So long as Spielberg doesnt do a special edition and add Ewoks to the tomb sequence at the beginning of Raiders, we can all die happy :) Free HAT!!!
July 28, 2002, 1:15 a.m. CST
Don't buy it. They replaced everyone with Ewoks. Heard it on TV.
July 28, 2002, 1:23 a.m. CST
And by the way, get than damn animation out of here. Eyes Wide Shut was what, 2 years ago? 3?
July 28, 2002, 1:56 a.m. CST
Unless it has some damn good extras and commentary, I'm sticking to my Raiders laser disc.
July 28, 2002, 2:34 a.m. CST
And yes, I would say it's one of the best movies ever made. Top 10 for sure. Steve was quoted as saying to a class room eariler this year that he finds the commentary track distracting and not the type of way he would like to watch a movie....Note to Steve: You can turn the commentary track off if you don't want to hear it. I just want to hear Paul Freeman comment on how that fly tasted.
July 28, 2002, 3:10 a.m. CST
July 28, 2002, 3:12 a.m. CST
...that they're not holding back the release 'til 2005 to cash in on Indy IV hype. As for the Paramount re-titling of Raiders to "Indiana Jones and the...etc", wasn't that just 'cause they were put out as episodes in the Indiana Jones Chronicles series, along with those Sean Patick Flannery TV efforts? Hope they wouldn't keep the re-hashed moniker like that for the sake of it...
July 28, 2002, 4:34 a.m. CST
Raiders has one of best film openings ever! BRING ON THE ARK!
July 28, 2002, 4:43 a.m. CST
When they released the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles on VHS, they put the original 3 movies in with them and retitled Raiders of the Lost Ark as Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. "Chapter 24 in the complete adventures of Indiana Jones". Hopefully Lucasfilm doesn't take complete leave of their senses and do that for the DVD release. Being as that would be incredibly lame. Christmas of 2003? Why so long? DVD has been out for over 5 years! Lucasfilm, make them worth the wait!
July 28, 2002, 4:45 a.m. CST
by Cash Bailey
But I do dread the day when we actually find out what Spielberg has done to the 'melting faces' scene. Because you just KNOW his sensitive family-man brain has been pondering it.
July 28, 2002, 4:48 a.m. CST
by Private Ryan
I don't want to wait a year for these DVDs! I want them now!!!! I love Raiders, Temple and Last Crusdade rule too, in their own way.
July 28, 2002, 4:58 a.m. CST
by FD Resurrected
...then shell out $$ for a DVD movie that's called INDIANA JONES AND THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ASK. Screw that. I'm a proud owner of uncensored CAv disc of Who Framed Roger Rabbit/The Best of Roger Rabbit, Back to the Future Trilogy and Indiana Jones trilogy. Laserdiscs still rule (proper feature presentation from the start rather than flashy animated menu, very good resolution without unnecessary edge enhancement and better soundtrack, at least...)
July 28, 2002, 5:33 a.m. CST
Do you know how many "rumored release dates" from "high up sources" there have been for these movies? Almost as many as for Back To The Future, and it took five years to get those movies out.
July 28, 2002, 6 a.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
Thanks. As if Hercules' 10 Best of the Year lists aren't ridiculous enough. Yeah, we know Raiders is one of the Geek Holy Grails along with Empire Strikes Back and Blade Runner, but don't delude yourself. Great entertainment, but derivative, and the best films of all time balance art AND entertainment, not one or the other. It's the same reason I wouldn't put "Gummo" on my list because it isn't entertaining in the least (come to think of it, it ain't very artistic either). Explain to me how Raiders is better than Vertigo, Citizen Kane, 8 1/2, Singin' in the Rain, Sunset Boulevard, The Godfather, The Third Man, Lawrence of Arabia, M, Breathless, The Searchers, etc. etc. etc. Try watching Gunga Din from the mid 1930's. After you see how the first two Indiana Jones films borrowed HEAVILY from this film, you'll understand how something that derivative can't be one of the "3 or 4 best films ever". 3 or 4 most entertaining films ever? Sure. So is Star Wars, which copped Flash Gordon, The Hidden Fortress, and The Searchers But Lucas' other baby isn't a masterpiece either, it's a phenomenon. I try not to take things too seriously here, but don't spurt shit out like it's gospel. Even Harry and Moriarty have more sense than that.
July 28, 2002, 6:23 a.m. CST
by Sea Bass
We're all impressed with your film history knowledge but everything written in the last 100 years is derivative of something. It's all about how it's executed. And Raiders was perfectly executed. The action, the dialogue, the acting, flawless. It's pretty much a perfect film. So yes, within the confines of its genre I'd put it up there with the greatest films of all time. A film doesn't have to be artsy and pretentious to be a great film. Now if Spielberg can release it to DVD without fucking with it I'll be happy..........Oh, and "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark is stupid. Indiana Jones is ONE OF the raiders of the lost ark. The title no longer makes sense. Who cares if it looks uniform to the other titles. Just because they stopped getting creative with the titles after Raiders doesn't mean they have to fuck up its title. But who cares, it's just a title.
