Harmy said:
Oh, and I forgot to thank msycamore publically for the help with the subtitles, so thanks :-)
No need for that. ;) And yes, subtitling is very boring. Making regular subtitle-streams are even worse imo.
SilverWook said:
Is it possible the Buck Rogers clip couldn't be cleared for video release in the UK?
I've seen a lot of public domain releases of the serial in recent years, but there may have still been copyright issues in play at the time.
Yeah, copyright issues is probably it, didn't think about that.
I don't want to sound like an asshole, cause what Adywan did was really superbly done, but to say that he managed to restore the entire original film is to make some people dissapointed when they finally see it, it's a very well made reconstruction. Most of the subtle SE changes are still there, but as a stubborn purist I still highly recommend it.
I would also recommend g-force's stabilized GOUT, Puggo's 16mm preservation and Arnie.d's Star Wars V8.
SilverWook said:
Someone has outbid me on the 16mm print. It's going to be a long sleepless night!
Damn! sorry to hear that. :(
Mark Y got back to me:
Thanks for the additional info, but I do have some bad news - that 92m running time on the sleeve of the Warners tape is erroneous. Both it and the other tape (Tartan/Blue Dolphin) run about the same length of 82m, so with correction for PAL speed-up the original length is about 85-86m each.
This also means the BBFC running time must be wrong - I know that older running times for films were calculated approximately by them, so there may have been an error there; I'm not sure where Warners got their running time from either. I think I have the original Monthly Film Bulletin from 1971 that includes the THX review so may try and find that and see if it sheds any light on the matter.
The Warners tape opens with the 1970s red Warner logo, followed by the original Kinney logo. The titles are bright green like the DVD version, whereas on the other tape they are white (or very light green?). Both logos are missing from the other tape which just opens with the Zoetrope logo.
Neither tape has the Buck Rogers sequence at the start, though I do remember that the 1978 TV showing I mentioned did have this - do you know when this was first included with the film?
Sorry to bring you this disappointing news, but the prospect of a longer version of such a well-known film was probably too good to be true. Let me know if you think the Warner tape may be any different to any other versions (even if only slightly) and I will investigate further.
Leonard Maltin's movie guide lists the running time as 88m, and has done for years for some reason?
Regards
Well, there you have it. It's a little bit strange that both his tapes are missing the Buck Rogers segment, it is there on my UK '95 Widescreen collectors edition VHS. Anyway, it's great that we've found out that the opening titles were in fact green, at least on the restored original cut, I guess it became a Lucas trademark, the restored cut of American Graffiti have the Lucasfilm/Coppola title in green and of course the Star Wars films.
doubleofive said:
If they recomped all of the lightsabers, why are these still there?
http://www.thelightsaber.com/web/Goofs/ANH/anhgoofs.htm
Some of those are things they wouldn't have changed, but there are some terrible mistakes in there.
I don't think they recomped all the lightsabers, I just assumed they had recomped that particular scene as it looks quite different to the original effect, in a bad way. Yes, it's subtle but I noticed it from the first time I saw the SE and I'm still not sure what they did. To be extra picky, removing the additional grain in this scene is an alteration in itself, it's part of the visual effects technology of the time just as mattelines are. But whatever...
That goofs-list isn't entirely correct in its information, the lightsaber in the Falcon was blue originally, it's only later video transfers that made it look white or green. People forget that these films were beautiful when they first arrived, not that strange really, as these films only looks worse for every release they get, sad really.
Moth3r said:
According to Lowry, they weren't recomped:
Whenever anyone lit up a lightsaber, it was done with an optical effect, and all of the opticals at the time were done on film--there were no digital effects. So every time you go to a lightsaber scene, bang, you drop two generations of film. It gets grainier and, as it's going through an optical printer, you have different characteristics in terms of contrast. And those are things we have to match up with the scenes immediately before and after. It took a lot of effort to match precisely the granularity, the contrast, and the sharpness. They flow very nicely now and, frankly, in the original movies, there was a distinct change. We were able to eliminate that change, and to me that's a very strong contribution to the storytelling process--removing something that prevents an audience from being drawn in.
