Originally posted by: Karyudo
I can't get too excited about changes like that. In those cases, I would actually buy George's (Steven's, James') argument that he's fixing stuff that he wanted to fix way back when, but didn't have the resources or technology.

But with my T2 example, they did all they could at the time, right down to reversing the text on the sign the truck drives past. I don't want to see the driver bought back by CGI. I don't want Arni's endoskeleton to be replaced with T3-friendly CGI as opposed to the make-up that took hours to apply. digital fudging of old and classic movies just does not float my boat. You're taking it out of context, and with the Indy movies you're pretending that movies made in the 80's were done with today's technology, yet shot on yesterdays technology, using methods they would now do in other ways? It does not work for me. It's like the replacements in The Lion King - they're just killing the classic movie by "improving it". It's film colourization, because you're digitally fudging the imperfections, which is what colourization tries to do - to fudge the imperfection of the absence of colour – to say "well I would have shot it on colour film, if I could have" and then to fudge it.

The effects shots should look like 80's effects shots, they're not perfect – but that's how they did it back then. In E.T. you had some scenes replaced by a CGI E.T.! And you're going on about walkie talkies - and I agree changing that was stupid, but it's worrying they introduced CGI E.T. and stuff. This is why I'm looking forward to Blade Runner next year, it will be like Alien - presented well, authentically and the way the sane director wants it. I trust Scott not to digitally fudge and introduce CGI - because he respects his art.