July 28, 2002, 7:20 a.m. CST
by Andy Travis
Just about my favorite Ford movie moment...
July 28, 2002, 8:21 a.m. CST
by Monkey Lover
Really, who gives a shit? The film will still say "Raiders of the Lost Ark," it'll just be the box that uses the new title. Is that really such a bad thing? Think... use your mind. The answer is no. And besides, they may not do it with the DVD release, they just did it last time to fit in with all the Young Indiana Jones shows and stuff to create a whole massive Chronicles of Indy thing. But they probably won't release the Young Indy things again. No-one will spend that much on them.
July 28, 2002, 9:22 a.m. CST
I'd love to see a MEGA BIG HONKIN COLLECTORS SET compiling the trilogy plus all of the Young Indy eps in chronological order.
July 28, 2002, 9:29 a.m. CST
Why 2003? That's more than a year now. Damnit, I want em now.
July 28, 2002, 10:20 a.m. CST
First of all, I don't agree that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is one of the three or four best movies ever made... I would place it HIGHER. "Raiders" is indeed PERFECTION, so I hope that Lucas and Spielberg took a cue from that recent "South Park" episode and don't touch FRAME ONE of that movie (and Spielberg should also get as much of a clue from that fact that the recent, screwed-with re-release of "E.T." didn't do that well at the box office). Now for the BUT... I heard two years ago from what I had every reason to believe at the time was an equally knowledgable source at Lucasfilm that "Raiders" would be theatrically re-released in 2001 to coincide with the film's twentieth anniversery, followed by the DVD releases of the entire series. Didn't happen. So as the other poster said, I'll believe it when I'm holding it - or at least when I read it on www.dvdreview.com (no offense, AICN).
July 28, 2002, 10:58 a.m. CST
i'm a big fan of the original movies, like the original Star Wars movies, but what is up with 4? i don't really see the point. it's been too long. Ford is too old and too distanced from the character. if they do some kind of Mentor Indy with Dashing Sidekick, i'm gonna puke. i think they should just leave this franchise alone. hell, i don't think they should have gone past Raiders... seeing as how bad the next two installments were, don't you agree? (okay the 3rd one was okay, but the second one is abyssmal).
July 28, 2002, 11:11 a.m. CST
by a goonie
i wouldn't say it is one of three or four of the greatest pictures EVER, but it's up there. i have my own top 20 laid out, and i love it dearly. Raiders, unfortunately, doesn't make the list. but it's up there. i'd say it makes my top 30. and finally we're gonna get this bitch (and it's two sequels) in a fucking DVD set. for fuck's sake that took a while. but i'm sure that, based on the brilliant Phantom Menace DVD, they will be worth the wait.
July 28, 2002, 11:21 a.m. CST
by Osmosis Jones
The disc would be worth any price to see the screen tests of Seleck and Peter Coyote(!), who revealed on the 1996 E.T. laserdisc documentary that he had a disastrous test for Indy where he stumbled over an end table or something, and Spielberg said that if he was gong to make Raiders into an out-and-out comedy, he would have cast him. I seriously doubt that we'll get the original trilogy until part 4, though. "Indy...why does the floor move?"
July 28, 2002, 11:30 a.m. CST
Is this just going to be RAIDERS ro all three films? Inquiring wallets want to know...
July 28, 2002, 12:02 p.m. CST
by Smeg For Brains
I am probably the biggest supporter of stopping the unnecessary changing of films, but this is just a stupid topic to waste your energies on. THE ONLY PLACE THAT IT SAYS ANYTHING OTHER THAN RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK IS ON THE BOX!!!!!!!! And the only reason they did that was to make all the packaging match. Sure it would have been better and much more intelligent of them to just put "Indiana Jones" big to make it match the other boxes, and just left out the "and the" aspect, but when you put that video in the player it DOES NOT say "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark". That is NOT the name of the movie, unless you consider the printing on video tape packaging to be the definitive archival documentation of film, which anyone with 2/4000ths of a working brain cell would not. This is nothing at all to worry about, and almost everyone else realized that as soon as the videos came out, and it was obvious that the so called "title change" was nothing more than a package design choice. This is nothing like Greedo shoots first, Luke screams, government uses walkie talkies to catch dangerous alien lifeform, or even ewoks singing a different song. This is pointless.
