back to article 1980s sci-fi movies: The thrill of being not quite terrified on mum's floral sofa

2017 saw two major cinematic milestones of different extremes. One was the mega release of Blade Runner 2049, the originally unplanned sequel to, yes, Blade Runner. The other was the more overlooked anniversary of the vastly smaller Tron. Blade Runner 2049 review: Scott's vision versus Villeneuve's skill READ MORE They were a …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

    Lucas was notorious for going back and tweaking the originals. Jabba was missing in the original cut but reinserted as CGI in the 1997 version. The space battles in 'Star Wars the original (1977)' were achieved using motion controlled camera matte effects and models as the CGI technology wasn't available at the time.

    1. Vulch

      Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

      No, Jabba was always in RotJ along with slave bikini Leia. He was pasted into an extra scene in the original Star Wars though.

      1. m0rt

        Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

        Jabba was actually in the original script/story of Star Wars (A New Hope for you youngsters). Yes, he was pasted in but over the original Jabba. Ford actually did act out that part with the original, who was just a large bloke.

        BTW - the retweaked ending of RotJ REALLY upset me. They should have just left it.

        1. Naselus

          Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

          "Jabba was actually in the original script/story of Star Wars (A New Hope for you youngsters). Yes, he was pasted in but over the original Jabba. "

          Also, the cantina bounty hunter Greedo was NOT in the original script, and the whole scene with Han shooting first was only incorporated in order to get the plot information from the discarded Jabba the Hutt scene into the movie. The fact that Han then murdered him in the middle of a bar added to the Han Solo character in a way that the Jabba scene did not.

          So re-inserting it was completely pointless, and results in Han having basically identical conversations within ten minutes of each other.

      2. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

        Jabba was present in the originals, but had extra scenes in the Special Editions. These extra scenes were achieved by pasting CGI Jabba on top of scenes filmed with Harrison Ford talking to a human who looks like a wealthy 17th century Dutch merchant - presumably a contender for Jabba's form before the filmmakers settled on his fat slug appearance.

        1. m0rt

          Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

          And here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw1gkNd6Z_8

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

            Until Disney makes a killing putting out unscrewed-up versions on Bluray, there's always the Despecialized Editions of the original trilogy.

            1. DropBear

              Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

              Can't upvote enough: "Despecialized" is the way to go. And yes, were they to sell the original _on DVD_ I would buy it in a heartbeat (sorry, I don't "do" Bluray).

              1. Mongrel

                Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

                It's pricey but look for the "Star Wars Trilogy 6 discs Limited Edition Tin Box Set [DVD]" on Amazon, it has the fiddled with version AND the original cinematic release.

                1. Gene Cash Silver badge

                  Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

                  > We found 0 results for "Star Wars Trilogy 6 discs Limited Edition Tin Box Set"

                  > Use fewer keywords or try these instead

                  Got a better title or a link? I'm really interested...

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Star wars tin DVD

                    Look at the sticker in the picture of it in the top left corner!

                    "Includes both digitally remastered and Original Cinema Version of Each Film"

                    That's why it's 6 disks.

                    I have this, it is the original films, all of them. It's why I bought it. The description used is also why it's a bastard to find. It also in a metal tin in a card cover.

                    https://uk.webuy.com/product.php?sku=5039036039512

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Star wars tin DVD

                      Apparently there are two version both the same, mines just the limited edition.

                      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

                        Re: Star wars tin DVD

                        Now that Disney has bought Fox (who had some home media distribution rights) the legal hurdles to a high-def release have been mitigated. It now comes down to motivation, digging out various prints and spending time and money on restoring them.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: Star wars tin DVD

                          That's true, last jedi is apparently coming out on 4k so it's only logical they do the others as well. The cash cow shall be milked.

                    2. FIA Silver badge

                      Re: Star wars tin DVD

                      [...]I have this, it is the original films, all of them. It's why I bought it. The description used is also why it's a bastard to find. It also in a metal tin in a card cover.

                      The problem is the source it's made from. Aparently it's derived from the work they did producing the widescreen VHSs in the 90s.

                      If you want the first 3 films in unaltered decent quality the despecialised editions are well worth finding. (The 1977 version of Star Wars makes you realise just how good ILM were...) Also, purely from the amount of work involved creating them too. Some people really do love these films. (You have frame by frame composition of 3 different sources for some scenes!)

                      There's a fairly comprehensive overview of things here.

                      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                        Re: Star wars tin DVD

                        If anyone's still reading and wants to know about the work that went into the Despecialized Edition, there's a video here.

                  2. Mongrel

                    Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

                    Here you go

                    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Star-Wars-Trilogy-discs-Limited/dp/B000K9KVYQ/ref=sr_1_11?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1515576351&sr=1-11&keywords=star+wars+trilogy+dvd

                2. DropBear

                  Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

                  @Mongrel: from one of the reviews: "These are advertised as being the original versions plus the remastered versions......that is not the case! They are only the remastered ones :-(" so I guess that's a "no" then. Thanks everyone for the suggestions, I'll be sure to keep looking.

                  PS - the whole point of having to painstakingly MAKE the Despecialized Editions is the completely original, absolutely untouched, as-seen-when-you-were-a-kid version not being available anywhere in any form. Otherwise we'd just be talking about a bootleg of that instead...

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

                @DropBear

                The original theatrical versions were released on DVD in a special edition tin as I have it.

                It's available for the princely sum of £12.

                https://uk.webuy.com/product.php?sku=5039036039512

                I hate the alternative ending to rotj.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

                  >The original theatrical versions were released on DVD in a special edition tin as I have it.

                  >It's available for the princely sum of £12.

                  >https://uk.webuy.com/product.php?sku=5039036039512

                  From the description:

                  The first three Star Wars films reworked as creator George Lucas had intended.

                  _reworked_. IOW not the original theatrical versions.

                  Just sayin'

              3. xeroks

                Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

                What's the problem with Bluray? It has far better quality than DVD and streaming. and you usually get the same extras as DVD.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Jabba the Hutt in 1983’s Return of the Jedi

          > Jabba was present in the originals, but had extra scenes in the Special Editions.

          Jabba does _not_ appear _at all_ in the original 1977 Star Wars (later renamed Episode IV: A New Hope).

          Not as a slug. Not as a rotund "dutch merchant". May I direct your attention to Team Negative1's beautiful restoration of an original, "found" 35mm theater release print. I'm sure you can find a copy to download in all the usual places. Nor is he in the first VHS edition. (Probably not in the Laserdisc edition either, but I don't own that and can't check.)

          Jabba the slug's first appearance in Episode IV is in the Special Edition VHS, and, IIRC, you would have seen the "dutch merchant" in the extra features DVD of the trilogy set. (I didn't check my copy to confirm.)

  2. Dave 126 Silver badge

    Not just technology...

    80s films used real sets, from the concrete South American shopping mall in Total Recall, to the disused power station in Aliens, the decommissioned aircraft carrier in Trumbull's Silent Runnings to of course the Detroit rust belt in Verhoeven's RoboCop. Er, okay, I know Total Recall was 90s and Runnings was 70s, but I think my point stands!

    The 80s films also had aesthetics drawn from popular culture - bright colours of hip hop, the grunge of punk, the angular product design of GRiD, Lamborghini et al. Societal concerns gave us vistas of urban degeneration, linking seamlessly into post-apocolyptic landscapes of Mad Max, itself inspired by environmental concerns.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Not just technology...

      Just to clarify, in the above read '80s films' as '80s Sci-Fi films'.

      And by the way, for anyone wondering what the man who gave us the stylistic trilogy of RoboCop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers has been up to, Paul Verhoeven returned to his homeland. However, his excellent French-language film Elle (2017) is currently on Netflix. Whilst not a sci-fi film, it is partly set in a video games studio. Not for the feint-hearted, it defies easy description. Highly recommended.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: Not just technology...

        Whilst PV has made some excellent films, it is still hard to forget some of the lemons he has put out. Like Showgirls.

        1. BebopWeBop
          Facepalm

          Re: Not just technology...

          I did enjoy the original book though. But then it was a good short novel, not the bloated groanfest of the film

      2. macjules

        Re: Not just technology...

        +1 for Elle - a really amazing film.

      3. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

        Re: Not just technology...

        I think Verhoeven had to leave when Hollywood bosses realised that his entire output for American studios had been basically taking the piss out of Americans. Either that or it was Showgirls. Actually, it was definitely Showgirls...

