OT-member, Heilemann, have the Maker of Film uploaded here: https://vimeo.com/88892421
AntcuFaalb said:
Thanks, msycamore!
Weird question: Is it possible that the original GL cut (i.e., pre-WB-hackjob) was 90min rather than 86min?
Good question, my head is ready to explode from all of this. :) To add to the confusion, a lot of different runtimes have circulated in books and articles. IIRC, BFI had it listed as 96min.
Also don't forget this early promo ad:
;)
Also, rewatching that interview in Maker of Films, I get the impression what he actually is talking about there is more about the film he was trying to make and had in his head rather than an actual finished original version that got altered.
AntcuFaalb said:
My knowledge of this film isn't great. What evidence do we have of the 81min cut being released in the US besides word-of-mouth?
It's definitely not a word-of-mouth thing, it is well known that WB took the film and cut 4-5 minutes. The issues young Lucas faced with the studio system has been covered in tons of interviews, documentaries and books over the years. But exactly what Warner did and what was excised has gone undocumented as far as I know.
A few examples mentioned in the links in one of my earlier posts...
An upset Lucas in the documentary Maker of Films from '71:
"Walter Murch did most of the sound work, montages, what have you. The one problem is, that's one of the things Warner Brothers altered considerably, it was much more abstract and much more musical. The film was designed as a kind of opera you know, kind of a musical science fiction film. And the soundtrack was composed under purely musical concepts and they didn't quite understand that, they thought they all had to tell the story. So essentially the biggest change is that they have injected more story, what they thought was the story, that's the story of... they took out all of the humor and the happiness and people laughing and stuff because they didn't..." (the interviewer interrupts him)
^ I recommend it, I think it is still available on the Spleen. It's worth it just to see a young and skinny nerd before his real breakthrough.
In the book Skywalking by Dale Pollock, he writes on p.97 (first printing) how Warner turned the film over to in-house editor Rudi Fehr:
"Fehr cut only four minutes from THX, mostly scenes in the White Limbo and some of George's bizarre attempts at humor."
It's nothing concrete though.
poita said:
The 16mm and the 35mm IB have Buck Rogers at the start, the reviews from '71 I can find say it was Buck Rogers, I'd like to see if the review in Rolling Stone Issue 81, which I used to own, but now can't find, mentions it as well.
Good to hear Buck Rogers is there. I'm really surprised that 1971 35mm IB Tech prints were even struck, the studio hated the film, it wasn't a hit with audiences, and IB Techs were expensive to produce. I could understand if Lucas had a few prints struck around the same time as Star Wars in late '77, but '71? That is awesome. This 16mm print is apparently dated '71 and it's the unmolested cut, so I guess I should stop being surprised.
Also, great job on the scan, Poita! I've only seen a small sized 720p re-encode but even that is beautiful. If only there was a good cure for the fading.
phbart said:
According to IMDB, the original release had a clip from "Things to Come" (1936) instead of the Buck Rogers intro. Our 16mm has no intro at all...
Yeah, but we don't know the source of that. But we do have this:
ShaneLSD said:
Oh Cool thanks sorry didnt see the links. I like the 16mm:
Drug evasion arrest --> LUH visits THX --> THX gets medical examinations --> Trial & "pain prods" (electro-shock batons) scene --> THX is being monitored & researched --> THX put in prison
No problem. If I recall correctly that's the order the shooting draft had it in as well. The power of editing... it's fascinating that it works in both ways.
thxita said:
since this thread has become a real monster to browse, maybe we should think of a way to summarize all the info collected so far on this film. A wiki perhaps? With source links directed to specific posts of this thread? I don't know, something like that.
I could perhaps try to update the first post of the thread. More info have come to light since I wrote that.
Also, another difference is that this 16mm print lacks the Buck Rogers intro that was in place for its original US theatrical release.
ShaneLSD said:
I noticed that my laserdisc cuts from thx getting stunned and taken away to all the crazies in the white room but the 16mm cuts to thx getting messed with in the med room by the medical robots. anyone else notice this?
Yes, see the links in the post above yours. The different editing...
