RAIDERS NUMBER$

• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 1 = Rank on list of top box-office earners of 1981 (calendar year)
• 1 = Rank on list of top box-office earners of 1981 (legacy)
• 1 = Rank on list of top box-office earners of 1981 (summer season)
• 1 = Rank on Paramount’s all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release
• 2 = Rank of the Indiana Jones character on AFI’s list of the 100 Greatest Heroes and Villains
• 3 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release (gross)
• 4 = Number of sequels, prequels and television series
• 4 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1980s
• 4 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release (rental)
• 5 = Number of Academy Awards (four competitive + one special achievement)
• 8 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 8 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie (weeks 1, 6, 9-13, 26)
• 13 = Number of years Paramount Pictures’ top-earning film
• 21 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• 30 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 49 = Number of 70mm prints
• 60 = Rank on American Film Institute’s list of the 100 Greatest American Films
• 64 = Number of days to gross $100 million
• 73 = Number of days of principal photography
• 81 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement
• 101 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic)
• 234 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (worldwide)
• 304 = Number of days to gross $200 million
• 1,078 = Number of opening-week bookings in the United States and Canada
• 6,500 = Approximate number of snakes used for the Well of the Souls sequence
• 1.1 million = Number of home video units sold in 1983/84

• $39.95 = Suggested retail price of original home video release
• $7,704 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $3.1 million = Box-office gross (2012 IMAX re-release)
• $8.3 million = Box-office gross (opening weekend)
• $11.4 million = Box-office gross (1983 re-release)
• $21.4 million = Box-office gross (1982 re-release)
• $22.8 million = Production cost
• $60.0 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $90.4 million = Box-office rental (as of January 1, 1982)
• $112.0 million = Box-office rental (as of January 1, 1983)
• $115.6 million = Box-office rental (as of January 1, 1984)
• $141.7 million = Box-office gross (international)
• $209.6 million = Box-office gross (original release, 6/12/81-7/15/82)
• $231.0 million = Box-office gross (as of 12/30/82 when last print is pulled from release)
• $242.4 million = Box-office gross (original + ’82 & ’83 re-releases)
• $248.2 million = Box-office gross (original + re-releases, special screenings, and adjustments)
• $304.2 million = Box-office rental (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $373.0 million = Box-office gross (international, adjusted for inflation)
• $389.9 million = Box-office gross (worldwide)
• $642.2 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $1.1 billion = Box-office gross (worldwide, adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“The guys who made Jaws and Star Wars have done it again. It’s too good to be true.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“Raiders of the Lost Ark is sensational. This awesomely entertaining adventure spectacle succeeds in fusing the most playful and exciting elements of Spielberg’s Jaws and Lucas’s Star Wars in a fresh format.” — Gary Arnold, The Washington Post

“I don’t know how strong is Paramount’s percentage in the distribution of Raiders of the Lost Ark, but of one thing I’m certain — Lucas and Spielberg have just opened up another goldmine.” — Arthur Knight, The Hollywood Reporter

“Raiders is a great movie, but there’s too much to it. Ghosts of George Lucas and Spielberg keep parading into view. The storyline on this movie ought to read, Raiders of the Lost Ark have Close Encounters of the Third Kind with Star Wars and Jaws while The Empire Strikes Back in 1941. The movie has heaps of everything — action, comedy, adventure, stunts. It’s razzle-dazzle entertainment. But who needs this much?” — Carol Olten, The San Diego Union

“Raiders of the Lost Ark is about as entertaining as a commercial movie can be.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“It’s a humdinger and is an action-packed love letter to the serials and Edgar Rice Burroughs’ adventure novels of the past.” — Ralph B. Patterson, (Little Rock) Arkansas Gazette

“Raiders of the Lost Ark is the stuff that raucous Saturday matinees at the local Bijou once were made of, a crackerjack fantasy-adventure that shapes its pulp sensibilities and cliffhanging serial origins into an exhilarating escapist entertainment that will have broad-based summer audiences in the palm of its hand. Even within this summer’s hot competitive environment, box-office prospects are within the top rank.” — Stephen Klain, Variety

“The opening sequence, set in South America, with Indy Jones entering a forbidden temple and fending off traps, snares, poisoned darts, tarantulas, stone doors with metal teeth, and the biggest damn boulder you’ve ever seen, is so thrill-packed you don’t have time to breathe — or to enjoy yourself much, either…. Seeing Raiders is like being put through a Cuisinart — something has been done to us, but not to our benefit…. Kinesthetically, the film gets to you. It gets your heart thumping. But there’s no exhilaration in this dumb, motor excitement…. John Williams’ pounding score could be the music from any old Tarzan movie, though with a fuller orchestra and at ten times the volume. Like just about everything else in the picture that misses, the klunky music can be said to be intentional — to represent fidelity to the genre. Yet, with the manicured wide-screen images and the scale of this production, klunkiness sticks out in a way that it didn’t in the serials.” — Pauline Kael, The New Yorker

“Raiders of the Lost Ark is as wondrous and delightful as we like to pretend the movies of yesterday were. The adventure epic raises pulp movie-making to the level of an art form.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“Now, you have to wonder about two guys who want nothing more in life than to spend $20 million recreating the fantasies of their adolescence in hitherto unknown perfection. That’s essentially what Spielberg and Lucas have accomplished in Raiders. All the while marveling at the trumpeting triviality of it all, I found myself utterly exhilarated by this shrewdly sophisticated boys’ adventure.” — Pat Dowell, The Washington Times

“Pooling their talents for the first time on-screen, the creators of Star Wars and Close Encounters have turned out what is far and away the wittiest, most exhilarating and outrageous cliffhanger in the history of movie serials…. Many young filmmakers rob from past film classics, but few do it as cleverly and affectionately as Spielberg and Lucas…. If this is a movie made by people who know nothing of the world but movies — the most common and, I think, fallacious criticism of the Spielberg-Lucas school of filmmaking — it’s also a movie that resourcefully uses those classic influences to create its own magic.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“The intricate stunts keep the kids gasping, and the adults do get a lot of laughs. But the predictability of it all, even touched with parody and love for all those old movies on which Lucas and Spielberg cut their teeth, brings diminished returns. I realize I’m expressing a minority point of view, judging from the cheers in the audience and the look on the face of a 12-year-old boy who sighed, ‘It’s wonderful!’ But I think Lucas and Spielberg missed the chance to deepen their adventure by creating something other than stock villainous Nazis.” — Judy Stone, San Francisco Chronicle

“The new collaboration by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg is such a smashingly well-done movie that it makes virtues out of juvenility and superficiality. No one need apologize for enjoying Raiders of the Lost Ark, because it is masterful cinema.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“Just when you’ve begun to lose hope in the magic of movies to entertain and enthrall, along comes Raiders of the Lost Ark. It thrills and scares and enraptures all in one splendid swoop. Here is film making at its best…. My advice is to rush out to see Raiders of the Lost Ark. The movie is destined to become a classic, since it wins your heart as it grabs your attention.” — Donna Chernin, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“Raiders of the Lost Ark may not awaken the slumbering movie industry from its box office malaise. But if it doesn’t, nothing can.” — Jack Mathews, Detroit Free Press

“Director Steven Spielberg and producer George Lucas give us action and adventure in droves. But that’s about all they give us. The story is a simple one…. Star Wars fans may be somewhat disappointed to learn that Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn’t contain much in the way of special effects, though its supernatural finale is visually powerful.” — Owen Hardy, The (Louisville) Courier-Journal

“Raiders of the Lost Ark is this summer’s out-of-the-body experience, a movie of glorious imagination and breakneck speed that grabs you in the first shot, hurtles you through a series of incredible adventures, and deposits you outside the theater two hours later — breathless, dizzy, wrung-out, and with a silly grin on your face.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Two hours of non-stop thrills condensed into one giant, fun-filled entertainment.” — Rex Reed, syndicated columnist

“Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the most deliriously funny, ingenious and stylish American adventure movies ever made.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“Hurrah and hallelujah! It’s hats-in-the-air, heart-in-the-mouth time at the movies again.” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“There’s a lot of fun and action, but nothing to chew on afterward.” — David Denby, New York

“Raiders has it all — the best two hours of pure entertainment anyone is going to find — a blockbuster on the order of Star Wars and Jaws.” — Richard Schickel, Time

“Spielberg has directed it all brilliantly, finding his own way to tell a 1930s story in 1981’s visual language…it’s the best movie he has ever made.” — Bernard Drew, Gannett News Service

“Raiders contains within five minutes more screams, thrills and action than can be accomplished by most movies in two hours.” — Ron Base, Toronto Star

“A frantic, frenetic, fantasy frolic that is sure to be one of this summer’s biggest box office hits.” — Gene Shalit, The Today Show

“Remember when movies used to promise a thrill a minute? Well, Raiders nearly doubles that ratio. It makes you feel like you’re beating the speed limit just sitting still.” — Michael Sragow, Rolling Stone

“[Raiders of the Lost Ark is] no more substantial than cotton candy, but it’s easily the best piece of entertainment Hollywood has produced in 1981.” — Bruce McCabe, The Boston Globe

PRODUCTION & EXHIBITION INFORMATION + TRIVIA

Raiders of the Lost Ark was filmed in 73 days, fifteen days ahead of schedule. Principal photography commenced on June 23rd, 1980, in La Rochelle, France. Several weeks of studio work was done at EMI Elstree in London. This was followed by a month of shooting in Tunisia before wrapping on October 3rd, 1980, in Kauai, Hawaii. Although not counted on the official principal photography schedule, the production also included several days of second unit work. Visual effects were produced at Industrial Light & Magic in Marin County, California. In addition, there were a couple of days of additional photography, in January 1981, in San Francisco and Stockton, California.

The idea for Raiders was told by George Lucas to Steven Spielberg on a beach in Hawaii during a May 1977 vacation following the completion and release of Lucas’s Star Wars and the completion of principal photography of Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Raiders was test-screened on May 9th, 1981, at the Northpoint in San Francisco.

Paramount’s originally-scheduled release date for Raiders was June 19th, 1981. Shortly before release, so as not to compete during opening weekend with expected hits Superman II and The Cannonball Run, the studio moved up the release by one week where instead the opening-weekend competition was Clash of the Titans and History of the World Part I.

Raiders was screened at the Cannes Film Festival in May 1981. As well, Raiders was screened as a sneak preview in several markets one week before release. And in lieu of a formal premiere, there were a series of invitational and charity previews in the days ahead of its June 12th release.

Two original documentaries were produced in 1981: The Making of Raiders of the Lost Ark (for public television) and Great Movie Stunts: Raiders of the Lost Ark (for network television).

Raiders included footage from Lost Horizon (1973) and The Hindenburg (1975).

By the close of its theatrical release, Raiders had become the highest-grossing film in the history of Paramount Pictures, a position it held until dethroned thirteen years later by Forrest Gump.

The longest theatrical engagement of Raiders is believed to have been an 81-week run in San Jose (25 weeks at the Century 21 followed by a 56-week moveover run at the Century 25). The longest, continuous engagement in a single-screen theater is believed to have been a 58-week run at the Cinema Grossmont in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa.

Raiders was released to the home video market in December 1983, thirty months after initial theatrical release, and became the first home video release to sell over one million units. The Beta and VHS editions retailed for the then-low price of $39.95 and the videodisc editions for $29.95. Its first letterboxed edition was on a remastered LaserDisc release in 1992. It was subsequently released on DVD in 2003 and on Blu-ray Disc in 2012.

Raiders had its cable television premiere broadcasts during November 1984.

Raiders had its network television premiere broadcast (on ABC) on September 28th, 1986.

Raiders was Steven Spielberg’s fifth collaboration with composer John Williams and third with editor Michael Kahn.

Richard Amsel, famous for his numerous TV Guide covers, was the artist who painted the artwork used on the film’s promotional material.

Indiana was the name of one of George & Marcia Lucas’s pet dogs.

Raiders of the Lost Art was MAD Magazine’s spoofy take on Raiders.

