It’s the kind of revelation that would melt the face of any die-hard Indiana Jones fan (this time, with joy): “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” the 1981 adventure film that introduced that globe-trotting archaeologist, will receive a one-week Imax release next month, Lucasfilm said on Tuesday.

“For me, it’s always been the bigger the screen, the better,” Steven Spielberg, who directed “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and the three subsequent “Indiana Jones” sequels, said Tuesday in a telephone interview. “It’s the only marked contrast we have to the generations that are seeing our movies on phones and hand-held platforms. It’s a complete relief to be able to see a film that many people have just experienced on a palm-sized platform technology, suddenly hurled at that them on an Imax-sized screen.”

Lucasfilm, the studio of the “Indiana Jones” executive producer George Lucas, said the Imax version of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” will receive a one-week theatrical release beginning on Sept. 7, in advance of the Blu-ray release of the Indiana Jones movies, which will go on sale Sept. 18. A list of theaters that will be showing the film can be found online at Imax.com.
Steven Spielberg in Beverly Hills this month.Kevin Winter/Getty ImagesSteven Spielberg in Beverly Hills, Calif., this month.

Mr. Spielberg, who with the sound designer Ben Burtt supervised the conversion of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” to Imax, said that no special effects or other visual elements of the film were changed. The audio, he said, had been enhanced for surround sound: “When the boulder is rolling, chasing Indy through the cave, you really feel the boulder in your stomach, the way you do when a marching band passes by, and you’re standing right next to it.”

But Mr. Spielberg — who is also in the process of converting his movie “Jurassic Park” to 3-D for an anniversary rerelease next year — said he had “no plans” to do Imax conversions of his other films, whether earlier efforts like “Jaws” or “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” or any of the “Indiana Jones” sequels.

“‘Raiders’ is a movie of my own, that I can actually stand to watch from beginning to end,” Mr. Spielberg said. “In that sense, it has a special place in my heart. I don’t rewrite it in my mind; I’m not kicking myself for what I didn’t do. I’m just going along for the ride like everybody else. It’s one of the few films that I’ve directed that I can sit back objectively and observe and enjoy with my family or whoever I’m with, or even alone. Most of my other films, I’m hypercritical of them.”

In these edited conversation excerpts, Mr. Spielberg talks about the process of bringing Indy to an even bigger screen and – of course – the prospects of an “Indiana Jones 5.”

Q: How does a film that wasn’t shot for Imax get converted to be shown that way?

A: There’s two fronts, on any successful conversion, to Imax resolution, which is significantly clearer and sharper, with much more depth and fidelity than the movie appeared in theaters in 1981. So the first tier is where you take the DI [digital intermediate] and you enhance the resolution to Imax resolution. The second tier is that the sound is significantly different. They take the [audio] stems that we gave them, and they put them through their 12,000 watts of digital surround sound, and it’s a totally uncompressed experience.

You kind of feel the sound in your chest, like when the boulder is rolling, chasing Indy through the cave. You really feel the boulder in your stomach, the way you do when a marching band passes by and you’re standing right next to it.

Q: How long ago did you have to get started on this process?

A: Ben went to work on the sound conversion over a year and a half ago, knowing that we were coming out on Blu-ray. This was Greg Foster’s idea, actually – he’s the head of Imax [Film] and it was his idea to give “Raiders” an interesting launching point before the Blu-ray hits the streets, to come out in all 275 of Imax’s North American theaters. I remember the days when we used to go to the Cinerama Dome or the Ziegfeld in New York, to see the 70 millimeter exclusive engagements. When I first started watching “Raiders” on the big Imax screen not too long ago, it reminded me of those old event-ized days.

Q: It’s funny – “Jaws,” which just came out on Blu-ray, was on about that many screens when it first came out, and that seemed massive for the time.

A: I think it came out on 425 screens on opening day, which was the largest and widest release in history. And now that just seems like an art film. That’s like an independent film release. But movie-going habits have changed, and people want things significantly faster than ever before, and they get tired of things significantly faster than ever before. The shelf life that movies experience in theatrical venues is much shorter. “Raiders of the Lost Ark” played for 14 months in some theaters, and that was just in first run. That just doesn’t happen any more. I’m glad to have been alive in part of that era, but now this is an era of supersonic entertainment at supersonic speeds.

Q: “Raiders” has its iconic scenes, like the boulder chase you mentioned, but it also has some wonderfully horrific moments, like when the Ark of the Covenant is opened. Do you think about how those moments will play at Imax size?

A: For me, it’s always been the bigger the screen, the better. It’s the only marked contrast we have to the generations that are seeing our movies on phones and hand-held platforms. It’s a complete relief to be able to see a film that many people have just experienced on a palm-sized platform technology, suddenly hurled at that them on an Imax-sized screen.

Q: In the same way that directors are now converting some of their previous movies for 3-D, could you see other films of yours being re-released in Imax if “Raiders” is successful?