Scene order in Italian and German TV-broadcast and English 16mm prints:
Drug evasion arrest --> LUH visits THX --> THX gets medical examinations --> Trial & "pain prods" (electro-shock batons) scene --> THX is being monitored & researched --> THX put in prison
Scene order in English home video versions and 2004 Cut:
Drug evasion arrest --> Trial & "pain prods" (electro-shock batons) scene --> THX gets medical examinations --> THX is being monitored & researched --> LUH visits THX --> THX put in prison
poita said:
Easiest way would be to output the Bluray via composite video and capture that, or run the composite video into an old VCR and record it, then capture *that*.
The 'hardware' downgrading will do most of the work for you.
That's a brilliant idea.
AntcuFaalb said:
msycamore said:
I haven't seen the 16mm scope yet, currently downloading a 720p version, but it seems very likely that this is the same cut of the film as your other 16mm print, SilverWook. Which means that it's not the original 1971 release cut. The runtime and extended SEN scene suggest so.
If the 35mm re-release prints match the 16mm versions, it means that Lucas tinkered with the film for its home video debut in 1982.
I sent a message to poita. I think I remember that he had something that was more-or-less definitive in demonstrating it to be from 1971.
poita said:
The Kodak 16mm film edge codes place it in Rochester NY in 1971.
Ah yes, I recall that being mentioned over at the old AMPS. Damn, this print only produces more questions in my head.
As we know what Warner Brothers did to the film for its US release and this cut sure as hell doesn't match the stories over the years from the filmmakers and the info shared in Dale Pollock's Skywalking, the only realistic thing I could think of is that this is an 1971 "International cut" (UK). Perhaps the film wasn't butchered by the studio for the European release after all? But then why an American lab, maybe that's not unusual?
But the madness doesn't end there of course...
As I thought, this print contains the same cut as Silver's other 16mm print, which means a different order how certain scenes occur. See this post: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/THX-1138-preservations/post/665426/#TopicPost665426 and http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/THX-1138-preservations/post/588049/#TopicPost588049 for additional info.
Might perhaps be worth checking out how UK tapes released in the eighties compares, the UK letterboxed VHS I own (released in the nineties) match the US home video versions.
I haven't seen the 16mm scope yet, currently downloading a 720p version, but it seems very likely that this is the same cut of the film as your other 16mm print, SilverWook. Which means that it's not the original 1971 release cut. The runtime and extended SEN scene suggest so.
If the 35mm re-release prints match the 16mm versions, it means that Lucas tinkered with the film for its home video debut in 1982.
Baronlando said:
The new numbers on the glass door of the store that THX visits are freakishly believable too.
Yes, indeed. I had never known about it without seeing a side by side comparison.
Well, I despise that cut of the film, but that particular alteration always got me... is it just a different take or do I just imagine something is different... I'm just impressed by that shot (original or altered), it's just that what makes me sick about it, is the fact it's so well done that audiences unfamiliar with the original will not see the alteration. That's what scares me.
althor1138 said:
some gout vs PAL-THX laserdisc(French)...
Looking good. Always amazed of how inconsistently cropped this film always have been on video (in a very bad way).
Your JSC is still the best way to watch this film.
Listened to the Lucas/Murch commentary the other day and was reminded... If you guys want to see a scary effective digital alteration, check out the 2004 version where the bikers drive through a wall of fumes when they pursue THX at the end of the film. There's no smoke/fumes there in the original film. It's just scary how well you can alter films these days if you want to...
Mavimao said:
I think I may have found a difference from the original version: when the naked hologram is dancing and THX is erm... Enjoying it, it cuts back and forth to LUH, contemplating taking her meds. Was this always the case? I have only seen the laserdisc and that was almost 10 years ago.
Yes, it cuts back and forth between them quite a bit during that scene, in both the 1978 and 2004 re-releases. That's not to say the sequence is exactly the same. I haven't seen this transfer myself yet, short on hdd space.
I saw one comment over at the Spleen mention the total run time is approximately 85 minutes, is that correct?
SilverWook said:
Wasn't sure where to put this one. ;)
I needed a good laugh today.
Whenever I see a picture of Abrams, I cannot stop staring at his penis nose.
Terrible idea. His armor told us everything we needed to know about the character and his past for that matter. The less you know the better, it's part of what gave the character its aura of mystery and coolness before he was emasculated in Return of the Jedi.
Make a Garindan spy movie instead.
skyjedi2005 said:
Would be interested in finally finding out why Boba Fett and Han Solo hate each other so much and Boba seems to be gunning for Solo.
But even filling in those blanks could be really lame if done prequel style.
Hate each other so much? What film did you watch? Boba Fett wanted to collect a bounty on Han Solo. I doubt Solo even knew who he was, he wasn't even referred to by name by any of the characters in The Empire Strikes Back.
Bank Gothic
althor1138 said:
Thanks for the information Andrea. I've found the THX PAL to be pretty "acceptable" compared to the ntsc versions too. There is only 1 or 2 scenes where I have noticed it's effects. The stormtroopers breaking through the blown up door on the tantive is one. The laser bolts here show dvnr effects but not as bad as the ntsc versions. They are rather good pressings as well with not very much rot or dropouts. I have the 97SE pal now too. Someday I'd like to compare it's dvnr vs the other sources to see if it's any better.
Nice to hear that you didn't buy that set in vain then. According to Moth3r (and like you both mentioned) the PAL THX ANH had much less aggressive DVNR applied. However, ESB is supposed to be even worse than the NTSC counterpart. Some old discussions and pics left in this thread: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/DVNR-smearing-in-GOUT-not-in-the-master-Or-is-the-1995-release-a-different-master-altogether/topic/11856/page/2/
Fang Zei said:
Could you please quote directly what he said?
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/star-wars-the-digital-movie-collection.427154/page-7
Vidiot said:
captainsolo said:
Please tell me that they didn't do what LFL has claimed at times, and actually conformed and edited the negatives to match the Special Edition.
They did not. All the new versions were reconformed with digital files -- the film itself was not spliced and respliced. A lot of it is so damaged, it can't be used because it's just falling apart. There are copies of the negative that survive and look just fine. It's just sections here and there that are bad, but even the 1977 IP still survives and looks fine, last time I saw it in the 1980s.
Sounds like he describes the workflow on the 2004 release. Vidiot (Marc Wielage) was the main colorist on that disaster.
In 1996 a new negative was most likely produced from which new IPs and INs were struck in order to make release prints. Since the original negative is A-B rolled they easily removed the shots that was going to be replaced or digitally altered in the computer, without any loss of frames.
This has been documented in many articles over the years. That's why it was so enormously ridiculous when the statement of Lucasfilm in 2006 was that the negatives had been permanently altered.
timdiggerm said:
It checks out
Weird Al said:
Well, I heard my friends really got in a mess
So I'm gonna have to leave Yoda I guess
But I know that I'll be coming back some day
I'll be playing this part 'till I'm old and gray
Yeah, the poor joke have finally become reality.
moviefreakedmind said:
Actually, I really appreciate this. They fully acknowledge them as the original versions (not simply unfinished rough cuts), they understand that the OOT is a part of their catalogue, they didn't mention a word about the creator's "True Vision". And keep in mind, this is only talking about DIGITAL releases
Talk about having the ability to see some form of glimmering light inside a giant turd. "I have only one leg and one arm but I can at least still take a crap..." ;)
imperialscum said:
Why would anyone even bother with ratings from film critics?
In this case it seems to be important to some what others think of their favorite movie. This thread is a manifestation of that.
SilverWook said:
There was an expectation after ESB that Star Wars was going to go on long enough for the actors to grow old in their parts. Weird Al referenced this in his Yoda song.
Starlog magazine even made jokes about their early 21st century incarnation that would come on a computer disk, and feature an interview with an aged Mark Hamill in his Jedi Master costume on the set of the latest episode. They couldn't predict their own demise, alas.
Never heard or been aware of such expectations. As I recall, there was uncertainty Ford would even do a third one at the time, (the character arc of Solo was basically complete by the end of the second film and he hadn't yet signed for a third movie like Fisher and Hamill) reports were that Lucas would make SW movies out of sequence with completely different characters after the third one, even back then.
Sorry to hear you found out the hard way, THX11384EB. It was debunked a few years ago.
I definitely think Baronlando's suggestion might be worth another try despite its hopelessness.
