it at all? Maybe they wanted to see more of the sky, but that's the only reason I can come up with.F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Digital matte paintings are computer generated imagery, also known as CGI.
I agree, Raiders is a product of its time, why bother changing it, the effects still hold up even though they don't look brand new, and theres lots of other instances of matte lines and such. The problem is that if you fix one then you open the pandoras box to fixing all of them, and thats not necessary. But theres the old HD broadcast of the original, untouched Raiders if people really want it, so its not a huge travesty. I mean it is, but unlike Star Wars we can live.
It's not a huge deal of course, but it does give a possible indication of how much weird random tinkering might be going on behind the scenes at the ranch.
well, i'm watching it on SciFi HD right now & it's definately new (as zombie's screenshot shows) Man this pisses me off!!! Why can't they leave the @#!%#@ ALONE!!! That shot was just fine! there's NO NEED to do this kind of crap! I have a very bad feeling about the eventual bluray release..... Just like Star Wars, once they start changing things, where will it end? I was ok with the erasure of the reflection in the snake pit & the boulder track on the 2003 dvd set, but now i see i was sorely mistaken in being complacent about those minor tweeks....
Somehow, i fear Indy will wind up more like Star Wars than E.T., Close Encounters, or Blade Runner.....
IIRC, the jeep and falling Nazis were a stop motion element. Did they replace that as well?
Anybody recall the rumors ILM had done a lot of CGI tweaks for all 3 films and Spielberg vetoed them? Whether that South Park episode had anything to do with it we may never know! ;)Forum Moderator
Anybody recall the rumors ILM had done a lot of CGI tweaks for all 3 films and Spielberg vetoed them? Whether that South Park episode had anything to do with it we may never know! ;)
Apparently it did.
Parker and Stone said that after seeing that episode, Spielberg sent them the nicest "I hate you" letter they'd ever received.
I don't think ILM would've already made any changes by that point though, but they were considering it and the South Park episode apparently made enough of an impression to make them change their minds.
Sheesh, the old cliff looks way more realistic. The background looks nice in the new one, though.
You can't be serious. The new shot actually looks more realistic to me. Either way, both shots don't scream "OMG CGI!" like most of you are doing. Who cares if the matte painting is digital or not? I wouldn't expect anyone to hand paint a piece of glass for a shot like that these days.
To me, the shot looks a lot cleaner and a lot better now. But don't let my opinion sway you from your "OMG CGI sucks!" mentality. It may be that the shot was replaced to make it actually look good for a Blu-ray release.
The problem with the CGI tweaks that were done to Star Wars are that some of them actually changed the story (whether Lucas wants to admit that or not doesn't matter). The minor tweaks, like making the fighters more fluid in the space battles, don't bother me nearly as much as the lame tweaks like Greedo shooting first and Hayden replacing Shaw at the end of Jedi. Hell, the Greedo shooting first probably wouldn't even bother me if he hadn't missed! 3ft away and he can't hit a stationary target. He deserved to die for that alone.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
