Enhancements to the original Indiana Jones Trilogy?

[Ollie 859]

Did Lucas and Spielberg add any CGI enhancements to the original films?

Over at Monster Zero someone posted 2 pics from the Desert Chase that show the jeep going over a newly designed background plate of the mountains and cliff compared to the original matte shot.

I'm having trouble accessing my account on photobucket and I can't direct link to the other message board but I'll post copies when I get a chance.

[Henry B 49]

The only change made for the 2004 DVD release was the digital erasure of the cobra's reflection in the Well of Souls.

Funnily enough, the reflection is still there in the shot with Marion.

[Ollie 859]

Original scene:

New scene:

[ChuckM 1]

There were a few other minor edits as well. For example, the lighting was changed a bit in some parts.

[King Mark 2,924]

OMG RAIDERS IS RUINED!!

Lucas has raped my childhood once more

[Ollie 859]

You would be crying like a little baby if Lucas had edited Williams' music and replaced it with something else.

I'm not whining I'm just curious no one caught this.

What else may have been changed?

[Henry B 49]

Well, that's fine. I'm sure that any alterations to Raiders are purely fixes and enhancements that the filmmakers would have made had they been possible in 1981. In no way will these alterations compromise the plot, pace or artistic design of the film.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

God help us.

[Ollie 859]

There was nothing wrong with the original matte background.

[Dole 11]

"You and I are just passing through history. This...this is improved history!"

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I noticed it when I first watched it at a friend's place when the DVDs were released. I think the death rays the Ark shoots out are also better looking.

Burga - who has DVD bootlegs made from laserdisc rips

[Lurker 5]

I'd heard about this happening for the DVD, but it's not on the new one either. I wonder how it wound up in the Sci Fi Channel's broadcast.

Neil

[Ollie 859]

According to the person who posted it the images originally came from originaltrilogy.com. I couldn't find the original link at that website.

It's supposed to have been taken from a HD transfer of Raiders.

[Henry B 49]

It's rumored that the four films are being released on Blu-Ray this fall.

[Lurker 5]

That might make sense then, as the DVDs did not come from an HD source.

Neil

[King Mark 2,924]

the new cliff doesn't really look any better than the old one

[Henry B 49]

At least it isn't detrimental, like the ridiculous Tatooine matte paintings added to Star Wars.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I feel like minor adjustments like this are totally fair game. After all, they're post-production processes; one could make the argument that such changes ought to be made every time technology makes it possible to improve the movie. Theoretically, such changes merely enchance the storytelling. After all, it wasn't intended for the glass to be visible in Raiders during the cobra scene; it's a distraction, albeit a fondly remembered one. Removing it improves the movie, in my opinion.

It becomes problematic when we start talking about redoing entire effects. In general, I'd say I'm opposed to that, although I take it on a case-by-case basis.

I'm only bothered when changes are made that undermine the original intent of the movie (Greedo shooting first, etc.), but even then I'm only bothered when I feel it hurts the movie (the "new" ending to The Exorcist, for example). When such changes benefit the movie -- such as the guns-into-walkies change to E.T., and yes I know some of you hate that, but I prefer it -- then I'm fine with it. It got very little attention, but the ending of Conan the Barbarian was drastically re-edited for the 2000 DVD rerelease; and it made vast improvements. I still wish that the original cut was on the disc, for historical purposes, but the new cut would be my viewing preference, so I don't mind. With E.T., I get that option, so if they'd decided to turn Elliott into a girl, I wouldn't have cared; just so long as I can watch the original if I feel it's the superior version, then whatever they want to do is okay by me.

[Lurker 5]

I'm sick of this tired argument about what people find acceptable with revisionism. It's been an ongoing debate for years and it shows no signs of stopping.

That being said Raiders of the Lost Ark has been changed. That effing sucks.

Neil

[AzOutcast 122]

I feel like minor adjustments like this are totally fair game. After all, they're post-production processes; one could make the argument that such changes ought to be made every time technology makes it possible to improve the movie. Theoretically, such changes merely enchance the storytelling. After all, it wasn't intended for the glass to be visible in Raiders during the cobra scene; it's a distraction, albeit a fondly remembered one. Removing it improves the movie, in my opinion.

It becomes problematic when we start talking about redoing entire effects. In general, I'd say I'm opposed to that, although I take it on a case-by-case basis.

I'm only bothered when changes are made that undermine the original intent of the movie (Greedo shooting first, etc.), but even then I'm only bothered when I feel it hurts the movie (the "new" ending to The Exorcist, for example). When such changes benefit the movie -- such as the guns-into-walkies change to E.T., and yes I know some of you hate that, but I prefer it -- then I'm fine with it. It got very little attention, but the ending of Conan the Barbarian was drastically re-edited for the 2000 DVD rerelease; and it made vast improvements. I still wish that the original cut was on the disc, for historical purposes, but the new cut would be my viewing preference, so I don't mind. With E.T., I get that option, so if they'd decided to turn Elliott into a girl, I wouldn't have cared; just so long as I can watch the original if I feel it's the superior version, then whatever they want to do is okay by me.

I agree that as long as the original version is available to the public, it's certainly not a problem.

As for E.T., well, it's been a while but near the end before they bicycles fly over the cop, wasn't there a shot of one of the cops pulling a shotgun out? For some reason, I thought there was (and I associated that with that small moment of danger in Williams music, before the flying theme takes over). In the new version, it looks like they just stuck in a shot of E.T.'s face. That I didn't like because it removed the threat, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I didn't know the shot was changed in Raiders either. Granted, they both look about the same (in quality) but it almost looks like they're driving into a cave in the original.

[Ollie 859]

Again, there was nothing wrong with the original matte shot.

Neil is correct.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Further evidence that LFL has too much time on its hands.

[Lurker 5]

I found this quote at TheRaider.net and confirmed it. It's from the 1995 book From Star Wars to Indiana Jones: The Best of the Lucasfilm Archives, by Mark Cotta Vaz and Shinji Hata. This is found on page 140 (next to a picture of the matte painting):

"One of the greatest chases ever filmed is the truck chase in which Indy pursues Nazis who are making their getaway with the Ark. The sequence intercut both live-action stunt work and ILM's visual effects magic. A key ILM shot had Indy drive a Nazi jeep off a cliff, an effect executed with a matte painting of the cliff's sheer drop in which opticals composited separate elements of a miniature jeep and puppets. Longtime ILMer John Ellis points to the shot as a signature example of Lucas's understanding of his audience, explaining that when Lucas viewed the shot in dailies he told his team to print it, despite a chorus of concerns that there was still work to be done--color timings, additional painting details, some work on the matte lines. But Lucas instinctively knew the shot couldn't be improved upon and that audiences would cheer it in the theaters."

Neil

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I feel like minor adjustments like this are totally fair game. After all, they're post-production processes; one could make the argument that such changes ought to be made every time technology makes it possible to improve the movie. Theoretically, such changes merely enchance the storytelling. After all, it wasn't intended for the glass to be visible in Raiders during the cobra scene; it's a distraction, albeit a fondly remembered one. Removing it improves the movie, in my opinion.

It becomes problematic when we start talking about redoing entire effects. In general, I'd say I'm opposed to that, although I take it on a case-by-case basis.

I'm only bothered when changes are made that undermine the original intent of the movie (Greedo shooting first, etc.), but even then I'm only bothered when I feel it hurts the movie (the "new" ending to The Exorcist, for example). When such changes benefit the movie -- such as the guns-into-walkies change to E.T., and yes I know some of you hate that, but I prefer it -- then I'm fine with it. It got very little attention, but the ending of Conan the Barbarian was drastically re-edited for the 2000 DVD rerelease; and it made vast improvements. I still wish that the original cut was on the disc, for historical purposes, but the new cut would be my viewing preference, so I don't mind. With E.T., I get that option, so if they'd decided to turn Elliott into a girl, I wouldn't have cared; just so long as I can watch the original if I feel it's the superior version, then whatever they want to do is okay by me.

I agree that as long as the original version is available to the public, it's certainly not a problem.

As for E.T., well, it's been a while but near the end before they bicycles fly over the cop, wasn't there a shot of one of the cops pulling a shotgun out? For some reason, I thought there was (and I associated that with that small moment of danger in Williams music, before the flying theme takes over). In the new version, it looks like they just stuck in a shot of E.T.'s face. That I didn't like because it removed the threat, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I didn't know the shot was changed in Raiders either. Granted, they both look about the same (in quality) but it almost looks like they're driving into a cave in the original.

