"THX 1138: The George Lucas Director's Cut" to Street 09/14/04 (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

There is absolutely nothing to indicate Lucas has added anything to the film that was produced after 1971.

 

[Ray_R]

This'll be my personal day before birthday present to myself. Hope it's released April 4th...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

As others noted, April 4 is a Sunday, so there's no chance that's the actual release date. May 4 is a Tuesday, so that seems more likely. Or April 6. But definitely not April 4...

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

Don't they mean "PG" (instead of GP)?

 

[Jonny P]

I think I read somewhere that George Lucas added some digital footage into "THX-1138" for this DVD.

According to an interview, Lucas said that he didn't get to realize his full artistic vision for the film in the 70s, and with the advent of computer animation he is able to fully realize his vision.

The article states that George Lucas had always intended LUH to be a race other than human. Apparently, she was supposed to be from a race called Gungans and was supposed to go by the name Jar Jar Binks.

So, Lucas went back in and removed LUH and inserted the character Jar Jar instead. The film is now more of a buddy/road pic where THX and Jar Jar wreak havoc in the subterranean world.

Jar Jar Binks says: "Meesa nooo likin' sid subterranean nuffle-stuff."

 

[Ted Todorov]

No, they do mean GP which is what the rating was called at the time.

What I can't figure out is how a film that was considered a GP (PG) in '71 won't be rated PG or at most PG-13 today, but get a R Rating, 33 years later. Are we truly becoming that much of a puritanical society? Or has something risque been added from to the '71 version?

Ted

 

[Brandon Conway]

The change is that PG actually meant "Parental Guidance" in 1971 - as in there's content parents should be catious about their kids seeing - and it doesn't mean that now. Now it means "the only kids that you shouldn't allow to see this movie are ones who can't talk yet because they may be scared by a singing skeleton" (the PG rating for The Nightmare Before Christmas).

The various ratings standards have become less subjective over the years as well. All the President's Men is rated PG (1976) but it has over 20 f-words in it. You say more than a couple today in any context and it's an automatic R. The same pretty much goes for nudity. If you show anything more than an asscrack it's at least PG-13, and more often than not an R. Remember the broo-ha-ha over Kate Winslet's tig o' bitties in Titanic? Many people thought it should have been slapped with an R-rating because of that, although I think the MPAA gave an appropriate PG-13 rating. It's just that by 1997 any frontal nudity in a film with a lower rating than R was a very rare exception, even though it shouldn't be.

The rating system, when it first arrived in the late 60's, worked just fine. G, for example, actually mean "General Audiences." 2001: A Space Odyssey was justly rated G in 1968, and that rating is still perfectly appropriate. However, if it was rated today, I guarantee it would be PG-13, if only because of it's non-kid friendly "thematics," i.e., the film is not intended to entertain children and would be boring to five year olds, so G is not "appropriate."

 

[Steven_M Grimes]

And for those who haven't seen the film and are wondering about the "R" rating:

The film includes full frontal female nudity


I don't think anyone has made that clear yet.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

 

[Brandon Conway]

Are those thumbs up for the DVD or the spoilers in the post before yours? Perhaps both?

 

[oscar_merkx]

thanks folks about the explanations about what the ratings were back in the 70s

 

[Will_B]

No, it doesn't have wide appeal. It's a dreary, Orwellian future, with minimalist sets and very little going on. It can be tiring, if not plain boring, to watch. But it is a film that stays with you.

Imagine Logan's Run without the futurist city and without the action, shown at half speed.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I just asked about the release date of THX in the Warner chat and they said that it's "coming in the Fall" and "you can probably GUESS when".

So, guys, it looks like they're cross-promoting the release w/ Fox's Star Wars box in September.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

So it looks like its fair to assume that THX-1138 will be released on 9/21/04

 

[Brandon Conway]

I bet they had planned to release it in early summer, but Fox's announcement was too much of an opportunity for cross promotion to pass up.

 

[Robert Anthony]

I wonder if anyone's asked if Lucas has added any footage different from the previous video releases?

 

[Robert Anthony]

Well, okay, I just did. Warners said that some never before seen footage was edited back into the movie, but didn't answer whether this never before seen footage was what bumped it up to an R, or if any CGI enhancement was done to the flick.

So now we know there ARE some new scenes in this thing.

 

[Eric F]

Wait. This is fascinating. The Apes went to the movies?

If they did, their ratings would be like this:

G: All Gibbons admitted.
PG: Parental Monkey suggested.
PG-13: Orangs strongly cautioned.
R: No Chimps without an adult.
NC-17: Gorillas Only.

(Yeah, OK, I didn't invest much time into it).

 

[Ray_R]

Duh! I meant April 6th! Which would be the day AFTER my birthday! More like belated B-Day present...

 

[Brandon Conway]

Uh-oh. Looks like thedigitalbits.com just dropped the bombshell. From the Rumor Mill:

Here's a bit of info from industry sources that's likely to get the undies of some fans all in a bunch. Word is that George Lucas' THX-1139, which is currently being prepared for DVD release later in 2004 by Lucasfilm and Warner Bros, is going to feature more than 100 new visual effects shots. Look for digitally-enhanced skylines and other additions and alterations.