logo Sign In

Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films — Page 4

Author
Time

I love TOD. It has the best line of any film, EVER.

 

'Okey Dokey Doctor Jones! Hold on to you potatoes!!'

<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>

Author
Time

I wish they would've made a film that focused more on his archeology. I would've loved to have seen Indy fight the elements instead of Nazis, Indians, or Russians for once. My favorite moments of Raiders are when he is getting the head-piece translated, then he goes to the map room to discover the well of souls. Those were moments of true discovery that were missing in TOD, TLC, and KOTCS.

Like Anchorhead mentioned, the novels provide true Indy characteristics. He hardly fights in the McGregor novels. Instead it's a lot of discovery. Of course McGregor fails to capture Indy's traits well. That's one reason I opt for the Max McCoy novels. They are the closest thing to Raiders you could ever find. Just avoid Martin Cadin and Steve Perry's Indy novels if you can.

"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas

<span> </span>

Author
Time

Has Steve Perry ever written anything really well? He's all over these franchise EU material, but all his stuff reads the way a fourteen-year-old would expect, although maybe he simply knows his audience in that regard.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

zombie84 said:

He tries to pass it off to Lucas now, but I don't buy that for a second, Spielberg knew exactly what he was doing and he took that dark, spooky, gorey aspect of the film and ran with it. Maybe Lucas pushed it that direction in the first place, but Spielberg perfected it. He was into that kind of thing at the time--he had just finished Poltergeist, remember.

On the Indy DVDs (the 4th "Making of Disc" or the 2nd ToD Disc) there's a part where Spielbergo talks about how uncomfortable he was with the "dark" direction that Lucas (and the Hyucks) took it and that he more or less let Lucas play the "trust me [Indy grin][/Indy grin]" card on him.  But then while they were filming it, he decided to "counter" or "offset" the darkness with slapstick action.  They specifically show the scene where the big thuggee swings his hammer, loses it, and it plunks straight down onto a skinny guy over in the corner.

Hillarious.

My problem with ToD isn't so much that it's dark, but that it is goofy like that.  So, if it is Steven's wish, I will lay the good parts of ToD at Lucas' (original Lucas) and the bad parts at his.  That kind of humour seemed to sneak into Lucas' repertoire though, and we've had "cartoon rabbit steps in the poopy" jokes ever since.

EDIT: Looks like I'm repeating myself: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/New-Theory-Steven-Spielberg-Ruined-Star-Wars/topic/12412/

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I don't believe that Lucas "learned it" from Spielberg. But maybe, whereas Lucas would have resisted such slapstick on Raiders, he facilitated it more on TOD. Maybe. But I think the hammer-in-the-head moment is genuinely funny, and very Spielbergian. Willie Scott, on the other hand, is very Lucasian, and is basically part of the trajectory of the Lucasian comic sidekick Lucas adapted from Kurosawa beginning with Star Wars. R2D2+C3P0>Willie Scott>Brownies (Willow)>Jar Jar Binks.

Nonetheless, both men were on the same page. Spielberg had just finished Poltergeist and was about to go on to make Gremlins. He was in that headspace, that sort of "Tales From the Crypt", spooky-dark-gorey-yet-funny-and-mildly-goofy headspace, and that sums up TOD pretty well.

Lucas, on the other hand, says he was going through a divorce at the time, and that's why TOD is dark. But this is factually untrue. TOD was written in 1982 and by the time principle photography started in early 1983, George and Marcia were still married.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It would have been much more plausible if the Thuggee cult was a cover for some German occult mind control experiments (George had tired a bit of Nazis).

Thuggees on the whole were Hindus and were Vegetarians who revered snakes, monkeys etc so having the party munching on them should be a sign that not only is it not a normal Palace banquet but even the Thuggees are acting against type.

The omitted dialogue you mention Anchorhead is sorely missed here, as is the subplot about Willie trying to warn Blumburtt.

Kali is a revered Goddess not a female Satan and the heart ripping is more Aztec than Indian (if it was portrayed as an illusion it could have worked but George wanted real black magic, I think he was digging in the wrong place there).

As a plot I think it worked better in the proto-Potter film, The Pyramid Of Fear (if only that had been an Indiana plot device instead of a Sherlock one).

In that story the cultists aren't Egyptians on the whole but Europeans dressing up as Egyptians and using mind altering drugs to brainwash people.

That could have fitted into the Indiana Jones time frame very easily as there were a lot of occult based secret societies doing just that (but hopefully not killing young ladies).

Ironically for this conversation it was one of the first films to use CGI and the stained glass knight scene still holds up well.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Bingowings said:

But isn't that intended, in the first film efforts were made to make real people look computer generated and they weren't anywhere near as successful (even if by all reports I've read it's still the better film).

 I actually thought that the young Jeff Bridges was some kind of makeup or stock footage effect when I first saw the film. I was amazed to find out after the movie was over that he was entirely computer generated. It looked 100% lifelike to me. It's the first time I was ever tricked by a computer. The uncanny valley is becoming less and less relevant IMO.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

SilverWook said:

The banquet scene still freaks me out more than anything else.

You'd think they would have a stand next to the Indy ride at Disneyland selling chilled monkey brains!

This is another aspect of the film I find repulsive (in the wrong way).

India has possibly the best cuisine on the planet and yet they have a running gag about how not only is the food of the evil palace court insanely disgusting but the poor villagers too.

There was the potential for a very clever gag (no pun intended) there.

Willie could turn her nose up at the villager's food but actually find it delicious and she could then sit down to a delicious looking banquet which has been drugged (in readiness for her sacrifice) and start to see snakes coming out cakes and eyeballs in the soup which weren't really there.

Nobody notices because they just think she is an hysterical American, she is trying to pretend not to care because of her earlier embarrassment in the village but it sets up that something odd is happening to the people at the palace.

It would turn a rather racist joke into a Lynchian nightmare.

People in India would be equally disgusted if Indy ordered a burger though. ;)

I did read somewhere all those dishes were not made up. Yum!

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Bingowings said:

It would have been much more plausible if the Thuggee cult was a cover for some German occult mind control experiments (George had tired a bit of Nazis).

Thuggees on the whole were Hindus and were Vegetarians who revered snakes, monkeys etc so having the party munching on them should be a sign that not only is it not a normal Palace banquet but even the Thuggees are acting against type.

The omitted dialogue you mention Anchorhead is sorely missed here, as is the subplot about Willie trying to warn Blumburtt.

Kali is a revered Goddess not a female Satan and the heart ripping is more Aztec than Indian (if it was portrayed as an illusion it could have worked but George wanted real black magic, I think he was digging in the wrong place there).

As a plot I think it worked better in the proto-Potter film, The Pyramid Of Fear (if only that had been an Indiana plot device instead of a Sherlock one).

In that story the cultists aren't Egyptians on the whole but Europeans dressing up as Egyptians and using mind altering drugs to brainwash people.

That could have fitted into the Indiana Jones time frame very easily as there were a lot of occult based secret societies doing just that (but hopefully not killing young ladies).

Ironically for this conversation it was one of the first films to use CGI and the stained glass knight scene still holds up well.

You're referring to Young Sherlock Holmes? I don't think too many people here know the alternate title here.

Kali and the Thuggee cult figure prominently in some old movie I saw on TCM a while back. The title escapes me at the moment...

EDIT: It was "Gunga Din" from 1939.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Gunga Din was pretty much the template for TOD but that was 1939 by 1984 everyone should know better, especially two years after Gandhi had taken all those Oscars but then Lucas thought 1999 was a good year to riff Stepen Fetchit.

Author
Time

I have to wonder what Bollywood actors like Amrish Puri thought of the script?

He seemed to be having a jolly good time giving people heartaches.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

He got on very well with Spielberg and kept his head shaved after making the film and got a career boost out of playing villains with that look so it didn't do him any harm.

Author
Time

The medium is the message. If you don't think that CGI have a negative effect on how filmmakers approach the creation of a film you have your head up your ass. Does anyone here think that the great epic blockbusters of the pre-CGI era are not superior in nearly every way to the modern garbage we are fed? Yes, I am including overrated mediocrities like LOTR and Avatar as "modern garbage"

A tool is never just a tool. If you don't recognize that you end up like Mr. Lucas.

 

 

 

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord

Author
Time

oldpeoplerule said:

Yes, I am including overrated mediocrities like LOTR and Avatar as "modern garbage"

Author
Time

theprequelsrule said:

The medium is the message. If you don't think that CGI have a negative effect on how filmmakers approach the creation of a film you have your head up your ass. Does anyone here think that the great epic blockbusters of the pre-CGI era are not superior in nearly every way to the modern garbage we are fed? Yes, I am including overrated mediocrities like LOTR and Avatar as "modern garbage"

A tool is never just a tool. If you don't recognize that you end up like Mr. Lucas.

I don't think CGI has a 'negative effect' in the slightest. Crap is crap. It's always been made. I don't think there's much more of it now than there ever has been. I think we've been "fed" as much garbage since the advent of cinema.