July 28, 2002, 1:32 p.m. CST
I agree that the films that should be considered "great" should be the ones that balance art and entertainment, but I think that Raiders fits that description pretty well. Sure, it leans a lot more towards the entertainment side, but it does so in a well-crafted and artful way. As a lot of Talkbackers have pointed out, the film is nearly flawless in terms of execution. Is it derivative? Sure, a bit, but not nearly as much as most action/adventure movies, and really, all art is derivative to a certain extent. Most of the great films are very derivative of books or other films or what have you. It's something that is difficult if not impossible to escape...I always try to think up original and creative ideas when I write screenplays, only to find out that some movie somewhere at sometime has already used those ideas. The only thing you can do is take the concepts that you have and use them in the best way you know how. I mean, I love 8 1/2 and Citizen Kane as much as the next guy...my 8 1/2 Criterion is one of of my favorite DVDs...but it's not like those movies are completely original.
July 28, 2002, 1:42 p.m. CST
by Matt Martinez
Vertigo, The Godfather, The Third Man and The Searchers are all based on novels. Citizen Kane and Lawrence of Arabia are based on/inspired by true stories. How much more derivative can you get than that?
July 28, 2002, 2:25 p.m. CST
I'd sure as heck say that Raiders is a better movie than Singin' in the Rain. You can't get much more derivative than the old Hollywood musical.
July 28, 2002, 2:30 p.m. CST
That would fill in one of the movie's most notorious plot holes at least. Oh, and incidentally, it is Spielberg, NOT Lucas, that has been holding these DVDs up. Lucas has been trying to get 'Berg to do commentaries on these discs for years to no avail. Either Lucas has given up or Spielberg has finally relented. We shall see. Incidentally, i was watching Last Crusade on crapola VHS last week, and there's a scene on the tank where a German officer on the tank lifts up a periscope to see Indy fighting with Vogel. Indy kicks the periscope and the German gets knocked in the head with it. And i SWEAR that it's Nick Gillard, later the fight co-ordinator on TPM/AOTC. Can anyone confirm this?
July 28, 2002, 2:37 p.m. CST
Remember the scene where Donovan is trying to tempt that Sultan with a gold treasure box, which he says, was 'donated by some of the finest Jewish families in all of Germany'. Now, i remembered that line vividly from the theatrical release. Since then, i've had 2 copies of the film on VHS (hack&scan and widescreen), and seen it on TV, and i'm sure the word 'Jewish' has been rendered inaudible each time. If so, what the hell for? Was Spielberg wary of alluding to the Holocaust at all pre-Schindler? That strikes me as a very cowardly decision if it was deliberate. Keep your fingers crossed that the versions we get on DVD are the FULL, UNCUT versions EXACTLY as shown theatrically.
July 28, 2002, 2:48 p.m. CST
by Darth Brooks
Spielberg is particularly funny on the 1941 DVD, where he's basically whining that the US audiences didn't "understand" that 1941 was a comedy, and neither did the critics. I guess Stevie was the only one who found the humor in putting Animal House alumni in a WWII film. Poor Belushi wasn't even funny in that sorry-assed flick. The bigger secret was that Saving Private Ryan was actually filmed as a comedy - - the punch line "Was I a good man?" "Yes, honey, you were a good man." just didn't generate the yucks he'd hoped for. It's also fortunate he dropped the elaborate dance numbers from Schindler's List too.
July 28, 2002, 2:56 p.m. CST
by Brother Putney
... shouldn't it be called "Raiders of the Well of the Souls" ??? Because they're not raiding the Ark, it's too small, they're raiding the Well of the Souls to GET the Lost Ark. Eh, why open that can of worms? Anyway. "I am the monarch of the sea...."
July 28, 2002, 3:20 p.m. CST
by Smeg For Brains
My fucking ass. I doubt they will do anything with these films other than typical restorations before they do the transfer. There is no way in hell that they are adding "Indiana Jones and the.." the the actual in film title of Raiders. Not even Lucas is that clueless, and he's the guy who ruined the most classic parts of his own classic movies. On another note, I never really thought about it but South Park was dead on when they brought up Lucas championing the crusade against colorization. I guess he thinks that it is only the original films creators who have the right to destroy their own older films and insult the intelligence of their fans. I actually have no problem with the Special Editions existing, but I shouldn't be forced to only have them to watch, so he better include the originals on the DVDs. And not only in an insanely overpriced "collectors" set, like Speilburg is doing with E.T. Why is it that they think "collectors" love to pay four times as much for useless "bonuses" like little propaganda booklets, and frames of film prints from the crappiest parts of the film?