Raiders was re-released during the summer of 1982 and spring of 1983. The re-release was promoted as “The Return of the Great Adventure.” There was an IMAX re-release during 2012.

Tom Selleck was originally cast in the role of Indiana Jones, but a commitment to CBS for the Magnum, P.I. television series prevented him from accepting the role. Shortly after Harrison Ford was cast and production began, a Writers Guild strike delayed the production of network television shows, a break which, ironically, would have enabled Selleck to have done Raiders. Selleck later would do a Raiders-esque episode of Magnum, P.I. as well as the similar adventure film High Road to China (1983)

The Star Wars connections are endless: The canyon where Indy threatens to blow up the Ark and subsequently surrenders to Belloq and the Nazis was the same Tunisia location where R2-D2 was captured by the Jawas. Numerous crew members worked on both productions. As a joke, images of Star Wars characters R2-D2 and C-3PO were included among the hieroglyphics in the Well of the Souls set. The registration letters on Jock’s plane were OB-CPO (as in Obi-Wan Kenobi and C-3PO). And, in addition to Harrison Ford, Star Wars actor William Hootkins (Porkins) appeared in Raiders (as Major Eaton).

The classic “Wilhelm” scream sound effect can be heard during the truck chase sequence.

The submarine featured in Raiders was used in Das Boot (full scale) and Spielberg’s 1941 (miniature model).

Actors Vic Tablian and Pat Roach each had a dual role in Raiders. Tablian played the Peruvian porter Barranca as well as the Monkey Man who attempts to poison Indy and Sallah. Roach played the Giant Sherpa in the Nepal sequence and the German mechanic Indy fights near the Flying Wing.

Producer Frank Marshall played the part of the pilot of the German Flying Wing.

In 1989, the leather jacket and fedora worn by Harrison Ford were donated to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.

In 1999 Raiders was selected for preservation by the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress.

 [On to Page 2] 

[Back to Page 1]

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a list of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Raiders of the Lost Ark in the United States and Canada. These were, arguably, the best theaters in which to experience Raiders and the only way to faithfully hear the movie’s Oscar-winning audio mix. About five percent of the film’s original presentations were in the deluxe (and expensive) 70mm format, and of the movies released during 1981, Raiders was among only seven (plus a few re-releases) to have 70mm prints produced and it had the second-highest number of such prints that year behind The Ladd Company’s Outland.

The 70mm prints were blown up from anamorphic 35mm photography and had an aspect ratio of 2.20:1. The soundtrack was Format 42 (three screen/one surround + baby boom), and the noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the prints was Dolby “A.”

The focus of this listing is on the Initial Wave of bookings that commenced June 12th, 1981, followed by a chronological listing of 70mm engagements from later in its release and during its 1982 and 1983 re-releases. The listing does not include any international engagements, nor does it include any of the movie’s thousands of standard 35mm engagements or subsequent revival and festival presentations. (This section should be considered a work in progress.)

So, which North American theaters screened the 70mm version of Raiders of the Lost Ark?

ALBERTA

• Calgary — Chinook (48 weeks)
• Edmonton — Westmount Twin (48)

ARKANSAS

• Little Rock — Cinema 150 (23) <70mm from Week #14>

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Burnaby — Lougheed Mall Triplex (48)
• Vancouver — Vancouver Centre Twin (48)

CALIFORNIA

• Corte Madera — Cinema
• Costa Mesa — South Coast Plaza Triplex (54)
• La Mesa — Cinema Grossmont (58)
• La Mirada — La Mirada Mall 6-plex (38) <70mm from Week #17>
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) — Chinese Triplex (15)
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) — National (16)
• Montclair — Montclair Triplex (27) <70mm from Week #23>
• Orange — Cinedome 6-plex (56)
• Sacramento — Century 6-plex
• San Francisco — Regency I (23)
• San Jose — Century 21 (25)
• San Jose — Century 23 Twin (10)

COLORADO

• Denver — Century 21 (25)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — Cinema (25)

ILLINOIS

• Calumet City — River Oaks 6-plex (#1: 27)
• Calumet City — River Oaks 6-plex (#2: 1)
• Evergreen Park — Evergreen Triplex (20)
• Lombard — Yorktown 4-plex (16)
• Niles — Golf Mill Triplex (15)
• Northbrook — Edens Twin (15)
• Schaumburg — Woodfield 4-plex (#1: 27)
• Schaumburg — Woodfield 4-plex (#2: 1)

KENTUCKY

• Louisville — Showcase 9-plex (57)

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg — Northstar Twin (48)

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston — Cinema 57 Twin (27)

MICHIGAN

• Southfield — Northland Twin (27)

NEW JERSEY

• Paramus — Route Four 4-plex (28) <70mm from Week #4>

NEW YORK

• Levittown — Nassau 4-plex (27) <70mm from Week #4>
• New York — 34th Street Showplace Triplex (14)
• New York — Astor Plaza (23)
• New York — Orpheum Twin (14)
• New York — State Twin <June 5th sneak preview screening>
• Pittsford — Loews Triplex (27) <70mm from Week #5>
• Valley Stream — Sunrise 8-plex (15) <70mm from Week #4>

OHIO

• Springdale — Showcase 7-plex (27)

ONTARIO

• Scarborough — Cedarbrae 4-plex (25)
• Toronto — Eglinton (25)
• Toronto — Runnymede Twin (25)
• Toronto — Uptown 5-plex (3)

PENNSYLVANIA

• Philadelphia — SamEric (20) <70mm from Week #2>

QUEBEC

• Montreal — Imperial (26)

TEXAS

• Dallas — Caruth Plaza Twin (42) <70mm from Week #33>
• Houston — Windsor Twin <70mm from Week #2>

UTAH

• Salt Lake City — Villa (53) <70mm from Week #6>

WASHINGTON

• Tukwila — Southcenter (26)

ADDITIONAL 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

• 1981-06-26 … Chicago, IL — Esquire (13)
• 1981-07-03 … Ottawa, ON — Nelson (35)
• 1981-07-03 … Toronto, ON — University (22) <moveover from Uptown>
• 1981-07-31 … Lakewood, CA — Lakewood Center 4-plex (9)
• 1981-08-21 … Des Moines, IA — River Hills (15)
• 1981-09-25 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Hollywood (7) <moveover from Chinese>
• 1981-10-02 … Quebec City, QC — Canadien (11)
• 1981-11-06 … Los Angeles (Westwood Village), CA — National (4)
• 1981-11-13 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Chinese Triplex (5)
• 1981-11-20 … Lakewood, CA — Lakewood Center 4-plex (9)
• 1981-11-20 … San Francisco, CA — Royal <moveover from Regency I>
• 1981-12-04 … San Jose, CA — Century 25 Twin (56) <moveover from Century 21>
• 1981-12-11 … Montreal, QC — Imperial (9) <Version Francaise>
• 1981-12-11 … Montreal, QC — York (7) <moveover from Imperial>
• 1981-12-11 … Lynnwood, WA — Grand Alderwood 5-plex (31) <moveover from Southcenter>
• 1981-12-25 … Cleveland, OH — Colony (4)

• 1982-01-22 … Los Angeles (Century City), CA — Century Plaza Twin (3)
• 1982-02-05 … Atlanta, GA — Phipps Plaza Triplex
• 1982-02-12 … Montreal, QC — Palace 6-plex (14) <Version Francaise>
• 1982-02-17 … Chicago, IL — State Lake (1)
• 1982-02-26 … Chicago, IL — McClurg Court (1)
• 1982-03-05 … Toronto, ON — Cumberland 4-plex (1) <“La Reserve“>
• 1982-04-02 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Cinerama Dome (10)
• 1982-04-16 … Portland, OR — Music Box (6)
• 1982-06-11 … Los Angeles (West Los Angeles), CA — Picwood (5)
• 1982-07-16 … Atlanta, GA — Fox
• 1982-07-16 … Los Angeles (Westwood Village), CA — Avco Center Triplex (3)
• 1982-07-16 … Montreal, QC — Le Parisien 5-plex (5) <Version Francaise>
• 1982-07-16 … New York, NY — Ziegfeld (3)
• 1982-07-16 … Renton, WA — Roxy (2)
• 1982-07-16 … Seattle, WA — Crest 4-plex (4)
• 1982-07-16 … Washington, DC — MacArthur (3)
• 1982-08-06 … New York, NY — Embassy I (3)
• 1982-08-20 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Cinerama Dome (5)
• 1982-08-20 … San Francisco, CA — Alexandria Triplex
• 1982-09-03 … Burnaby, BC — Lougheed Mall Triplex (1)
• 1982-09-24 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Chinese Triplex (7)

• 1983-03-25 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Chinese Triplex (1)
• 1983-03-25 … Los Angeles (Westwood Village), CA — Bruin (1)
• 1983-03-25 … Montreal, QC — Imperial (2) <Version Francaise>
• 1983-03-25 … New York, NY — Astor Plaza (3)
• 1983-03-25 … San Diego, CA — Valley Circle (1)
• 1983-03-25 … Toronto, ON — Hollywood Twin (2)
• 1983-03-25 … Toronto, ON — Uptown 5-plex (3)
• 1983-04-01 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Fox (2)
• 1983-04-01 … Riverside, CA — Canyon Crest 5-plex (6)
• 1983-04-08 … Toronto, ON — Palace Triplex (1)
• 1983-04-22 … San Francisco, CA — Regency II
• 1983-04-22 … San Jose, CA — Town & Country (3)
• 1983-05-20 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Chinese Triplex (3)
• 1983-06-17 … Chicago Ridge, IL — Chicago Ridge Mall Triplex (1)
• 1983-07-08 … New York, NY — Paramount (2)
• 1983-08-12 … Cleveland, OH — Colony (1)
• 1983-09-02 … San Francisco, CA — Cinema 21
• 1983-09-16 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Chinese Triplex (2)
• 1983-09-16 … Los Angeles (Westwood Village), CA — National (2)
• 1983-09-09 … Edmonton, AB — Meadowlark (1)
• 1983-09-16 … Calgary, AB — Northill (4)
• 1983-09-27 … Ottawa, ON — NAC Opera (2 days)

Note that some presentations were in 35mm during the latter weeks of engagement due to print damage or movement to a smaller, non-70mm-equipped auditorium within a cinema complex.

THE INTERVIEW

This segment of the article features a Q&A with a sextet of Spielberg authorities. The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” format.

Steven Awalt is the author of Steven Spielberg and Duel: The Making of a Film Career (Rowman & Littlefield, 2014; paperback, 2016). A film historian and noted Spielberg authority, Awalt was the editor of SpielbergFilms.com from 2001 to 2009 and appeared as an interview subject in the 2007 Jaws documentary, The Shark is Still Working. He is currently working on Steven Spielberg and The Sugarland Express.

Laurent Bouzereau is the author (with J. W. Rinzler) of The Complete Making of Indiana Jones: The Definitive Story Behind All Four Films (Ballantine/Del Rey, 2008) and the producer of the supplemental material on the Indiana Jones DVD and Blu-ray Disc releases (as well as several other Spielberg films). Some of his behind-the-scenes featurettes and documentary projects include Don’t Say No Until I Finish Talking: The Story of Richard D. Zanuck (2013), Roman Polanski: A Film Memoir (2011), A Night at the Movies: The Horrors of Stephen King (2011), and The Making of American Graffiti (1998). His other books include Hitchcock: Piece by Piece (Abrams, 2010), The Art of Bond (Abrams, 2006), Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays (Ballantine, 1997), and The DePalma Cut: The Films of America’s Most Controversial Director (Dembner, 1988).

Scott Higgins is the author of Matinee Melodrama: Playing with Formula in the Sound Serial (Rutgers University Press, 2016) and is Professor of Film Studies and Chair of the Film Department at Wesleyan University, where he teaches several film courses including Cinema of Adventure and Action. His other books include Harnessing the Technicolor Rainbow: Color Design in the 1930s, (University of Texas Press, 2007) and Arnheim for Film and Media Studies (Routledge, 2010).

Eric Lichtenfeld is the author of Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie (Wesleyan, 2007), an authoritative and entertaining study of the action film genre. He has taught or spoken about film at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the American Cinematheque, Loyola Marymount University, UCLA, Wesleyan University, and the Harvard School of Law. Eric has also contributed supplemental material for several DVD and Blu-ray releases, including Speed, Predator and Die Hard. In 2011, he introduced Raiders of the Lost Ark and interviewed a number of its makers for the Academy’s 30th anniversary tribute to the film.

Mike Matessino is an accomplished music producer, mixer, editor, mastering engineer and film music historian. While he hasn’t (as of yet) been formally involved with an Indiana Jones soundtrack, he has proven to be an expert on Spielberg/Williams collaboration, having worked on numerous titles including 1941, Empire of the Sun, A.I. Artificial Intelligence and Jaws, all produced under the supervision of the composer and director. Other (non-Spielberg) John Williams projects include Star Wars, Superman and Home Alone, and Spielberg (non-Williams) projects include Poltergeist, Gremlins, The Goonies, Back to the Future, and Innerspace. He was the Restoration Supervisor for The Director’s Edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and directed behind-the-scenes documentaries on The Sound of Music, Alien, The Last Starfighter, and John Carpenter’s The Thing.

Joseph McBride is the author of Steven Spielberg: A Biography (Simon & Schuster, 1997; University Press of Mississippi, 2011, second edition; Faber & Faber, 2012, third edition; Chinese translation published in Beijing in 2012). A professor in the Cinema Department at San Francisco State University, McBride has written several other books, including Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J.D. Tippit (Hightower Press, 2013), Frank Capra: The Catastrophe of Success (University Press of Mississippi, 2011), Searching for John Ford (University Press of Mississippi, 2011), Whatever Happened to Orson Welles?: A Portrait of an Independent Career (University Press of Kentucky, 2006), and Writing in Pictures: Screenwriting Made (Mostly) Painless (Vintage, 2012). His latest book is The Broken Places: A Memoir (Hightower Press, 2015) and he is currently working on a critical study of Ernst Lubitsch. He was a co-producer on the documentary Obsessed with Vertigo: New Life for Hitchcock’s Masterpiece and a co-writer of the screenplay for Rock ’n’ Roll High School (1979). His website is josephmcbridefilm.com

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Raiders of the Lost Ark worthy of celebration on its 35th anniversary?

Steven Awalt: Raiders of the Lost Ark is such a superb film from first viewing through as many times as you could wish to watch it. You can plainly see the finely-tuned machinery working in the plotting and within each set-piece and yet somehow the film still plays in so fresh even after watching it annually for 35 years. No matter how well I think I know the film and the behind-the-scenes production stories*, I never fail to get wrapped up in Raiders from its opening moments. Like most very special films, there’s an ineffable alchemy at play in it. Movie magic. (*Speaking of production stories from the film, I can’t suggest enough that your readers seek out Derek Taylor’s The Making of Raiders of the Lost Ark book released in 1981. It’s one of the great boots on the ground, fly on the wall looks at the making of a motion picture.)

Laurent Bouzereau: Raiders of the Lost Ark was an event and a revelation. I don’t think there was necessarily a huge build up to it or expectations. It’s a film that completely lived on its own merit as pure entertainment. And while it paid homage to serial films, it was unique and felt fresh, original and unique.

Scott Higgins: Well, it is a landmark—one of the trio of films largely responsible for the action-adventure orientation of contemporary “four-quadrant” Hollywood cinema. (The others being Star Wars and Superman.) Some bemoan that, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs. But whatever you think of the trend that these films inspired, Raiders remains an elegant, rock-solid piece of craft and a source of joy.

Eric Lichtenfeld: As usual, you’re asking questions that can be answered a few different ways!.... Raiders deserves to be celebrated because it helped us recover the exuberant spirit of the serials — think 1940s pabulum like Don Winslow of the Navy, Spy Smasher, Jungle Girl and others — but married it to very high quality, even sophisticated, filmmaking. In fact, it didn’t just help recover that spirit; it helped elevate it…. Raiders also deserves to be celebrated because of the convergence of sheer talent it embodies. And I don’t just mean Lucas, Spielberg, Harrison Ford and John Williams (although that would be enough right there). I mean every department head — from cinematographer Douglas Slocombe and editor Michael Kahn to re-recording mixers Steve Maslow and Gregg Landaker, and everyone in between and beyond. And not only was each one the best in their field, but they were also, at that particular moment, working at their own personal best. So even though Lucas and Spielberg routinely have great collaborators, this kind of conjunction is still rare. I’d venture to say even for them…. But in the end, it comes down to something very simple, even elemental — and that thing is joy. Raiders is worth celebrating on its 35th anniversary because it’s been bringing us joy for 35 years. And not only in when we’re watching it, either. I mean, to this day, when I just make it through a yellow light, what piece of music do you think goes through my head? I’ll tell you this: it isn’t Pachelbel’s Canon.

Mike Matessino: A movie like Raiders is worth celebrating any year at any time because it is a template for not only the action genre but for cinematic structure in general. It’s a movie that itself celebrates everything that is fun about the movies in the classic sense. Dare I say, “it’s not the years it’s the mileage.”

Joseph McBride: Steven Spielberg’s reputation as a director of fantasy and action films is only part of his legacy. But it is an important part. Raiders of the Lost Ark is an efficient, lively, entertaining, but somewhat deplorable example of his skill in those genres.

 [On to Page 3] 

[Back to Page 2]

Coate: When did you first see Raiders and what did you think of it?

Awalt: I’m very embarrassed to say this, especially given my background writing professionally about Steven Spielberg’s work, but I claim the innocence of a kid who didn’t know better: I first saw the film in 1981 before our folks even took us to see it on the big screen. Most of the kids in our suburbs were exposed to Raiders through a bootleg copy on VHS that was being passed around by the fathers in the neighborhood (along with a copy of The Empire Strikes Back). I remember the picture and sound were pretty dire, most likely shot with a video camera of the era pointed at a theater screen, but despite how crappy it looked and sounded, all of us kids were just completely enraptured by the film. We all wanted to be Indiana Jones after that, we wanted to study archaeology and go on exotic adventures, find buried treasures, mummy’s tombs, and of course everyone wanted a bullwhip for our backyard horsing around. We wanted to kiss a girl as beautiful and as spunky as Marion Ravenwood. Kids of our generation were already in complete and total awe of Harrison Ford as Han Solo between Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, so to see him in a brand-new, earthbound role just sent us all over the moon.

Bouzereau: I saw it in a packed theater in Paris on a warm weekend. I had already read the movie-tie-in novelization and knew the soundtrack by heart — as was always the case in my youth, films reached the European markets at least six months after the U.S. Even though I knew everything, I experienced the film as a revelation. It was amazing that aside from the brilliant directing and acting, the dialogue and writing stood out, even to someone like myself who was not fluent in English. I remember seeing it over and over, and quoting the dialogue.

Higgins: Sunday matinee, June 14th, 1981 — Showcase Cinemas near Pontiac, Michigan. It was an experience I immediately wanted to repeat. I spent many afternoons at the multiplex that summer, contemplating boulders, snakes, Karen Allen, and melting faces. The cut from the diving sub to the secret island always bugged me, and after the second or third viewing it became a subject of speculation and debate. The shot of Karen Allen dangling at the edge of the Well of Souls was another subject of intense rumination.

Lichtenfeld: As with Last Crusade, I have a clearer memory of my second time seeing Raiders. That’s because my dad, who had already taken me, insisted we go back and take my mom. I was young, but I knew that a movie like Raiders wasn’t her bag. So if we were taking her, then it had to mean that this was something special, something that crossed over.

Matessino: I saw Raiders at the first show on opening day. Curiously there were very few people there, but it was a Friday matinee and in those days you didn’t necessarily have the huge opening weekends for movies people knew little about. Reviews and word-of-mouth were still a factor. I had read the novelization before seeing the movie, so I already knew the story. But still it took me a few viewings to process what it had accomplished, how it was an homage to movies of the past while also being its own completely new thing. A big part of that for me was John Williams’ music. It’s not actually one of my top favorites of his works, but obviously the role it played is significant and is one of his most popular scores. There is, naturally, a focus on the famous Raiders March theme that is universally recognizable, but there are subtleties in the score that elevate it above the material’s B-movie and serial origins. The theme for the Ark is incredibly rich and intriguing, suggesting an ancient spiritual power the instant you hear it. And consider how Williams introduces Marion’s theme before we even meet the character. It is like an echo from a decade in the past… Williams musically reflects the characters and the backstory with incredible economy and hits a bull's-eye in doing so. The action music is great, of course, but what happens in the rest of the score, for me, helps turn a B-movie into a serious piece of art that absolutely deserved its Oscar nominations for Best Picture and all the other accolades it has received. It was very clear when I first saw Raiders that the combined talents of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg had given birth to something very special.

McBride: I saw it when it came out — the early scene with the giant boulder was a terrific way to get into it. But I became increasingly dismayed by the film’s mindlessness and racism. The direction of action is expert, there is a fair amount of goofy humor, akin to MAD magazine’s Scenes We’d Like to See, but the storyline is preposterous, childish, and uninvolving, and the Third World characters are stereotyped. I found the scene in which Indiana Jones casually shoots a sword-wielding Arab offensive, although the audience seemed to love it, which made me even more depressed. When I interviewed the film’s screenwriter, Lawrence Kasdan, for Steven Spielberg: A Biography, he told me he also found that improvised scene offensive. He said it “was very popular, but it disturbed me. I thought that was brutal in a way the rest of the movie wasn’t. I’m never happy about making jokes out of killing people. Steven is more in touch with popular taste than I am.” The fact that Indy loots Third World treasures harks back to the worst, most discredited B-movie, colonialist tropes of 1930s cinema, and the homages to serials are hardly worth making at such length (even if the truck sequence, directed by second-unit director Michael D. Moore, is nifty). With its reactionary politics, callousness, anti-intellectualism, and overall mindlessness, Raiders is the perfect film for the Reagan era, though I don’t consider it responsible for all the crimes of the Reagan administration, as one hysterical anti-Spielberg critic seems to think it is.

Coate: How is Raiders significant within the action-adventure genre?

Awalt: Raiders is the perfect model adventure film of the so-called “blockbuster era,” a huge influence on so much that came afterwards. It’s unique, even considering the film itself was a pastiche of old serial films. Like he did with Star Wars, George Lucas’s appropriation of these dusty cultural relics (the adventure serials) and audiences’ general, maybe even vague notion of them combined to make something that felt entirely new and yet completely familiar. Once Raiders proved to be such a popular film with audiences and the box-office, other filmmakers, lesser filmmakers as it goes, rushed to try and copy the formula that George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and screenwriter Larry Kasdan had so winningly concocted…. Despite the weak imitations both Spielberg and Lucas’s work unintentionally wrought, Raiders will always stand apart from the copies, because Spielberg and Lucas understood the many ingredients and moving parts you need to make films that capture audiences’ attention and imaginations. Raiders took those tropes of pulp and movie storytelling, in this case the cliffhanger adventure story, and it breathed new life into the genre by giving us what was then a contemporary hero (despite Indy’s world being set in the pre-WWII past, four decades before the 1980s)…. The character of Indiana Jones himself is a unique creation. We first see Indy from behind or in silhouette and shadow, until just as the nefarious porter with the pistol is about to get the jump on him, the trademark whip lashes out and Indy steps from the shade into a character entrance and close-up worthy of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Casting Harrison Ford was a boon, and for the very reason that Lucas resisted the idea following Ford’s portrayal of Han Solo. Audiences had come to know Ford through the Star Wars films, so we had expectations in place — the cocky, overly confident braggart who somehow gets out of terrible situations by the skin of his teeth. When we first see Ford step out of the shadows as Indiana Jones though, we see a grizzled, unshaven, and rightly pissed off character that seems like he’ll be worlds away from the character of Han Solo. Indiana Jones is introduced as this very imposing masculine figure, but then we see the filmmakers methodically chip away this man-of-action, soldier of fortune facade. Everything goes wrong for Indy inside the temple and we see him progressively revealed as a seat-of-his pants fella who clumsily improvises his way out of trap after trap just to stay alive — and it turns out he is somewhat of a close cousin to Han Solo in this regard. So casting Ford and playing against expectations while slowly unraveling and in turn revealing the nature of Indiana Jones’s suddenly relatable character is something of a master stroke on numerous levels…. It’s a brilliant deconstruction of the Edgar Rice Burroughs, Lester Dent, Ian Fleming man of brawn, cunning and skill, and I think that sly but loving humor toward and about Indy’s character is one of the most significant aspects of the film and the entire Indiana Jones series. Others sought to copy Raiders, but they either took themselves too seriously, not seriously enough, or they didn’t have the chops to walk the very fine line between two-fisted action film and endearing character work.

Bouzereau: The action sequences are so well choreographed but the magic of it is that we are so engaged with the characters. That was really what stood out for me — I identified with Indiana Jones, there was something relatable that made you want to be part of the action. And that was something I had so far only experienced in James Bond films.

Higgins: Pitfall! Tales of the Gold Monkey! Need I say more?.... It returned a vocabulary to the media that had been out of circulation since the 1950s…. Actually, I see it as a link between two eras of popular adventure cinema. Spielberg and Lucas were repurposing (and improving) their memories of Saturday afternoon serial matinees (which they probably saw on TV and in repertory theaters because they missed that era by a few years), and handing a storytelling formula to the next generation. Serials left the story unfinished and turned the audience into virtual filmmakers for a week as they figured out cliffhangers on the playground. Lucas and Spielberg became real filmmakers, and returned the favor to generations of viewers who haunted the multiplexes and took that world out of the cinema with them. Raiders is a first-rate film school (and not just for 13 year-olds). One of the reasons I wrote the book on serials was that it finally gave me a chance to look seriously at Raiders — and I was happy to find that the film still has much to teach. So, read my book! (Or, err, just watch Raiders again).  

Lichtenfeld: This may sound nuts to some (and like heresy to others), but I don’t usually think of Raiders in the context of the genre. And I say that as someone who wrote a pretty definitive book on how the genre evolved! If anything, I tend to think of Raiders, along with some of Steven Spielberg’s other movies, in the context of great silent film comedy — with its sight gags and sequences built out of elaborate causal chains…. But as for the action film, I’m biased toward the period starting with the 1970s, since that’s when I think the genre formally came to be, and since that was the focus of my book. With Raiders, maybe it’s the period setting in conjunction with Spielberg’s distinctive style, but I just don’t experience it the way I experience a lot of those other movies, even great ones like First Blood or The Terminator. To me, those are all great action movies, and some of them are great movies period…but Raiders is Raiders.

Matessino: Just as the original Star Wars began with an action sequence, Raiders continued what George Lucas did in that movie by starting the film with the story basically already in progress.  In this case it was the end of an adventure, so in that sense it had a James Bond-like structure, but what it really did was uphold the idea that “action is character.” It’s been pointed out the Indiana Jones doesn’t really influence the plot in any way, and while that might be an arguable point, what it leaves us with is a realization that it’s all about the journey and about the watching the character’s reactions to all the situations in which he finds himself. We subconsciously know it’s all going to turn out all right in the end, so the experience is all about the obstacles and the character’s responses to them, emotionally as well as physically. The problem is that when one tries to replicate this formula, it can feel forced. With Raiders the screenplay perfectly balanced story, action and character and there is not a single spare moment in it. It was lightning in a bottle.

McBride: It helped set a new standard for flashy, sophisticated, fast-paced visuals with cartoonish content. In so doing it followed the model established by George Lucas in Star Wars, which, when I first saw it, profoundly depressed me, because I realized I was witnessing the beginning of the end of cinema, or at least American cinema. Time has borne that out. Just about every Hollywood movie now resembles either Star Wars or Raiders, and that is not a compliment.

Coate: Where do you think Raiders ranks among director Steven Spielberg’s body of work?

Awalt: Raiders and the Indiana Jones films in general have always felt to me somewhat odd outliers contradictorily pushing in near the center of Steven Spielberg’s work. When Raiders was released in 1981, it was following the unprecedented successes of Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Spielberg’s reputation as a filmmaker in the popular American imagination and zeitgeist was just starting to set because of these cultural milestones…. Even the original marketing for Raiders hinged on both Spielberg and Lucas’s outsized successes and growing cultural cachet from Jaws, Close Encounters, and Star Wars, so these two men’s moments had arrived in the popular consciousness. And with Poltergeist and then the unimaginable heights that E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial took Spielberg and his work a mere 12 months later, his place in film history and our world culture was fully concretized. Not bad at all for a young man in his early 30s…. Despite all this, Raiders felt as something of an anomaly to Spielberg’s already established voice and style when it came out in 1981. With Duel, The Sugarland Express, Jaws, and especially Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Spielberg showed the world he was both an expert director and highly technical filmmaker, but he’d also revealed a clear sense of personality, voice and even heart. The New Yorker critic Pauline Kael bemoaned Raiders as a large and damnable sidestep for Spielberg, being of an impersonal filmmaking nature she blamed on Lucas*. In some ways, she’s right, Spielberg didn’t agree to work on Raiders as a chance to put pieces of himself in his film as he demonstrably did in The Sugarland Express and Close Encounters. But Duel and Jaws were arguably and at Spielberg’s own admission more mechanical exercises in manipulating the form and also his audiences. I think Raiders is an extension of those films’ aims. They were all works for hire on which Spielberg still did a consummate expert’s job where he could have done a journeyman’s work. And he made it all look so easy. (*Kael clearly didn’t grasp the voice and biography Lucas brought to American Graffiti and Star Wars, two very popular films imbued with their creator’s personal concerns and feelings.)

Bouzereau: It ranks very high. It introduced us to yet another side of Steven’s immense talent.

Higgins: Just behind Jaws.

Lichtenfeld: It’s certainly high up there. It’s such a clear and high-level illustration of his whole approach to filmmaking: from his visual style to the silent-film-like construction of his action sequences to the themes that preoccupied him for so long…. In retrospect, it seems like one of the movies Spielberg was just destined to make — but of course, that’s often how history looks, and not how it actually unfolds. In fact, before he made Raiders, he told Rolling Stone, “Hopefully, 1941 is the last movie I make that celebrates the boy in me.” If there’s an alternate universe where that’s what happened, I can’t imagine how modern film history turned out. Come to think of it, I can’t imagine how I turned out.

Matessino: Steven Spielberg has remarked that he didn’t feel Raiders was personal in any way. However, it is a vitally important movie in his career. Prior to that he made three pictures that all went over budget and over schedule: Jaws, Close Encounters and 1941. The first two were redeemed by grand successes at the box office and with the critics. But 1941, as much as I and many fans of Spielberg’s work love that movie, was a very sobering experience for him. Thank God Raiders came to him when it did, because he achieved a discipline on that project that enabled him to grow as an artist and become a successful producer in his own right. Raiders actually came in under budget and ahead of schedule, and this directly paved the way for the one-two punch of Poltergeist and E.T. the following year and the formation of his production company. Even if Raiders had not been a box office success, it would be impossible to assess Steven Spielberg’s career without examining what he was able to pull off with it.

McBride: Not very high. The Spielberg films I most esteem are Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Schindler’s List, and A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Those films have hearts, souls, and poetry, all of which Raiders lacks.

Coate: Where do you think Raiders ranks among the Indiana Jones movies?

Awalt: Without a doubt, Raiders is the very top-shelf in the Indiana Jones adventures. I’m a huge fan of Temple of Doom since back to 1984, and I enjoy Last Crusade and yes, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but Raiders stands very tall within the series and also within all adventure films throughout all of Hollywood history. It’s where the world first met, fell in love with and thrilled to the adventures of Indiana Jones, Marion Ravenwood, Sallah and Marcus Brody. Everything that has followed builds on the rock-solid foundation that is Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Bouzereau: It is the best of all the four films. It sets the tone and has an innocence to it… But I have to say that each of the other films are also quite special and original. I have experienced them through the years and have enjoyed rediscovering them through my documentaries. And working on Skull was a highlight of my own modest career as documentarian of behind-the-scenes. That’s an experience I’ll never forget!

Higgins: Far, far, far out ahead. I’m happy to defend the other films, but no matter how much I love them, I always feel like I’m making a case for them (and allowances for them) in light of Raiders. The highest achievements of the other films (the tank vs horse fight/chase in Last Crusade) and their great weaknesses (the various ex machina) are never quite as good or are just a bit worse than Raiders.

Lichtenfeld: It’s first — in both senses of the word. But it’s so clearly the best that the question I always find more interesting is where do Temple of Doom and Last Crusade come out in the battle for second place?

Matessino: It’s clearly the tightest and most solidly successful of the series and is important because it’s the first one, but on a personal level I enjoy Last Crusade more. The themes of that picture, particularly the father/son aspect and the whole idea of a “leap of faith” resonate with me. When looking at all of the films I feel Last Crusade might be the only genuine Steven Spielberg movie of the series, at least thematically. Of course it never would have existed without Raiders, which, as I said, is a template for an entire genre.

McBride: I prefer Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because it has Nazis as villains rather than Third World ethnic caricatures. We all despise Nazis. The filmmakers had trouble eventually finding acceptable villains for these films because they became more aware of the problems stereotyping ethnic groups and with the crassness and casual brutality of the central character; eventually, in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Indy winds up on the side of the “natives” and returns treasures rather than looting them. Last Crusade also has a more relaxed, expansive visual feel and a more interesting storyline than the others, with its religious overtones. (Spielberg’s films are full of Christian iconography and themes.) The most loathsome of the four films, by far, is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which is the most flagrantly racist, as well as filled with ghastly hyper-violence throughout, aside from a few comic set pieces such as Kate Capshaw’s charming song number in Chinese. Spielberg was in a dark state of mind when he made that ugly film. Unlike many Indiana Jones fans, I sort of like Crystal Skull — or as someone called it, Indiana Jones and the Terrible Title. What I like about it is the generally unnoticed fact that Spielberg is amusing himself by parodying his work in various genres. The destruction of the fake suburban town — “Doom Town,” or Spielbergland, in effect — is the best part of the film. Spielberg’s gift for parody is rarely appreciated, but it’s an integral part of his work. It is responsible for some of the better aspects of Raiders, (for example, the boulder).

Coate: Would you like to see more Indiana Jones movies?

Awalt: I have been hoping beyond hope that Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Harrison Ford, Frank Marshall, Kathleen Kennedy, and the entire Raiders team would get back together for more Indy adventures. I love the whole Indiana Jones series dearly. Crystal Skull disappointed what seems to be a large set of very vocal fans, but it did receive a majority of positive professional notices, and it was undeniably a box-office smash in 2008. For that reason alone one would think there would be at least a studio imperative for carrying the beloved series forward…. I also see admirers like myself, who consider Crystal Skull an important progression in the adventures of these beloved characters. It has its flaws, especially compared to Raiders or Temple of Doom, but where everything clicks, I still maintain it’s a damned good expansion of the Indiana Jones mythos. I loved the Chariots of the Gods angle, the Soviet interest in the paranormal and especially seeing an aged Indy in a whole new era. I hope we can see more films set in that time period and with similar themes — Cold War, paranormal, supernatural and super-ordinary themes that were a part of the American imagination from the 1950s to the 1970s. I also hope that critical notices about the outre “alien” theme in Crystal Skull don’t send the filmmakers back to safer ground like we saw with Last Crusade after outcry toward Temple of Doom in 1984. Keep pushing Indy into new realms, and make another film or two to be of a piece with Crystal Skull and this time in Indy’s storied life.

Bouzereau: Absolutely!!

Higgins: I think the franchise has legs and unexplored potential. No question it needs a reboot, and not just another installment, but it is full of creative possibilities. The trick would be to pull this off without aping recent trends — that is without Indy becoming the morally ambiguous dark avenger, or another Marvelous hero. Probably would be safer to reboot Romancing the Stone; that way if it failed no one would care.

Lichtenfeld: Of course I would like to see more Indiana Jones movies. But that doesn’t mean I think more Indiana Jones movies should be made.

Matessino: I’d be all for one more Indiana Jones movie with Harrison Ford that wraps up the series in an appropriate and satisfying way, validates all four of the films (as well the Young Indiana Jones series), and which perhaps sets things up for a reboot in a way that audiences will accept and get excited about. I fully believe that something like that is achievable.

McBride: If Spielberg enjoys them, why not? They’re divertissements in the midst of his more substantial work. I think it’s good that he doesn’t spend all his time making heavyweight films but also indulges his gift for escapism. He is an artist with many facets and that rare thing, a great popular artist.

Coate: What is the legacy of Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Awalt: The true legacy of Raiders of the Lost Ark is why I think pictures of its ilk are chiefly made: Films like Raiders forever place audiences under a completely enchanting, exciting and emotional spell as it sweeps viewers up. Few films have ever done that as brilliantly as Raiders of the Lost Ark, and its reputation with audiences over the last 35 years certainly bears this out. For me, Raiders is an oversized barrel of fresh, hot movie theater popcorn and a tall ice cold Coke on a summer’s day in a dark and cavernous theater looking up toward a bright, massive movie screen. It’s a dream of a movie, and movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark are made to help us all dream.

Bouzereau: It checks all of the boxes of what a great film should be.

Higgins: Pitfall! Tales of the Gold Monkey! And every summer action film. That legacy can go terribly, terribly, wrong — but it still pays off in movies that take pride in their craft, and have the courage to “rollick.”

Lichtenfeld: Raiders gave us a pop-culture icon. It gave us The Raiders March. It cemented the movie-star status of one of the great movie stars of his time, if not of all time. And it helped ensure that the 1980s would be the decade of the blockbuster. It also took an entire tradition of mostly forgettable filmmaking and gave legitimacy to its underlying spirit. That’s a lot for one movie to do…. But I hope that as people visit and revisit Raiders, they’ll see it not just as the beginning of something even bigger, but also as something all its own, and on its own merits. Because it’s one of those movies where everything matters: every sound, every cut, every movement, every composition. And if by some freak occurrence, none of the rest had happened — no sequels, no theme park attractions, no iconic status for Harrison Ford or for John Williams’ music, no influence on the film business or the cultural zeitgeist — that would still be more of a legacy than most movies leave behind.

Matessino: Raiders is the movie against which all others in its genre are measured. One comes away from watching it feeling completely satisfied with the action, with the story, and with the inner journey of the characters and repeated viewings don’t diminish its impact. How many movies have truly done that to the degree Raiders does?

McBride: I think I have said all I have to say about it here and in my biography of Spielberg!

Coate: Thank you, Steven, Laurent, Scott, Eric, Mike, and Joseph, for participating and sharing your thoughts on Raiders of the Lost Ark on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its release.

--=--

SPECIAL THANKS

Jerry Alexander, Al Alvarez, Steven Awalt, Laura Baas, Jim Barg, Kirk Besse, Larry Blake, Herbert Born, Laurent Bouzereau, Raymond Caple, Miguel Carrara, Bob Collins, John Cork, Jonathan Crist, Gerald DeLuca, Nick DiMaggio, Mike Durrett, Monte Fullmer, Steve Guttag, Thomas Hauerslev, John Hawkinson, John Hazelton, Mike Heenan, Bobby Henderson, Scott Higgins, Sarah Kenyon, Bill Kretzel, Roberto Landazuri, Mark Lensenmayer, Eric Lichtenfeld, Stan Malone, Mike Matessino, Joseph McBride, Gabriel Neeb, Tim O’Neill, Jim Perry, Grant Smith, Cliff Stephenson, John Stewart, Bob Throop, Joel Weide, Brian Whitish, Blaine Young, Vince Young, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

Primary references for this project were promotional material published in hundreds of daily newspapers archived digitally and/or on microfilm plus numerous articles published in film industry trade publications Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, Mad, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Time, and Variety. Film industry documents referenced included Dolby Stereo installation records. Books referenced included The Complete Making of Indiana Jones: The Definitive Story Behind All Four Films by Laurent Bouzereau & Jonathan Rinzler (2008, Ballantine/Del Rey), The Films of Steven Spielberg by Douglas Brode (1995, Citadel), George Lucas: The Creative Impulse by Charles Champlin (1992, Abrams), George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-By-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of their Financial and Cultural Success edited by Alex Ben Block and Lucy Autrey Wilson (2010, George Lucas Books/HarperCollins), The Hollywood Reporter Book of Box Office Hits by Susan Sackett (1996, Billboard), The Making of Raiders of the Lost Ark by Derek Taylor (1981, Ballantine), The Movie Brats: How the Film Generation Took Over Hollywood by Michael Pye and Lynda Myles (1979, Holt, Rinehart and Winston), The Movie Business Book edited by Jason E. Squire (1983, Fireside), Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Illustrated Screenplay (1981, Ballantine), Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas by Dale Pollack (1983, Harmony), Spielberg: The Man, the Movies, the Mythology by Frank Sanello (1996, Taylor), Steven Spielberg: A Biography by Joseph McBride (1997, Simon & Schuster), Steven Spielberg: The Man, his Movies and their Meaning by Philip M. Taylor (1992, Continuum). The following films were referenced: Great Movie Stunts: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, Lucasfilm Ltd./Paramount Pictures), The Making of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, Lucasfilm Ltd./Paramount Pictures), and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, Lucasfilm Ltd./Paramount Pictures). Websites referenced include BoxOfficeMojo, CinemaTour, CinemaTreasures, FromScriptToDVD, The Numbers, and In70mm. This is a revised and updated version of a previously-published article.

SELECTED IMAGES

Copyright Lucasfilm Ltd. / Paramount Pictures / Paramount Home Entertainment

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

IN MEMORIAM

• Ronald Lacey (“Toht“), 1935-1991
• Tutte Lemkow (“Imam“), 1918-1991
• Denholm Elliott (“Marcus Brody“), 1922-1992
• John Rees (“Sergeant“), 1927-1994
• Ishaq Bux (“Omar“), 1917-2000
• Anthony Chinn (“Mohan“), 1930-2000
• Peter Diamond (Stunt Arranger), 1929-2004
• Mary Selway (Casting), 1936-2004
• Pat Roach (“Giant Sherpa” and “1st Mechanic“), 1937-2004
• William Hootkins (“Major Eaton“), 1948-2005
• Don Fellows (“Col. Musgrove“), 1922-2007
• Patrick Durkin (“Australian Climber“), 1936-2009
• Bill Varney (Re-Recording Mixer), 1934-2011
• Ralph McQuarrie (Illustrator), 1929-2012
• Michael Moore (Second Unit Director), 1914-2013
• Terry Richards (“Arab Swordsman“), 1932-2014
• Tony Vogel (“Tall Captain“), 1942-2015
• Douglas Slocombe (Director of Photography), 1913-2016

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached at: michaelcoate@thedigitalbits.com

As with our previous 007 articles (see Thunderball, GoldenEye, A View to a Kill, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Goldfinger, and 007… Fifty Years Strong), The Bits and History, Legacy & Showmanship continue the series with this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of James Bond authorities who discuss the virtues and shortcomings of For Your Eyes Only.

The participants…

Thomas A. Christie is the author of The James Bond Movies of the 1980s (Crescent Moon, 2013). He has written several other books including The Spectrum of Adventure: A Brief History of Interactive Fiction on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum (Extremis, 2016), Mel Brooks: Genius and Loving It! (Crescent Moon, 2015), Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: Pocket Movie Guide (Crescent Moon, 2010), John Hughes and Eighties Cinema: Teenage Hopes and American Dreams (Crescent Moon, 2009), and The Cinema of Richard Linklater (Crescent Moon, 2008). He is a member of The Royal Society of Literature, The Society of Authors and The Federation of Writers Scotland.

John Cork is the writer and director of the Inside For Your Eyes Only documentary (1999/2005), originally produced for the DVD release of For Your Eyes Only and upgraded to high-definition for the film’s Blu-ray release. He also wrote (with Bruce Scivally) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002) and (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek, and wrote and directed the 2014 feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder in the South for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman).

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies, a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001), and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.”

Bruce Scivally is the producer of the Inside For Your Eyes Only documentary (1999/2005) and the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011) and Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 2015). As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He is the Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

And now that the participants have been introduced, I suggest preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course) and cueing up the soundtrack album to For Your Eyes Only, and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities...

--007--

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is For Your Eyes Only worthy of celebration on its 35th anniversary?

Thomas A. Christie: For Your Eyes Only was a significant film for the Bond franchise in a number of ways. It was the first in the series to be directed by John Glen, who would go on to helm a total of five Bond films in succession — a record for the franchise which still stands today. It also marked a very deliberate shift in gear for the Eon Productions creative team, who were making a conscious effort to return some aspect of the series’ 1960s glory days to the franchise: the Cold War trappings, a more tangible sense of threat, and a heightened sense of realism — or at least, as close as a Bond film ever really gets to realism. These creative endeavors to subtly refine the series’ tone and style would continue throughout the eighties, but the journey began with For Your Eyes Only.

John Cork: 007 faced a major challenge with the release of For Your Eyes Only. Its studio was in chaos. In 1975, ‘76 and ‘77, United Artists films had won the Best Picture Oscar. With Bond, Rocky, The Pink Panther and the Woody Allen films, the studio seemed to be one of the most financially stable in Hollywood. But UA’s parent company, Transamerica Corp., decided they were not seeing enough profit from UA to justify lofty salaries for the company’s leadership. That leadership (legendary studio head Arthur Krim and his team) left in 1978 to form Orion Pictures. Cubby Broccoli was very loyal to Krim, but he could not follow Krim to Orion because UA owned Harry Saltzman’s share of Danjaq. The new leadership had not objected to Moonraker’s massive budget, and, in fact, gave Cubby a great deal of freedom in making the film. When the time came to make For Your Eyes Only, the new studio leadership did ask for some cost controls, which matched Cubby’s personal feeling that too much money had been spent on Moonraker. UA needed to save some money because a western modestly budgeted at $12 million was running massively over budget. Heaven’s Gate would end up costing well over $40 million, be delayed for a year, and was yanked from release after a disastrous New York opening. United Artists could not recover. Transamerica fired the studio bosses and summarily put UA up for sale…. In a span of three years, Bond’s safe, stable home, run by men who were in the room when the deal for Dr. No had been struck, was now being sold off as a liability, valued for its library and its intellectual property. The most valuable of those properties was James Bond…. During the summer of 1981, a lot of folks were betting against Bond. Releasing a Bond film in 1981 was for many a bit like making a Roy Rogers singing cowboy western in 1965. Sure, everybody loved Bond…but there was this new kid in town named Indiana Jones. Raiders of the Lost Ark opens two weeks before For Your Eyes Only in the U.S., and so does Clash of the Titans, which was red meat for the new generation of movie geek teens who were reading Starlog magazine. Then there was Superman II which opens one week before For Your Eyes Only. You know what else opens just one week earlier? The Cannonball Run, which has Roger Moore playing a James Bond fan who wears a tuxedo and drives around in an Aston Martin. The week For Your Eyes Only opens is the same week as Stripes, the most anticipated comedy of the year, and The Great Muppet Caper and Dragonslayer, another expensive fantasy film. The competition was rough. Bond stood his ground. Bond proved UA still had value. Bond proved that he might not sell as many tickets as Indiana Jones, but he was still a global box office phenomenon…. The reason to celebrate For Your Eyes Only is simple: it was the film that proved Bond was a survivor. After the fantasy elements of The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only played it (mostly) straight. The film bet big on action, and that bet paid off. It had a number of must-see action scenes, some real moments of suspense, felt a little closer to Ian Fleming and by the time Margaret Thatcher was calling Bond it was way too far in the film for anyone to get a refund.

Bill Desowitz: I believe For Your Eyes Only marked a fresh start for the franchise, as it entered the ‘80s, and for Moore as well. Editor-turned director John Glen wanted a return to Fleming and got a more sensitive and, at times, ruthless performance out of Moore, settling an old score and struggling with vengeance.

Lee Pfeiffer: Eyes was significant at the time because it marked an attempt to bring the character of James Bond back to the real world after the excesses of the previous film, Moonraker. That film was highly successful at the box-office, but producer Cubby Broccoli acknowledged to me years later that he had received a lot of complaints from Bond fans that the series’ emphasis on gadgets and slapstick humor was wearing very thin with them. To his credit, Broccoli abandoned that formula — at least in part — and committed to bringing Bond back to more believable story lines. It was a decision that was enthusiastically welcomed by the 007 purists and probably saved the series from running out of steam, as the overt humor would have worn thin with general audiences very quickly.

Bruce Scivally: For Your Eyes Only is one of those watershed Bond films, a film that took a dramatic turn from what had come before and shifted the series into a new direction. The previous 007 entry, Moonraker, was full-blown fantasy, ending with a space battle involving shuttlecraft and laser guns that, at the time, were years beyond any kind of reality, and a villain whose ultimate goal was not just world domination but global destruction; it was the apotheosis of late-1970s disco-era excess. But the 1980s began on a different note; it was a time of austerity and deregulation, the beginning of the Reagan era in America and the Thatcher era in Britain. Under Thatcher, there was among the general populace a great deal of suspicion about what the government was up to, a feeling which was reflected in British films of the era. And it was in this spirit that John Glen, directing his first Bond film, producer Albert R. Broccoli and scriptwriter Richard Maibaum re-evaluated James Bond and decided that, having gone about as far as possible with fantasy, the time had come to re-ground 007 in reality. Glen, who had edited director Peter Hunt’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, signals this in the very first scenes, when we are introduced to 007 standing at the grave of his late wife — an homage to Hunt’s 007 film, which had also eschewed the space elements of the previous film, You Only Live Twice, to bring Bond back to a more human level. As with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only is light on Q’s gadgetry (though gadgets would make a roaring return in Octopussy), focusing more on Bond’s wits and athletic prowess to get him out of jams. And the plot, with its overriding theme of trust and betrayal, mirrored the zeitgeist of the period, making it a very timely 007 film. It was a reboot that the series needed at that point, and while it still had its moments of cheesy humor (a product of Cubby Broccoli’s belief that the Bond films were family entertainment and thus needed humor — he provided Blofeld’s “I’ll buy you a delicatessen, in stainless steel” line that is such a groaner it even overpowers Bond’s “keep your hair on” quip), in its more serious moments it gives viewers a James Bond who had been largely absent from the screen since From Russia With Love, and set the tone of seriousness sprinkled with levity and outrageous stunts that would continue through the remaining 007 films of the 1980s.

Coate: When did you first see For Your Eyes Only and what did you think?

Christie: I first saw the film on TV in the mid-eighties. (There’s a long-running British tradition of screening a Bond film at Christmas and Bank Holidays, and such was their popularity that the country’s electricity grid used to surge during the commercial breaks because that’s when viewers would put on their kettle to make a cup of tea!) The first thing that occurred to me was just how different For Your Eyes Only seemed when compared to its immediate predecessor, Lewis Gilbert’s Moonraker. There was a sense that the previous film had pushed the envelope just about as far as it could go — the lavish globetrotting escapades, the global Armageddon scenario, and even laser battles in planetary orbit. So it came as a breath of fresh air to see the more fantastical trappings dispensed with for a while, and a long overdue return to the kind of Cold War espionage plotlines that had made films such as Terence Young’s From Russia with Love so successful. It may have been a gamble for the production team to have corrected the course of the series quite so sharply, given audience expectation of visual spectacle and high-octane action, but it was one which paid off in the eyes of many critics.

Cork: True story. I took a couple of days off from my summer job, flew standby to London with a rented tux and I snuck into the world premiere at the Odeon Leicester Square. I watched the entire film standing up in the back of the theater because I didn’t have a ticket and it was assigned seating, of course. I purchased four premiere programs and pretended I was one of the guys selling them. (Kids, don’t try that!) John Lennon had been shot in December. Reagan was shot at the end of March, someone had fired a starter pistol when the Queen was on parade, Prince Charles and then Lady Diana were attending, the IRA was a real menace at that time, and my last name was about as Irish as you can get — Cork. I was lucky I didn’t end up in Dartmoor prison!....  When you are as big a James Bond fan as I was and you sneak into a premiere, you are predisposed to love the film. It had a great title song, a nod to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, the reappearance of Blofeld (unnamed, but obvious) and 007 back on skis. So on that first viewing, I loved the film. Until Margaret Thatcher showed up. In later viewings, I developed the same level of fondness for stainless-steel delicatessens, The-Important-Clue-Giving-Parrot™, Ferrara (AKA, the dead-man-walking), the world’s slowest underwater submarine battle, and Bond’s offer to buy Bibi Dahl an ice cream cone. The keel-hauling scene, though, remains one of the great Bond sequences. In many ways, the film was a delight because, as a fan of Fleming, it was so great to see so many scenes taken from the books.

Desowitz: I saw it on its initial release in L.A. and it immediately impressed me as a dramatic departure during the Moore era. There’s more at stake emotionally for Moore’s Bond. His tender encounter with Cassandra Harris’ Lisl is noteworthy. And although he’s not as comfortable being ruthless, it’s more successful than the awkward scene in The Man with the Golden Gun when he tries to strong-arm Maud Adams’ Andrea. It’s interesting that when I asked Moore about the darker revenge theme he denied it and said he doesn’t self-analyze. But then he discussed the contentious execution of Locque in his book, My Word is My Bond. He quarreled with Glen about being so cold-blooded (a swift kick to the car that sends him to his death) and that it wasn’t true to his Bond, but the director prevailed and Moore performed the scene as requested.

Pfeiffer: I saw it at a critic’s advance screening in New York City shortly before the general release. I didn’t like it at first. While I appreciated the fact that the film afforded Roger Moore some dramatic sequences to work with that brought out the best in him, I thought that the film still contained far too much slapstick humor. The pre-credits sequence was very well done but completely undermined by the bizarre Blofeld clone and the ridiculous dialogue between Bond and him. When 007 dumps him into a smoke stack, I almost walked out. I also thought the requisite car chase was extraordinarily lame and that the character of Bibi Dahl was badly written and undermined the film as a whole. However, with subsequent viewings, the film began to grow on me. It gets much better as it goes along. In fact, you can trace the exact moment that the film improves: it’s when Topol first appears on screen as Bond’s soon-to-be ally Columbo. He’s a great character and adds immeasurably to the film. Topol and Moore enjoy some terrific chemistry and from that point on, the movie improves by the minute. I have mixed feelings about Bill Conti’s disco-heavy score, but I love the title song sung by Sheena Easton. 

Scivally: I first saw For Your Eyes Only in the summer of 1981 in a theater in Huntsville, Alabama, with my brother. Having disliked Moonraker, I went in with low expectations. They were met. I appreciated that they were trying a different approach, but even with its over-the-top stunts, it felt rather small and tame without the Ken Adam sets and John Barry music.

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: Where do you think For Your Eyes Only ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Christie: The really interesting thing about For Your Eyes Only is the way in which it denoted a turning point in the series; it marked the stage where Eon moved away from the flamboyant wide-canvas offerings of the mid-to-late seventies’ period of the franchise and concentrated more carefully on the credibility of the films’ plotlines and their handling of geo-political issues. This was something that would evolve constantly over the rest of the decade, eventually culminating in the casting of the no-nonsense Timothy Dalton and the dramatic shift in tone that we see in The Living Daylights and especially Licence to Kill. The glacial state of the Cold War is reflected more starkly in For Your Eyes Only than many other entries in the series at that time (excepting, perhaps, Octopussy a few years later), and the plausibility of the central threat lent the film an added sense of relevance and immediacy. There is also a sense that Roger Moore was making a determined effort to add a note of solemn pragmatism to his performance, something which is obvious from Bond’s unusually subdued investigative work through to his dispassionate assassination of Emile Locque, the cold-blooded henchman played so strikingly by Michael Gothard.

Cork: Twentieth. It’s a better film than Moonraker, but on some level not as much fun to watch. The film does not hold up as well as one would hope. I felt the move towards realism hurt a key element of the Bond look. I go to see Bond films for moments like the reveal of the secret area of the St. Georges, and there were not enough of those. Because the script was a patchwork of current events, an effort to reference real espionage operations and scenes from various Fleming stories and novels, the film lacks a strong narrative drive. So, if you remember the feeling of seeing Moonraker and being crushed by the humor and torpid pace, For Your Eyes Only seemed like a bright, shining justification of your love of Bond in the summer of 1981. Watching it out of that context? It’s got some good actions scenes, some nice performances, but it is a film that does not suffer from a casual viewing while one is folding laundry or doing dishes. It works better in small doses.

Desowitz: I might be in the minority but it’s my favorite Moore Bond and would rank it around 12th.

Pfeiffer: I think the film has aged reasonably well. I would rank it above Man with the Golden Gun, Moonraker, A View to a Kill, any of the Pierce Brosnan Bond flicks, Diamonds Are Forever and Quantum of Solace. The latter is a better film, arguably, but For Your Eyes Only is more satisfying as entertainment. 

Scivally: For me, For Your Eyes Only falls in the middle ranks of James Bond films — a serviceable spy adventure, but nothing special. There are a couple of standout stunts — 007 (doubled by Martin Grace) hanging onto the outside of a helicopter in flight, and being kicked off a mountain (with Rick Sylvester performing the fall) — but compared to other Bonds, the pacing seems slow, the sets too grounded in reality, the plot holds few surprises, and the Bill Conti music lacks the punch of the early John Barry scores. The saving grace is Roger Moore, who handles both the lighter moments and the more dramatic ones with seemingly effortless aplomb, but he was by that point looking a bit long in the tooth to be 007 — a point emphasized when he declines to go to bed with Bibi Dahl (Lynn-Holly Johnson); one expects Sean Connery’s Bond, at any age, would not have been so gallant.

Coate: In what way was Julian Glover’s Aristotle Kristatos a memorable villain?

Christie: Ironically, what makes Kristatos memorable is his low-key nature. After the larger-than-life schemes of villains such as Carl Stromberg and Hugo Drax, both of them intent on global genocide, the audience is suddenly faced with an antagonist drawn from the shadowy world of espionage whose aims seem much more reserved by comparison. Played with admirable restraint by the terrific Julian Glover, Kristatos is unusually manipulative even by Bond villain standards, attempting to double-cross Bond by pitching him against business rival Columbo and playing West against East with consummate sleight of hand. The discovery of Kristatos’s malign dealings midway through the film is very effectively handled, and — such is Glover’s natural charisma — the character appears just as charming when his villainous role is revealed as he did when Bond had initially believed him to be an ally. The theme of antagonists playing the two Cold War superpowers against each other would be revisited throughout John Glen’s later entries in the Bond series, but the calculating Kristatos sets the ball rolling with much panache.

