Jonno said:
Don't forget Walter Murch - the visual/audio montages have his fingerprints all over them (especially the opening).
Definitely. A real masterpiece in sound design.
Jonno said:
Referring to your earlier question, I assume the 2004 version's subtitle was a marketing ruse aimed at those who hadn't heard of it - it's the director's cut of the film, and that director is none other than GEORGE LUCAS!
Of course, as you rightly suggest, it isn't really a director's cut - it's a film where large chunks have been remade. The "We couldn't achieve what we wanted to at the time" mantra is especially hollow in this case - of course they couldn't achieve these CG vistas in the early 70s, no-one could... they simply made the best film they could under the circumstances (subsequent studio meddling aside).
Agree, it's most likely what you suggest, marketing, the title is just so damn stupid, just call it what it is instead, a Special Edition. Wonder if it was Warner Bros or Lucas himself who was behind the title. Is it still there on the blu-ray cover?
Jonno said:
What's particularly frustrating is how beautiful the restored (as opposed to altered) footage frequently is, particularly on the BD. Sadly I think this might be too big a repair job even for an Adywan or a Harmy...
Except the resolution and clarity of the footage, personally I'm not that fond of how it looks as it's sometimes so far removed from the original, the raw documentary style of the original is gone, degrained, high contrast look with skintones that are often ash gray or blue. But I agree that some scenes look very good though, it's just that you know the original could look even better if it was restored, that's what makes it even more frustrating.
The original version was quite grainy and even though the film is highly stylized in its photography, except for the limbo prison sequence which was handled by Haskell Wexler at a TV studio in LA, it was shot entirely on locations and used natural lighting as much as possible, the actors didn't even wear makeup.
Lucas in American Cinematographer, October 1971:
"I was well aware that there would be those in the audience who would be shocked by the graininess at first, but I was sure that after the first minute or two they would get used to the grain and simply accept it as part of the stylistic concept, the documentary approach."
I definitely recommend the article if you guys haven't read it, cannot find it at the moment but the main parts of it can be read here: http://books.google.se/books?id=P2P7pwHeZSkC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=THX+1138+American+Cinematographer&source=bl&ots=tIkANVWelz&sig=WXEwjpn7LkMhW2DgCYMoPUok2zs&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=gp36T7utHM7R4QTA4pCVBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=THX%201138%20American%20Cinematographer&f=false