Jump to content


Photo

Trailers featuring footage that does not appear in the film they're promoting


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#21 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 05 February 2016 - 11:05 PM

David, you should check out the Star Wars Despecialized Editions:
  • 0

#22 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 06 February 2016 - 12:36 AM

 

Actually Lucas did make a big lizard for a stormtrooper to ride -- there were location photos of it on some sci-fi magazines from 1977 that I own, and it appears in the original '77 version of the movie (available on the Special Editions DVD on the second disc in a non-anamorphic transfer).  I don't think the lizard prop worked well, or at all, because Lucas ended up putting it in the far background of this shot that starts on the lizard but then pans over to the stormtroopers investigating the crashed pod.

 

These frames are from the '77 version of the movie:

 

starwars77_1.jpg

 

Camera pans to:

starwars77_2.jpg

 

 

Thanks David. Yes, in the promo photo (I must have seen it in a magazine at the time as well) the lizards were quite prominent, rearing up like a horse might. There were two of them from memory, side by side, each carrying a storm trooper. Yes, I guess the corresponding shot(s) in the film must have ended up on the cutting room floor.

 

C


  • 0

#23 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1660 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 06 February 2016 - 01:42 AM

I think there's a few official Lucasfilm VCDs with footage and scenes dropped from 1977 Star Wars.  I can't remember if they made it into the trailer or not.


  • 0

#24 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1660 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 06 February 2016 - 05:45 PM

David, you should check out the Star Wars Despecialized Editions: *snip*

 

Does that video express your opinion on the films and their author?


  • 0

#25 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 07 February 2016 - 05:33 PM

It's just an option to be aware of if one is interested in seeing the original 1977 version of the film in HD. I do happen to agree with the author about ownership of important works of art and the responsibility to preserve such works for the public trust. Hence the Library of Congress rejecting a print of the Special Edition version of the film instead of the original version for their archives.
  • 0

#26 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 07 February 2016 - 05:38 PM

I hope that Lucasfilm under Disney ownership will see things the same way. It's really no different then preserving the early Disney cartoons warts and all as artifacts of their time, or all of their classic features.
  • 0

#27 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 February 2016 - 06:37 PM

The updates that were done to the 1977 Star Wars film were really quite terrible.

 

I was fortunate enough to see the original film when it was first released. I was a teenager at the time, and it was really quite an awesome experience.

 

While the original effects work of the time are really quite clunky (from our contemporary vantage point), they nevertheless possess their own specific kind of magic, and one that increases as time goes by. The "clunkiness" becomes a feature rather than a fault. Or would have had done so had Lucas not become obsessed with the idea that the effects were faulty.

 

It's like the effects work in 2001. Some of the orbiting satellites look like cardboard cutouts in the way they move (the perspective not changing as they otherwise move in perspective), but they acquire their own kind of magic anyway - and one that just grows with age.

 

If one wants to "improve" on a film one really should just make a brand new film, rather than endlessly working over an old one.

 

C

 

ps. I have a Super8 edition of Star Wars in colour. Would have been optically printed from the original film as digital intermediates didn't exist at the time. Watching it - projected on a wall - it's amazing how vivid and beautiful it is. Looks heaps better than any video copy. But of course it's in 4:3 and only 10 minutes.


Edited by Carl Looper, 07 February 2016 - 06:44 PM.

  • 0

#28 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 07 February 2016 - 07:56 PM

While the old effects arguably have more charm, I think the bigger problem is that once you start making changes to a historical artifact you are taking it out of its original context and creating something completely new in its place. If they two can co-exist side by side, then nothing is lost. But when we are told that not only does the original context no longer exist, but that we should forget its existence as quickly as possible then that rubs many people the wrong way.

Personal and cultural history exists, and we should remember all of it even if we are ashamed of some parts.
  • 0

#29 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20239 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 February 2016 - 08:07 PM

The original negative of "Apocalypse Now" was also disassembled and reassembled to make the Redux version, so now the original cut only exists on dupe elements.


  • 0

#30 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 07 February 2016 - 08:11 PM

One field where important cultural artifacts are constantly modernized is in architecture. There are practical realities of safety and the need to use the space that make this basically impossible to avoid, but at least records and photographs are kept to preserve the continuum of its history.

Imagine if every time the Great Pyramids or the Coliseum were worked on, any evidence of their former state was expunged and the public was told that this is how those monuments have always been and were meant to be. It's Orwellian.
  • 0

#31 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20239 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 February 2016 - 08:35 PM

But unlike a working building, there is no "need" to modernize a work of art just so that it can be repackaged and resold again, other than for making more money.  Though I don't have a problem with these alternative versions created by the original directors OTHER than the fact that the original should be preserved, not erased is if it didn't happen.  If the 1977 version of "Star Wars" is an artifact of its time, so is the 1997 version, which is fine if both exist and both are available.


