Joe Brausam

Remember in some cases the labels must reissue that original program as part of the deal, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Regardless, you don't have to be a fanatical collector of cues to appreciate the different variations - for some of us a slight alternate may be our favorite version of a cue, for some of us we might appreciate the the peek into the creative process.  I'm sorry this release isn't for you, but many of us will enjoy what they are presenting here.

Remember in some cases the labels must reissue that original program as part of the deal, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Regardless, you don't have to be a fanatical collector of cues to appreciate the different variations - for some of us a slight alternate may be our favorite version of a cue, for some of us we might appreciate the the peek into the creative process.  I'm sorry this release isn't for you, but many of us will enjoy what they are presenting here.

That logo looks like somebody found an Indy title font online for free and didn’t bother to finesse it. The way the type characters are designed- it’s supposed to have that natural “swoosh” look where the characters grow smaller and smaller. This looks like a first year graphic designer’s attempt at an update. 
 
“OOh. Here’s that font! Look I can throw a vector grunge pattern on there! Coool…” 😒

The original is some of the most iconic branding ever for a film. Change the color of the gradient a bit if you want (like they did with the original three). 
 



 
Although I do dig this early art for Raiders before everything got standardized. Pretty cool alternate type treatment. (And Indy doesn’t even have his hat! The sheer nerve!
 

 
edit: Turns out, there’s quite a bit of variety in the history of officially licensed Indy products. But I mean, these don’t come to people’s mind the way the former examples do.
 
Fans would loose their shiz if they revealed a blue logo today 😆

 
 

I just want to see any of the Oliver Stone titles at the point.  

I just want to see any of the Oliver Stone titles at the point.  

I thought the gang stealing the water in Episode 1 was the same swoop gang Boba beats up in Episode 2?

I don't quite understand what the issue is here -
 
As TheUlyssesian said this was a vanity project for Spielberg.  Something he did for himself.  If that's the case what's the problem?  Everyone is getting paid, it's not going to kill Disney's bottom line, and maybe they'll get a few awards out of it.  What's the problem if Spielberg wanted to make it simply because he wanted to make it?  Do we forget that musicals have revivals all the time on Broadway and elsewhere?  Would you have the same criticism for the umpteenth revival of WSS or Les Misersables on Broadway?  Who asked for a new revival of The Music Man to be staged with stunt casting in place like Hugh Jackman (who is probably doing a great job).  
 
There's no reason to complain about these things, they exist and people will find something to enjoy about them.  Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a large audience, sometimes it'll be a small one.  I can tell you as a music teacher I LOVED this interpretation of West Side Story and it has received near universal praise and good word of mouth within our music education communities.  Even if it was ONLY us that derived pleasure from this film I would say it was worth it.

I don't quite understand what the issue is here -
 
As TheUlyssesian said this was a vanity project for Spielberg.  Something he did for himself.  If that's the case what's the problem?  Everyone is getting paid, it's not going to kill Disney's bottom line, and maybe they'll get a few awards out of it.  What's the problem if Spielberg wanted to make it simply because he wanted to make it?  Do we forget that musicals have revivals all the time on Broadway and elsewhere?  Would you have the same criticism for the umpteenth revival of WSS or Les Misersables on Broadway?  Who asked for a new revival of The Music Man to be staged with stunt casting in place like Hugh Jackman (who is probably doing a great job).  
 
There's no reason to complain about these things, they exist and people will find something to enjoy about them.  Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a large audience, sometimes it'll be a small one.  I can tell you as a music teacher I LOVED this interpretation of West Side Story and it has received near universal praise and good word of mouth within our music education communities.  Even if it was ONLY us that derived pleasure from this film I would say it was worth it.

For what is worth... I thought the movie was brilliant.
I'm not an easy audience to please and while I may be better disposed towards Spielberg than any other filmmaker, I also rise the level of my expectations considerably when it comes to someone of his caliber (for the same reason I'm flabbergasted by Bob Zemeckis' poor results in recent years).
In this WSS, the level of bravura filmmaking alone is worth the price of admission (and let's face it, if you are doing a musical, you better have some cinematic muscles to flex), but for me the real success are the performances.
Spielberg can really cast a movie, especially the side roles.
 
I also adored the genuine retro vibe of many sequences: at times it felt and looked like a real 50s musical, and that warms my heart like nothing else.

Turns out Book of Bob Fett is still good.

When we see idols we rever being harshly criticized, it's kind of natural for some to step up as defense lawyers. I have yet to see WSS, but I guess call it "a gigantic waste of time and effort" is way beyond the point of a normal like/dislike debate. I firmly believe Cinema is one of the great human achievements of the 20th century (I know it was technically invented in the 19th, but the artform essentially was born in the 20th), but if we extremize this line of thought about 'usefulness' or 'meaningfulness' I can definitely say that any movie in the world can be see as a gigantic and ultimately useless venture, because no movie is necessary for anything essential in our lives. We get attached to them of course and they can reach even level of art, but that's rarer than most people truly convince themselves of. For the most part, movies exist just to entertain people and give them something to spend time with. That's it. Yes, there are much more detrimental hobbies and activities that are much more useless than watching movies of course. The only thing we should regret about a movie we didn't like is that we'll never get back that time we spent watching it instead of doing something else.
 
As Hitchcock said to Truffaut, "People think that movies are 'tranches de vie' (i.e. pieces of life), but I prefer to call my own 'tranches de gateau' (i.e. pieces of cake). Let's enjoy our cakes.

I don't quite understand what the issue is here -
 
As TheUlyssesian said this was a vanity project for Spielberg.  Something he did for himself.  If that's the case what's the problem?  Everyone is getting paid, it's not going to kill Disney's bottom line, and maybe they'll get a few awards out of it.  What's the problem if Spielberg wanted to make it simply because he wanted to make it?  Do we forget that musicals have revivals all the time on Broadway and elsewhere?  Would you have the same criticism for the umpteenth revival of WSS or Les Misersables on Broadway?  Who asked for a new revival of The Music Man to be staged with stunt casting in place like Hugh Jackman (who is probably doing a great job).  
 
There's no reason to complain about these things, they exist and people will find something to enjoy about them.  Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a large audience, sometimes it'll be a small one.  I can tell you as a music teacher I LOVED this interpretation of West Side Story and it has received near universal praise and good word of mouth within our music education communities.  Even if it was ONLY us that derived pleasure from this film I would say it was worth it.

I don't quite understand what the issue is here -
 
As TheUlyssesian said this was a vanity project for Spielberg.  Something he did for himself.  If that's the case what's the problem?  Everyone is getting paid, it's not going to kill Disney's bottom line, and maybe they'll get a few awards out of it.  What's the problem if Spielberg wanted to make it simply because he wanted to make it?  Do we forget that musicals have revivals all the time on Broadway and elsewhere?  Would you have the same criticism for the umpteenth revival of WSS or Les Misersables on Broadway?  Who asked for a new revival of The Music Man to be staged with stunt casting in place like Hugh Jackman (who is probably doing a great job).  
 
There's no reason to complain about these things, they exist and people will find something to enjoy about them.  Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a large audience, sometimes it'll be a small one.  I can tell you as a music teacher I LOVED this interpretation of West Side Story and it has received near universal praise and good word of mouth within our music education communities.  Even if it was ONLY us that derived pleasure from this film I would say it was worth it.

I don't quite understand what the issue is here -
 
As TheUlyssesian said this was a vanity project for Spielberg.  Something he did for himself.  If that's the case what's the problem?  Everyone is getting paid, it's not going to kill Disney's bottom line, and maybe they'll get a few awards out of it.  What's the problem if Spielberg wanted to make it simply because he wanted to make it?  Do we forget that musicals have revivals all the time on Broadway and elsewhere?  Would you have the same criticism for the umpteenth revival of WSS or Les Misersables on Broadway?  Who asked for a new revival of The Music Man to be staged with stunt casting in place like Hugh Jackman (who is probably doing a great job).  
 
There's no reason to complain about these things, they exist and people will find something to enjoy about them.  Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a large audience, sometimes it'll be a small one.  I can tell you as a music teacher I LOVED this interpretation of West Side Story and it has received near universal praise and good word of mouth within our music education communities.  Even if it was ONLY us that derived pleasure from this film I would say it was worth it.

A live show and a movie are not the same at all. Live shows can be revived ad nauseum no problem. It is not something bottled. Film is.
 
With that out of the way - your reasoning is basically tied to what someone thinks of the remake itself.
 
I happen to not have a good opinion of it, so I think it was gigantic waste of time, waste of effort and I would much rather have seen one of my favorite directors do something useful or meaningful. Sure I am no one to dictate his schedule but I can freely express my opinion.
 
Now those who happen to like the remake may think it was a good use of time and resources.
 
So ultimately it might boil down to what people think of WSS 2021 in deciding where they fall on the issue of its usefulness.
 
--
 
Now to demonstrate that the liking a movie shouldn't follow that you think it is useful .. for the discerning viewer... I will advance the case of Matrix 4.
 
I personally liked the movie, enjoyed it and I think it is good. I can still have the opinion that it was absolutely and totally pointless.
 
So even people who think the remake is good can have the opinion that this was a pointless movie and a deserved failure.

I don't quite understand what the issue is here -
 
As TheUlyssesian said this was a vanity project for Spielberg.  Something he did for himself.  If that's the case what's the problem?  Everyone is getting paid, it's not going to kill Disney's bottom line, and maybe they'll get a few awards out of it.  What's the problem if Spielberg wanted to make it simply because he wanted to make it?  Do we forget that musicals have revivals all the time on Broadway and elsewhere?  Would you have the same criticism for the umpteenth revival of WSS or Les Misersables on Broadway?  Who asked for a new revival of The Music Man to be staged with stunt casting in place like Hugh Jackman (who is probably doing a great job).  
 
There's no reason to complain about these things, they exist and people will find something to enjoy about them.  Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a large audience, sometimes it'll be a small one.  I can tell you as a music teacher I LOVED this interpretation of West Side Story and it has received near universal praise and good word of mouth within our music education communities.  Even if it was ONLY us that derived pleasure from this film I would say it was worth it.

I don't quite understand what the issue is here -
 
As TheUlyssesian said this was a vanity project for Spielberg.  Something he did for himself.  If that's the case what's the problem?  Everyone is getting paid, it's not going to kill Disney's bottom line, and maybe they'll get a few awards out of it.  What's the problem if Spielberg wanted to make it simply because he wanted to make it?  Do we forget that musicals have revivals all the time on Broadway and elsewhere?  Would you have the same criticism for the umpteenth revival of WSS or Les Misersables on Broadway?  Who asked for a new revival of The Music Man to be staged with stunt casting in place like Hugh Jackman (who is probably doing a great job).  
 
There's no reason to complain about these things, they exist and people will find something to enjoy about them.  Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a large audience, sometimes it'll be a small one.  I can tell you as a music teacher I LOVED this interpretation of West Side Story and it has received near universal praise and good word of mouth within our music education communities.  Even if it was ONLY us that derived pleasure from this film I would say it was worth it.

I don't quite understand what the issue is here -
 
As TheUlyssesian said this was a vanity project for Spielberg.  Something he did for himself.  If that's the case what's the problem?  Everyone is getting paid, it's not going to kill Disney's bottom line, and maybe they'll get a few awards out of it.  What's the problem if Spielberg wanted to make it simply because he wanted to make it?  Do we forget that musicals have revivals all the time on Broadway and elsewhere?  Would you have the same criticism for the umpteenth revival of WSS or Les Misersables on Broadway?  Who asked for a new revival of The Music Man to be staged with stunt casting in place like Hugh Jackman (who is probably doing a great job).  
 
There's no reason to complain about these things, they exist and people will find something to enjoy about them.  Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a large audience, sometimes it'll be a small one.  I can tell you as a music teacher I LOVED this interpretation of West Side Story and it has received near universal praise and good word of mouth within our music education communities.  Even if it was ONLY us that derived pleasure from this film I would say it was worth it.

I don't quite understand what the issue is here -
 
As TheUlyssesian said this was a vanity project for Spielberg.  Something he did for himself.  If that's the case what's the problem?  Everyone is getting paid, it's not going to kill Disney's bottom line, and maybe they'll get a few awards out of it.  What's the problem if Spielberg wanted to make it simply because he wanted to make it?  Do we forget that musicals have revivals all the time on Broadway and elsewhere?  Would you have the same criticism for the umpteenth revival of WSS or Les Misersables on Broadway?  Who asked for a new revival of The Music Man to be staged with stunt casting in place like Hugh Jackman (who is probably doing a great job).  
 
There's no reason to complain about these things, they exist and people will find something to enjoy about them.  Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a large audience, sometimes it'll be a small one.  I can tell you as a music teacher I LOVED this interpretation of West Side Story and it has received near universal praise and good word of mouth within our music education communities.  Even if it was ONLY us that derived pleasure from this film I would say it was worth it.

I don't quite understand what the issue is here -
 
As TheUlyssesian said this was a vanity project for Spielberg.  Something he did for himself.  If that's the case what's the problem?  Everyone is getting paid, it's not going to kill Disney's bottom line, and maybe they'll get a few awards out of it.  What's the problem if Spielberg wanted to make it simply because he wanted to make it?  Do we forget that musicals have revivals all the time on Broadway and elsewhere?  Would you have the same criticism for the umpteenth revival of WSS or Les Misersables on Broadway?  Who asked for a new revival of The Music Man to be staged with stunt casting in place like Hugh Jackman (who is probably doing a great job).  
 
There's no reason to complain about these things, they exist and people will find something to enjoy about them.  Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a large audience, sometimes it'll be a small one.  I can tell you as a music teacher I LOVED this interpretation of West Side Story and it has received near universal praise and good word of mouth within our music education communities.  Even if it was ONLY us that derived pleasure from this film I would say it was worth it.

Here's Deadline's opinion over whether WSS and King's Man should've gone to streaming or not:
 
https://deadline.com/2022/01/2022-box-office-theatrical-streaming-day-date-experiment-1234902774/

5 notes, 2 notes or zero notes, as long as it serves the images, I don't care.

I have Jaws on the line...

I’m firmly with @The Illustrious Jerry and @WampaRat about Spielberg’s WSS. Just came out of the theater and I loved every single second of it. Jerry’s review is spot-on—this was a labor of love for Spielberg and it shows. Every camera movement perfect, every actor luminous, every visible piece of the set an utterly convincing work of art. The New York Phil played like their lives depended on it. And this is the first film I’ve seen in a long time where the violence looks real (like the actors really are being punched in the face or smashed over the head with a chain). It absolutely grieves me that the film isn’t doing well at the box office and I really hope that the industry (or industry watchers/commentators) does not interpret this to mean Spielberg’s passé. He absolutely is not. The film business needs him more than ever, as far as I’m concerned.

1989 really was the Year of Iconic Jim Thatcher Solos.  Can't wait to order this expansion of an all-time classic.