However, Zombie reckons they were re-rotoscoped:
One unusual feature of this is the mention of lightsaber opticals losing generation quality--but these shouldn't be optical composites. In creating the 2004 DI, Lucasfilm re-rotoscoped all the lightsabers digitally from the looks of things, which would mean they went back to the raw negatives and not the final composites. Perhaps the negative in these scenes was simply dirtier because it had been run through the optical printer and picked up more wear. Videography says that they weren't actually using the O-neg but rather the 1997 Special Edition negative (the IN, I must presume?) because that was the only one that had the new visual effects work--but the O-neg would have had the new CG shots cut in, and why would they need to color correct it so heavily if it was the YCM Labs-corrected IN? Every other sources, including stills from their workings, and articles published by Lucasfilm (starwars.com) indicate that it was the O-neg, and not the the SE IN.
The 1997 SE seems to be identical to the 2004 DVD
SilverWook said:
Warners slapped the late 70's logo on it, rats! However, there was another surprise! The opening credits are green! It seems a tad brighter than the green of the DC, but this is quite a revelation. Could the print used for later versions have faded, or did someone simply screw it up?
I'll be damned! It confirms what I suspected could be the case, will you be able to post a pic of the titles? Would love to see it. Sorry to hear about the logo, I'll get the DC-logo to match your transfer, I must! ;)
Nice to hear that you will maybe get a hold of an Italian VHS, erri_wan. :)
I got an answer from Mark Y at Cult Movie Forum. He still have both tapes but he never actually compared them (or checking them against the DVD) and he didn't want to get our hopes up that the UK pre-cert maybe feature any additional material (although the run time appears to match the BBFC record) but he will try and find that out for us when he has time.
Hmm... interesting, must read zombie's article, thanks.
Just to let you guys know, I've sent a message to the fellow on cult movie forum, hopefully we can get some answers on this.
I think this can be the pre-cert tape he is talking about http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/THX-1138-DUVALL-PRE-CODE-VIDEO-VERY-SCARCE-BIG-BOX-/400168142210
Unfortunately, that one ended a month ago.
Yeah, you're right they're still there, but that doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't been recomped.
One more example of what I'm talking about.
JSC Laserdisc
2004 DVD
Well, you may be right but if it wasn't recomposited, something ugly was done when they got rid of the grain...
Technicolor print of the original film
2004 DVD
In the Special Editions, the lightsaber have these ugly sharp edges throughout that actually makes it look rather 2 dimensional, that is not the case with the original. It almost looks like they've digitally erased part of the original animation. What comp mistakes are you talking about?
This shot was digitally recomposited for the '97SE
This matte was digitally improved in two shots for the '97SE to get it to blend in better with the live action
SilverWook said:
As for my avatar, it comes from the July 1975 issue of Analog Magazine. More than a few people think it heavily influenced the design of Chewbacca.
http://binarybonsai.com/2010/09/18/george-lucas-stole-chewbacca-but-its-okay/
I suspect I saw that cover at some point in the 70's, as it seems to have subliminally influenced a character I created back in college!
Thanks for enlightening me. :) Didn't know about that interesting story, great article. Zombie, your name is spelled wrong in there. ;)
pittrek said:
To see the Biggs scenes in "normal" quality is for me a reason to buy it.
I do not blame you, but unfortunately that is one of the reasons Lucasfilm can continue on with the suppression of the original films.
SilverWook said:
No worries on the anamorphic issue, msycamore. I was hoping the end result would be resizing the LD transfer to 16:9 eventually.
Ah, ok. Are you not going to need it in 4:3 format anyway, even if you're going to resize it? I really don't know the MO when it comes to this stuff, but if you're saying so then I'll go 16:9, I can always do both for you if you need it. Anyway, about resizing to 16:9, is that really the best way to go, I've recently heard that modern TV's and displays actually do the resizing with better results. I really am an amatuer when it comes to this so I'm just curious to hear your thoughts or anyone elses for that matter. Personally, I'm still a proud CRT-TV owner. ;)
I had a new look on your screen-caps on page 2, besides the edge-enhancement they look damn good! :) but I have beginning to wonder why the opening titles are so tinted, is it really just dirt that makes it look that way? If you check the rest of the transfer or just the opening scenes, it doesn't really look that green/yellow tinted. The flesh tones is a little yellow, but not that much as the opening titles suggests. Thoughts on this? was the letters gray/white originally or is the light tint an indication of washed out colors due to an old transfer or print. Even the specks of dirt in those two screen-caps doesn't have that dirty-green color. I'm definitely not trying to say it should have the '04-green colors here. ;) I really think it should be white, but why is there so much colors in there? I'm curious if you guys have any thoughts on this.
SilverWook said:
I would experiment with recording the 4:3 analog video output of a DVD player, except macrovision would prevent it.
Unfortunately that is not an option for me. :(
SilverWook said:
I am just amazed at how leads keep popping up on this.
I'm also intrigued that this Ebay seller mentions the Italian THX poster as being from 1976.
http://cgi.ebay.com/THX-1138-Italian-1p-76-George-Lucas-different-art-/350420271912?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5196ad0328
The IMDB has no info on when the movie opened in Italy though.
Well, IMDB doesn't have any info on the UK theatrical release either, but BBFC tell us about it in that case at least. It seems you have to do small detective work to find out any info about this film's history, I think I'll call Sherlock Holmes or even better, FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper. ;) It's all very exciting though, in all my life I always thought there was only two versions of this film, (not counting the '04 of course, even though it includes nice alternate takes of scenes) In my country Sweden, the film have always been broadcasted in the form of the US '78 original cut as long as I can remember, I don't think it was ever released in cinemas here, I've not even seen a swedish home-video release of it, except the new DVD. Just to discover after all these years, there's several cuts is really cool, just the extended SEN scene alone makes the Italian cut priceless IMO. :)
I am still not able to give that guy on cult movie forum a personal message, I really don't want to bump an six year old thread to just ask about this as my first post. ;) I don't know if there's any trouble with my registration, maybe someone else could try it out, otherwise I'll just have to wait for the promised notification from the site...
By the way, SilverWook, what is your avatar? I'm curious... it looks like a weird wookiee of some sort, that's why my earlier remark. ;)
Ok, just so you know. I've registered on that board, and will contact him. Thanks again, djsmokingjam.
Thank you so much, djsmokingjam! you sure know how to make things even more confusing than it already was. Seriously though, that is sure some interesting and great info you found, thanks!! :)
And I thought there was only two widescreen releases on UK VHS, what he says sounds sincere though, it just goes against all known information we have about the '71 release, so those 4-5 minutes cut by the studio was only an American thing?? an X-rated UK 95min long version with different opening titles, WTF?! if it is a UK tape and we take the PAL-speedup into consideration, the 92min comes to approx. 95min, am I right? I guess we need to get hold of this guy.
SilverWook said:
I'm hard pressed to tell the difference between these two. Maybe when I've gotten some sleep. I'm already seeing this logo with my eyes closed!
Well, forget about those damn samples, we need to go 4:3 Letterbox of course! completely forgot about it, sorry. ;)
SilverWook said:
I found the DC in a bargain bin for six bucks, so I have it again for reference purposes. The time between the Buck Rogers clip fade out, and the AZ logo fading up is the same for the LD and DVD, about 14 seconds. I can see a tiny bit of weave on the LD at the AZ logo.
I also blew my ears out with that pesky THX thunderstorm logo on the DVD, as I couldn't find the amplifier remote in time, and you can't skip over it either! Darn you George! ;)
After a little A/B comparison, the opening credits on the DC does appear to be the original with a green tint.
Oh, I was wrong then, that's good. Careful with those ears SilverWook, or do Wookiees even have ears? ;)
I will post some new samples soon, including a tweaked opening credits so we can see if it will work or not.
SilverWook said:
I think I like the levels on #4 better. Is there a way to sharpen the logo slightly without changing anything else?
Of course, here you go:
sharper http://www.sendspace.com/file/d48ufe
sharpest http://www.sendspace.com/file/oehsal
Just let me know if you want it sharper or if you think I could improve anything, it takes basically longer to downloading them than it takes me encoding them. ;)
Haven't had the time to look into other avisynth-filters yet.
SilverWook said:
msycamore, I'll look at the new test in a bit. I don't think blending it in will be a problem.
Even if we succesfully blend it in with the rest of the footage, it could be a little tricky, I noticed that the original logo have a slightly shorter duration than the Laserdisc logo.
erri_wan said:
I'm starting to get confused and lost with all these versions.
We've got:
1) a theatrical release the shortest existing that no one has ever seen but at the cinema (am I right?)
Correct, but this US '71 theatrical cut is more or less at the same length as your Italian version.
erri_wan said:
2) the original cut (longer) that was made into laserdisc and VHS.
Correct, restored and released in Cinemas for a limited time in '77 or '78 and later on video in US, UK and Japan on LD and VHS, after Lucas enormous succes of Star Wars let him do it.
erri_wan said:
3) an Italian (possibly European) release with a flashback sequence inserted at the beginning and an extended scene (SEN and the kids). Where does this extended scene fit into the story? Now that we have agreed this was perhaps an International cut made by Warner the question is, has this extended scene ever been seen by Americans?
It's impossible to know if that extended scene was in the US 1971 theatrical release version, it's not in either the restored cut or CGI-crap edition but it is in your broadcasted version and also in that German broadcast, which in itself is yet another cut of the film, only 45 seconds shorter than the restored original '78 cut, a sort of a hybrid of your version and that cut as it share the same weird editing choices (re-ordering of scenes), if those are leftovers from the US '71 theatrical we don't know, probably not but you never know, some of the cuts in your version probably is.
The only trustworthy info we have are Lucas' own statements in the '71 tv-documentary, "Maker of Films" and that info from "Skywalking", zombie provided, and that isn't so much unfortunately.
SilverWook, the white fleck is there, I've already checked. The aspect ratio is actually wrong, it's squished/streched, probably an US/UK LD capture.
So, any new discoveries made on this delicious Laserdisc of yours? I'm very curious.
erri_wan said:
I tried to look for old reviews and for some reason I stumbled upon the New York Magazine ( http://www.google.com/search?q=thx-1138&hl=it&safe=off&tbs=bks:1,bkms:1168684103302643781&ei=xJD6TP7RGIqZOr6b7NQK&start=20&sa=N ) which wasn't too kind on it. However I found a later issue (1987) that describe THX as 1h28min long, so 88 minutes. Isn't that 2 mins longer than the original cut?
http://books.google.com/books?id=IeUCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA69&dq=thx-1138&hl=it&ei=05D6TMj4KIPpOZaO5NQK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=thx-1138&f=false
Yes, it's a little odd but these runtimes seems to be listed wrong all the time, at least we know for sure how long the original cut is and by knowing that we also know how long the 1971 theatrical cut is, more or less 4 min cut or round up to 5 min as in the DVD-doc etc. It's often that the lenght differ on video covers also, I don't know if they take commercials or trailers into acount when they list it or if they just type it wrong. The Italian home video covers I mentioned earlier could also have it wrong of course, but we don't know that for sure until we can check it for ourself. In the end I'm mostly excited to just have a watchable copy of the original cut preserved, though these alternatives are very interesting. :)
Edit: Another thing I thought was interesting, where the american studio removed some of Lucas' bizarre humour, the Italian added their own. ;)
SilverWook said:
msycamore, the grain/noise on #4 looks more analog and natural now. :)
That's good, did you check my fifth sample, I edited my post on the last page, maybe you missed it, better or worse than #4? is the blur I added alright or does it look too soft/sharp?
So... do you think it will be possible to get a seamless blend with the LD footage, utilizing this method? I know, many questions. ;)