Cork: I love Julian Glover. Anyone who is reading this who has never seen Five Million Years to Earth needs to see it! Glover had already been around forever when he was cast in For Your Eyes Only. He’s an actor of great talent. Unfortunately, he’s not given a lot to do in the film. He never seems menacing. He plays Bond like a cheap hood, enticing him to kill the unfortunately-named good-guy smuggler, Columbo (yes, it’s from Fleming, I know, but at least there it wasn’t spelled the same as the iconic American television series). Glover plays many of the scenes like a good actor in search of a director. There is an uneasy sense that beneath the performance he doesn’t have a lot of confidence in the character of Kristatos…. Like all great Bond villains, Kristatos is a man obsessed. Unfortunately for the audience, he’s obsessed with a teenaged figure skater. Heroin smuggling, working for the Soviets and outsmarting British secret agents seems to be a distraction from his main occupation of staring teary-eyed as Bibi Dahl does another triple-Lutz. The other issue with Kristatos is his obsession with inefficient forms of death. How does one hire a murderous crew of hockey players? Killing someone on snowy ski slopes? Is a motorcycle the best tool for that? In the end, his big quest is collecting his payment from the KGB. To do this, he will apparently sacrifice his entire legitimate business empire, which includes shipping, oil and insurance…. Sartorially, I like my Bond villains to dress the part. Kristatos ends up on his knees in a windbreaker and chinos. I knew guys who dressed better for dinner out at Red Lobster in 1981…. I still don’t understand why he sends his own set of goons down to the wreck of the St. Georges when Bond and Melina have no option but to bring the ATAC back to the surface where he is waiting, but I’m sure the JIM suit and the world’s worst attack sub weren’t too expensive…. So, with great love for Glover, Kristatos is the one Bond villain that I think the average nine year old could outwit.

Desowitz: Glover portrays a refreshingly low-key villain and I like the rivalry with Topol’s Columbo and his thirst for revenge, which serves as a caution to Bond.

Pfeiffer: I’ve always been kind of out there on my own in my opinion that Julian Glover’s Kristatos is one of the better Bond villains. Glover gives an extremely good performance in a role that is not nearly as showy as most of the Bond villains. He has all the ingredients of a Bond baddie: he’s handsome, sophisticated and witty. I always love the scenes in which Bond and villain dine or have drinks with each other, pretending to be friendly but all the while planning each other’s demise.

Scivally: Julian Glover is a fine actor, but the part as written is mediocre at best. Herein lies one of the faults of the film — a hero is only as big as the villain he opposes, and Kristatos is small potatoes compared to, say, Auric Goldfinger, whose outsized plot matched his gregarious personality. Kristatos is initially introduced as an ally, and a rather dull one at that; Bond doesn’t realize Kristatos is the enemy until Columbo tells him so, which has the effect of making 007 just a pawn in everyone else’s games — including Melina’s. An action hero needs to act, and in this film, Bond seems to always be reacting. And this, unfortunately, weakens his character, making this Bond suffer by comparison to the more dynamic 007 of The Spy Who Loved Me.

Coate: In what way was Carole Bouquet’s Melina Havelock a memorable Bond Girl?

Christie: Following two strong female supporting characters in The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, both of them intelligence operatives with great technical expertise, Bond’s romantic relationships throughout the eighties films tended to be with women who were similarly smart, resilient, and who often had specialist abilities which equaled or exceeded Bond’s own. This was certainly the case with Melina Havelock, who was highly intelligent (she held a doctorate in marine archaeology), lethally proficient with a crossbow, and totally driven by her desire to avenge her parents’ murder at Kristatos’s orders. In spite of the sizeable age difference between Roger Moore and Carole Bouquet, the chemistry between the pair is rather more touching than many other Bond partnerships due to 007’s concern over Melina’s safety given her lack of field experience and his worry that her obsessive thirst for revenge is slowly consuming her. Bouquet does an admirable job of balancing her character’s obvious emotional pain with the single-mindedness of the vengeance that is driving her, occasionally showing Melina’s vulnerable side while continuing to push her into increasingly perilous situations. Melina Havelock set the bar high for many of the female supporting characters in later Bond films of the eighties, and her depth of characterization would be reflected in other portrayals of Bond’s romantic interests as the decade continued.

Cork: Carole Bouquet is a delightful actress and an amazing beauty. I don’t think she was in a very good place when the film was being made, and John Glen, for whom I have tremendous respect, I don’t think was at a place where he could really work with her on her performance…. Melina’s character is one of the highlights of the film. Although based on Judy Havelock from Fleming’s original short story, For Your Eyes Only, Melina is a re-imagining of Honey Ryder from Dr. No. Melina’s father did archeological work that took her all over the globe, just like Honey’s marine zoologist father travelled with her. Both fathers are killed by the villain. Melina’s quest for vengeance gives the strongest sense of narrative drive in the film…. The loss of her parents also gives Melina a deep sense of sadness that weighs uncomfortably on the film. Bond is doing double takes as his car is blown to bits and attackers are shot, making wisecracks and introducing himself with a charming grin while Melina is clearly suffering unrelenting grief. The two performances are both legitimate, but they do not mix…. In the original short story, Judy Havelock is determined to kill the man who took the life of her parents (and killed her pony and dog for good measure). She is transformed and repulsed by the act of murder, which I always felt would have made a stronger place for Bond to meet Melina in a more serious version of For Your Eyes Only. By the end, she’s killed a few folks, injured others and is ready to kill again when Bond tells her that this isn’t the way. To say that this moralizing seems patronizing coming from 007 is an understatement, and, of course, it almost costs both Bond and Melina their lives…. But Carol Bouquet’s haunting looks are a highlight of the film and provide some of the most memorable emotional moments.

Desowitz: Melina, too, is caught in this quest for revenge and makes a tougher and more exotic Bond Girl.

Pfeiffer: Carole Bouquet was an intriguing choice for the female lead. By all accounts, she and Roger Moore were not enamored of each other on the set but the two worked well together. She’s a great beauty, but not in an over-the-top way. She also marked the continuing trend of presenting Bond’s love interest as a strong, courageous and independent character. 

Scivally: Carole Bouquet is a very beautiful woman, a fabulous model and was splendid as a Chanel spokesperson, but she is not an actress. This is a character who should be in great emotional turmoil, but Bouquet is ice-cold in every scene. Given that she’s the real protagonist of the story — it’s her quest for revenge that drives the plot as much as the search for the ATAC — the lack of emotional investment by the actress creates a lack of emotional involvement in the viewer, leaving Melina’s storyline flat and lifeless. As a result, Carole Bouqet’s Melina Havelock is not, really, a memorable Bond woman.

Coate: What is the legacy of For Your Eyes Only?

Christie: For Your Eyes Only is rarely a film to appear in fans’ top ten lists of favorite Bond movies, but there is still much to recommend it. The winning performances of the main cast, some multifaceted characterization, a credible threat and some well-judged one-liners all combine to create a solid entry in the series, and a robust directorial debut from John Glen. Today it may well be most prominently remembered for the role it plays in shifting the series into darker territory, and for the way in which Moore’s Bond rediscovers his Cold War credentials after the expansive travelogues of his seventies heyday. But no matter how determined the tonal shift may have been, For Your Eyes Only provides plenty of entertainment to enjoy; it may be just about as understated as the Bond films ever got, but those seeking the nostalgia of a taut 1980s espionage thriller will not be disappointed.

Cork: For Your Eyes Only has two important legacies. The first is the one everyone recognizes: this is the Bond that stepped back from the excesses of Moonraker, made a stand to go back to Fleming and attempt to look at the character of James Bond…. The second legacy is that this is the Bond film that marks a real retrenchment in the series. While Hollywood was embracing bold young filmmakers like Scorsese, Lucas and Spielberg, Eon was grooming their own “new” generation: director John Glen, production designer Peter Lamont, co-screenwriter Michael G. Wilson. All of these creative forces had tremendous experience in the world of Bond, but owed nothing to United Artists and little to the film industry at large. John Glen’s talent for amazing action and large set pieces created the tone for the next four Bond films. The writing team of Michael G. Wilson and Richard Maibaum gave voice to 007 for the decade. The balance of Fleming influences, Wilson and Maibaum’s humor and the pair’s reinterpretation of current events would form the basis for the Bond stories through 1989’s Licence to Kill. As UA and soon MGM/UA spiraled into deeper chaos, Cubby Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson did everything they could to insulate 007 from the whims of Hollywood. For Your Eyes Only became the blueprint for Bond in the 1980s, a more realistic 007 whom one could believe not only kept the world safe, but also kept an eye on his expense account. 

Desowitz: Again, it stands out as the toughest and most Fleming-like of the Moore Bonds. The title song by Sheena Easton is memorably romantic, and the pre-credit nod to Tracy with the gravesite visit and the subsequent finishing off of Blofeld is a nice touch (though executed too lightheartedly). It introduces the theme of revenge while tying up a loose end. If Moore had ended his Bond tenure with For Your Eyes Only, it would’ve been all the more noteworthy.

Pfeiffer: For Your Eyes Only enjoys a reasonably enthusiastic following among Bond fans. It’s certainly not top-of-the-pack but its attributes have aged well while its weaker elements don’t seem any worse than they did in 1981. The movie greatly misses a John Barry score and a bit of judicious editing could have made it much better by trimming some of the embarrassing gags, but in the end, it has held up well — and provided fans with what many think is Moore’s best interpretation of Bond. 

Scivally: The biggest legacy of For Your Eyes Only is that it set the tone for the Bond films of the 1980s, all of which were directed by John Glen. These films were smaller in scope than the Bond films of the 1970s, leaning more towards reality than fantasy. They also tried to reintroduce elements of Ian Fleming’s stories that had not yet been used in the films. (Bond and Melina being keel-hauled over coral in shark-infested waters was from the novel Live and Let Die, and the auction scene in the next film, Octopussy, was inspired by the short story Property of a Lady.) There were more dramatic scenes written for James Bond, giving Roger Moore a chance to show some of the character’s darker aspects, as when he kicks Locque’s car off the cliff. But these films still contain the often over-the-top stunts that Bond audiences expect, creating a blend of reality-based moments and pure fantasy that doesn’t always coalesce into a comfortable whole.

Coate: Thank you; Tom, John, Bill, Lee, and Bruce; for participating and sharing your thoughts about For Your Eyes Only on the occasion of its 35th anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Eon Productions Limited, Danjaq LLC, United Artists Corporation, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment.

SPECIAL THANKS

Mike Heenan, Cliff Stephenson.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “Casino Royale” on its 10th Anniversary.

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached at: michaelcoate@thedigitalbits.com

The piece also features an interview segment with Cameron associate, Van Ling (who was also featured a couple years ago in our 30th anniversary coverage of the original Terminator).

T2 NUMBER$

• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 1 = Rank on list of top box-office earners of 1991 (calendar year)
• 1 = Rank on list of top box-office earners of 1991 (legacy)
• 1 = Rank on list of top box-office earners of 1991 (among R-rated films)
• 1 = Rank on list of top box-office earners of 1991 (summer season)
• 1 = Rank on TriStar’s all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release
• 4 = Number of Academy Awards
• 4 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie (weeks 1-4)
• 5 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 6 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 11 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release (rental)
• 13 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release (gross)
• 16 = Number of days to gross $100 million
• 18 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1990s
• 24 = Number of 70mm prints
• 25 = Number of years TriStar’s top-earning film
• 108 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• 126 = Number of days to gross $200 million
• 148 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (worldwide)
• 161 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic)
• 2,274 = Number of opening-week bookings

• $99.95 = Suggested retail price of original home video release
• $119.95 = Suggested retail price of 1993 Special Edition LaserDisc set
• $13,969 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $9.3 million = Box-office gross (preview screenings + opening day)
• $31.8 million = Box-office gross (opening weekend, Days 3-5)
• $52.3 million = Box-office gross (preview screenings + first two days + opening weekend)
• $102.0 million = Production cost
• $112.5 million = Box-office rental
• $179.9 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $198.4 million = Box-office rental (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $204.8 million = Box-office gross
• $315.0 million = Box-office gross (international)
• $361.2 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $519.8 million = Box-office gross (worldwide)
• $555.6 million = Box-office gross (international, adjusted for inflation)
• $916.8 million = Box-office gross (worldwide, adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Cameron’s achievement isn’t only technical. He’s using all the not-so-cheap thrills of a violent genre to make a movie with an antiviolence message, and the wonder of T2 is that he pulls it off without looking silly.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“Terminator 2 arrives with a bang, waving a pacifist flag that is the height of hypocrisy in a film that exploits mind-boggling levels of violence and mayhem.” — James Verniere, Boston Herald