On the E.T. issue, I can't remember the specifics, but I do know that for me -- for me, mind you -- it makes more sense for there to be less of a threat, rather than more. It makes little sense, if any, for these government agents -- who are apparently there to study E.T., not to harm him in any way, and certainly not to harm any humans -- to be running around brandishing firearms. They're obviously not going to use them, so there isn't any threat of physical harm there to begin with; the guns are a mild distraction. The threat is in E.T. and the boys being stopped from getting away, in which case walkie-talkies -- communication devices, by which the agents can communicate with each other and (theoretically) better contain their escapees -- make way, way more sense. It's a minor thing to begin with, of course, and not an important enough element of the movie to get worked up about one way or the other.

I sympathize more with the idea that the added digital effects cheapen the film. I don't agree -- in fact, I think the added effects are all improvements (it's not like they CGIed E.T. throughout, which would have been criminal) -- but I do see where there is room for concern in those instances.

Luckily, Spielberg seems to be reluctant to go down these paths except in fairly small ways. His friend George is another story altogether. (How long until we see Special Edition cuts of the prequels? Actually, that's not too bad an idea...) I should admit, though, that while I dislike some of the changes to the original Star Wars films, there are other changes I dislike less, and still others that I like. And I think that the changes to THX 1138 were well done. It still bothers me that the original cut of that film wasn't included, too, but such is life.

[pixie_twinkle 44]

Back in 1981 that shot gave me the chills. When the cliff was revealed suddenly for the first time I actually clutched the edge of my seat as my stomach lurched. I'd say it was quite realistic enough.

[indy4 152]

That being said Raiders of the Lost Ark has been changed. That effing sucks.

What I find interesting was that everybody was totally fine with the new truck chase scene until they found out it had been changed. There's nothing wrong with the new version. There's nothing wrong with the old version either, but my point is, you guys are all in a frenzy because it was changed, not because of the new version. It's pretty stupid, to get all worked up about something that you just recently admired and loved, just because it is not EXACTLY the same as the original.

[pixie_twinkle 44]

That being said Raiders of the Lost Ark has been changed. That effing sucks.

What I find interesting was that everybody was totally fine with the new truck chase scene until they found out it had been changed. There's nothing wrong with the new version. There's nothing wrong with the old version either, but my point is, you guys are all in a frenzy because it was changed, not because of the new version. It's pretty stupid, to get all worked up about something that you just recently admired and loved, just because it is not EXACTLY the same as the original.

You're wrong. Imagine if the Mona Lisa was replaced by a good copy for a week. Everyone who saw it would feel cheated once they found out. They'd be right, too. Just because people didn't notice doesn't make it right. It just makes it all the more annoying that it was switched in the first place. I'd like to know that the film I'm watching is the film I remember. Otherwise I feel cheated. If George wants to tinker then why not make "Special Editions" of the films, labelled as such.

[AzOutcast 122]

On the E.T. issue, I can't remember the specifics, but I do know that for me -- for me, mind you -- it makes more sense for there to be less of a threat, rather than more. It makes little sense, if any, for these government agents -- who are apparently there to study E.T., not to harm him in any way, and certainly not to harm any humans -- to be running around brandishing firearms. They're obviously not going to use them, so there isn't any threat of physical harm there to begin with; the guns are a mild distraction. The threat is in E.T. and the boys being stopped from getting away, in which case walkie-talkies -- communication devices, by which the agents can communicate with each other and (theoretically) better contain their escapees -- make way, way more sense. It's a minor thing to begin with, of course, and not an important enough element of the movie to get worked up about one way or the other.

I better sympathize with the idea that the added digital effects cheapen the film. I don't agree -- in fact, I think the added effects are all improvements (it's not like they CGIed E.T. throughout, which would have been criminal) -- but I do see where there is room for concern in those instances.

Luckily, Spielberg seems to be reluctant to go down these paths except in fairly small ways. His friend George is another story altogether. (How long until we see Special Edition cuts of the prequels? Actually, that's not too bad an idea...) I should admit, though, that while I dislike some of the changes to the original Star Wars films, there are other changes I dislike less, and still others that I like. And I think that the changes to THX 1138 were well done. It still bothers me that the original cut of that film wasn't included, too, but such is life.

While the guns don't make sense logically, I think they warranted the close-up on Elliot's face, as well as the change in music. I don't care as much about the walkie talkies, as I do about the music not matching up to what's on-screen. The rest of the changes I don't mind so much. I mean, the CGI looks dated now, but I prefer some of it to the original. The changes in THX were really well done I thought, although I'm not sure I agree with that added chase bit near the end. I know Lucas wanted to inject a bit of "oomph" into it but I thought it was fine the way it was.