  • 0

#32 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4274 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 February 2016 - 10:53 PM

The original negative of "Apocalypse Now" was also disassembled and reassembled to make the Redux version, so now the original cut only exists on dupe elements.


Interesting and sad at the same time. It's really to bad they felt they needed to work from the original negative. I mean don't get me wrong, they did a great job with the redux, it looks better, sounds better and is a complete film, unlike Star Wars which lost almost all of it's charm in the redux's. It's funny because I thought Lucas did a good job with the redux of THX1138. Only adding sparse elements, cleaning up the image over all and of course, remixing the entire film to bring it up to where it SHOULD have been at the time of the original release.
  • 0

#33 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1660 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 08 February 2016 - 02:31 AM

Yeah, but you're talking about a man who quit film making so he could "raise his kids".  That's fairly egocentric and condescending, as if other parents had that option or were less parent worthy for not doing so (and yes, if he's reading this, then I've closed that job door ... big deal).  When what he probably should have done is to keep making small 16mm shorts to keep his skills sharp.

 

Revamps of old works seems to be more appropriate for keeping them interesting to a newer audience.  When classic 1960's Star Trek was given a SFX makeover I thought it was a good thing.  Growing up watching the show I always considered the SFX to be mediocre at best, since 2001 Space Odyssey showed that you could do realistic and interesting space shots, but for whatever reason the Desilu SFX team didn't seem to be able to duplicate that.  So when the new CGI SFX version came around, I was glad.

 

Tons of other examples.

 

One does wonder what "Jason and the Argonauts" or "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" would look like if the Harryhausen's monsters were replaced with CGI facsimiles.  Again, to keep those works interesting to the public, I think if the creatures could rendered with the same exact sculpting, only have their motion replaced with more realistic CGI movements verse the jerky stop motion, then I think that would breathe new life into those films.  But, is it worth it?

 

The almighty dollar decides.


  • 0

#34 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2796 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 08 February 2016 - 05:17 AM

IIRC the ST effects were recreated because the originals used a lot of CRI duping which ages very badly, for the same or similar reasons that every non-IB print made before the 80s has pinked.

Whatever suspicions one may have as to refusing to provide a 1977 version to the register, one may be that LFL simply can't. Odd that they don't have one of the English IB prints, though.


  • 0

#35 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1660 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 08 February 2016 - 07:25 AM

But if all the information is digitized now what difference would it make?


  • 0

#36 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 08 February 2016 - 10:17 AM

IIRC the ST effects were recreated because the originals used a lot of CRI duping which ages very badly, for the same or similar reasons that every non-IB print made before the 80s has pinked.

 

It's because the original elements are GONE. Recomping the original elements digitally if they had ever been found would have been a decent compromise, but I find the so-called remastered TOS TREK effects to be godawfully cartoonish, especially the ship stuff, which doesn't have the nice strong key look that was the best thing about the originals.

 

All of the TMP fx elements are gone too ... Paramount apparently didn't want to pick them up, so EEG and Apogee wound up tossing them when they ran out of space in the early 80s. ILM did some tweaking to a Trumbull warp drive shot for the first time the ship goes warp in WRATH OF KHAN, but I think they were just doing stuff to a dupe taken out of the first film, not working with original elements.


  • 0

#37 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20239 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 February 2016 - 11:34 AM

One does wonder what "Jason and the Argonauts" or "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" would look like if the Harryhausen's monsters were replaced with CGI facsimiles.  Again, to keep those works interesting to the public, I think if the creatures could rendered with the same exact sculpting, only have their motion replaced with more realistic CGI movements verse the jerky stop motion, then I think that would breathe new life into those films.  

 

The main reason anyone rewatches those old Harryhausen movies is for Harryhausen's stop-motion effects, not the acting or directing.


  • 0

#38 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2286 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 08 February 2016 - 12:24 PM

I don't really belive you are serious about replacing the stop moption !


  • 0

#39 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4274 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 February 2016 - 12:55 PM

Also... the star trek redux effects honored the original perfectly. They did SUCH a great job with the re-release, the show looks brand new. That's what failed in the Star Wars redux, they didn't honor the original, they manipulated everything they could. Wouldn't it have been easier to have Harrison Ford re-read a line so the Jabba scene which is so horrendous, could have been played out like it was in the original camera negative? As if it's one of Jabba's henchmen who was coming after him? That would have been a lot simpler and matched the look of the original film. But alas, they added this horrible CG creature that was bad when it came out and looks even worse today.
  • 0

#40 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2796 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 08 February 2016 - 01:11 PM

Also... the star trek redux effects honored the original perfectly. They did SUCH a great job with the re-release, the show looks brand new.

Have to dissent there. It's cropped to widescreen and looks awful. I can scarcely bring myself to watch it... or rather the middle two thirds of it.


Edited by Mark Dunn, 08 February 2016 - 01:12 PM.

  • 0


Abel Cine

Technodolly

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Abel Cine

Visual Products

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly