Modified from its original version

Author: ricarleite
Date: 29-Dec-2005, 5:27 PM

Author: ricarleite
Time: 29-Dec-2005 5:27 PM
Post link

Now, this might have been discussed before, but it's worth mentioning. I was watching Citizen Kane today, great film, and decided to take a look at the IMDB trivia for this film. Now, one piece of trivia caught my attention:

Ted Turner announced that this film was going to be colorized. However, there was such a public outcry that the work was never done. Turner later claimed that the announcement was only tongue-in-cheek. Nonetheless, the controversy over the potential alteration of this film was one of the catalysts that eventually led to the movie industry requirement that all future video and TV releases of films that have been altered in any way - including the standard conversion from widescreen to "pan and scan" - must carry a disclaimer indicating the film has been "modified from its original version."

Now, I don't remember seeing any notice anywhere on the 1997 films or the 2004 DVDs, be it at the film itself, the credits, or at the package or publicity. Now, this could be pretty much because GL is working by himlsef and did quit the Directors Guild and probably dosen't need to follow these requirements, but still...

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering

Author: Darth Richard
Time: 29-Dec-2005 5:31 PM
Post link

well on the 97 vhs boxes it say its been changed to mach George Lucas's original vision

Author: Adamwankenobi
Time: 29-Dec-2005 5:42 PM
Post link

But on the DVDs it says "all three classic films, restored and remastered." So, either he is completely ignoring the rules, or is outside of the range, since he quite the director's guild.

Author: Invader Jenny
Time: 29-Dec-2005 5:51 PM
Post link

Now that is interesting to read. Obviously since Lucas is his own man, he can ignore all the rules, but the public out cry is still there. I wonder how much of an outcry it took to keep the film from being colorized. We're pretty vocal about Star Wars. He's got to be hearing us, right? (He can ignore us obviously, but I assume he's hearing us, and hearing us often.)

"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas

Author: Marvolo
Time: 29-Dec-2005 8:22 PM
Post link

So that is why Fullscreen movies say that "this film has been modified from its original formate to fit your screen."

Author: ricarleite
Time: 29-Dec-2005 10:01 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: Marvolo
So that is why Fullscreen movies say that "this film has been modified from its original formate to fit your screen."

Exactly, that's what I thought. Perhaps the SEs are considered to be different movies. Or maybe he dosen't apply to those rules, if he dosen't have credits on the begining of his films (which is not required anymore anyway), he also won't have any disclaimers at all - which is probably the most logical explanation.

So, let's think for a moment here. Had not the Director's Guild complained with GL about the lack of credits on the begining of Star Wars, he would have not quit the guild. So we would have a ROTJ directed by Spielberg, Gary Oldman as Grievious... And quite possibly a guild complaining about Lucas changes and demanding a disclaimer on the film, which GL would probably not accept (as those are HIS movies), and a legal battle with begin. This would get media attention and people's sympathie for the O-OT pretty much the same way it happened with the New Coke. So, logically, we would have the O-OT released, if it wasn't for some damn little credits!

Author: Invader Jenny
Time: 30-Dec-2005 1:49 AM
Post link

Damn those credits!!

I often wonder what ROTJ would have looked like had Spielberg directed. I imagine it would have been just as good, if not better. Oh well, it didn't happen. I'm happy the way it looks from 1983.

"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas

Author: Adamwankenobi
Time: 30-Dec-2005 11:57 AM
Post link

Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
Damn those credits!!

I often wonder what ROTJ would have looked like had Spielberg directed. I imagine it would have been just as good, if not better. Oh well, it didn't happen. I'm happy the way it looks from 1983.

When I found out that Spielberg was originally to direct i was like: "Damn you Director's Guild! Damn you to hell!"

But seriously, what honestly prevented Lucas from getting Spielberg? Couldn't he have just told the Director's Guild to fuck off, and have Spielberg direct anyway?

Author: olzen
Time: 30-Dec-2005 12:06 PM
Post link

Damn you, indie-George! It should have said "These movies have been modified to piss you off"!

"The things that stick in my mind and make me laugh were, like, memos worried about whether or not the Wookie should have pants. They're looking at this thing and saying, "Couldn't he have some lederhosen?" This is great. Of all the things to worry about, the Wookie has no pants." -Mark Hamill

Author: Invader Jenny
Time: 30-Dec-2005 12:13 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: olzen
It should have said "These movies have been modified to piss you off"!

