8mm Forum: Derann Digests Question

This is topic Derann Digests Question in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011128

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on November 27, 2016, 08:26 PM:

Are the Derann digests just a mish-mosh of scenes out of order or are they edited with some continuity intact like the U/8, Columbia and Ken digests of the day? I hate the idea of cutting and splicing a print especially when it's splice-free to begin with.

Posted by Guy Taylor, Jr. (Member # 786) on November 28, 2016, 07:50 AM:

They made quite a number of digests that kept the basic storyline intact. Many of their later digests were printed on low fade color stock, making them more valuable than those from Ken, Universal 8, and others.

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on November 28, 2016, 09:01 AM:

Brad,

According to Keith Wilton & John Clancy's excellent Out of the Box series of articles, Derann could release two extracts from United Artists films, however they were contractually bound to edit them in such a manner that each 400' edition had to tell a different story.

That's why you see a number of prints for sale that have been re-edited in the proper order. That isn't necessary to enjoy the cutdowns. The digests are outstanding as is without cutting them up.

Doug

Posted by Melvin England (Member # 5270) on November 28, 2016, 11:05 AM:

I think "Carrie" is an example of a 2x 400'where each reel is a different thread from the film... and complete in itself. I must admit,though, I can fully understand why people saw the need to re edit them into the correct sequence. After all, do you really think that Derek Simmonds would have released them like this if he had had his own way? I think not.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 28, 2016, 07:08 PM:

It's miles better Melvin, when put in the right order.

I've heard what people are describing as their favourite 2x 400 footers for their edits.

This would be challenging for my own top vote when you view it in order.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on November 29, 2016, 06:47 PM:

Brad - it's worth noting that the Derann 'edited versions' from around the mid-1990s onwards can't be compared to the earlier ones, as these are extracts that don't attempt to tell the full story. When it comes to releases such as the ones from 'Gladiator', 'Pearl Harbor', 'The Matrix', etc, I'd be interested to know if anyone has discovered any editing whatsoever within these?

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 29, 2016, 06:51 PM:

Only have Gladiator Adrian from the ones you mention, but as everyone knows, these are indeed just complete extracts in both cases and do not attempt to tell the full 2hr 51min epic fabulous Storyline.

What would be the point? Ha Ha

What a film this one would have made on eight, full length!

What price then pray tell??? [Wink]

Eat ur heart out T1, T2 & Titanic for that matter, as good as you are!

I don't believe either extract is edited in any way Adrian btw.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on November 30, 2016, 02:06 AM:

The last Matrix extract, "Storm of the Sentinels" had a few brief scenes edited out so that it was all action - that said, it was essentially still an extract.

One influence was that the people loaning 35mm print masters didn't want them cut.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 30, 2016, 04:48 AM:

Very good point that Rob!

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 01, 2016, 02:22 AM:

Yes, for example, when they did The Lord of the Rings extract, The Mines of Moria, Ged told me that he was a big LOTR fan and he would have liked to do a compilation of more action. He was prepared to make an edited version up from the 35mm print that was available to them, but the owner who had loaned them the 35mm print didn't want it physically cut.

Although it would then have been reassembled after the 16mm neg was made for the super 8 release, you can understand it.

But it was a shame as the resulting release, although enjoyable, wasn't the best.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 01, 2016, 12:01 PM:

Wasn't it quite a dark print? (not a joke on the dark nature of the scenes.)

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 01, 2016, 01:26 PM:

It was Osi, maybe printing from a 16mm internegative or similar would have been better, but those days as you know were long gone by, was it 2003-2004 when LOTR was printed.

It was by then taken from a 35mm print and reduced to a 16mm neg and then down to best the labs could do (OR CARED).

However, when comparing, say the 2 x 600ft super 8 version of Gremlins, also taken from a 35mm master in the mid 1980s, it is amazing what could be done.

[ December 02, 2016, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Rob Young. ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2