Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: When did Star Wars become "Episode IV"?

This is topic When did Star Wars become "Episode IV"? in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000021

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-05-2002, 06:49 PM:

Does anyone know for sure if the original 1977 release of "Star Wars" said "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening story crawl? There seems to be conflicting information on this, and Lucas has been known to tweak his movies after their initial release. One source says the episode number was added in 1981. Another source says 1980, and yet another source says 1978. My own memory says the 1977 70mm print(s) shown at the Edwards Big Newport in Newport Beach CA contained the words "Episode IV: A New Hope". But that theater ran SW for a year, and it's very possible they went through more than 1 print. Maybe I'm thinking of a print they acquired near the latter half of its 1-year engagement there (i.e. the 1978 date might be correct if new, slightly different prints were struck to replace worn ones). I did also see "Star Wars" in one of its original 1977 70mm prints (Plitt City Center in Orange CA) but unfortunately I can't recall whether that print said "Ep IV" or not...

Anyone know anything about this?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-05-2002, 07:31 PM:

I know for a fact the original release, which was supposedly around 100 prints, did NOT have that in the opening crawl. I do not know the exact date it was added, but about 5 years ago I personally ran a print that did NOT have that in the opening crawl, so the very first set of prints did not have it. My guess is that later in 1977 or early 1978 it was added.

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 07-05-2002, 08:10 PM:

Could be 1978, I thought it could be 1980 as well. When George Lucas saw the $$$ it was making and realized he could complete the trilogy, he changed the title to " A New Hope ".

There are also different cuts of the film. The original release aka " Opening Day Version " has few minors changes then the re-release ( The New Hope Version )

Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 07-05-2002, 08:39 PM:

Ron,

I'm curious what minor changes you are aware of? I was aware that the ANH title went up prior to the release of ESB, but I wasn't aware that Lucas changed anything else with the film.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-05-2002, 09:47 PM:

I remember reading about this a long time ago (no pun intended) in some magazine. From what I recall, the Episode IV was added for the first re-release. I don't exactly know what was considered the first re-release, but I'm sure it was no later than 1978. As for the changes that were made, this article listed every single one. I don't remember most of them, but they were fairly insignificant. Some shots were in a slightly different order, some lines had slightly different wording (the latter was also an issue during the 1997 re-release). The only example that I do remember is near the end of the film when everyone is returning to the Falcon. There's a shot of the droids in which 3PO says, "Come along, R2," and there's a shot of the humans in which Han says, "Now's our chance. Go." I don't know which came first when, but these two shots are now in the reverse order of what they were when the film was first released. I doubt this info helped at all. Sorry.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-05-2002, 10:16 PM:

I have also run a print without the ANH crawl. I do not know when the change was made, though.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-05-2002, 11:00 PM:

Are you saying that the first 100 prints did not have a crawl at all. I remember the first time I saw it was in the summer of 1977. It had a crawl. But not sure about if it said a new hope or not. I would say that the added episode title was done on the re-release. I may be wrong about this but I think the re-release was the first release over seas. We had at one time obtained a poster from a collector during a THX promotion years ago when we did all three star wars films. The poster was a european release poster that had star wars a new hope on it. Here is a piece of history. The Star Wars was the original title of the film before The was dropped. The film also was originaly given a G rating. So Lucas filmed the scene of the cut off arm laying on the floor in the cantina scene and resubmited the film and got the PG rating.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-05-2002, 11:40 PM:

In the United States the EPISODE IV tag first appeared on a 1981 Spring re-release. None of the 70mm prints (3) I saw in 1977 contained had the tag added. It would have made sense to have included it for the summer 1979 re-release while debuting the first trailer for Empire Strikes Back, but that's just MY logic, of course.

Posted by Michael Hunt (Member # 772) on 07-06-2002, 08:51 AM:

First saw it in 1977 in the U.K. and it definately had the Episode IV A New Hope bit at the front...

I can still rememer the comments of 'you what? what happened to the first three bits then?' and the like from the audience...

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-06-2002, 10:15 AM:

Oops ... I'm saying that ANH wasn't in the crawl, but there was a crawl.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-06-2002, 11:10 AM:

quote:
The film also was originaly given a G rating. So Lucas filmed the scene of the cut off arm laying on the floor in the cantina scene and resubmited the film and got the PG rating.

Why would he submit a scene wich would give the film a higher rating?

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 07-06-2002, 11:55 AM:

John,

The IMDB lists a few differences between the 2.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-06-2002, 11:59 AM:

G can be viewed as (and sometimes is) somewhat of an audience-killer. If you're marketting an action movie, few people are going to believe there's real action if it is rated G. It's probably also hard to attract huge throngs of teenagers.

--jhawk

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-06-2002, 08:20 PM:

Of course, in the EARLY days of the MPAA rating system, viloence was FAR more lenient. TRUE GRIT originally was released as an 'M'(PG) but lost a "Damn", so it was re-rated G. The film STILL had the scene where someone's fingers were shot off, complete with blood and all.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-07-2002, 01:42 AM:

True grit also had the scene where john wayne says fill your hands you son of a bitch. The G rating became the kiss of death because the only movies that did well that were rated g in the mid 70's were Disney films and they were of the adventure type live action films. Anything else just died at the box office.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-07-2002, 04:36 PM:

My two cents on the discussion...

Many of the previous postings have attempted to show that the "Episode IV: A New Hope" tag was added sometime after the original release (May 1977) but before the release of "The Empire Strikes Back" (May 1980). Memory is not a science.... Here are a few published references that suggest the episode number and subtitle wasn't added until *after* the release of "Empire."

Big Reel Magazine (Issue 273/Feb 15, 1997). In the article "Star Wars: Anniversary Focuses Collective Eye On Movie Trilogy Memorabilia" by Bill Duelly, there is the following passage in the section pertaining to the film's summer 1979 re-release (its second domestic re-release): "It was during this reissue that was the last to be seen of the opening rollup that did NOT have the episode number on it. All existing and future printings of 'Star Wars' would be re-edited to open with 'Star Wars - Episode IV: A New Hope'."

Newsweek (May 19, 1980). In David Ansen's film review of "The Empire Strikes Back" there is a sidebar that includes the following bit: "Viewers may be in for a surprise when the credits announce 'Star Wars, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.' Episode five? Have we slipped into a time warp? Actually, what we are getting is the second act of a middle trilogy of a projected nine-film cycle. The first 'Star Wars' will be retitled 'Episode IV: A New Hope'."