Ha ha! Oh man, I am totally putting that on my DVD case of my "Classic Editions." That's just too funny to pass up. No, better yet. I'm going to the store at night and slapping those labels on all the box sets.
You know I was actually at Best Buy yesterday and I saw all those "It's A Trap!" box sets of Star Wars and I can understand how people can be fooled into buying those. Even my brother (who's very savvy) questioned if it was the Original or not. I had to firmly tell him, that no those where not the Original Trilogy. "How do you know?" "Because I'm part of the fight to get us the Original Trilogy. If it were out, I would know about it. Those are NOT the DVDs you are looking for. It's a Trap."

But those boxes sure are 'purdy. It's like the sweet sweet bait that lures fish to the hook.

"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas

Author: jturd
Time: 30-Dec-2005 2:23 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi

Yeah, they were only like the two hottest directors/producers in Hollywood at the time. There's probably more to it that we won't know about until after they both die and their surviving family members write books.

http://jgtwo.wordpress.com

Author: Gaffer Tape
Time: 30-Dec-2005 5:14 PM
Post link

Well, union members are only allowed to work on union projects, that's the rule. Spielberg would surely have been fined heavily for breaking union rules. I do, however, believe that there is a way to obtain permission, though, but I think that also costs money, so I'm really not sure what the difference is. But, really, you can't just tell the DGA to... well, what Adam said. Sorry, I only have rudimentary knowledge of the Hollywood unions from school, and we only really covered SAG, not the DGA.

Yeah, ric, I read that little tidbit about a month ago, but it does remind me of my first Star Wars viewing experience, which made me more than a little confused. I was nine when I got the Faces set, and I didn't know the difference between widescreen and fullscreen, what have you. So I popped the tape in, and I watched that cool advertisement that I watch every time I watch the movies ending with telling us that it's the original version... one last time. And then, after the interview, it goes to the, "The following film has been modified from its original version..." and I was really quite confused by that.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author: Adamwankenobi
Time: 30-Dec-2005 5:19 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape

Yeah, ric, I read that little tidbit about a month ago, but it does remind me of my first Star Wars viewing experience, which made me more than a little confused. I was nine when I got the Faces set, and I didn't know the difference between widescreen and fullscreen, what have you. So I popped the tape in, and I watched that cool advertisement that I watch every time I watch the movies ending with telling us that it's the original version... one last time. And then, after the interview, it goes to the, "The following film has been modified from its original version..." and I was really quite confused by that.

LOL!

Author: Darth Richard
Time: 30-Dec-2005 5:22 PM
Post link

sorry to be off topic but Marvolo are you Harry Potter fan(I am)

Author: ricarleite
Time: 30-Dec-2005 8:31 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Yeah, ric, I read that little tidbit about a month ago, but it does remind me of my first Star Wars viewing experience, which made me more than a little confused. I was nine when I got the Faces set, and I didn't know the difference between widescreen and fullscreen, what have you. So I popped the tape in, and I watched that cool advertisement that I watch every time I watch the movies ending with telling us that it's the original version... one last time. And then, after the interview, it goes to the, "The following film has been modified from its original version..." and I was really quite confused by that.

That's because of the pan-scan. So, for what I understand, if you change the screen ratio or if you colorize a film, you gotta show up a disclaimer saying so. But the SEs are different movies, so they wouldn't show this. Pretty much like the 1980 version of Close Encounters didn't. I do belive that the altered cut of "Touch of Evil" (closer to Orson Welles original plans) did have a disclaimer, but that was a decision of the distributor, not really necessary.

OK, so it's settled then.

Author: Gaffer Tape
Time: 31-Dec-2005 12:35 AM
Post link

My special edition (the '97s) had the message as well, but, of course, that was because they were pan and scan as well, not because they were a different version of the movie.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author: Knightmessenger
Time: 16-Jan-2006 1:13 AM
Post link

The director's cut of "Legend" from Ridley Scott on the 2002 dvd had "The following film has been modified from its original version to show additional footage not seen theatrically." The irony with that is the director's cut in this case actually is the originally version, taken from a test screening print before the studio stepped in and forced the movie to be hacked to bits, like what they tried to do with "Brazil."

Check other dvd's that are not the exact original version for this message.

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author: sikkbones
Time: 16-Jan-2006 1:18 AM
Post link

Didnt he only change the original series one time?

No. The original "Star Wars" was just "Star Wars" when it was first released, no "Episode IV", no "A New Hope". By the time Lucas wrote "The Empire Strikes Back", he knew that there would be stories before the original "Star Wars", so when it was re-released theatrically in 1979, during the production of "Empire", "Episode IV A New Hope" was added. That's why the "Star Wars" logo goes backwards so quickly compared to the other five films, actually adding additional footage would have messed with the soundtrack, but reducing the time the logo was on-screen gave Lucas the extra couple of seconds needed to add the longer title.

Also, the soundtrack was remixed several times in several different formats and there were little quirks like different/missing lines, but that was more of a mistake than a change that was decided upon.

We all know what happened in 1997, the Special Editions were released with a bunch of new stuff, but the 2004 DVD releases had even more tweaks, like the Palpatine scene in "Empire" re-shot with Ian McDiarmid, the '97 CGI Jabba replaced with a much better looking one in "A New Hope", and Hayden Christensen replacing Sebastian Shaw as the Force Ghost in "Jedi".

So, essentially, you have

1979: Lucas changes the title of the original "Star Wars"

1997: Lucas makes many, many changes

2004: Lucas makes a few more changes

plus the odd audio change every time one of the films was remixed into a new format.

As for the prequel trilogy, both "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" had significant changes made for their DVD releases, and "Revenge of the Sith" had a small one, but it was very minor: one scene transition was a wipe theatrically and it's just a straight cut on the DVD.

No George Lucas-directed film is available on DVD with no changes made. THX 1138 was updated quite a bit in 2004, with CGI and stuff, and "American Graffiti" was re-released in theaters with additional footage and that's the only cut that's ever been available on home video in any format, plus the DVD has the updated CGI title shot, where the plain white sky was replaced by a more visually-impressive sunset.

The Indiana Jones movies all had a bunch of little goofs cleaned up digitally, too. There's nothing of the magnitude of Greedo shooting first, it's just wire and rig removal. Some LucasFilm movies have made it to the format unchanged, however. "More American Graffiti" and "Willow" come to mind.

http://www.459.betrayer.ca

Author: Z6PO
Time: 16-Jan-2006 2:38 PM
Post link

Originally posted by: sikkbones
1979: Lucas changes the title of the original "Star Wars"

I think it's with the 1981 re-re-re-release of the original "Star Wars" that "Episode IV - A new hope" was added before the crawl. I remember a lot of people confused by the "Episode V" numbering of "The Empire Strikes Back". And Lucas explaining that in fact Star Wars was a trilogy of trilogies...

Han: Hey Lando! You kept your promise, right? Not a scratch?
Lando: Well, what’s left of her isn’t scratched. All the scratched parts got knocked off along the way.
Han (exasperated): Knocked off?!

Author: JarHead413
Time: 16-Jan-2006 2:56 PM
Post link

Oh Willow.....how I truly love that movie. Personally, the fight between the old lady and old man (I last saw it in Nov. but for whatever reason it seems vague) was visually very impressive in terms of the lightning. I was almost in shock because I was sure it had been touched up but it appears it hasn't. I dunno, just a thought.

Hey look, a bear!

Author: Knightmessenger
Time: 17-Jan-2006 1:15 AM
Post link

Labyrinth is another Lucasfilm release completely untouched. Even the matte lines and poor compositing for the "chilly down" sequence is intact. What was changed for Indiana Jones? I know the reflection off the glass with the snakes in Raiders was erased but what else?

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author: battlewars
Time: 17-Jan-2006 6:17 AM
Post link

the glass thing with the reflection comes back with marion instead. reminds me of that window that was added in empire and then mysteriously vanished a few seconds later

Author: booah
Time: 23-Jan-2006 3:54 AM
Post link

My DVD copies of the OT say "This film has been modified to fit my ego." Just kidding... I don't own retail copies of the OT.

and "Revenge of the Sith" had a small one, but it was very minor: one scene transition was a wipe theatrically and it's just a straight cut on the DVD.

I'm still wondering why? Why change such an insignificant thing? Was Lucas so happy with the entire film (hard to believe) as is, but this lone transition stuck in his craw that it had to be changed for home video?

We don't have enough road to get up to 88.

Author: battlewars
Time: 23-Jan-2006 4:57 AM
Post link

i know its pretty weird

Author: ricarleite
Time: 23-Jan-2006 5:30 AM
Post link

Originally posted by: booah
My DVD copies of the OT say "This film has been modified to fit my ego." Just kidding... I don't own retail copies of the OT.

and "Revenge of the Sith" had a small one, but it was very minor: one scene transition was a wipe theatrically and it's just a straight cut on the DVD.

The DVD was probably not copied directly from the film, but assembled from the master tapes, so the transictions were probably re-assembled. I would say that was a mistake.