Mandatory Indy DVD thread.

[Nacho]

I can´t agree with Barcik this time... Raiders of the lost Ark was the first "modern" film which made me feel the charm of the old adventure films, such as the mines of the King Salomon, I really liked it.

One thing is true... If he didn´t enjoyed it so much as some of us, nothing we could say will him enjoy it, so... discussion over  .

[Darth Mandarb]

My first Indiana Jones memory is watching Raiders of the Lost Ark on my dad's brand new VCR ... that darn thing cost like 1200 bux back then!!  We had a HUGE 25 inch Sony TV set in the family room.  He had this kick ass sound system that was ... get this Hi-Fi stereo!!!

It was awesome!  I remember thinking the melting faces were just awesome even though my mom tried to get me to look away "Don't look at it Marion ... keep your eyes shut!!"

These are great examples of what movies should be like ...

And Barcik ... I'd wager that the Godfather has been ripped off far more times than I.J. ... just my opinion

darthMANDARB

[Scummbuddy]

To the one that suggested the 4th one will incorporate 3d or anything like that.

George Lucas also mentioned when talking about these dvds that they would not edit out the glass between Indy and the cobra in the one scene and that they would stick to the same effects style as the previous ones when making the fourth film.

And I think the storylines/plots hold up with movies made now.  There's a lot of crap movies still made today.

[rodekill]

They did edit out the glass.

Finally an edit that doesn't irk me.

Han shot first and all that...

[Trapezoid]

We bought the set today and I just watched Raiders....
wooooh. I love that movie. I love them all. No bothersome edits that I noticed...

By the way, what's the "Han shot first" thing about anyway? I've seen it mentioned a few times, but never with proper explanation...

[remixor]

Barcik: You are utterly out of your mind.

By the way, what's the "Han shot first" thing about anyway? I've seen it mentioned a few times, but never with proper explanation...

In the original cut of A New Hope, Han shot Greedo (Greedo, right?) first, but in the Special Edition, it was edited so that Greedo shot first and missed, then Han shot.  There was really no point to this change at all, and Han's character probably WOULD have shot first in that scenario.

[MrColossal]

remixor, i think that was the reason it was edited so han shot first

it makes han less of a cold blooded killer and he was defending himself..

so that makes him more of a pussy

and goddamit i REMEMBER that when indy was standing with the rocket launcher and was gonna shoot the ark the guy in the white suit was talking and a fly walked into his mouth...

tell me i'm not insane cause i can't find it when i know it happened!

eric

[Timosity]

Over the next 3 weeks on Sunday night they're playing the Trilogy over here on TV, so I guess that's a sign that they'll be advetising the DVD set, I'm not sure if it's available over here or not yet, but I'll atleast watch it on TV, How expensive is the set?

But I loved these movies as a kid, I only saw The Last Crusade at the cinemas, as I was a bit young for the first 2, although I did watch them with my parents when they were on tv, It shits all over the star wars trilogy, IMO

[Las Naranjas]

I just pulled out my old VHS of Raiders to check that fly fact, and eric is not insane.

[Barcik]

Barcik: You are utterly out of your mind.

Dammit, I posted my opinion after I've seen this one recently for the first time, and said that it now looks way to cheesy. There was nothing I haven't seen before. It doesn't look like a bad movie today, but nothing particulary out of the ordinary. And that's the kind of responses I get.
For example, I can say much the same about Star Wars. Once, it was grand and original, but coming out today it would have been no more than a soulless rip-off. Or is it not a valid point? Does Indy look today exactly as it looked back in 1981?

Edit: I can't point at a total "Godfather" rip-off. There are many movies which loaned something (sometimes a LOT) from it, but I jus't don't remember a movie I have seen that is a total rip-off of it.

[Layabout]

I think the indy films stand up quite well compared with films of today. Its just an exciting rollercoaster ride of fun!

[Quintaros]

I understand what Barcik means about imitators diminishing some of the appeal of the films that influenced them.  For me that is more true with filmmaking innovations and techniques than with great storytelling.  Citizen Kane was something of a disappointment because the brillance of its editing and effects work has become part of the language of cinema and I couldn't help but take it for granted.  I knew it was an important film historically and I wanted to appreciate that but ultimately I had to judge it based on how much I enjoyed it which is only moderately.


Raiders and Star Wars however still hold all the same appeal for me is they would have at their release.  The special effects may no longer be state-of-the-art (though I would trade in CGI for model work with a few garbage mattes any day of the week) but great writing, acting, editing, music, etc. never become dated.

[Esseb]

I know about the Han and Greebo editing, but what's up with the glass and the cobra?

[LordHart]

I know about the Han and Greebo editing, but what's up with the glass and the cobra?

Well, you don't really think they would have a big name star like Harrison Ford and a Cobra about a foot and a half away from each other if there wasn't some protection.

[Miez]

I know about the Han and Greebo editing, but what's up with the glass and the cobra?

In Raiders there is the scene where Indy falls into a pit filled with snakes (on the digsite). There is one shot where he's face to face with a rearing cobra. There is a pane of glass between Harrison Ford and the cobra (moviestars are too expensive to be left alone with venomous snakes) and in the movie a reflection of either Indy or the snake shows in the glass. They've removed it using the magic of computers. Yay!

[Las Naranjas]

Some films which created visual techniques which have been exploited to the nth degree by others can still have a tremendous impact.

Triumph of the Will is still breath takingly gorgeous, despite the adaptation of it's technique through Ben Hur, through Star Wars and into LOTR.

And unlike it's contemporary audience I know the result of the values it trumpets and what their consequences.

[Minimi]

* MrColossal continues to yell at rode for not buying 28 Days Later

3 EXTRA ENDINGS!!!

Weren't there only 2 different endings on the dvd of 28 days later? I have it, and I only found 2

[remixor]

I don't know, Barcik and Quintaros: there's no way I can possibly change your experience of a given movie, but movies like Raiders do so much for me to this day that I just can't force myself to see them from the same point of you view you do.  The Indy movies are so much better constructed than any of its derivatives (and honestly, what movies are you talking about?   There are SO few movies in that genre these days, especially compared to how many movies have taken from The Godfather) that to me there's quite simply no comparison.

[Barcik]

I understand your point very well. Personally, I saw Star Wars in 1995, aged 9 and liked it a lot. I still do, despite the fact that I realized more and more flaws in it as I grew.

As for a modern comparsion, here's a recent one: Pirates of the Carribean. Working on pretty much the same formula (find a treasure, kill bad guys in nasty ways, say some witty one-liners, get the girl), it manages to deliever a more entertaining experience, mostly because of Johny Depp's performance and a more polished sense of humour.
It's not just the movies which are exactly like it. It's also movies that borrowed some elements. A big good getting his ass kicked on an air-plane is nothing outside the norm. A nasty sadist Nazi with a scar on his hand is bound to make the crowd giggle for all the wrong reasons.
In fact, most action/adventure/comedy movies are bound to suffer from this. I've recently seen the first Terminator after a looooooong break and was utterly surprised of how out-dated it was. It was slow-paced, there were no really great action scenes and the soundtrack was just horrible.
It's kinda sad, but a movie seen in 2003 just can't be judged by 1981 standards.

[remixor]

See, I totally know what you're talking about.  And in the case of movies like The Terminator, I completely agree.  But the thing is, I just can't see Raiders and Star Wars that way.  It's not because I don't want to, they just still get me pumped up as much as they always have.  Every time I think to myself "Hmmm... You know, maybe Indy really hasn't held up that well" I just pop it in and I can't help smiling and thinking "Fuckin' a, what the hell am I talking about?"
Incidentally, I feel the same way about Citizen Kane.  There's no way I can get the same feeling people must have when that movie was released as far as innovative cinematic techniques, but for me that's totally moot because it STILL outshines almost every movie released today in terms of cinematic "virtuosity", if you will, and the acting and script are to me absolutely top-notch.

So obviously we're not going to reach a common point here, but no worries.  I know that for some people it's just not as enjoyable to watch older films, because they seem more dated, and there's nothing I or anyone else can do about that.  And again, I know what you mean because there are movies like that for me, but there are some, such as the aforementioned films, that to me just never lose that appeal.