A: “Jurassic Park” is the only film I’ve agreed to convert into 3-D, so I’m working on that right now for a 20th-anniversary release next April. But there’s not a lot of movies I want to go back into my archives and do this for. “Raiders” is a movie of my own, that I can actually stand to watch from beginning to end. In that sense, it has a special place in my heart. I don’t rewrite it in my mind, I’m not kicking myself for what I didn’t do. I’m just going along for the ride like everybody else. It’s one of the few films that I’ve directed that I can sit back objectively and observe and enjoy with my family or whoever I’m with, or even alone. Most of my other films, I’m hypercritical of them. I don’t have any plans to re-release “Close Encounters” or “Jaws.”

Q: And not with any of the Indiana Jones sequels, either?

A: I have no plans, and I had no plans to release this in Imax. Greg Foster called George [Lucas] and me and Paramount one day, and came up with this idea, and so this isn’t even something that I was dreaming about. This is someone else’s dream that I climbed aboard.

Q: As with the Imax release of “Raiders,” the Blu-ray releases of the Indy films are just upgrades in presentation – there are no other changes to the movies?

A: No, there’s no aesthetic changes to the films. I’m not going back and doing to any of my movies that are now coming out on Blu-ray what I did when “E.T.” was reissued for the third time and I made some digital changes in the picture. I’m not doing that any more. I’ve resigned myself to accepting that what the film was at the time of its creation is what it always should be for future generations. I’m no longer a digital revisionist.

Q: That’s something you learned from your experience with “E.T.”?

A: I learned from the fans. And now of course, we have the other group of fans who only know the other “E.T.” with the digital augmentation and that has become their standard for receiving that story. The only thing I think we can do is continue to manufacture and put out both versions. But it’s too complicated to that with any of my other movies – I’m pretty much going to release those films the way they were originally made.

Q: Your friend and partner on the Indy movies, George Lucas, feels differently, and has made changes to his “Star Wars” movies as they’ve been released in new formats. Is that O.K.?

A: It is. It’s a director’s prerogative, and a director needs to decide that for him or herself. George has decided that he can make digital changes to upgrade the special effects to 21st-century standards and that’s fine. But I’ve just decided not to do that, and since I have control of the “Raiders” movies, and by the way, to George’s credit, he never once called me and suggested that I do any digital enhancements. He was not knocking on my door, saying, “Steve, you’ve got to do this, you’ve got to do this.” He never said a word.

Q: When you made “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” you were taking your inspiration from many filmmakers of decades past. Now that a few decades have elapsed since then, do you see yourself having a similar influence on directors today?

A: I have a lot of contact with a lot of young filmmakers. I run a studio with Stacy Snider, and we meet so many first-time filmmakers, or filmmakers that haven’t even made their first film yet, so all these generations are constantly mixing together. It’s not like one generation replaces another. It’s one generation continuing to inspire another. I’m inspired by so many of the movies I’m looking at today that are made by first-time filmmakers. If I see any good movie, it makes whatever I’m doing currently a better movie. Just for its very existence, it will make my work better, if I’m inspired by somebody. I don’t look at this as a trickle-down effect. I look at this, sometimes, as how the creative community shares their art.

Q: Are you able to see new movies in theaters when they come out, or do you have to see them largely in screening rooms?

A: No, I see most of my movies in movie theaters with the public. I saw “The Dark Knight [Rises]” in a movie theater and I’ve seen most of the summer movies in movie theaters.

Q: That’s got to be a lot of pressure, sitting next to you or a row away from you at “The Dark Knight.”

A: The only pressure when I’m in a movie theater is when I’m walking out and somebody asks me how I like the picture, and I’m just afraid that no matter what I say, it’ll show up in a newspaper someday. [laughs] So I try not to answer the question.

Q: As long as we’re talking about the Indy movies: with your longtime producing partner Kathleen Kennedy now a co-chair at Lucasfilm, is this the time to start thinking about “Indiana Jones 5”?

A: I’m afraid to think about it. Because if I think about it, I’m really going to want to do it. But it’s not up to me – it’s up to George. So the person who needs to be thinking about it is George, not me. And I’ve given George my pledge that if he wants to write a fifth Indiana Jones movie, I’m his man to direct it. But it’s all up to him, and I don’t put any pressure on him. And if he decides that another one is warranted, I’ll be happy to direct it.

Q: Not a bad name to have on one’s short list.

A: Thank you.

Looks like everything from the 2003 bonus disc is making it over to the Blu-ray, with the exception of the trailers, which may be on the individual movie discs.

The Walking Dead video game they were promoting during commercials looked kinda meh

From what they say in the movie that they destroyed the original films when they made the SEs and can't go back.

I know they released the Original Editions in 2006 as a 2nd disc (transfers from the Laserdisc set) and I have those and for now, that is all I need.  Sure they aren't super duper cleaned up and all that jazz but I don't really care that much about any of that stuff.

They neglected to say that in the movie

ANH
ESB
ROTJ

I can't imagine that the original elements have been destroyed.  That is a total LFL excuse.  They do mention that in the film.

. . .Since the negs themselves can't be physically altered, the restoration's final product must have been a new IP with correct coloring. Whenever films are color-timed, it is the Interpositives from which theatrical prints work from--original negatives do not contain any color-timing information, so whenever a release goes back to the original negatives, all the color-timing is lost and the film must be re-timed from scratch all over again. It is doubtful that an entirely new negative was struck from the corrected IP for Star Wars, which might explain why Lucas enacted a second color-timing effort in 2004 when he returned to the original negatives.

Had the film remained like this, we would have a restored version of Star Wars, perfectly matching the original release but with pristine quality, even to the point where it was better than what could have been possible back then (as with the higher quality optical transitions). However, this was only part of the process of making what was eventually called "The Special Edition." ILM was working on many dozens of new shots, and an even larger amount of enhanced shots, using digital effects to re-do, expand, re-edit and otherwise alter many scenes in the film. When these were completed, they apparently were printed onto film and re-cut into the negative, replacing the original negs, which were undoubtedly put back into storage. As a result, the negative for Star Wars is filled with CGI-laden modern alterations. When Lucas says that the original version physically does not exist, this is what he really means--the negative is conformed to the Special Edition. Of course, it would be very easy to simply put the original pieces back and conform it to the original version, or use the separation masters and IPs, or simply scan the old pieces for a digital restoration, but I digress.

(snip)

. . .It is also incredibly hard to imagine that Star Wars will never be restored to its original version. Perhaps it will take Lucas' passing to see this enacted--or perhaps not, given that he allowed the original versions to be released on DVD in 2006, even if they were just Laserdisk ports. In any case, I would be willing to bet a good amount of money that in some years in the future efforts were made to somehow save the original version of Star Wars--from Lucas himself, it may seem, as his Special Edition would have to be somehow worked around in gathering original elements. The negative could be re-conformed to its original configuration, using the original, saved pieces, but this is problematic due to handling issues (and losing more frames). When Robert Harris restored Godfather last year, he had to do it entirely digitally, saying that if any pin-registered mechanism were to touch the negative it would crumble. In Star Wars' case, using scans of the separation masters is perfectly viable, and though IPs and Technicolor prints are not ideal for masters they could be usable if cleaned up digitally. Perhaps the easiest option would be to simply follow the 1997 restoration pattern but in the digital realm: scan the negative in 8K, then scan the stored pre-SE shots or re-comp them, and fill in any damaged areas with IPs or separation masters, reconstructing the original cut, then digitally remove dirt and damage, and finally use a Technicolor print as a color reference for the Digital Intermediate created. Such a product would be theatrically viable, as pristine as when it had been shot, and 100% faithful in image and color to the original release.

The pricetag of doing a project like this would likely be under a million dollars. Jim Ward claims that Lucasfilm sold $100 million in DVDs in a single day when the refurbished Star Wars films came out in 2004, and while this figure might not be replicated (though in my opinion it probably would, if given a comparable marketing campaign) clearly there would be worthwhile profit. One day, I predict this process will happen, but that day does not seem to be anywhere in the near future. It will remain to be seen if the negative to Star Wars is in a salvageable state by the time this happens or if it has become a brittle relic, faded to black and white. It wouldn't be the first time the negative of a famous film has been lost--Criterion's restoration of Seven Samurai, for instance, does not work from a negative, nor did the gorgeous 35mm print of Rashomon that toured theatres this year. With fine-grain masters, IPs, and Separation masters available, the negative need not be the only source for a new master.

Backlash has, of course, occurred because of all this drama. The last dedicated release of the original version was a Laserdisk and VHS in 1995 (using the 1985 IP, which was then mastered in THX, according to Into the Digital Realm--the in-progress restoration couldn't be used for this release because it was still in-progress). By 2006, originaltrilogy.com had petitioned over 70,000 signatures to get the original versions released, and while the Laserdisk-port release of that year was at least admission of defeat of Lucas' crusade to erase the originals from existence, it also frustrated fans and experts alike, especially since the release wasn't even anamorphic (as the Laserdisk wasn't). When a letter-writing campaign reached Lucasfilm they responded by saying that the Laserdisk was the best source for the originals--which it would be without having to spend money, that is. Robert Harris, the man who had hand-restored Vertigo and Lawrence of Arabia, and later The Godfather, went on record saying he knew there were pristine 35mm elements available for use, and offered his services to restore the film. Lucasfilm did not respond. The efforts of fans and professionals like these will probably result in the aforementioned restoration at some point, if only for the callousness of making money, but it seems that day is not today.

The story of Star Wars' negative is both the story of advancing technology and the story of Lucas' ego. Showing how fragile negative film can be, how all sorts of old-fashioned tricks and the most advanced of analog technology was used to photo-chemically restore the elements, which were then embellished by select digital pieces in the infant technology, like some kind of emerging cyborg; by 2004, the film had been entirely consumed by digital technology, existing only as a digital negative. At the same time, a crusade of revisionism took over, moving from a project to preserve Star Wars so that future generations could see it, to an enhanced anniversary celebration for the fans that Lucas could use as an excuse to play with emerging digital technology, to finally a consummation of his prequel storyline and a nail in the coffin for the original version that so many had loved and that had given him his empire in the first place, while the quality of the negative itself seemed perpetually sliding downward in resolution.

Quote from: Rob on May 19, 2012, 10:57 PM

Every time I see that, I'm reminded of these:

RIP Virex