July 28, 2002, 3:24 p.m. CST
This is good, this is very good. I'm willing to wait another year just as long as the disc comes packed with the kind of goodies we saw on ST:PM. Also let me just go on record and say that hands down Raiders of the Lost Ark is the best action movie ever ! ! ! This movie should be required viewing for all those would be action auters out there(Yes I mean you Michael Bay). Everything about it is perfect, acting, direction, pacing, music, special effects, stunts, I could go on. Not too long ago I watched Raiders again and I realized that there is not a single wasted scene in the entire movie. It's a lean, mean rollercoaster ride that puts all other action films to shame. This may surprise some to know that we have George Lucas to thank for that, not Spielberg. Lucas looked at a rough cut of the movie, then edited about five minutes off the film himself. That cut is the version that we have seen and loved for the past 2 decades. Amazing isn't it?
July 28, 2002, 4:08 p.m. CST
Satipo, Sapito -- Sapito, Satipo -- let's call the whole thing off.
July 28, 2002, 4:26 p.m. CST
As in what happens when Indy IV has been out for about a year? Do they have the comprehensive box set come out then with some really good shit that's being held back just for it? Oh well, the Quest for Movie Minutae has to stop somewhere, right? I mean, they can only raid the vault so much, right? Uh...right? And why was "E.T." rereleased on its 20th, when one of the top five films of all time was completely overlooked. "Raiders" in '01 and the DVDs in '03 would've been a good, slow build towards '05, I think. P.S. Speaking of 2006, is that when this site officially shuts down, as it will then have absolutely NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL TO REPORT?
July 28, 2002, 4:34 p.m. CST
by Sofa King
Look, see- Indiana wasn't RAIDING the lost arc. He was just trying to FIND it. The Nazis were the ones who wanted to raid it (ie, opening it up to look inside, planning to use it as a weapon). Indiana wasn't going to do that. The raiders of the lost arc were the Nazis, and so it's "Indiana AND the Raiders of the Lost Arc". Yes, those are straws that I'm grasping at there.
July 28, 2002, 4:45 p.m. CST
LOTR is a great movie
July 28, 2002, 4:46 p.m. CST
Star Wars sucks
July 28, 2002, 4:46 p.m. CST
So what you seem to be saying is that a film cannot be considered great unless it's wholly original. And by extension, you are also saying that the films you listed are all completely original, and borrow nothing from what came before. I must respectfully cry bullshit. I find it particularly interesting that you mention both Gunga Dinn and Lawrence of Arabia, since some would say that Lawrence owes a debt to Gunga Dinn. If originality is a hard requirement for greatness, then I'm afraid that an awful lot of Kurosawa doesn't qualify, as he was influenced by American westerns. What makes a film great is great writing, directing, acting, and a host of other talents. Originality is a plus, not a requirement.
July 28, 2002, 5:02 p.m. CST
Raiders still holds up. Title, smyle. And one year aint that long anyways. Only 5 1/2 mohths to 2 touwes. Not a long wait
July 28, 2002, 5:21 p.m. CST
Yeah, I agree. You know what movie also sucks? The Godfather........And Metropolis? A piece of crap........Don't even get me started on that piece of kiddie swill called Midnight Cowboy.
July 28, 2002, 6:35 p.m. CST
by Leonard Shelby
very dangerous; you go first.
July 28, 2002, 8:04 p.m. CST
Stuff I'd want to see on a Raiders DVD. Anamorphic OAR transfer original audio mix, DTS 6.1 remix track and commentary track with Philip Kaufman and Lawrence Kasdan. There are the heart and soul of this movie, I'd really like to hear what they have to say about this movie more than Lucas or Spielberg or Harrison Ford. Toss on a second dic some of the making ofs and stunt specials plus trailers and a few out takes.
July 28, 2002, 8:10 p.m. CST
OK - ET sucks ass, I admit. but the godfather and suck in the same sentence? unless the whole sentence is "anyone who doesn't like the godfather can suck my fucking cock" i think you're a moron......
July 28, 2002, 8:15 p.m. CST
Guess it's off to Ebay for me to get nice boots of the Indy's like I have the Star Wars Trilogy. I will easily be held over until the legits come out.
When I saw Raiders for the first time it was a spoiler free, naive experience. I was thrilled and frightened ( the melting wax heads) and the experience still lives with me today. It was a great movie because it had an impact on everyone in the audience, young and old. It was the "US Today" of film making yet it expressed the ingrained human need for a hero. Pick on me for my simplistic insight but please tell eveyone about your favorite sight, sound or feeling of the film.
July 28, 2002, 8:32 p.m. CST
Of COURSE Indiana Jones is derivative. It was SUPPOSED to be derivative. According to Spielberg, one of the main points of the pictures was an homage to the old serial movies, with deliberate usage of specific cliches and scenarios from those movies. In the same way Star Wars was deliberately evocative of old-time SF movies, with widely acknowledged debts to Kurosawa and others.
July 28, 2002, 8:36 p.m. CST
No, The Godfather doesn't suck. It's a masterpiece. That was exactly my point--one which I thought was being stated quite obviously. Then again, concerning anyone who would so readily label ET an awful movie, I'd say perception is probably not one of his stronger traits........ ......(Yeah, that was probably unnecessarily sarcastic, but you called me a moron first. So, neener neener nee-ner!)
July 28, 2002, 8:48 p.m. CST
by Joey Stylez
Well, I know what I'll want come Christmas 2003 (other than the NY Jets winning the Super Bowl). One of the greatest films ever made, regardless of genre, is comiong to DVD. Based on the awesome Phantom Menace, we can espect probably the best DVD ever made. STAR WARS is my all-time favorite film, but if you ask me what is an example of a perfect film, I'd have to go with RAIDERS and KING KONG (the original, not the 1976 remake, for all you dumb-asses out there). Both films were lean, and they're timeless. You can watch these films over and over and never get tired of it. Of course, I'm still waiting for KONG to come to the digital realm. Hopefully, bu December 2003, I'll have both classics sitting on my DVD shelf. And to the usual negative asshole talkbackers on here, quite simply SHUT THE FUCK UP! As always, my opinion is the truth.
July 28, 2002, 8:51 p.m. CST
by Super Mendez
In order to make the film more "family-oriented" Spielberg is digitally editing out Indy's whip and replacing it with a walkie-talkie. Instead of Indy shooting the swordsman, the swordsman shoots first. I hope that he and George are having fun raping my childhood of all its cherished moments in the name of "family values". Penis breath, both of them. Maybe they should digitally remove Karen Allen completely and replace her with Kate Capshaw. And while we are "touching-up", let's go back and fix it to where Robert Shaw doesn't get eaten by the fucking shark. We repackage the whole shebang into a limited edition foil embossed hologram covered unit called "How George and Steve Fucked Up My Favorite Movies." Available at Barnes & Noble for $79.95. Whores.
July 28, 2002, 9:11 p.m. CST
In the best tradition of Stalin and Hitler, Mister George Lucas has seen fit to redo history. His evil henchman Mister Spielburg has funded these evil endeavors since the beginning. I'm sure that his excuse is that he created these works, sooooo, why is it not valid to tweak his "work" to reflect todays technology. Know I'm sure that the most of you can think of a dozen reasons why mister Lucas should burn in hell for these sins against celluloid, but, for some compelling rebuttals please read David Brins "Earth"
July 28, 2002, 10:43 p.m. CST
For most of the movie, Indy simply sees the Ark as a museum piece, fortune and glory, yada yada yada. This is his attitude up until about where Belloq tells him to "blow it back to God." Indy doesn't destroy it, and he begins to ask himself why it's so important that a piece of metal is more important than avoiding capture. In the end, as he and Marion are tied to the post, he realizes that he DOES believe, that he DOES have enough faith to realize that the power of the Ark is not meant for human eyes, and he overrides all of his overwhelmingly strong archaeological senses and does what he would have previously thought unthinkable... he doesn't observe what comes out of the Ark. It is at this point he is totally redeemed for ever wanting to possess the Ark as a mere prize to be won (I mean, come on, God himself spares Indy and Marion.) So at about oh, I don't know 1:52 of the film, Indiana Jones is no longer a Raider of the Lost Ark. But for nearly two hours, he is. I think. Maybe I just need to relax, take a rest.
July 28, 2002, 11:10 p.m. CST
Now all we need is Episode IV-VI on DVD. And AOTC bashers, please give it a rest already.
July 29, 2002, 12:27 a.m. CST
by Jack Ryder
*** " For this long of a wait, we better get a Lucas, Spielberg, Ford commentary track for all 3 movies.... " *** have you ever heard Lucas or Ford speak ? *** " I'd rather keep a laserdisc edition... " *** you and the 50 or so other laser snobs are welcome to do so ,and remember to turn it over for side two . *** " Almost as many as for Back To The Future, and it took five years to get those movies out. " *** the Back to the Future movies are out ? you mean I missed them ? what did they do about the Libyan terrorists in the first movie ? were they replaced by hippies or what ? *** " I try not to take things too seriously here, " *** sounds like you try to take EVERYTHING seriously . and who or what is " Gummo " ? *** " I'm begging Paramount to go back and do a bit of digital magic on the shot in which Indy lands in the snake pit. " *** I doubt it , Lucas " fixed " ep. 4 , but didn't fix the scenes where you could see the sticks that were used for the lightsabers . ***"How George and Steve Fucked Up My Favorite Movies." *** Bitter , but all your points are valid .I like the S.W. special eds. but it kills me to think Han just got lucky instead of beating Greedo to the draw . *** " So at about oh, I don't know 1:52 of the film, Indiana Jones is no longer a Raider of the Lost Ark. But for nearly two hours, he is. " *** actually it kinda' bugged me that he couldn't blow it up to save Marion or to keep it out of Nazi hands . but then I remembered Indy wasn't a hero , he was a reluctant hero . and those are always more interesting . in Temple of Doom he was even more reluctant and it made the film darker but it was truer to the character since it took place before Raiders . anyways , a year is just too far away to be concerned about yet .
July 29, 2002, 1:39 a.m. CST
Raider is one of the "three or four greatest movies ever made"???? Are you nuts???? Sure, the movie's good but it's nowhere near that level of quality. You're just an uneducated student of cimena Herc. Another one of those dweebs who can't put films within their proper cultural and historical contexts.
July 29, 2002, 3:31 a.m. CST
Listen guys. If you are complaining about there being special edition DVDs when the previous film's DVD didn't have any or hardly any features, what's the point? A special edition is a DIFFERENT DVD or the only DVD of a film. If you don't want to fork out additional money to get a newer and possibly more expensive DVD than a previous one of the same film which you bought, be aware it's your choice. Do you want features or no? My biggest concern is that you guys will just go and get a DVD out of a film, no matter if it has features or not, then you get pissed because the production/and or distribution company decides they want to do a new edition. Companies do this because of demand from the fans. Often production companies underestimate the fanbase of certain films. Hell, look at what happened to Boogie Nights. The first DVD is virtually non-existant (unless my sources have proven me wrong) and now the second one, the one with more features and stylish cartoon drawings. There was a first DVD of the film yet to my knowledge fans of the film wanted more, so they got more. TRON -----> Man, if you guys bought the original edition of the film and complained about another one in stores and it being more expensive because of the 2 DVDs, yet you really wanted a DVD special edition of TRON to exist in the first place... you're crazy, I tell ya. Anyway, there are those of you who are probably not what I just said yet you do feel that production companies are just continuously making more special editions of a single film in a bad way. I feel you. I don't understand myself why there has to be yet another edition of Men in Black on DVD, when the limited edition one had more features. By the way, changing the subject a tad. Can anyone explain to me why Criterion puts out a limited number of copies for each DVD it produces, when the company very well knows these kinds of DVDs sell a lot?
July 29, 2002, 3:33 a.m. CST
Each director's cut of a film, if it were to be on DVD, it should include the original version! I wonder if that's what's been done on the big Blade Runner DVD set.
July 29, 2002, 10:10 a.m. CST
by Josey Wales
All of the films Martinez and Lazarus mentioned are classics. Whatever factors one wants to include in measuring greatness, and originality is a useful factor, can't we all agree that Raiders belongs on the list of great films and stop splitting hairs? If I state that Film X is the greatest film of all time, I think it goes without saying that it's just my opinion and as long as it comes from a list of 50-60 truly great films, who the hell is going to say that I am unequivocally wrong. That said, I think people are getting sidetracked by the name on the box issue which is, naturally, irrelevant. More important is that they not touch the film itself which is, indeed, perfect. I'm just sounding off here, but wouldn't it make more sense to make both, if you absolutely had to special editionize a film? The nice thing would be to put them in the same package, but even apart you wouldn't lose any sales. Everyone who would buy Raiders (or whatever) would buy at least one and anal retentive completists would buy both. Plus, it would give fans a great chance to tell these pricks (and by that I mean any director who considers it their god-given right to edit their films continuously for the rest of their life) what viewers are really interested in seeing.
July 29, 2002, 10:28 a.m. CST
by Mr Pumblechook
I heard that in the recent video release of the Indy films, ie the repackaged set where the 1st film is called 'Indiana Jones - & the Raiders of the Lost Ark' that small edits were made to reduce the onscreen time of violence. Eg with the heart scene in Temple. If this is the case does this mean that the DVD versions will now have these edits as well? Can anyone confirm or deny? thanks
July 29, 2002, 11:33 a.m. CST
by Sofa King
The important thing is that, in the end, he DIDN'T raid it.
July 29, 2002, 12:16 p.m. CST
by Joey Jojo
Perhaps I could tell them, if only I spoke Hovitos.
July 29, 2002, 1:30 p.m. CST
by Josey Wales
Temple begins with 'Shanghai 1935.' Raiders with 'South America 1936.'
July 29, 2002, 1:36 p.m. CST
http://clik.to/movieshop 9 bucks each. stop bitching, you fucking faggots. order the films and stick it to the beard and the neck.
July 29, 2002, 2:01 p.m. CST
Most of you guys probably hate me for this, but I like the idea of changing the name of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" to "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark". No, it's not because Indy isn't actually raiding the ark (the title doesn't have to refer to Indy). I think the original title would be just fine if it was (chronologically) first in the series. I mean, without the name change it goes: "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", then "Raiders of the Lost Ark", then "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". It just seems inconsistant! And furthermore, I like all the episode numbers being added to the titles, too! Because I actually like the "Young Indiana Jones" and it's more consistant that way! And I like Lucas changing the name of "A New Hope"! Now, everything else these shits are doing I completely disagree with. If those fucks update the effects-- Hey, who saw the South Park episode about this? That was fuckin' hilarious!!!
July 29, 2002, 2:42 p.m. CST
With any luck, the Indy series will be released as a box set, preferably as box set with room for Indy IV when that eventually comes out. That would be the smart way to go in my opinion. But knowing how DVD distributors like to do things, they'll just come out wih another box set when Indy IV comes out. I really do hope that Spielberg doesn't go around mucking with any of the Indy movies. All he should do is clean them up and remaster them. I wouldn't mind if he cleaned up some of the FX shots but no re-editing and replacing ala E.T.
July 29, 2002, 4:41 p.m. CST
Is Spielberg going to replace all the guns with walkie talkies and is he going to screw us all for a Special Special Special Original edition with toy arks????
July 29, 2002, 5:18 p.m. CST
Meting faces? Oh thanks for the SPOILER WARNINGS you jerks!!!
July 29, 2002, 5:37 p.m. CST
by Smeg For Brains
He changed it when it was rereleased before Empire was out, and that was just because it was such a huge sucess that he knew he would be able to make the next two, and probably even the first three (hence the Ep. 4). He always intended it to be the fourth film, and to follow the old serial format with Episode names and numbers, so he just solidified Star Wars as the name of the entire new series that he now had the chance to finish. Besides all of this no one reffered to the film as A New Hope until years later, and that was hardly Lucas's doing. In fact he made the Star Wars name stand out on the video boxes of ep. 4. THIS SITUATION WAS TOTALLY DIFFEREN'T THAN CHANGING THE NAME OF A TWENTY YEAR OLD CLASSIC FILM WITH A MASSIVE FAN FOLLOWING WORLDWIDE. even Lucas isn't that dumb. The only place it will appear might possibly be the DVD Box. And for one thing I hope he does release everything. He can finally put all of the extra footage he shot for Young Indy to use with DVD features. He always intended that great series to be more of an interactive educational tool than anything else, and now he has the perfect media in which to do it.
July 29, 2002, 6:23 p.m. CST
I just that would be to funny. Maybe even get some comentary going with Spielberg, Lucas, Parker and Stone. They could show more of the new eddtion version with more Ewoks!!!!!!!
July 29, 2002, 7 p.m. CST
December 17, 2002. A day which will live in infamy. Oh wait, that was the 7th.
July 29, 2002, 7:06 p.m. CST
...actually, why aren't they releasing the box set on November 5th? OF COURSE! November 5th, 2002!
July 29, 2002, 7:08 p.m. CST
if they're going to retitle the movie so that it looks uniform on the packaging, why not simply call it "Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark". 'In' ought to be perfectly acceptable, would it not?
July 30, 2002, 3:33 a.m. CST
I'm glad not everyone thinks like you, or I would never get to see films like 2001 or The Seventh Seal or L'Avventura. You know, films that try to be more than just entertainment. Broaden your horizons a little, man. Just because some of us are interested in film criticism and history...that means we don't have opinions of our own? If anything, the shmuck who blindly feeds upon whatever mainstreamed ritualistic product Hollywood sees fit to to throw out is the one whose opinion is in jeopardy of being dominated by external forces. Film criticism is meant to encourage peronal reflection and analysis. Why do you think you disagree so much with critics, and they disagree so much with each other...about the films you deem to be nothing but cures for your insomnia? I love Raiders, by the way. I love the original Star Wars trilogy. And I also love films that are about more.
July 30, 2002, 6:01 a.m. CST
Since when did you become the spokes-person for the GREATEST FILMS ever made? SINGIN IN THE RAIN? A Muscial, hardly high art! Just old fashioned entertainment. What makes a film great? You are hardly the one to tell us. Get off your high horse, you don't have to go to Film School, to understand and evaluate films or be entertained by them! Do you think the Cinema Audience leave the theater after every picture, saying "not bad....but way too derivative?" NO! Film is a visual medium through which to tell a story, and ultimately ENTERTAIN. The combination of quality acting, great story, great characters, and break neck pacing make RAIDERS one of the greatest films ever made, and one of the most beloved films of all time.
July 30, 2002, 7:42 a.m. CST
Lazorus Song = WANNABE-FILM CRITIC (BWHAHAHAHA)!!! "Oh I'm the oh so important Lazorus Song you should not only heed my or so important opinion, you should pay me (even more than) like thoughs other (LOSER!!!) film critics (who could neither hold a real job or make / act in a REAL movie if their life depended on it)...whatever.
July 30, 2002, 8:05 a.m. CST
I used my Laser Disc and burned it on my dvd burner. So my wait is over. If I can do it so cheeply and easely just imagin what you will see at sci-fi cons. They will sell anything if there is a market for it.
July 30, 2002, 11:05 a.m. CST
by Josey Wales
But it would be nice if people stopped creating a dichotomy between art and entertainment. An 'art' film IS entertaining; anything that actively engages your mind, provokes thoughts, should be entertaining on an intellectual level; it is for me. It's not the same kind of entertainment as 'Raiders' (a film for which I would lay down my life) or other 'popcorn' movies, because those are playing to a different part of the brain. Point is, if you don't like 'The Godfather,' no problem. If you don't like any of the Godfather or 2001 or The Seventh Seal or Ikiru or The 400 Blows or Citizen Kane, etc., then it's probably because you're not that sharp.
July 30, 2002, 1:30 p.m. CST
Looking forward to this, naturally. And I am unconcerned with the trivialities many of you cite. This is going to be great. My only beef is that we will soon be clamoring for the fourth ep DVD. Actually, that is a good thing! AD out
July 30, 2002, 3:18 p.m. CST
The most idiotic and useless argument against a film is that it's "derivative." In fact, that's a pretty sloppy and ignorant argument against anything. Everything is derivative. If what you mean is something is a "rip-off" of something else, cite specific examples. We all know "Raiders" and "Star Wars" borrow. Akira Kurosawa borrowed from westerns for "Seven Samurai." Shakespeare borrowed from earlier plays and historical sources for his own. Nothing is created in a vacuum. As far as the "entertainment" versus "art" argument goes- entertainment is what we enjoyed today. Art is what we enjoyed 20 years ago.
July 31, 2002, 4:05 a.m. CST
At some point I guess the teacher had to tear the cover off the books and write PLAYBOOK in block letters to get you to read it. Now you
July 31, 2002, 8:21 a.m. CST
In certain places they will digitally enhance Harrison's face to show more emotion, oh and the whip is going to be replaced by a torch.
July 31, 2002, 7:40 p.m. CST
SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. OCTOBER. HELL YES. "I LOVE TA WATCH YOU DANCE, TONY... I JUST LOVE... WATCHIN' YOU DANCE..."
Aug. 1, 2002, 10:54 a.m. CST
Saying that someome can't know more about movies than someone else is like saying Albert Einstein couldn't really know more about mathematics than a prostitute named Gracie. I'm not saying anyone here knows more than anyone else...but some people have seen more movies, have studied them, have read about the history and production techniques of movies, have had firsthand experience with making them...and so, I think it is safe to say that such a person knows more about movies than the guy who watches nothing but movies starring Will Smith or Nicolas Cage. That's not elitism or being pretentious. It's just varying degrees of knowledge about a certain subject.
Aug. 1, 2002, 10:57 a.m. CST
Obviously, with all my typos, I'm not one to talk about knowledge. Forgive.
Aug. 1, 2002, 11:05 a.m. CST
Yes, I didn't mean to make it sound like there are art films and then there are entertainment movies. Art and entertainment are inextricably intertwined when it comes to film. I am not entertained by a movie like Armageddon because that movie does not engage me on an intellectual or emotional level, so the "entertainment" that it garishly parades falls flat on it face for me. I am greatly entertained by 2001: A Space Odyssey in a way...not bored by it at all, but enthralled by its beauty and scope and execution.
Aug. 1, 2002, 1:14 p.m. CST
You can see every movie on the planet and have comprehensive knowledge of the creators of every second of cinema history and still have utterly shitty taste in movies.
Aug. 1, 2002, 2 p.m. CST
But the chances of your tastes being crap are decreased with the more you know. The more you know about cars, the better the chance that you'll buy a good one. Sure, you might know more about cars than anyone else in the world and still buy a Pinto, but that would probably just mean you were insane.
Aug. 1, 2002, 6:36 p.m. CST
I do not wanna go out and finally after all this time buy this excellent dvd and see a diffrent title like "Indiana Jones...a New Dope" or something like that......I am expecting the same thing I saw in the theatres there is no need for new and upgraded effects or new scenes to be added......what a nightmare it would be to see a young Captain Panaka placed in the opening scenes of raiders....i'd have to go postal!!!!!
Aug. 2, 2002, 1:54 a.m. CST
Yes, subjectivity plays a role, so that one may say he prefers the trapeze artist or strawberry ice cream based on his opinion alone. But a "circus scholar" may be able to recognize which performer has truly mastered his craft, and an "ice cream connoisseur" may know which brand of ice cream was crafted with better ingredients in a more precisely calculated manner. I'm not saying that makes their opinions "right," or other opinions "wrong." But one opinion is more informed than the other, and may be of more value to individuals which prefer informed opinions to purely subjective opinions. This applies even moreso to movies than it does to circus artists and ice creams, for there are more specific criteria for film. If that's being pretentious, then I guess the opposite of pretentious is just blissful ignorance. We live in lazy times.