        Robocop is a nasty vision of the future not for the visceral gore of its special effects, but for the nastiness of the world it portrays through the TV commercial blips, the incidental dialogue and all the small details that build up to a picture of a world gone to hell. The gore is the least disturbing part of Verhoeven's future Detroit...

        I'm also in the small faction that likes Starship Troopers - and that's because of its particular take on "alien monster" movies. I can't say anything else as I don't want to spoil it for people who haven't seen it, but it is very much not what it seems. A faithful reproduction of Heinlein's book would have been indistinguishable from any of the slew of generic "space-marine" movies that came in the wake of "Aliens".

        Actually, what I think was a major factor in the Sci-fi boom of the 1980s was home video itself: Not to watch the "hits", but to discover movies that didn't make it big on release.. For studios it meant that if a movie tanked at the theatres, it still had a chance of making its money back on VHS sales, and that allowed projects to be approved that otherwise wouldn't have been. Especially as Sci-fi is a niche interest, with fans who are loyal and will buy on recommendation.

        This second chance allowed some damp-squip cinema releases to turn into major successes later. As it happens, Blade Runner was one such film - its global box-office receipts of $33 million in 1982 were a very poor return for a movie with a $28 million production budget, but over the 1980s and 1990s it more than doubled that income again in home sales.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The sci-fi films timeline stretches back almost continuously to the earliest days of "Metropolis" (1927). The first of many versions of "The Invisible Man" was 1933.

    Some notable post-war examples: Forbidden Planet (1956); The Fly (1958); 2001 (1968).

    Home video was motivated by TV timeslip - and pr0n before classifications caught up with the rental shops.

    "Flesh Gordon" (1974) managed to capture the fizzing effects of the original film series. It also articulated storyline undercurrents that went over the heads of Saturday morning cinema club audiences. "Barbarella" (1968) had been an attempt to bring that flavour into mainstream cinema.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Barbarella makes more sense viewed in the context of Italian horror movies. Think colourful lighting and buxom women in sheer clothing.

      1. wolfetone Silver badge

        "Barbarella makes more sense viewed in the context of Italian horror movies. Think colourful lighting and buxom women in sheer clothing."

        Is there any other way to think?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Think colourful lighting and buxom women in sheer clothing.

        Tbh, I think of little else

    2. Anonymous Blowhard
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Are you sure you mean "Flesh Gordon" (1974) and not "Flash Gordon" (1980)?"

        Yes. Soft pr0n very faithful to the original plots, costuming, and firework SFX. As a kid at Saturday morning cinema the original 1930s undertones of Ming's daughter were never noticed. "Flesh Gordon" built new scenes based on those undertones.

        The mainstream film remake of "Flash Gordon" that unforgettably featured Brian Blessed was not a bad attempt.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    CGI is killing sci-fi

    Too much of it, and stupid plots and storylines.

    While reboots, remakes, and sequels are an appalling display of lack of ideas.

    When special effects were difficult and expensive, directors had to fill the time between them with a story...

    PS: sci-fi and horror are orthogonal, they can intersect, but a sci-fi movie has not to be an horror movie. And too much sci-fi of late it's just at that intersection point, and it's boring.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

      And yet we've had some excellent concept Sci-Fi film of late, such as Moon. The lowered cost of filming, editing and SFX also means that there is a wealth of interesting independent sci-fi films that may have flown below your radar. Just don't expect them from Disney on a huge multiplex in Summer.

      Regards.

      (Before digital filming, just a movie's worth of black and white filmstock might cost around $10,000, a high bar for a self-teaching director)

      1. jackandhishat

        Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

        Moon is a cracking film. Can't wait for Mute to be released. ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1464763/ )

    2. 0laf
      Megaphone

      Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

      CGI isn't killing films it's weak directors with big egos using it to fill in the gaps they've created.

      I've been thinking about this recently having watched quite a few films I found very disappointing but were highly rated by professional reviewers (Last Jedi, Hunger Games, Maze Runner, Divergent).

      I think the studios are pandering to directors and letting director take over story writing. I (IMHO) think we need a resurgence of screenwriters who can sort out the bloody story before letting director loose with the CGI whizzbangs.

      A film with poor effects but a good story is still be a good film.

      A film with great effects but a poor story is more likely to be crap

      1. FIA Silver badge

        Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

        I've been thinking about this recently having watched quite a few films I found very disappointing but were highly rated by professional reviewers (Last Jedi, Hunger Games, Maze Runner, Divergent).

        Isn't this an extension of what you see in the video game/hardware review world too? I can imagine, especially with big budget stuff like Star Wars, the fear of not being given review access to the next big thing is enough to ensure most reviews will be at least favourable.

        I recently went to see 'The Last Jedi' and whilst waiting for my friends outside the screen everyone who left seemed to echo some variation of 'well. That was shit'.

        I then went and read some of the reviews, it was like they'd seen a different film from me.

        TBH, the days where I'd look at a review as a guide to weather I should watch something have long passed (especially big budget stuff), these days I just read them to find out what I'm supposed to think about it, after the fact. ;)

        1. 0laf

          Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

          Yes probably, but there would be no need for it if the studios would sort out the stories first.

          I'm not looking for soul wrenching depth in every film I watch. I mean I really enjoyed GOTG a lot and it's nonsense but it worked.

          Whereas the slow motion chase in Last Jedi should have had the Benny Hill tune playing over it, a petulant child somehow head of a galactically successful empire and many other farcical things. It nuked the fridge for me.

          Those other films I mentioned were confusing and boring or just plain boring.

          they all smacked of a director that couldn't see the wood for the trees or more specifically a screen writer with talent to say "that doesn't work, try this".

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

            There are certainly faults in Disney's 3 Star Wars movies, but I'd say they've all been worth the money to go and see. Unlike the awful prequels.

            I haven't seen the three other series, or read the books they're based on - so can't comment.

            I don't think there's any era of film making (or any kind of popular culture) where there wouldn't be a cash-in on the success of Harry Potter and Twilight. So they were bound to go to the YA section in the book shop and see what they could get - though I've heard generally good things about the Hunger Games films.

            I'm not saying everthing's great. Just that there wasn't a golden age. There were loads of shit films, and awful sequels in the 80s too.

            I've seen some really enjoyable films recently. And found a film reviewer who's opinions I mostly trust (Mark Kermode) - so I've dodged a lot of the crap stuff.

            Even in something as proscriptive and committee run as the Marvel studio they've allowed room for individual taltent, such that there are differences in tone in their films. So Thor 3 was very good (though maybe undercut its own drama by being too funny). Guardians of the Galaxy was so much more fun than I expected, when I got dragged to see it.

            Nolan did great things with Batman.

            But on the downside we also have Pirates of the Caribbean and all the Transformers films.

        2. Timmy B

          Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

          I am just old enough so that I can remember my Dad taking me to the first Star Wars all those years ago. What I see comparing those distant memories to today is this; Once kids went with their parents to see a film that was made for both and now it's kids taking their parents to see a film made for kids. The Last Jedi and the Force Awakens have only had good reviews from people I know who took their kids and their kids loved them.

          1. 0laf

            Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

            I dunno, I can enjoy a film that's just for kids if it's done well. I really enjoy the Despicable Me films. I seem to be in a minority that really liked the 3rd one but maybe I'm just the right age to get all the 80s references right down to the wallpaper.

            But I also enjoyed the Cars and Planes films. Those were made for 6yr old boys with no concession to adults (except Cars 2 it sucked).

            My son was bored at Last Jedi. I liked the last two Disney SW films. The Force Awakens was just a homage for Ep4 but that was ok because it was done pretty well. Rogue One I really enjoyed, I think it's one of the better SW films ever made, up there with Empire. Last Jedi was just disappointing, it was a beautiful film with a terrible story.

            1. FIA Silver badge

              Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

              I dunno, I can enjoy a film that's just for kids if it's done well.[...]

              Me too.

              I remember as a kid reading Roald Dahl autobiography and he made the point that he used to just write for kids like they were adults with less experience. All the best 'kids' stuff is written in this way IMHO.

              My son was bored at Last Jedi.

              For me, this is where they went wrong with The Last Jedi, as far as I'm concerned Star Wars films are for kids, and they should be. Any film in the main 'canon' should first and foremost be a film for kids. I don't mean it shouldn't be enjoyable by adults, but that the underlying thrust of the film should be a fight between good and evil.