Perhaps from the vantage of your glorious high-horse you can better define what you mean by "great epics" and "modern garbage." Or is this just another fine example of '...kids today... crap... off my lawn... grrrr.... Jar Jar... grrrrr....' 

The 1963 classic Jason and the Argonauts is a series of special effects sequences strung together with the slimmest of plots and no ending. Are you counting it as a classic epic? Many do. Perhaps if they hadn't been so obsessed with stop-motion they would have given the story an ending. Or are you comparing Lawrence of Arabia to Attack of the Clones

Author
Time

TheBoost said:

theprequelsrule said:

The medium is the message. If you don't think that CGI have a negative effect on how filmmakers approach the creation of a film you have your head up your ass. Does anyone here think that the great epic blockbusters of the pre-CGI era are not superior in nearly every way to the modern garbage we are fed? Yes, I am including overrated mediocrities like LOTR and Avatar as "modern garbage"

A tool is never just a tool. If you don't recognize that you end up like Mr. Lucas.

I don't think CGI has a 'negative effect' in the slightest. Crap is crap. It's always been made. I don't think there's much more of it now than there ever has been. I think we've been "fed" as much garbage since the advent of cinema.

Perhaps from the vantage of your glorious high-horse you can better define what you mean by "great epics" and "modern garbage." Or is this just another fine example of '...kids today... crap... off my lawn... grrrr.... Jar Jar... grrrrr....' 

The 1963 classic Jason and the Argonauts is a series of special effects sequences strung together with the slimmest of plots and no ending. Are you counting it as a classic epic? Many do. Perhaps if they hadn't been so obsessed with stop-motion they would have given the story an ending. Or are you comparing Lawrence of Arabia to Attack of the Clones

Perhaps I am just biased then, but I can't help but feel that CGI and the effect it has had on filmmaking is, in great part, why we have to have a website like OT.com. I know I am assuming that is has had an effect of course.

It just seems weird that there are people on this forum who are defending CGI as "just another tool" when it seems to me that this "tool" is largely responsible for our current dilemma; no proper release of the OOT. I doubt George would have bothered trying to make 'special editions"without CGI effects. And if he had, they would have in all likelihood looked a lot better since he would have been forced to use traditional effects that would have blended in with the original material more effectively than CGI.

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord

Author
Time

Yes but that is a whole different thing. When in the right hands, it can be a great tool for creating new films (take Forrest Gump for exmple) but it shouldn't be used to "enhance" old films.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

Yes but that is a whole different thing. When in the right hands, it can be a great tool for creating new films (take Forrest Gump for exmple) but it shouldn't be used to "enhance" old films unless the original is also made available.

Fixed.

Author
Time

As I said some pages back. 

I don't have a problem with the SE's existing it's the erasure of the original versions of those historic films that is the problem.

The creative work on here is a three pronged counter to that situation.

Petition to have the original versions officially preserved and distributed, preservation projects to keep the flame of the original versions burning until that happens and fanedits and SE's to give an alternative to the official SEs (which are now the official default editions).

Computers have their part to play across the board, as a means of filling in the petition, typing on these boards, getting the best out of the OOT and making edits and adding new effects (including CGI).

Author
Time
 (Edited)

theprequelsrule said:

It just seems weird that there are people on this forum who are defending CGI as "just another tool" when it seems to me that this "tool" is largely responsible for our current dilemma; no proper release of the OOT.

Just because a tool has had some negative effects doesn't mean it's inherently bad, or a bad tool.

 

[Insert Gun Control debate here]

ROTJ Storyboard Reconstruction Project

Author
Time

theprequelsrule said:

It just seems weird that there are people on this forum who are defending CGI as "just another tool" when it seems to me that this "tool" is largely responsible for our current dilemma; no proper release of the OOT.

With all the CGI in the world, I have a great release of "Casablanca" sitting on my shelf.

There's only one 'tool' I blame for not having a OOT.

Author
Time

There is a saying; "the exception proves the rule". Are the prequels the rule (CGI is inherently detrimental to film-making) or the exception (CGI is good). I stand by my belief that nothing is just a tool (read: neutral). Was the wheel just a tool? Is the internet just a tool? Are spell-check programs just a tool? No; they all have an affect on us, good or bad. Maybe CGI is both good and bad and unfortunately, when Lucas gets his hands on it, it is bad. Real bad.

Anyway, I've probably harped on this point long enough for people to be sick of me so I'll comment on the actual topic! It is awesome that Spielberg is not messing around with Jaws; it has a lot of similarities with Star Wars from a historical perspective (first summer blockbuster, lack of advanced FX technology ends up actually benefiting the film etc.).

 

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord