THX 1138 "preservations" + the 'THX 1138 Italian Cut' project (Released) — Page 48

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

Yeah, that's what so disturbing about that release, it's so extremely revisionistic in its approach. (Is revisionistic even a real word?)

Regarding alternate takes, check the scenes when THX visit SEN, almost all scenes Donald Pleasence did are lifted from other takes and digitally manipulated into the scenes, whenever there's a shot of the two actors in frame, his eyeline doesn't even match Duvalls', he's looking and talking in another direction, looks terrible. Those few scenes that are still left from the original in that scene is often digitally reframed, zoomed, shifted sideways or whatever, similar to what was done on Star Wars.

Even the lighting/cinematography on some original scenes have been tinkered with, actors faces that was earlier in shadows are suddenly in light etc. There's much more changes to this film than what most people realize, albeit subtle.

msycamore said:

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. 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

Exactly. The original was photographed in Techniscope, which despite it's bad reputation as a cheap poor-man's Cinemascope and increased grain structure is (Along with VistaVision for the opposite reasons) IMO the best film widescreen process devised. The graininess becomes a character and the process has a specific grittier color palette available. Combine this with the fact that anamorphic lenses were unnecessary and you could do just about anything with the camera. This is how Sergio Leone was able to get his famed closeups so tightly, because the camera was using plain old spherical lenses and he realized what he could start doing. It allowed for a huge increase in creativity, and the films made in this process are some of the most cinematographically inventive ever made.

The new HD film is not a Techniscope movie. They tried to erase all signs of Techniscope, film grain, color, browns, and parts of the original concept. And what the heck is that stupid plastic lobster bug thing SEN sees in the subway? You tell me GL.

Agree, it's a nice format. And fitted this films style perfectly. I envy you captainsolo, who have had the pleasure of seeing some of the Leone films on the big screen. Must've been great.

Also with a consistantly grainy movie, after a short while the grain disappears. The mind becomes used to it and filters it out. But the texture and detail is still there.

It was. Do it if you ever can. You can also easily tell the difference between new and original, like THX. The 2003 English extended GBU did not seem all that impressive on the big screen, whereas Fistful was stunning on a smaller screen in the same venue. (Restored in Italy to boot.) Duck, You Sucker looked great in size but I wasn't too happy with MGM's restoration work or the 5.1 mix. Best of all was the print of For a Few which was so degraded that the theater had posted signs offering money back to those who didn't like degraded prints. That movie truly came alive, even with one shot gone pink, damage popping up, and the mono being degrade so that the opening  half was too low and the ending was ear piercingly loud. Sadly, this was MGM's best archive print and after their Leone work had been completed.

THX should look more like The IPCRESS File than AOTC. Maybe a slightly better or faster stock in 6 years, but otherwise rather similar.

It looked more like a freaking lobster to me. ;)

Joe, Manco, Blondie, Mr. Cheroot-it doesn't matter...unless you're talking to someone who weirdly thinks each film and character are separate.

I thought it was clever as a nickname. Try explaining to them that GBU is possibly a prequel. Heads explode.

^ Very nice results.

The approach was just me playing around with colormill in VirtualDub, but yes the results in my sample wasn't that good, as you could see, the whites had still too much green and the skintones were still unnatural, your example is a great improvement, I plan to give this another shot and also fix the audio when I have the patience and time for it, I guess it was something to do with the pulldown applied. Thanks for the suggestions and feedback, I think this could be of great use for Puggo if he ever attempt a color correction.

Never knew there were any widescreeen showings on cable. I can't recall even seeing it on TCM before the DE came along. Same damn video master...

Also, if you Spaced Ranger or anyone else is willing to give the 16mm footage a shot with your methods, let me know and I'll send it to you, all help is appreciated. The work on the LD is taking all my time at the moment.

thxita said:

msycamore did you ever check out the Italian tape in the end?

No, I haven't. But I'll let you know as soon as I've checked it out and we know for sure what cut it is. Hope it differs from your broadcasted version.

If there's a third version of the film, my head will explode.

Well, the guy you talked to who worked in that book store, said there was the '76 release (I assume this is what we have preserved) and an Italian re-release in '78 or '79, I just thought it would be interesting if it is the re-release version, and if it is, I would guess it was treated with a new dub with all the additional scenes and audio work needed for that cut?

That your 16mm print contains "the lost SEN scene" is still a big mystery to me when everything else in that print match the regular home video version. But when it comes to the tinkerer Lucas it wouldn't actually surprise me if he cut that scene differently when it was time for the video release in '82. It wouldn't be that weird if people didn't take notice or document it if he shortened that little scene a few years after its '78 re-release. I like it but the longer conversation is not exactly an necessary inclusion, in the end it must have been Lucas himself who decided to cut it for some reason as it was probably left in by WB in '71 and as we know, it was also in the Italian release.

Coily returns!

THX never ran on TV. That's why it popping up on TCM was such a big deal to me as a kid.

It's beginning to look like the only way we'll ever get all our questions answered is to find prints of the '71 release version and the the '78 Director's re-release. As if anyone's really surprised. ;)