              Use the supporting films to tell the more adult side of the story, or to explore the moral grey areas that occur. Rogue One isn't a kids film, yet as a kid who grew up with Star Wars it's probably the best SW film since Empire. (And I say that who doesn't blanket hate the first 3).

              The latest SW flick felt like it was trying to explore the shades of grey aspect whilst still maintaining the good/evil thing too; which for me didn't work. You had a random bad guy who just seemed to exist to be killed by the angst ridden new bad guy. (I mean seriously... if the galaxy didn't learn from the Emperor and let wassisface rise to power, maybe it doesn't deserve to be 'saved'*; but then that would imply he had a tangable back story).

              This is why the force awakens made me feel a bit sorry for Lucas too, he may have ham fistedly tried to tell his origin story, but at least he told a story. After Ep VII I left the cinema thinking 'Wow, that was great' but by the time I'd got to the car and thought about it a bit more, realised I'd been conned with some shiny rose tinted FX and a 'feeling'.

              * I mean seriously, I get building a big space laser because it got blown up... but to do it 3 times.... Fool me once... and all that....

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        " it's weak directors with big egos using it to fill in the gaps they've created"

        And script writers who believe to be better than the original authors, while they are often really very poor at writing (not only in sci-fi).

        But both can get away with it because CGI fills the gaps, and studios have still something to sell, and some of the public don't ask anything more - but we've seen many big fiascos, yet Hollywood executives don't care, in one way or the other - worldwide distribution, TV rights, DVD/streaming - they get most of the money back.

        Reviewer in the press will be very careful before tearing apart a big studio release - more even now that they need more ads revenues than ever.

      3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

        "I think the studios are pandering to directors and letting director take over story writing. I (IMHO) think we need a resurgence of screenwriters who can sort out the bloody story before letting director loose with the CGI whizzbangs."

        Yes, a good [screen]writer is a good [screen]writer and a good director is a good director. It's rare for somone to be good at both. The directors job is to interpret and visualise the script/story, not to change it or define it.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

        CGI isn't killing films it's weak directors with big egos using it to fill in the gaps they've created.

        Or in the case of Michael Bay, it's all he's got going for him.

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

      Too much of it, and stupid plots and storylines.

      While reboots, remakes, and sequels are an appalling display of lack of ideas.

      This is too easy an accusation to make. Because we forget all the shit that was made back in the day - and only remember the good stuff. But compare those few treasures with all the current output. And the 70s and 80s were as full of remakes and sequels as film is today.

      Then people would make films using cheap effects out of laziness, when more imagination would have allowed them to do better with the same resources. Because there were as many hack directors and writers around then as there are now.

      There's also a taste thing. I happen to like a bunch of the stuff that Marvel have been putting out. By no means all - but quite a lot of it. And I like a good popcorn movie. Artistic talent can be displayed by making say Solaris, but there are times when I just want a beer, some crisps and Arnie over-acting brilliantly in Total Recall. Which is a wonderful film (even if it is incredibly stupid).

      As for sequels and remakes, that's nothing new either. The remake of Mad Max was great fun. Total Recall not so much.

      Heresy I know, but I think last year's Blade Runner sequel might be better than the original. Partly because I'm not sure which version of the original is the best anyway - but also because the original is lauded because of its amazing vision and design. But the fact they had to paste the narrator back in (and subsequently remove him again in the director's cuts) rather suggests that they hadn't got the script right in the first place.

      I really liked the sequel. I think it did some interesting and intelligent things - and updated the look and design as well, while still recognising the the source.

      Every era has its good and bad.

      Oh and I want a remake of Starship Troopers. Now that the technology is available to film the book. Mobile Infantry in their powered armour.

      1. Arthur the cat Silver badge

        Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

        Because we forget all the shit that was made back in the day - and only remember the good stuff.

        Oh, I don't know. I still remember Lifeforce and Patrick Stewart channelling his inner female alien vampire. The 1980s equivalent of Plan 9 from Outer Space in my opinion.

        1. 0laf
          Angel

          Re: CGI is killing sci-fi

          I remember Mathilda May in that rather than Patrick Stewart

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon