JAWS comparisons ...

[Osi Osgood]

I was watching some super 200fts of JAWS, the Universal 8 digests, and it is clear that there is some footage not in the 2x400ft digest, such as an overhead shot with the drunk guy approaching the soon to be dinner nude swimming lady. Another element of the 200ft digest, at least the silent edition, is that the nude swimming scene is not darkened for the official release, which was at night in the feature as well as the 2x400 digest. I am curious, however, what other footage may or may not exist in them. Yeah, I know, the 200ft is a full screen, flat digest and the 2x400fy is letterboxed.

[Philip Hamilton]

I remember either reading or hearing Steven Speilberg remark about that opening scene and how surprised he was viewing the dailies how MUCH you could see of the swimmer nude in the water. Of course it was shot in daylight and then darkened for the release so you couldn't make that much detail out as eventually released in 1975. Maybe the folks at U8 who weren't the best editors in creating these digests decided to have some fun with the smaller digest to see if anyone would notice that scene not timed for a 'dusk' shot.

And by the way, there really is no good excuse not to have MORE in the 2 x 400 foot edition of JAWS. They could have added that "popping head" of Ben Gardner had they wanted to. That would have meant actually providing closer to 400 feet or so on each reel (imagine that) but it could have bee done. Those 400 foot reels could have been made better had they run closer to 20 minutes. Most seemed to be a paltry 325 or so feet.

Really curious what scenes are actually included in the 2 x 400 foot version of JAWS.

[Osi Osgood]

I think they purposefully made them a little shorter so that they would, in fact, make a nice, full 600ft.

[Philip Hamilton]

uI just picked up a 2 x 400' ANIMAL HOUSE spliced together on one 600' reel. Pretty good edit actually. It would have been more accurate to market these as 600 footers but I guess maybe most folks had projectors that would handle 400' reels back in the 70's - thus the 2 x 400 footers. I guess.

[Osi Osgood]

I think you are right, as, I do not recall any company, back in the 70's, marketing any films, features or otherwise, on 600ft reels.

[Graham Ritchie]

I don't think it had anything to do with fitting on a 600ft reel, more to do with saving money on producing the Super 8 film. If you look at just a single 400ft film, they never gave you a full 400ft reel. In most cases no where near it. The first thing I would look at buying a new release back in the 1970s, was how much film is on the reel, and importantly the running time. Columbia did release "Born Free" close to a full reel, also "Star Wars" was very good as well, but in general for the money you were paying out, I never considered the $$$$$ spent, to have only 15-16 minutes of film on one reel that great.

Regarding "JAWS" U8 could have added more, like the severed head scene if they really wanted to, there was certainly enough room on the 2/400ft release reels. Its also a pity they never released it in proper Scope, rather than having it masked of top and bottom. Say a "Scope print" for those that want to watch it using a Scope lens, a "Flat print" ie "pan and scan" for those that don't.

[Brian Fretwell]

I believe it was PM Films of Beaconsfieldthat started the 600ft release idea. In August 1979they announced their "New 600' series" in their Aug-Sept newsletter.

[Osi Osgood]

Brian, great info. Getting back to the topic, does anyone who owns both the 200ft and 2x400ft, could be post about the differences?

[Lee Mannering]

Nothing will compare to the new S8 600ft release on this gorgeous new film stock. If you know S8 the new stock speaks for itself.

[Osi Osgood]

The color really is an improvement over the acetate stock. In fact, I am even thinking about potentially buying a feature or two in the future. The acetate prints are what scared me off.