Time (May 19, 1980). In Gerald Clarke's review of "Empire" there is a sidebar that includes: "The very first surprise in 'The Empire Strikes Back' comes in the opening credits: the movie is identified as 'Episode V.' Since it is the immediate sequel to the original 'Star Wars', that opus has been retitled 'Star Wars: Episode IV'."

San Diego Union (May 18, 1980). In Mary Hellman's review of "Empire" she wrote: "A continuation of George Lucas' space epic, the film packs its first surprise in the opening credits that tag 'Empire' as 'Star Wars V'. Unbeknownst to fans, the first film was really 'Star Wars IV', part one of the second of three planned trilogies."

Widescreen Review ("The Ultimate Widescreen DVD Movie Guide"/2001). In the article/film list "Presented in 70mm" by Michael Coate & William Kallay there is a 1981 re-release entry for "Star Wars" with a note that reads: "The subtitle 'Episode IV: A New Hope' first appeared on prints during this two-week re-issue."

Bantha Tracks (Newsletter of the Official Star Wars Fan Club/February 1981). The article "S.W. On N.P.R." contains the following item: "'Star Wars' is coming to radio! In March, National Public Radio will broadcast 13 episodes of 'Star Wars,' Part IV, now titled 'A New Hope'."

Bantha Tracks (Newsletter of the Official Star Wars Fan Club/February 1981). There is a blurb regarding the spring re-release. " 'Star Wars' is back! For those who haven't seen it and for those who haven't seen it enough, 'Star Wars' will be rereleased in mid-April. The film will be shown at 1,500 movie theatres, domestically and in Canada, for a two-week engagement. Look in your local newspaper for announcements of where 'Star Wars' will be playing near you." Above the blurb: a triangular logo originally created in 1975 showing an early conceptual rendering of Luke Skywalker holding a lightsaber revised to show the subtitle "A New Hope" underneath "Star Wars" at the bottom. (This illustration was the original logo used for the production and can sometimes be seen in photos and documentary footage attached to the cameras used to shoot the movie. The bottom of the logo says "The Star Wars," the original title of the film, as previously mentioned in this thread by Darryl Spicer. The new logo shown in the fan club publication is the same art sans "The" plus the addition of "A New Hope.")

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 07-08-2002, 03:58 PM:

I could swear that the first time I saw this movie, in 1977, there was a brief bit that subsequently disappeared forever.

It's the scene where Luke and Leia have to swing across the chasm. I remember that Luke threw the grappling hook, and the hook MISSED! He then threw the hook a second time, it caught, and they swung across.

Every version I've ever seen since then has Luke successfully throwing the hook on the first try.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-08-2002, 10:20 PM:

My 16mm print is sans 'A New Hope'. Just as well too! Bah!

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-10-2002, 02:06 PM:

Brad Miller said:

quote:
the original release, which was supposedly around 100 prints

Hey, Brad:
I realize I may have "killed" the thread with my previous posting but I'm curious about this bit about the original release having 100 prints. Do you mean 1,000? Were you referring to the total number of prints at its peak in 1977, or were you referring to the number of prints issued on opening day?

Just curious because I have some references to opening day numbers being 32 and the peak number of prints being 1,098. (Those numbers are for the U.S., not worldwide.)

By the way, if anyone is interested, I happen to have the list of those initial 32 engagements. Let me know if you want me to post it here just for trivial curiosity. It might be interesting to see which of those theaters still exist or to see if anyone remembers seeing "Star Wars" at one of them.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-10-2002, 02:08 PM:

That number was from a Fox rep I spoke to a few years back regarding the topic who was around when that movie first opened. I don't know specifically at what point that number was accurate. It was so far back that I doubt the guy specifically remembers himself either.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-10-2002, 02:13 PM:

Yeah, let's see that list. That would be cool.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-10-2002, 03:21 PM:

Okay, here goes...the original opening day engagements of "Star Wars" (Wednesday, May 25, 1977):

Boston, MA: Charles

Cincinnati, OH: Showcase

Denver, CO: Cooper

Detroit, MI: Americana

Indianapolis, IN: Eastwood

Los Angeles, CA: (1) Chinese (Hollywood; 70mm), (2) Avco (Westwood; 70mm), (3) City Center (Orange; 70mm)

Louisville, KY: Showcase

Minneapolis, MN: St. Louis Park

New York/New Jersey: (1) Astor Plaza (Manhattan; 70mm), (2) Orpheum (Manhattan; 70mm), (3) Stanley-Warner Triplex (Paramus; 70mm), (4) Menlo Park, (5) Twins South (Hicksville; 70mm)

Philadelphia, PA: five unspecified theaters

Phoenix, AZ: Cine Capri

Pittsburgh, PA: Showcase

Portland, OR: Westgate 1

Rock Island, IL: Showcase

Sacramento, CA: Century 25

Salt Lake City, UT: Center

San Diego, CA: Valley Circle

San Francisco, CA: Coronet (70mm)

San Jose, CA: Century 22

Seattle, WA: 150

St. Paul, MN: Roseville 4

Washington, DC: Uptown

Source: Daily Variety ("Fox' Star Wars Heads For Hyper Space," May 27, 1977)

Note that only eight of those engagements were 70mm presentations. However, many of the initial 35mm engagements switched over to 70mm later on in the run as more prints were struck and other engagements ended and prints were moved over.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-10-2002, 04:25 PM:

Hmmm ... here are the statuses (stati?) I think I know ... and a few I didn't know existed.

Boston, MA: Charles
*OPEN* Cincinnati, OH: Showcase
*DEMO* Denver, CO: Cooper
*DEMO* Detroit, MI: Americana
*CLOSED Indianapolis, IN: Eastwood

*OPEN* Los Angeles, CA: (1) Chinese (Hollywood; 70mm),
*OPEN* (2) Avco (Westwood; 70mm),
*CLOSED (3) City Center (Orange; 70mm)

*OPEN* Louisville, KY: Showcase
*CLOSED Minneapolis, MN: St. Louis Park (The Cooper or the Park??? Both are closed)

*OPEN* New York/New Jersey: (1) Astor Plaza (Manhattan; 70mm),
*OPEN* (2) Orpheum (Manhattan; 70mm),
(3) Stanley-Warner Triplex (Paramus; 70mm),
(4) Menlo Park,
*CLOSED (5) Twins South (Hicksville; 70mm)

Philadelphia, PA: five unspecified theaters

*DEMO* Phoenix, AZ: Cine Capri
*OPEN* Pittsburgh, PA: Showcase (Showcase North, Showcase East, or Showcase West??? All open)
*OPEN* Portland, OR: Westgate 1 (Located in Beaverton???)
Rock Island, IL: Showcase
Sacramento, CA: Century 25
*DEMO* Salt Lake City, UT: Center
*CLOSED San Diego, CA: Valley Circle
*OPEN* San Francisco, CA: Coronet (70mm)
*OPEN* San Jose, CA: Century 22
*CLOSED Seattle, WA: 150
*OPEN* St. Paul, MN: Roseville 4 (Located in Roseville)
*OPEN* Washington, DC: Uptown (Hi, Steve!)

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 07-10-2002, 05:58 PM:

Menlo Park (New York/New Jersey) is DEMO. It was a GCC twin that closed in late '91 and was torn down 1-2 years later.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 07-14-2002, 11:43 AM:

The Stanley Warner Triplex in Paramus NJ is currently the Loews Route 4 tenplex, but it is scheduled to close when Loews builds their new complex by the Garden State Plaza. There is currently a for sale sign on the property.

The Stanley Warner was probably one of the last movie palaces built in America. It opened around 1960, with over 2000 seats and a balcony, marble columns, art deco decor, huge loby with escalaters going up the balcony area. The Stanley Warner chain merged at some point with the RKO theatre chain, forming RKO Stanley Warner theatres. In the 1970's, when multi-plexing became popular, they "twined" the theatre by building a whole new building next to it, with it's own lobby and 600 seat auditorium with a waterfall curtain. This theatre has it's own marquee and was called The Route 4 Cinema. Shortly before Star Wars opened, they twined the big theatre by walling off the Balcony and putting a seperate theatre upstairs. The complex was then renamed the Stanley Warner Triplex.

I saw Star Wars there, second weekend it was playing in 70mm. There was no ANH at the begining of the crawl. None of the origial 1977 prints were struck with ANH. Although the film was never out of release, playing for over a year in some theatres, it had a wide re-release in the summer of 1978, when ANH was added. Those theatres still playing the film were sent new reel 1's, with the new crawl physically spliced into the older printing.

Other sources besides my memory on this:

The 1977 ABC TV Making Of Star Wars special, which opens with R2D2 and C3PO dipping their foot prints into cement and the announcer indicating this is the most successfull film of all times, makes no mention of this being part of a series. I still have my Beta tape that I recorded in 1977. You would think that George would take this oppertunity to announce upcoming episodes, but he didn't.

None of the original 1977 posters have any mention of ANH.

I have seen both 16mm and 35mm prints without ANH. In fact, some years ago, I ran a private showing of one of the British IB Techicolor Star Wars prints. It had the ANH in the scroll, physically spliced into the print, on regular eastman (non IB) film stock.

At the time Star Wars was released, SciFi was out of fashion, and nobody though the film would do much business. Fox had to practically beg theatres to play it, which was why it did not open on many screens. Remember, Lucus pitched Star Wars to 2 other studios before Fox reluctantly agreed to make it. Also, at that time, we did not have these huge wide releases that we do now. A huge release in 1977 would have been about 400 prints.

/Mitchell

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-14-2002, 04:01 PM:

Actually, the first print I ever saw of STAR WARS with Episode IV: A New Hope attached, was the 1981 Spring break re-release, as well-documented by a post above. Neither the wide-spread 1978 summer release or the 1979 summer re-release (with a preview of episode V attached) had the ep IV included.

A couple of notes: The 1978 summer wide release was the first time I saw it at a nabe house in 35mm mono. The last reel DID have added Spanish sub-titles. When i returned a week later. the last reel had been changed to an English only reel.

1979 Re-release: I saw this on opening day. The Empire Strikes Back was a LITERAL trailer, stuck on at the END of the film, after the audience had completely left. Again, when I returned a week later, the trailer had been moved to front the beginning of the movie. Smart move (for those not new to the film.

Now, the CONCEPT of STAR WARS being episode IV certainly existed in 1979. I recently found an LA Times article from the summer of 1979 on the filming of ESB that said this would be the second film in the middle trilogy of what might ultimately be a nine part film series, with three trilogies. There was no mention in this article that the about to be re-released STAR WARS had been updated to reflect this, and as a previous poster has well documented, didn't start getting reported until 1981.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-14-2002, 04:49 PM:

There was a three week re-release of star wars in the summer of 1982. That was the last time that prints were struck for the film prior to the special editions. The posters for that re-release featured a little caption in the lower right part of the poster for Revenge of the Jedi.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-16-2002, 01:15 AM:

Michael Hunt wrote:

quote:
First saw it in 1977 in the U.K. and it definately had the Episode IV A New Hope bit at the front...

As Yoda might ask: "So certain are you?"

Mitchell Dvoskin wrote:

quote:
None of the original 1977 posters have any mention of ANH.

This comment, while correct, doesn't carry much weight as evidence for much of anything because *none* of the domestic one-sheet posters ever included any references to "A New Hope" (at least the ones I'm familiar with); they always referred to the movie simply as "Star Wars." This includes the poster for the '78 reissue Mitchell mentioned, as well as the '79, '81, '82, and '97 anniversary reissue. Even the Killian Enterprises 10th Anniversary one-sheets referred to the film merely as "Star Wars."

I'd be surprised if anyone posting and/or reading this thread still believes the "Episode IV: A New Hope" tag was on the prints from day one. What *still* seems to be in question, however, is *when* the tag first appeared. Even after a couple specific postings we're still getting conflicting information!

Paul Linfesty wrote:

quote:
Now, the CONCEPT of STAR WARS being episode IV certainly existed in 1979.

A 1979 reference to "Episode IV: A New Hope" appears in the book "The Art Of Star Wars" (Ballentine). The "cover page" to the script that appears in the book shows: "Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope from the Journal of the Whills by George Lucas - January 15, 1976." The first printing of this book was dated November 1979.

The most recent release of "Star Wars" prior to the publishing of the book was the August/September rerelease. I had considered mentioning this in my earlier post but ultimately felt it was not relevant. We were discussing the *prints* of the film, after all. Now before anyone posts something like, "See, it said 'A New Hope' right there on the script. Lucas had all this episode business thought out from the get-go," let me point out that that "cover page" from "The Art Of Star Wars" was made up specifically for that book. Actual production copies of the script do *not* include any references to "A New Hope," and the closest thing to any sort of episodes or chapters or hints of a possible series is that the cover page says "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker as taken from the Journal of the Whills - Saga I: Star Wars." Sure, Lucas knew he had enough material for a film series, but I *really* doubt he had the whole thing intimately worked out at that point. (He had his hands full just making the one movie...and it is quite possibly a miracle that it turned out so well.) Which is why I don't think they fussed with adding the "Episode IV: A New Hope" tag right away.

Also, by November of 1979 (when "The Art Of Star Wars" was published) "The Empire Strikes Back" was in post-production. "Once Upon A Galaxy: A Journal Of The Making Of The Empire Strikes Back" by Alan Arnold (Ballantine, 1980) indicates principal photography occured between March and September of '79 and with the film in post at the time of completion of the book, I think it is a safer bet that Lucas at that time had commited to the then nine-part series and decided to use the episode numbers and subtitles on the films. Just my opinion, of course. Would love to hear any opinions, memories or recollections to the contrary.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-21-2002, 02:25 PM:

Some additional engagements were added on Friday May 27 (Day Three), bringing the opening week total of STAR WARS to 43 engagements, including four in Chicago (all 35mm):

Edens

Esquire

River Oaks

Yorktown

There was a 70mm engagement of STAR WARS in Chicago at the Oakbrook from December 1977 - July 1978.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-21-2002, 03:00 PM:

And I never even noticed the lack of Chicago venues on the previous list!

Edens
*OPEN* Esquire
*OPEN* River Oaks (Calumet City - there are now 4 different theaters in the complex)
*CLOSED Yorktown (Lombard, IL)

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-21-2002, 08:55 PM:

Yorktown is open. It's been demolished and rebuilt into an 18-screen multiplex, but it's still there.

Also, Esquire has more screens now than it did back then.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-21-2002, 08:57 PM:

Sorry, don't know how this got posted again.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-22-2002, 10:35 AM:

I knew about the new multi at Yorktown, but since the original structure (where the film in question would have played) is gone, I listed it as such.

Where was the Edens? Never heard of it.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-24-2002, 01:47 AM:

I can't really tell whether or not this debate is settled yet, but by sheer coincidence, I came across an issue of Starlog Magazine today which is dated December 1978. In it is a rather lengthy interview with Gary Kurtz about the "new" Star Wars movie, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. Here's a few quotes:

The film is never referred to in Lucas-Kurtz circles as STAR WARS II. "I would never call it that... Our working title is THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK... We were going to call it STAR WARS: EPISODE II -- THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, but we ran into some problems. You see, although this story is a direct sequel to the first movie, we have three more stories that we eventually want to film that actually occur before the point where the first Star Wars begins. So we've been toying with the idea of ignoring the numbers completely. Instead, we'll give each movie episode a unique title. I mean, if we had to give each film its true number in the series, this movie would be called EPISODE V: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. The first film would be called Episode IV! Can you imagine how complicated it would get? If we released a story like that publicly through a press release, thousands of people would be totally confused. Everyone would want to know what happened to the other three movies."

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-24-2002, 02:05 AM:

Adam

The Edens was in Northbrook, Illinois.

I e-mailed you some pages on the theatre. i hope you received them.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 07-24-2002, 08:27 AM:

The Edens was torn down just a few years ago. It was a round building with surprisingly large screens.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-24-2002, 11:39 AM:

I got 'em. Thanks!

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-04-2002, 01:59 AM:

Since a few of you have been so good at determining the current operational status of some of the theaters that ran STAR WARS in its original 1977-78 run I thought I would add a few more theaters to the list. These were theaters that (1) got the movie early in its run (but not on opening day), (2) played the film for a very long time (one year range), and (3) might not be around anymore.

Dallas, TX: Northpark

Dayton, OH: Dayton Mall

Honolulu: HI: Cinerama

Houston, TX: Galleria

Kansas City, MO: Glenwood

By the way, for those of you interested in this type of trivia, the longest continuous run of STAR WARS was at the Westgate in Portland, Oregon, and the highest-grossing run was at the Astor Plaza in New York City.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 08-04-2002, 07:56 AM:

Raintree Cinema in Columbus OH played STAR WARS for over 1-year.

Dayton Mall I is closed. It was a beautiful, mid-sixties era showplace with crystal chandeliers and brass doors. Huge 1100+ seat auditorium. John Harvey was head operator there for many years. It is greatly missed.

Here is another odd take about Star Wars sequels. I have a ROLLING STONE magazine dated 8/25/77. Here is what Mr. Lucas himself says about Vader's backstory he hoped to show at a later time:

"It's about Ben and Luke's father and Vader when they are yound Jedi knights. But Vader kills Luke's father, then Ben and Vader have a confrontation, just like they have in Star Wars, and Ben almost kills Vader. As a matter of fact, he falls into a volcanic pit and gets fried and is one destroyed being. That's why he has to wear the suit with a mask, because it's a breathing mask. It's like a walking iron lung. His face is all horrible inside. I was going to shoot a close-up of Vader where you could see the inside of his face, but then we said, no, no, it would destory the mystique of the whole thing."

That is certainly different than things turned out in Empire!

Also, there is no mention in this article about STAR WARS being Episode IV. A TIME magazine from 5/19/80 says that it was a surprise that Empire was identified as EPISODE V and that the original was being retitled EPISODE IV.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-04-2002, 01:53 PM:

quote:
A TIME magazine from 5/19/80 says that it was a surprise that Empire was identified as EPISODE V and that the original was being retitled EPISODE IV.

Duh!!! Didn't I mention this earlier in the thread?!?

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 08-23-2002, 07:53 AM:

Contrary to my earlier post, Star Wars was NOT A New Hope as late as 1979. I checked the date code on the film edge of a 35mm reel with the original opening, and it was printed in 1979.

/Mitchell

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-24-2002, 09:11 PM:

RE: when the EPISODE IV tag was added.

Mike Schindler wrote:

quote:
I'm sure it was no later than 1978.

Dave Stambaugh wrote:

quote:
My own memory says the 1977 70mm print(s) shown at Edwards Big Newport in Newport Beach CA contained the words "Episode IV: A New Hope."

Ron Lacheur wrote:

quote:
Could be 1978, I thought it could be 1980 as well

Brad Miller wrote:

quote:
My guess is that later in 1977 or early 1978 it was added.

John Scott wrote:

quote:
I was aware that the ANY title went up prior to the release of ESB

Michael Hunt wrote:

quote:
First saw it in the U.K. and it definately[sic] had the Episode IV A New Hope bit at the front

Mitchell Dvoskin wrote:

quote:
it had a wide re-release in the summer of 1978, when ANH was added

Now, two members (one of whom was myself) contributed postings with information suggesting the tag was added after the release of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, rather than the 1977 and 1978 dates claimed by others. Although a substantial debate never took effect, I noticed Mr. Dvoskin recently added a post offering a clarification to an earlier posting he made. Thank you, Mitchell, for having the courage to correct yourself on an open forum.

I really wonder: does anyone, particularly those members quoted above, *still* believe the tag appeared as early as '77 or '78? If you're still a bit unsure (as if my original posting in this thread didn't include enough details!), try this quote from the WASHINGTON POST:

WASHINGTON POST (May 18, 1980). From Gary Arnold's film review of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: "When STAR WARS is reissued, probably next summer, the prints will include the subtitle, EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE. This adjustment may already be seen in the published screenplay, which came out last winter in an attractive book called THE ART OF STAR WARS."

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-24-2002, 09:20 PM:

Mike, this isn't exactly a court and we're not under oath.

We're talking about a movie that came out 25 years ago, and which most of us have seen many times, in 2 or more different incarnations. In my case I just related what I remembered. I am happy to admit when I'm wrong. In fact, when I saw your documentation in the earlier post, I thought "That's good enough for me".

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-25-2002, 04:10 PM:

*DEMO* Dallas, TX: Northpark

*CLOSED Dayton, OH: Dayton Mall (There were three clusters of screens in different areas in the mall. All are closed now, probably reclaimed for retail use.)

*CLOSED Honolulu: HI: Cinerama

*CLOSED Houston, TX: Galleria

*DEMO* Kansas City, MO: Glenwood

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-25-2002, 06:40 PM:

As far as I could remember, the original "STAR WARS" opened in Honolulu on two screens on the original release day. "THE EMPIRE STIKES BACK" or "THE RETURN OF THE JEDI" was held back for about two weeks because Consolidated had a problem agreeing to Fox's terms. The original "STARS WARS" played at both the Cinerama and the Kapiolani, the former Toho Theatre opening with 35mm prints at both venues. The Kapiolani played "STAR WARS" for about two months before Consolidtaed decided to make the Cinerama Theatre the exclusive theatre in Honolulu for the picture by setting up the theater with Dolby Stereo which the theatre did not have. With the Dolby Stereo system in place, "STARS WARS" continued it's record run of over one years with a brand new 70mm print. Yea!

"THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK" and " THE RETURN OF THE JEDI" both played exclusive runs at the Cinerama in 70mm for a very long time. Before the Waikiki Twins, the Cinerama was my favorite theatre and I still miss that wonderful house.

-Claude

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-25-2002, 07:29 PM:

Claude wrote:

quote:
As far as I could remember, the original "STAR WARS" opened in Honolulu on two screens on the original release day.

Claude,
I posted a list of all of the first day engagements of STAR WARS earlier in this thread. Honolulu is not on the list.

The film originally opened on May 25, a Wednesday. Some additional engagements were added on the 27th, a Friday. Unlike the May 25 opening, I do not have a complete list of the cities that began running the film on the 27th (I'm aware of about half of them). Perhaps those two Honolulu engagements you are recalling were among them.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-26-2002, 05:18 AM:

Hi Michael,

It was so long ago, I just cannot remember any more. Since your printed list does not show that Honolulu was among the first to show "STAR WARS" when it opened, I guess I am wrong. Since Honolulu did not open the film in 70mm, I had decided to see it in San Francisco in 70mm on my way home from a national photography convention in Chicago.
While in Chicago, a color lab that had ties with 20th Century Fox and Deluxe Color, invited everyone at the convention to a complementary midnight showing of "STAR WARS" in the grand ballroom at the Hyat Regency O'Hare in Rosemont. The ballroom was packed by 11:30 and the show started on time. A huge portable 'scope' screen , two 35mm projectors and a mono sound system was specially set up in the room. I must amit, the presentation was not bad at all. Because I have not yet caught up with my jet leg, I fell asleep after the first hour. I was not too concerned about missing most of the 2nd part because I was planning to see it in 70mm in San Francisco. Well the day finally came when I was nicely settled in my seat at the Coronet for the 70mm show. Once again because of going to bed late everynight in Chicago, I fell asleep after the first hour again. It was not until a month later that I had an opportunity to see the entire film at the Cinerama Theatre in Honoluly after making sure I was well rested. Even if it was in 35mm and mono like the show in Chicago, I still enjoyed it. I did however get two more opportunities to see the film at the Cinerama and finally in 70mm six track Dolby.

-Claude

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-28-2002, 03:37 AM:

Darryl Spicer wrote:

quote:
There was a three week re-release of star wars in the summer of 1982. That was the last time that prints were struck for the film prior to the special editions.

VARIETY reported that the '82 re-issue prints would be exisiting, rather than new prints.

In the 1985 press release announcing the STAR WARS Triple Feature that would be screened one time (March 28, 1985) in nine North American cities preceeding a RETURN OF THE JEDI re-release, it stated that *new* prints would be struck for STAR WARS, compared with EMPIRE and JEDI being culled from extant prints.

Never mind that I find it hard to believe that anyone would strike NINE expensive 70mm prints for ONE showing! But this is the film industry and stranger things have happened.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-01-2002, 02:24 PM:

This "When did the EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE tag get added" question was recently asked (and answered) on the official Star Wars Web site.
here

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-15-2003, 01:37 PM:

quote:
As far as I could remember, the original "STAR WARS" opened in Honolulu on two screens on the original release day.

quote:
I posted a list of all of the first day engagements of STAR WARS earlier in this thread. Honolulu is not on the list. The film originally opened on May 25, a Wednesday. Some additional engagements were added on the 27th, a Friday. Unlike the May 25 opening, I do not have a complete list of the cities that began running the film on the 27th (I'm aware of about half of them). Perhaps those two Honolulu engagements you are recalling were among them.

quote:
It was so long ago, I just cannot remember any more. Since your printed list does not show that Honolulu was among the first to show "STAR WARS" when it opened, I guess I am wrong.

I checked into this recently and, Claude, you remembered correctly that Star Wars opened in Honolulu on two screens (the Cinerama and the Kapiolani). However, the engagement opened on June 8, 1977 (the third week of the film's release).

I don't have any details on when the Kapiolani run ended or when the Cinerama switched to a 70mm presentation. By December, though, the Cinerama was the only engagement and was running the movie in 70mm, hyping it heavily in the local newspaper advertising (as it should be!).

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-15-2003, 03:11 PM:

quote:
VARIETY reported that the '82 re-issue prints would be exisiting, rather than new prints.

I ran a copy of all three prints of Star Wars, Empire and Jedi back in 1993 for a THX promotion. I remember seeing 82 re-issue marked on the heads of the Star Wars print. I do not remember it being scribed in to the leader. That is what I based my figuring on 82 being the last time prints were struck for it. I do know that when Jedi was re-released in 85 I ran a used print. All splices were cemented at the heads and tails. So maybe there were some newly struck prints in 82 for Star Wars just not all of them.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-15-2003, 03:33 PM:

I used to have a very old bootleg VHS copy of the original Star Wars that did not have the "Episode IV" title at the beginning. I wish I had kept it.

One other interesting note about this particular bootleg copy is that the scene in which R2D2 was hacking into the death star computer to get information about the tractor beam had the C3PO voice-over dialogue which did not appear again until the "Special Edition" in 1997. I recall there may have been a few other minor difference in sound, but there were no "missing scenes" or anything big like that. Like I said, I really wish I had kept this copy. [Frown]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-15-2003, 04:06 PM:

Michael,

For your information and others, both the Cinerama and the Kapiolani were stand alone large screen theatres. The Kapiolani was originallly built and operated by Japan's Toho Studio and was one of possibly three theatres they operated in the United States. I know another one was located in Los Angeles and was known as the Toho La Brea and there might have also been a Toho theatre in New York City. The Honolu Toho was a very attractive house with all Japanese projection and sound equipment. The projectors were 35/70 machines with mag heads however the many films I saw in this theatre were all in mono and never in mag stereo or 70mm. When Toho pulled out, the theatre was leased by Consolidated and renamed the Kapiolani. When Consolidated took over, all of the Japanese equipment was replaced with American hardware. Even the beautiful auditorium was redecorated with drapes from the old Royal Theatre in Waikiki that just recently closed at that time. The Kapiolani was equipped for both 35mm and 70mm and I saw several large format films there including "DUNE". Today, half of the building is operated by Papa Johns Pizza and the other half is a Blockbuster video rental store

Consolidated's (Pacific) Cinerama was originally a neighborhood theatre and was known as the Pawaa and located on the corner of King Street and Kalakaua Avenue. The Pawaaa was shut down for several months and reopened as a three strip Cinerama theatre with "THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM" in 1962. After the theatre ran out of three strip Cinerama films to play, it became a 70mm single strp Cinerama theatre and was one of Honolulu's premiere road show theatres. At this time the side louvered strip screen used for three strip projection was replaced with a curved solid screen. With the demise of the triple and single screen Cinerama pictures, the theatre became a standard first run theatre playing films in both 70mm and 35mm. By the way All three of the original "STAR WARS" pictures played in this house in 70mm as well as "HELLO DOLLY" and many others. One of the last movie the Cinerama played was the revival of "LAWRENCE OF ARABIA" in 70mm. Today, the Cinerama is a auto parts store but a part of the theatre is now at the Cinerama Dome theatre in Los Angeles when the original three strip projection equipment from Honolulu was refurbished and put into use there.

-Claude

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-16-2003, 04:50 PM:

I originally wrote:

quote:
VARIETY reported that the '82 re-issue prints would be exisiting, rather than new prints.

Darryl replied:

quote:
I ran a copy of all three prints of Star Wars, Empire and Jedi back in 1993 for a THX promotion. I remember seeing 82 re-issue marked on the heads of the Star Wars print. I do not remember it being scribed in to the leader. That is what I based my figuring on 82 being the last time prints were struck for it. I do know that when Jedi was re-released in 85 I ran a used print. All splices were cemented at the heads and tails. So maybe there were some newly struck prints in 82 for Star Wars just not all of them.

I may have been unclear with my original comment. The reference to the '82 re-release prints being reused from a previous release was referring to the 70mm prints (not all of the prints), of which Variety mentioned four would be put into circulation for that '82 re-release (the one that included the first trailer for what was then known as Revenge Of The Jedi)

Was this 1993 triple feature screening 70mm or 35mm?

Aaron wrote:

quote:
I used to have a very old bootleg VHS copy of the original Star Wars that did not have the "Episode IV" title at the beginning. I wish I had kept it.
One other interesting note about this particular bootleg copy is that the scene in which R2D2 was hacking into the death star computer to get information about the tractor beam had the C3PO voice-over dialogue which did not appear again until the "Special Edition" in 1997. I recall there may have been a few other minor difference in sound, but there were no "missing scenes" or anything big like that. Like I said, I really wish I had kept this copy.

Sounds like you have a copy of the film with the mono mix, which happens to include a number of dialogue bits and sound effects not present in the stereo mix.

The extra C-3PO line ("blah blah blah... A power loss at one of the terminals will allow the ship to leave") has actually floated in and out of various versions, reappearing for (I think) the first time on a 1984 VHS (and perhaps Beta and laserdisc) version (when Fox was reissuing selected titles in the so-called "Hi-Fi" format). It also appeared on the 1989 laserdisc (first domestic widescreen version), but was absent from the 1993 "Definitive(?!) Collection" laserdisc set. It then reappeared, as you mentioned, on the souped up '97 Special Editions.

If you get a chance, check your bootleg to see if the extra Stormtrooper line "Close the blast doors" (which precedes "Open the blast doors") is present. Or what about Luke saying "Blast it, Wedge. Where are you?" as opposed to "Blast it, Biggs. Where are you?" during the climactic Death Star battle.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-17-2003, 03:26 AM:

Michael, I am reasonably sure both the differences you mention were present on the bootleg. I am almost positive about the stormtrooper's line, but less certain about Luke's line. Unfortunately, it can never be verified, because the bootleg tape was long ago recorded over.

Also, until I read your post, I had no idea there were "official" releases of the movie on home video that contained those sound differences. Makes me feel a lot better about not having the bootleg anymore. [Smile]

[ 02-17-2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Aaron Haney ]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-17-2003, 09:33 AM:

I seem to remember - though I am not sure - that when Star Wars was first shown here, some minor details were missing. In the scene where Luke returns home to find the farm destroyed and his folks killed, I think the camera move to the right was stopped earlier and didn`t show the scorched skeletons. Other than that detail, which seems to have been originally altered for the age classification, and was restored for the rerelease, I don`t remember any "lost" scenes such as are described in various forums on the internet.
I wonder if there has ever been an official comment on those lost scenes which were allegedly in the very first version.
I hope, most probably in vain, that the DVD edition will have both the original and the Special Edition scenes. Somebody wrote about the new scenes "it looks like somebody has taken an old painting and drawn Mickey Mouses with a bright pencil on it".

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-17-2003, 04:01 PM:

quote:
I hope, most probably in vain, that the DVD edition will have both the original and the Special Edition scenes.

Lucas recently angered fans by publicly stating there would be no DVDs of the original versions of the trilogy:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa68.html#nowars
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14393

Of course, people have suspected this for a long time, but it was the first official confirmation of his intentions. There is an online petition to change his mind, for whatever good that might do:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/838350200

[ 02-17-2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Aaron Haney ]

Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 02-17-2003, 05:56 PM:

Claude,
I also saw DUNE at the Kapiolani, as well as LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS. I also remember seeing CHUSHINGURA there on a school field trip-that was a LONG field trip. It must have still been the Toho at that time...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2003, 06:17 PM:

quote:
Lucas recently angered fans by publicly stating there would be no DVDs of the original versions of the trilogy

Doesn't everyone realize how Lucas works by now? He'll release the "improved" version of the movies first, then about two years later he'll release the "classic" versions so the fans will buy them all over again.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-17-2003, 08:24 PM:

It would be great if the original scenes were there too. It is not uncommon, for instance in music, to play the original versions of pieces that were later revised by the composer and it is historically very interesting. Star Wars is practically a historic movie. Lucas should realise that it would not contradict his view that the special edition was a necessary improvement at all.
For instance, I find the unused takes of the opening theme on the special edition soundtrack very interesting.
If there are indeed any "lost scenes" which were only in the first prints they should be on the DVD too.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-17-2003, 09:11 PM:

I remember a special on TV where Mark Hamill was talking about being in a car on his way to do some last minute dialogue looping and he passed a huge mob of people standing around in the street. Later he found out that they were waiting to get in to see Star Wars at a theater.

Now I forget which was which, but he was on his way to do looping for the either the 35mm prints, or the 70mm prints, but it turned out that which ever one he was working on, the other was done, prints were struck and were showing already.

The details are a bit sketchy in my head at the moment, but I remember being left with the impression that they would end up with two different (albiet slightly) sound mixes, and potentially different dialogue. Not just different lines, but voice inflections and the like may be different. This may account for some differences that some are discussing here.

Just thought I'd toss that out. Cheers!

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-17-2003, 09:16 PM:

The general belief is that the theatres that started showing the movie in its first week (of which there was a surprisingly low number of engagements - detailed earlier in this thread) probably had a print with the initial sound mix. Or at the very least, due to the lead time necessary to make 70mm prints, the *initial* 70mm prints (I believe there were eight) had the earlier mix.

The principal reason behind doing multiple audio mixes for the movie was that even though the optical Dolby Stereo format is in theory mono compatible, in practice wasn't necessarily so. Many early Dolby films were mixed in both stereo and mono so that stereo prints could be sent to stereo-equipped theatres while mono prints could be sent to mono houses.

In the case of Star Wars, I understand the mono mix was prepared last and in the process ended up being the more complete and definitive mix (in terms of content). The stereo presentations (particularly the six-track magnetic), however, arguably were the better moviegoer experience.

BTW, sound designer Ben Burtt was on hand at the American Cinematheque the past two weekends for their ILM & Skywalker Sound tribute. The sound for Star Wars was discussed to some degree and some great clips and rare reels were screened (including those prepared in 1978 for Academy Award consideration) -- a real treat to see!

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-17-2003, 09:35 PM:

I think I read that the special edition sound was made from the 4-channel Dolby Stereo mix as they found the magnetic master for the 6-channel had degenerated.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-17-2003, 10:09 PM:

quote:
I think I read that the special edition sound was made from the 4-channel Dolby Stereo mix as they found the magnetic master for the 6-channel had degenerated.

While apparently there were different mixes at different times, wouldn't the 6-channel mixes come from a 4-channel mix? Just seperating the bass info into its own two tracks? Its been some 25 years since I read the article in American Cinematographer, but I would swear that it was stated there that's how the movie mix was made (for the 70mm 6-track version).

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-18-2003, 06:41 AM:

You are right.
This is from the article "The Dolby Sound System for Star Wars"

quote:
Final mixing took place at Goldwyn Studios in April of this year. Because of the dual release requirements, six-track 70mm and stereo optical, a four-track master was prepared, carrying left, center, right and surround information. At the end of the mix, the four-track was used to prepare a two-track running master for stereo optical use, and the same four-track was also taken to Todd-AO where it was used to make a six-track running master for 70mm. Optical printing was carried out at Deluxe Labs, and the 70mm recording at Todd-AO.

More than 50% of the first-wave release theatres for Star Wars will be equipped with Dolby theatre playback packages, containing the necessary noise-reduction decoders and equalizers that exactly tailor the loud-speaker responses to match those of the dubbing theatre where the film was mixed. In this way, for the first time ever, the sound heard in the theatre should to all intents be identical to that heard by the director during the mix.

This is from the moviesoundpage

quote:
'Star Wars Special Edition', the 1997 version of the original classic, features a 5.1 channel digital soundtrack in all three formats (DTS®, Dolby Digital®, and SDDSTM). Contrary to what would be widely expected, the essential basis for this new track would not be the 70mm six-track master. According to Tom Christopher in "Post" (see references), the six-track, which was used for the THX laserdisc remaster, was exhibiting some defects due to aging. The decision was made to pull out a vintage 4-track magnetic source, mixed back in 1977. The track was de-hissed and equalized across all channels. The surround channel, which is mono, went through a decorrelator in some scenes (decorrelation is a process by which a single channel is divided in two and then phase-scrambled to enhance spaciousness); for others stereo ambience and L/R effects were added. LFE (low frequency effects) information was added selectively in certain sequences to bump up the low end and take advantage of the dedicated bass channel capability of 5.1 digital sound.

Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 02-20-2003, 02:47 PM:

I remember when George was young and foolish and was quite the swashbuckler back in the mid 70's. He had written this magnum opus The Star Wars with 12 chapters called the The Journal of the Wills. This is about the time that the EGG Co. (The name of ILM when it was in LA, ) moved to San Rafael. I finally found The secret location of ILM after many trips thru San Rafael, it was called the Kerner Optical Company, because, George,being the practical guy, named it after the Street it was on. Now I just gave away the secret location of ILM, oh darn.
One time we drove around the back and all the doors were open and they were editing film fx shots. We would look thru the back lot gate and see the outdoor sets of the next FX movie they were working on.
Those were the days.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-20-2003, 08:11 PM:

quote:
Was this 1993 triple feature screening 70mm or 35mm?

It was 35MM prints.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-28-2003, 07:39 PM:

quote:
[Star Wars] also was originaly given a G rating. So Lucas filmed the scene of the cut off arm laying on the floor in the cantina scene and resubmited the film and got the PG rating.

From a June 2, 1977 issue of Variety:

"20th-Fox Opted For PG Rather Than G 'Star Wars' Rating"

The reason "Star Wars" carries a PG rating instead of a G is that 20th-Fox preferred the PG, Daily Variety has learned. When the pic was submitted to the Motion Picture Association of America's Code & Rating Administration, the vote was split evenly between G and PG, and 20th asked for the stricter rating.

A spokesman for the production confirmed the rating situation and said producer Gary Kurtz felt the pic contained scenes that might be frightening to small children unaccompanied by adults [the producer's children acted as Jawas in the film...that was probably pretty frightening for him to see - MC].

Other, unofficial sources close to the production reported, however, that 20th feared a backlash effect from teenagers if the film were to receive a G, which is sometimes considered an "uncool" rating in teenage circles, since G is usually associated with family-type pix.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-28-2003, 09:28 PM:

The scene with the cut off arm on the floor is a very exact quote from Kurosawa`s "Yojimbo". Even the dialogue is very similar.
As is the shot of the arm on the floor. It is highly unlikely that this was later added.
BTW, did you feel a trembling of The Force just about an hour ago? I was not far from Temecula at that time.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-28-2003, 10:13 PM:

quote:
It is highly unlikely that this was later added.

I think it *was* added later in post-production, but not for the reason originally cited earlier in the thread. A handful of shots -- mostly cantina inserts and R2-D2 -- seem to have been shot during post-production mostly due to a desire for more shots (cantina) or to correct earlier mechanical problems (R2-D2).

quote:
BTW, did you feel a trembling of The Force just about an hour ago? I was not far from Temecula at that time.

Oh, that was *you*? I thought it was just another typical California earthquake. [Smile]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-28-2003, 10:22 PM:

Of course I don`t know for sure, but I would find it unlikely that the scene in the cantina wasn`t originally planned as it is now.
Have you seen Yojimbo?

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-28-2003, 11:02 PM:

quote:
I would find it unlikely that the scene in the cantina wasn`t originally planned as it is now.

It *was* planned as we know it. My understanding is the make-up artist got sick so some of the creatures were never completed. Upon assembling the film, I guess they felt the movie would benefit from a handful of pickup shots, the close-up of the severed arm being among them.

quote:
Have you seen Yojimbo?

Yes! Yojimbo isn't the only film Star Wars "borrowed" from....

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 03-01-2003, 12:38 AM:

I really don't have nothing to contribute but seeing this made me remember that you can see through the eyes on one of those aliens in tha cantina scenes. [eyes]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-01-2003, 01:21 AM:

quote:
Yojimbo isn't the only film Star Wars "borrowed" from....

The Hidden Fortress, for example? I understand Lucas even planned out the climactic battle by editing together areal combat scenes from old WWII movies. But the Hidden Fortress contains the basic story structure that was admittedly adapted by Lucas. Lucas was major fan of Kurosawa's. Of course, the Japanese master freely borrowed from many other works, as well. It really is true there are really no new stories to tell, just new ways to unfold them. At least if we're lucky. [Smile]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-01-2003, 04:18 AM:

In "Sanjuro",the hero and his companions hide in storage spaces below the floor of a house. After two guards have passed the area, they peep out from among the covers. Just like in the scene in the Millenium Falcon on the Death Star.
I think the most important elements of Kurosawa in Star Wars are stylistic rather than details of individual stories.
Lucas especially admired Kurosawa`s ability to make everything look real at a time when historic movies always looked like the costumes and props had just come from the opera house.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-02-2003, 01:40 AM:

quote:
quote:[Star Wars ] also was originaly given a G rating. So Lucas filmed the scene of the cut off arm laying on the floor in the cantina scene and resubmited the film and got the PG rating.From a June 2, 1977 issue of Variety:

"20th-Fox Opted For PG Rather Than G 'Star Wars' Rating"

The reason "Star Wars" carries a PG rating instead of a G is that 20th-Fox preferred the PG, Daily Variety has learned. When the pic was submitted to the Motion Picture Association of America's Code & Rating Administration, the vote was split evenly between G and PG, and 20th asked for the stricter rating.

A spokesman for the production confirmed the rating situation and said producer Gary Kurtz felt the pic contained scenes that might be frightening to small children unaccompanied by adults [the producer's children acted as Jawas in the film...that was probably pretty frightening for him to see - MC].

Other, unofficial sources close to the production reported, however, that 20th feared a backlash effect from teenagers if the film were to receive a G, which is sometimes considered an "uncool" rating in teenage circles, since G is usually associated with family-type pix.

I got that bit of information from Starlog or one of the other sci-fi mags at that time. I always wondered if that was true or not. Thanks Michael for doing that research to find out.

I never did like that arm sequence in Star Wars. It just looked to thrown in. It could have done without it.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-02-2003, 03:28 AM:

No,no,no! The arm scene is very important! Not only as a hommage to Kurosawa, whose influence on Lucas can not be overestimated. It also shows that Ben is not just an old man reciting wise lines. There is still a lot more in the old man than meets the eye. I love the way Guiness looks around out of the corner of his eyes after his "little handywork" (Han Solo). Well, he was an acting genius of epic proportions.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-02-2003, 05:48 PM:

Maybe your right. But was all that homage really worth being sued over. Supposedly lucus was sued over the fact that he took to much story from other films. At least that is what I read and have been told. Hey Michael can you do some research on this.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-05-2003, 08:28 PM:

quote:
Michael can you do some research on this.

Darryl,

I didn't see an email address for you in your profile. Email me, please (address is in my profile). I have a question for you.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-05-2003, 11:05 PM:

just send me a private message using the button next to the mail tag.

It will send me an email notification and the content of the message. I can PM you a response if I have one.