I dunno, in the end it's tough to see what changes are really worth it. After all, I'm sure there are movies everyone watches and feels that if they could change some things, it would be for the better. Lucas feels the same way, so who's to say who's right or wrong? The only difference is, he has the capabilities to do so. I mean, for the most part I think the Special Edition of A New Hope got more things right than wrong, but that's why if the originals were re-mastered and released (not just non-anamorphic laserdisc copies) then not only would the public not be upset, but they'd be more open to have Lucas change whatever he wanted in the future knowing that you could at least have the original. I'm not one to bash Lucas (I rather admire him) but even if he was a money hungry bastard, you can't tell me that a bare-bones release of the original movies, only completely remastered, wouldn't sell like hotcakes.

[Lurker 5]

What I find interesting was that everybody was totally fine with the new truck chase scene until they found out it had been changed.

Ummmm, it just aired for the first time this month and this is the very first time I've heard of it being seen. So who was totally fine with it? It's not on any of the DVDs (even the new ones that just came out, which I have right here). I'd heard through the grapevine that the shot had been done for the DVD but had not been used. So it was with some alarm that it's now been cut into the film.

And to the person wondering about "Special Editions" of the prequels, none of the DVDs match the theatrical presentations. It may be one tiny transition change, but they are all slightly different than the theatrical versions. Especially Phantom Menace. But again, this is that same old tired debate.

Neil

[AzOutcast 122]

What I find interesting was that everybody was totally fine with the new truck chase scene until they found out it had been changed.

Ummmm, it just aired for the first time this month and this is the very first time I've heard of it being seen. So who was totally fine with it? It's not on any of the DVDs (even the new ones that just came out, which I have right here). I'd heard through the grapevine that the shot had been done for the DVD but had not been used. So it was with some alarm that it's now been cut into the film.

And to the person wondering about "Special Editions" of the prequels, none of the DVDs match the theatrical presentations. It may be one tiny transition change, but they are all slightly different than the theatrical versions. Especially Phantom Menace. But again, this is that same old tired debate.

Neil

Wow, it wasn't on the Raiders DVD? That's interesting. Any idea why it wasn't? Also, I'm familiar with the TPM and AOTC changes, but what was different on the ROTS DVD?

[JoeinAR 1,759]

the guns make perfect sense, the walkie talkies do not, the changes regardless that the original is available is wrong.

It is not an improvement, in fact nothing in the enhanced version is an improvement.

As for Raiders, there was never a need to remove the glass, it was fine, it was part of the charm, but Lucas and Spielberg are less the filmmakers they used to be. Once champions against colorization they are nothing but hypocrites, as what they have done is no different.

Once the films are given over to the public, and they become part of our film culture, it should be hands off.

Take however much time you need to finish it, but once its released thats it.

I do find it odd that some say oh this is ok and Im ok with that because that was the directors original intent.

So what if Spielberg decided to go back and digitally change Jaws, and have the shark jump over the bridge, that was his original intent. So it should be ok....right, I mean nobody would have a problem with that.

[Henry B 49]

So what if Spielberg decided to go back and digitally change Jaws, and have the shark jump over the bridge, that was his original intent. So it should be ok....right, I mean nobody would have a problem with that.

Then the shark would literally have jumped the shark. Heh.

[Lurker 5]

Wow, it wasn't on the Raiders DVD? That's interesting. Any idea why it wasn't?

Not a clue, but I'm glad it's not.

Also, I'm familiar with the TPM and AOTC changes, but what was different on the ROTS DVD?

A wipe is used in a scene that theatrically was a hard cut. Or something to that effect. I barely remember that movie.

Neil

[ChuckM 1]

Once the films are given over to the public, and they become part of our film culture, it should be hands off.

Take however much time you need to finish it, but once its released thats it.

So what about releasing a film, then later releasing the extended edition. Do you have a problem with that as well?

If not, then how is that any different than releasing a film, then later releasing the enhanced edition?

[Lurker 5]

As long as one version doesn't supplant the other and both are available in the same quality there's no problem.

Neil

[Bryant Burnette 451]

the guns make perfect sense, the walkie talkies do not, the changes regardless that the original is available is wrong.

And yet you have nothing to say to back up your claims. I don't care too much one way or the other about the walkies; I feel they're a very mild improvement. But I've got legitimate reasons for thinking that. Whatta you got? Bluster. And not much more, as far as I can tell.

Vintage Joey . . .

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Once champions against colorization they are nothing but hypocrites, as what they have done is no different.

I think thats an unfair statement. Colorization is wrong because those films are meant to be black and white films and the original filmmakers probably have/had no say in the decision to colorize it. But in Spielberg's and Lucas's case, how is it wrong that an artist looks back at an earlier work and decides to change it a bit?

[JoeinAR 1,759]

the guns make perfect sense, the walkie talkies do not, the changes regardless that the original is available is wrong.

And yet you have nothing to say to back up your claims. I don't care too much one way or the other about the walkies; I feel they're a very mild improvement. But I've got legitimate reasons for thinking that. Whatta you got? Bluster. And not much more, as far as I can tell.

Vintage Joey . . .

see BB thats part of your problem, its ok for you to have an opinion, with no justification, I too should be afforded the same.

ET was quite nearly a perfect movie. My personal favorite of all time, any change I take personally.

The guns make sense, the walkie talkies don't.

We're not talking about a benevelent government here chasing kids on bikes, there was a paranoia in the film that was appropriate. This was the Reagan era, and were talking about an alien that died and suddenly is resurrected, once he escaped it was clear that Keys wasn't in charge anymore.

but that said at least I have both versions, and will never watch the enhanced version again.

burga, I made it clear how I believe once the film is released its no longer just theirs, certainly not when its declared a national treasure as Star Wars was.

[ChuckM 1]

I'm still curious to hear why you think an enhanced or special edition, is any different than an extended or uncut edition?

[Bryant Burnette 451]

see BB thats part of your problem, its ok for you to have an opinion, with no justification, I too should be afforded the same.

ET was quite nearly a perfect movie. My personal favorite of all time, any change I take personally.

The guns make sense, the walkie talkies don't.

We're not talking about a benevelent government here chasing kids on bikes, there was a paranoia in the film that was appropriate. This was the Reagan era, and were talking about an alien that died and suddenly is resurrected, once he escaped it was clear that Keys wasn't in charge anymore.

Now, see, that's where you're wrong, Joey. I might occasionally forget to do so, but I try my damnedest to always make it clear that I'm just putting forth my personal opinion. Go back and look at my posts on this topic; I'm doing nothing but stating my own opinions, and I'm doing so clearly and with justification. I've got no interest in depriving anybody of their opinion; I do have an interest in dialoguing about things, a skill you seem to have failed to develop very well.

When you say the following, you need to realize that you're imposing meanings onto the movie that simply are not there:

"The guns make sense, the walkie talkies don't. We're not talking about a benevelent government here chasing kids on bikes, there was a paranoia in the film that was appropriate. This was the Reagan era, and were talking about an alien that died and suddenly is resurrected, once he escaped it was clear that Keys wasn't in charge anymore."

There is zero evidence in the movie that these government agents bear any kind of ill will toward anybody. There is no evidence for them being benevolent, true; but there's no evidence for them being cruel, either. It is obvious from their expressions that they are simply better organized, more aggressive, grown-up versions of Elliott. They are curious, awe-struck, determined to redeem years and years of failure. Yes, there is a paranoia to the movie; we are seeing them from a child's point of view (and from E.T.'s point of view), which is why for the longest time, we only see "Keys" from the waist down. This is the case until the movie decides to let Elliott (and us) know that these guys are not a threat; they are just trying to study E.T., and don't understand that what they're doing is harmful. I really don't see any other way to read the movie. But as always, I'm willing to be corrected. You've got to be specific, though; I don't accept a mere "You're wrong" as a point of view.

Until you or somebody else shows me otherwise, I'm sticking with my reading of the movie, and given that reading, what possible sense does it make for these people to be toting shotguns and pistols? There is just no logical reason for it at all, and that's why it's a good change to have them be carrying walkie talkies. It makes sense for them to be able to inform other agents "Hey guys, they just flew into the air on bicycles"; it doesn't make sense for them to be prepared to commit homicide.

Furthermore, I don't recall that this particular era of the '80s had people feeling especially distrustful of the government. In fact, didn't they feel more trusting of it than they had in years? That's an entirely different conversation, of course, but my take on it was that the first few years of Regan's presidency were seen at the time as a big relief from the '70s, which were a troubled time, to say the least.

I understand being miffed by changes if E.T. is your favorite movie. (And thankfully, Spielberg has left you the original version, an always welcome gesture.) However, your opinion is no more or less important than my own, and mine seems to have a sounder argument behind it. You want to accuse me of failing to realize that unjustified opinions are okay. Well, you're right about that. However, it ceases to be the case when you start discussing things with people. Once you get to that point, well I'm sorry, but yes you do have to have justifications. Because otherwise you're just shouting at somebody, rather than talking to them. And the line gets drawn when you take the added step of trying to strike down somebody else's opinion; in that case, you'd better offer rationale, otherwise you're issuing an edict.

Pardon me if I don't accept your edicts. I'll keep on doing what I do, which is present my take on things in the hopes that people will get something out of it, or that they'll have something to say that can enrich my own understanding. You keep on standing on the hill hollering at folks, and have yourself a big ole time doing it.

[Lurker 5]

I've just seen the new shot in question in the context of the scene in high def. It stands out as new. For a few seconds you'll swear you're on Tatooine.

Also, while watching it in high def, I believe what was shown was the high def master (or an interim master). The framing and color match the DVD, but there are deep scratches on the high def (and the infamous blue scratch Lowry talked about removing). Lowry did not restore this in HD though, only standard def, and his restoration had the original cliff matte painting. So what's being shown is the unfinished HD master with the vetoed CG cliff replacement shot. Hopefully this was just a clerical error on someones part ("Oh send over that HD master") and when the time comes for a proper high def video release the scratches will be removed and the original cliff matte will be there.

Neil

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I've just seen the new shot in question in the context of the scene in high def. It stands out as new. For a few seconds you'll swear you're on Tatooine.

Neil

That sounds like a shame. It also smells like Lucas.

I suppose it's always possible that the clarity of BluRay might have made it necessary to change the original shot, for some reason I don't grasp. But if so, it sounds like they've fallen short of making an improvement.

Oh well. As long as they don't have the guy with the sword during the basket-chase sequence pull out a gun and try to shoot Indy before Indy shoots him...

[Luke Skywalker 1,284]

That being said Raiders of the Lost Ark has been changed. That effing sucks.

Neil

Well, i suppose its time to start distinguishing between 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' (1981) and 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark' (2008-9)...

[Bryant Burnette 451]

That being said Raiders of the Lost Ark has been changed. That effing sucks.

Neil

Well, i suppose its time to start distinguishing between 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' (1981) and 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark' (2008-9)...

Title changes are definitely on the list of things that even I cannot support.

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark...? No, no no nononono, no... doesn't exist. Thank Iehovah Lucas didn't put that title onto the actual movie. I'm guessing Spielberg would've put his foot down at that point.

[Trent B 317]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Lucas just needs to leave things a lone.

For the "I'm fine with the changes" crowd...you guys are the newer generation, you didn't grow up watching these like most of us here have. That's why most of us here are pissed about the changes. The same is said about the Original Star Wars Trilogy.

Grant SOME (and I'm stretching that word) of the changes to the Original Trilogy I have no problem with but 90% of the changes I do. But that's not the whole point here...the point is Lucas always loves to change his movies, he can't leave things alone.

Anyways Neil is right, this reeks big time and it fracking sucks and this is definitely the same ol' argument again. It'll never end.

[Luke Skywalker 1,284]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Lucas just needs to leave things a lone.

Again? its the 1st time you said something like that.

Last time its was something in the vein of 'drop dead'

[Trent B 317]

Again? its the 1st time you said something like that.

Last time its was something in the vein of 'drop dead'

Nope I said later on that Lucas needs to leave things alone and Neil agreed with me.

[fommes 126]

Imagine if the Mona Lisa was replaced by a good copy for a week.

The irony being, of course, that it ís a copy that's being shown to the public.

Anyway, let's hope this doesn't end up on the HD Blue-Ray of Raiders, otherwise we'll be watching it on standard DVD for the rest of our lives.

[Luke Skywalker 1,284]

well at least no complains about not anamorphic widescreen originals...

[MrScratch 292]

I've just seen the new shot in question in the context of the scene in high def. It stands out as new. For a few seconds you'll swear you're on Tatooine.

Both were filmed in Tunisia at least.

As long as one version doesn't supplant the other and both are available in the same quality there's no problem.

Definitely.

[Ollie 859]

I didn't bother to watch the Sci-Fi airings of the films and to be honest when I bought my original DVD set back in 2003 I didn't recall anything looking different outside of the cobra's reflection.

Thankfully this appears to be a false alarm.