- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
How many versions of Metropolis are there?
Info Wanted: versions of Metropolis?
- Time
- Post link
• Original Length: 9 reels, 4189 m = 183:44 min (20 frames per second/fps); 167:02 min (22 fps); 153:06 min (24 fps); 146:59 min (25 fps)
• 1927 cut version: 3241 m = 142:09 min (20 fps); 129:14 min (22 fps); 118:27 min (24 fps); 113:43 min (25 fps)
• 1987 restored version: 3150 m = 138:09 min (20 fps); 125:36 min (22 fps); 110:32 min (24 fps); 110:32 min (25 fps)
• 2001 restored version: 7 reels, 3370,5 m = 147:50 min (20 fps); 134:23 min (22 fps); 123:11 min (24 fps); 118:16 min (25 fps)
I don't know what most of that jibberish means, but I think that different parts of the movie are recorded at different speeds (animation vs live action,) and then the resulting film had to be played back at one contstant speed, so you end up with running times all over the place.
You might want to peruse that site.. click on DVD comparisons on the left. There are three different metropolis DVD reviews on there, comparing quite a few releases this public domain movie has seen.
--bdev
In Progress Criterions: The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (99% done), Taxi Driver (90% done), Citizen Kane (50% done), Othello (99.99% done)
Possibly coming next: Ghostbusters, The Magnificent Ambersons (the theatrical cut, a reconstruction according to Prof. Carringer's script analysis, and the colorized version)
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: tweaker
Just a random note: While there are folks that argue the film should be viewed at about 18 fps (roughly the speed at which it was filmed), there is written evidence that it was always meant to be shown at around 24 fps (what was sometimes referred to as "sound speed").
Well, despite any written stuff, it's always a matter of looking at the film for what seems like natural speed. The rule of thumb for a late 1920s silent is usually 20-22fps. I'm fairly sure that 20fps works the best on the restored version.
Originally posted by: 5acrifice
I take it the original length version is not available?
Just a random note: While there are folks that argue the film should be viewed at about 18 fps (roughly the speed at which it was filmed), there is written evidence that it was always meant to be shown at around 24 fps (what was sometimes referred to as "sound speed").
Well, despite any written stuff, it's always a matter of looking at the film for what seems like natural speed. The rule of thumb for a late 1920s silent is usually 20-22fps. I'm fairly sure that 20fps works the best on the restored version.
Originally posted by: 5acrifice
I take it the original length version is not available?
Unfortunately, no. The new digital restoration is the most complete version we have now. It's unlikely we'll ever see a better cut since the new restoration already utilized film materials from every major archive in the entire world.
"Listen here, there ain't nothing in this world that's perfect!"
- from The Bank Dick
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: OgOggilby
Well, despite any written stuff, it's always a matter of looking at the film for what seems like natural speed. The rule of thumb for a late 1920s silent is usually 20-22fps. I'm fairly sure that 20fps works the best on the restored version.
Originally posted by: tweaker
Just a random note: While there are folks that argue the film should be viewed at about 18 fps (roughly the speed at which it was filmed), there is written evidence that it was always meant to be shown at around 24 fps (what was sometimes referred to as "sound speed").
Just a random note: While there are folks that argue the film should be viewed at about 18 fps (roughly the speed at which it was filmed), there is written evidence that it was always meant to be shown at around 24 fps (what was sometimes referred to as "sound speed").
Well, despite any written stuff, it's always a matter of looking at the film for what seems like natural speed. The rule of thumb for a late 1920s silent is usually 20-22fps. I'm fairly sure that 20fps works the best on the restored version.
I respectfully disagree. Considering that this whole forum is based upon the premise that a certain 30 year old movie should be preserved and viewed as it was in 1977 and not with modern tweaks, I'd think some consideration should be given to how silent films were presented back in silent days. It was actually the custom to watch films slightly sped up as they were more stylized and fantasized that way, which may seem odd to modern eyes. There's no evidence that ANY silent film was ever presented at a "natural" speed and there are 1000s of preserved music cue sheets that suggest projection speeds faster than filming speeds.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: caligulathegod
I respectfully disagree. Considering that this whole forum is based upon the premise that a certain 30 year old movie should be preserved and viewed as it was in 1977 and not with modern tweaks, I'd think some consideration should be given to how silent films were presented back in silent days. It was actually the custom to watch films slightly sped up as they were more stylized and fantasized that way, which may seem odd to modern eyes. There's no evidence that ANY silent film was ever presented at a "natural" speed and there are 1000s of preserved music cue sheets that suggest projection speeds faster than filming speeds.
Originally posted by: OgOggilby
Well, despite any written stuff, it's always a matter of looking at the film for what seems like natural speed. The rule of thumb for a late 1920s silent is usually 20-22fps. I'm fairly sure that 20fps works the best on the restored version.
Originally posted by: tweaker
Just a random note: While there are folks that argue the film should be viewed at about 18 fps (roughly the speed at which it was filmed), there is written evidence that it was always meant to be shown at around 24 fps (what was sometimes referred to as "sound speed").
Just a random note: While there are folks that argue the film should be viewed at about 18 fps (roughly the speed at which it was filmed), there is written evidence that it was always meant to be shown at around 24 fps (what was sometimes referred to as "sound speed").
Well, despite any written stuff, it's always a matter of looking at the film for what seems like natural speed. The rule of thumb for a late 1920s silent is usually 20-22fps. I'm fairly sure that 20fps works the best on the restored version.
I respectfully disagree. Considering that this whole forum is based upon the premise that a certain 30 year old movie should be preserved and viewed as it was in 1977 and not with modern tweaks, I'd think some consideration should be given to how silent films were presented back in silent days. It was actually the custom to watch films slightly sped up as they were more stylized and fantasized that way, which may seem odd to modern eyes. There's no evidence that ANY silent film was ever presented at a "natural" speed and there are 1000s of preserved music cue sheets that suggest projection speeds faster than filming speeds.
It wildly varied. For most films, the projectionists would eye the speed of the film and adjust the projector accordingly. Of course, this was at better theaters... many took advantage of the silent film by speeding it up to fit in more shows. Comedies tended to be projected faster than others and this is often replicated on DVD (I think Kino's DVD for The General is 26 fps). Technically, Metropolis had cue sheets marked for 28fps projection. This is probably just because of the urging to speed through the film.
There's so many conflicting notations on the projection speed, though. The orchestral score sheets were marked for 28fps. Enno Patalas (reconstructed the film) says it was 25fps. Martin Koeber (restorer) says it's 20fps, but that's a bit slow. The Murnau Foundation says it's 22fps. It's very unlikely 28fps was intended since the film looks completely ridiculous that way. Given the visual speeds and the time frame, it's 99% likely that Metropolis was intended to be projected at 22fps.
It's totally accurate to just eye the speed and look for what's natural. Too slow makes a film creep too much (like the 18fps Phantom of the Opera released on DVD from Image, before the 2-disc Milestone). Too fast makes action laughable, like Paramount's DVD of The Ten Commandments '23.
"Listen here, there ain't nothing in this world that's perfect!"
- from The Bank Dick
- Time
- Post link
The 2001 restoration is missing one shot, that is on an Australian print from 1927, and uses a shortened version of one of the SFX shots. So isn't quite the longest version that could have been made...
Supposedly there is a new 2006 restoration which is being released next year on DVD, however with no new footage.
Star Wars 1977-1983
Star Trek 1966-1991
- Time
- Post link
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
And as far as I know, the Giorgio Moroder version was available on Laserdisc and PAL format video in the UK at some pointat least. I've got a Laserdisc transfer to DVD which isn't bad.
- Time
- Post link
As far as Moroder, there's a guy on Ebay claiming it was released in Greece on DVD, but he's selling copies of the out of print original.
- Time
- Post link
Which specific shots are missing from the Authorized Restored Edition?
What other versions are floating around on DVD besides Moroder's?
What would the 2006 version be for, better quality?
I personally liked the speed on the official version. It seemed to run slightly faster than real life, so it had that old feel, but it wasn't "manic speed."
Super Mario Bros. - The Wicked Star Story
"Ah, the proverbial sad sack with a wasted wish."
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: caligulathegod
Right. It isn't supposed to be natural. That's not how they watched films in that era.
Right. It isn't supposed to be natural. That's not how they watched films in that era.
That's really inaccurate. It depended on the film and projectionists were expected to "eye" the speed. Comedies tended to be shot with the intention of being projected a little fast... I know The General is about 26 fps on Kino's DVD and looks quite right. The idea that films were always meant to be projected at a fast speed is as much of a myth as silents always being accompanied with out-of-tune piano music.
On the other hand, you'd never want anything faster than 18fps for Intolerance or Broken Blossoms. You can expect films from the teens to require around 18fps, maybe 16 for the much older stuff (I think Georges Melies films are preferable at 16fps). Fast speeds are rarely appropriate for anything other than comedies. Even those were meant to be projected slower than 24fps in a lot of instances (I know Chaplin had some of his silents re-released in "stretch printing" form which visually gave the appearance of being slowed down to 20 fps within a 24fps projection by repeating every other third frame or something). You can expect most 1920s dramas to be around 20fps, too.
"Listen here, there ain't nothing in this world that's perfect!"
- from The Bank Dick
- Time
- Post link
Oh well, this is an ongoing debate among the professionals and aficionados. We won't solve it here.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: caligulathegod
Everything I've ever read about silent films indicates that they were never projected at the same rate as they were filmed and that it's a modern convention that they be projected at a natural rate. There was never a standard speed, that much we do know. How it was presented was pretty much up to the projectionist. It seems that they were more interested in the picture ending on time than any sort of natural look. Also, the cue sheets tend to recommend the faster rates. None of them recommend the slowest 16 speed, since the film was too flamable for that. Audiences at the time were accustomed to the slightly stylized look of the projection, which looks silly to us, just as the acting does.
Oh well, this is an ongoing debate among the professionals and aficionados. We won't solve it here.
Everything I've ever read about silent films indicates that they were never projected at the same rate as they were filmed and that it's a modern convention that they be projected at a natural rate. There was never a standard speed, that much we do know. How it was presented was pretty much up to the projectionist. It seems that they were more interested in the picture ending on time than any sort of natural look. Also, the cue sheets tend to recommend the faster rates. None of them recommend the slowest 16 speed, since the film was too flamable for that. Audiences at the time were accustomed to the slightly stylized look of the projection, which looks silly to us, just as the acting does.
Oh well, this is an ongoing debate among the professionals and aficionados. We won't solve it here.
Well, just look over this article by Kevin Brownlow: http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm
The basic word of wisdom is to not project too slow or too fast. 16fps is too slow for most, but it does mention that slower speeds are necessary in many cases. At the same time, some films need faster than 24fps. It really does have to be looked at closely since wrong speeds will ruin a great performance.... stylized silent acting may be, it's rarely intended for anyone other than Keaton or Chaplin to appear to sprint every time they take a short walk.
"Listen here, there ain't nothing in this world that's perfect!"
- from The Bank Dick
- Time
- Post link