“If the reported $100 million budget is a study in excess, at least a lot of it ended up on the screen.” — Variety

“Brutally beautiful, darkly comic sci-fi, Terminator 2: Judgment Day is guaranteed to destroy the feeble competition and conquer the world this summer. Visceral to the point of overkill, a berserk blizzard of kinetic images, it doesn’t even give you time to be scared.” — Joe Brown, The Washington Post

“Mr. Cameron has made a swift, exciting special-effects epic that thoroughly justifies its vast expense and greatly improves upon the first film’s potent but rudimentary visual style… . This tirelessly violent, ultimately exhausting film has the utter sincerity of all good science fiction, and a lot more flair than most, but it suffers from a certain confusion of purpose. In the end, it amounts to quite the pistol-packing plea for peace.” — Janet Maslin, The New York Times

“More elaborate than the original, but just as shrewdly put together, it cleverly combines the most successful elements of its predecessor with a number of new twists to produce one hell of a wild ride, a Twilight of the Gods that takes no prisoners and leaves audiences desperate for mercy.” — Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times

“Two thumbs up.” — Siskel & Ebert

“This is one terrific action picture, thanks to some truly spectacular and mystifying special effects.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“Schwarzenegger’s genius as a movie star is to find roles that build on, rather than undermine, his physical and vocal characteristics.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Four Stars. Brace yourself, the summer movie has arrived. Everything you could want in an action-adventure — incredible special effects, and the awesome and amusing presence of Arnold Schwarzenegger.” — Jack Garner, Gannett News Service

“The surprise is that a picture made to be exciting for 136 minutes is so unexciting most of the time. It starts with a bang and keeps banging, so there’s little suspense and no crescendo.” — Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic

“No one in the movies today can match Cameron’s talent for this kind of hyperbolic, big-screen action.” — Hal Hinson, The Washington Post

“Like so many sequels, [T2] lacks the freshness of the first film and gives us no one to root for.” — Leonard Maltin, Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide

“It’s a joyride until you think about the film’s biggest contradiction. How come this movie celebrating the superiority of human feelings over machine precision is most alive when thrilling in the mechanical perfection of the Terminator and T-1000? Inside Terminator 2 beats a human heart. But its soul is that of a killer machine.” — Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer

“Schwarzenegger is in impeccable deadpan form, milking his tough-guy image for all it’s worth and getting laughs out of the Terminator’s wooden parroting of slang (’No problemo’ probably will be a catch-phrase to reckon with this summer)… . This is a movie that adores its own violence, then shakes its head with regret over it. The right hand knows what the left is doing — and isn’t at all bothered by it.” — Michael Upchurch, The Seattle Times

“[T2] is a movie that seems to set new marks for violence, explosiveness, state-of-the-art technical effects and budgetary extravagance. It is, at the same time, dazzling and numbing, a movie that stuns you in all senses of the word… . Considerably overlong at two hours and 16 minutes, the film bombards you so unrelentingly that you eventually become indifferent to action that would have popped your eyes out two hours earlier… . But if Terminator 2 is guilty of wretched excess, it is also one of the most remarkable science-fiction adventures, on a technical level at least.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“Puts the formerly appealing burger waitress heroine through an unappealing Jane Fonda workout. Makes chipmunk-cute Hamilton look like a piece of beef jerky left in the sun for six months. Motivation analysis: failed Sigourney Weaver wannabe effort.” — Kathy Huffhines, Detroit Free Press

“A humongous, visionary parable that intermittently enthralls and ultimately disappoints.” — Richard Corliss, Time

“$100 million worth of special affects [sic] fizzles like a fireworks display after 10 minutes. The thrill of Terminator 2 is gone, and you start to wonder why Ah-nold, dolled up in commando gear like a left-over Rambo, doesn’t get it. Guns don’t work on this heavy metal. But Arnold keeps shooting. Or you wonder at the high moral road Cameron and writer William Wisher seem to think they took with their tacked on anti-war theme — in the name of which all manner of maiming, death and destruction occurs. Finally, you wonder how $100 million could be this boring.” — Catherine Dunphy, Toronto Star

“The film’s relentless pummeling grows wearying at 135 minutes. The first Terminator, a half-hour shorter, was leaner and meaner.” — Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

“Terminator 2 imagines things you wouldn’t even be likely to dream and gets these visions onto the screen with a seamlessness that’s mind-boggling.” — Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

 [On to Page 2] 

[Back to Page 1]

THE SHOWCASE ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a list of the “six-track” showcase presentations of Terminator 2 in the United States and Canada. These were, arguably, the best theaters in which to experience T2 and the only way to faithfully hear the movie’s Academy Award-winning sound.

T2 was the seventh of ten movies between 1990 and 1992 released in Cinema Digital Sound, the first 5.1-channel theatrical audio format and the precursor to the modern-day digital audio formats. And of the 200+ new movies released during 1991, T2 was among only ten to have 70mm prints prepared.

Of the 2,000+ prints issued of T2 in North America, the distributor prepared only about a dozen in 35mm with Cinema Digital Sound (CDS) and two dozen in 70mm (six CDS and 18 Dolby-encoded magnetic). The balance of the print run was a mixture of optical 4-channel Dolby SR and Dolby A.

For this release, TriStar employed the services of Lucasfilm’s Theater Alignment Program (TAP) to evaluate and approve the theaters selected to book a 70mm print. As well, the movie was booked into as many THX-certified venues as possible.

The noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the T2 70mm magnetic prints was Dolby “A,” and the soundtrack was a split-surround/single-surround combo format. The aspect ratio was 2.20:1 and was blown up from Super-35 photography.

A teaser trailer for Hook was sent out with the Terminator 2 prints and which the distributor recommended be screened with the presentation.

The listing includes those special engagements that commenced July 3rd, 1991. The listing does not include any move-overs, subsequent run or international engagements, nor does it include any of the movie’s thousands of standard 35mm engagements. (Some engagements included preview screenings on July 2nd.)

So, which North American theaters screened the six-track version of Terminator 2: Judgment Day? Read on….

* 35mm Cinema Digital Sound

** 70mm Cinema Digital Sound

*** 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo

ARIZONA

• Scottsdale — United Artists’ Scottsdale Pavilions 11* <THX>

CALIFORNIA

• Emeryville — United Artists’ Emery Bay 10* <THX>
• La Mesa — Pacific’s Grossmont Trolley 8*
• Lakewood — Pacific’s Regency 8*
• Los Angeles (Century City) — AMC’s Century 14** <THX>
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) — Pacific’s Cinerama Dome**
• Los Angeles (Westwood) — United Artists’ Coronet Triplex** <THX>
• Marina del Rey — United Artists’ Cinema 6*
• Newport Beach — Edwards’ Newport Triplex***
• Orange — Syufy’s Cinedome 8***
• Sacramento — Syufy’s Century 6***
• San Diego — Unite Artists’ Horton Plaza 7* <THX>
• San Francisco — United Artists’ Galaxy 4* <THX>
• San Francisco — United Artists’ Galaxy 4*** <THX>
• San Jose — Syufy’s Century 22 Triplex***
• San Rafael — Pacific’s Regency 6*
• Universal City — Cineplex Odeon’s Universal City 18*** <THX>

COLORADO

• Denver — United Artists’ Continental**

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — K-B’s Fine Arts***

FLORIDA

• South Miami — United Artists’ Movies at the Falls 7*

GEORGIA

• Atlanta — United Artists’ Lenox Square 6*

HAWAII

• Honolulu — Consolidated’s Waikiki Triplex*** <HPS-4000>

ILLINOIS

• Chicago — Cineplex Odeon’s McClurg Court Triplex*** <THX>
• Skokie — Loews’ Old Orchard 4***

MARYLAND

• Bethesda — United Artists’ Bethesda 10*

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston — Loews’ Cheri 4***

NEW JERSEY

• Princeton — United Artists’ Movies at Market Fair 10*

NEW YORK

• New York (Brooklyn) — United Artists’ Movies at Sheepshead Bay 9*
• New York (Manhattan) — Loews 19th Street East 6***
• New York (Manhattan) — Loews’ 84th Street 6**
• New York (Manhattan) — United Artists’ Criterion Center 6***
• New York (Manhattan) — United Artists’ Gemini Twin**
• Woodbury — United Artists’ The Syosset***

PENNSYLVANIA

• Philadelphia — SamEric’s SamEric 4***

TEXAS

• Dallas — United Artists’ Plaza 8* <THX>
• Dallas — United Artists’ Plaza 8*** <THX>
• Fort Worth — United Artists’ Hulen 10* <THX>

VIRGINIA

• Merrifield — National Amusements’ Arlington Blvd/Lee Highway 14*** <THX>
• Reston — National Amusements’ Reston Town Center 11***

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some of the CDS prints were replaced during engagement with Dolby prints.

 [On to Page 3] 

[Back to Page 2]

THE INTERVIEW

Van Ling is a freelance visual effects supervisor, producer, writer, editor, consultant, and digital artist. Van is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Southern California’s School of Cinema-Television, and he began his film career as a creative/technical/research/VFX assistant to James Cameron on The Abyss, later serving for several years as the head of production for Cameron’s production company, Lightstorm Entertainment. He later formed (with Casey Cannon) the visual effects company Banned from the Ranch Entertainment, where he was involved from 1994 through 1999. Van’s diverse and award-winning career has included producing added-value content for DVD and Blu-ray (and even as far back as LaserDisc), including material found on the discs of several James Cameron movies including The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, The Abyss, and Titanic, and others such as Field of Dreams. His graphics work can be seen in the Video Essentials calibration disc and in Disney theme park attractions such as Star Tours: The Adventure Continues, the EPCOT Test Track and The Legend of Jack Sparrow. Passengers aboard the Disney Cruise Ships can see his multiscreen animated city panoramas in the Skyline Lounge. His VFX work can be seen in numerous films including The Abyss, Terminator 2, Twister, Starship Troopers, Titanic, and Doctor Dolittle (1998), in trailers for THX and DTS, as well as in DVD & Blu-ray menu design, including those found on the discs for Star Wars, The Hunger Games, Independence Day, and Terminator 2. Attentive viewers might even spot Van as an actor in Terminator 2, AlienNation and Titanic. Van is also an active member of the Visual Effects Branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Producers Guild of America and the Visual Effects Society. He has served six terms on the VES Board of Directors, and is active on the Archives, Vision and Annual Membership Meeting Committees, co-Chairing the latter. His VES 50 Most Influential VFX Films compilation and annual VFX-film montages have been inspiring artists at VES events around the world.

Van kindly spoke to The Bits about his time working for James Cameron and the popularity and significance of Terminator 2.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Terminator 2: Judgment Day worthy of celebration on its 25th anniversary?

Van Ling: I feel it was and still is a watershed film in both for its use of visual effects and for its effective storytelling in an action genre not generally noted for having emotion and thrills blended in such a successful way. It’s almost universally loved, in the same way that say Ghostbusters and Back to the Future are remembered, with memorable lines and iconic imagery and sequences… and the fact that it’s a big-budget sequel to what was essentially a low-budget indie film makes it all the more rare. It’s basically The Empire Strikes Back of the Terminator films… it broadened the world and characters, added more emotional depth in continuing the story, and upped the visual stakes. Although one might argue it did Empire one better by actually having an ending, rather than being a middle act of a saga that had to conclude in a subsequent film. There was no narrative need for subsequent films other than financial considerations. That’s why, to me, The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day are canon, and the rest are just fan fiction.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like to see the finished movie for the first time?

Ling: I was very fortunate to have had a front seat on the ground floor of the development and making of the film, thanks to James Cameron. On the day we met in November of 1986, he actually told me the basic premise of the film, and that was the day I count as my first day on the show. But I didn’t start working with him officially until a few weeks later, when he hired me as his researcher on The Abyss. And for the next half-decade, I was intimately involved in the making of both that film and T2, but I reckon I would count the first time I really saw T2 was at the first full-audience public screening of the completed film in May of 1991… it was a studio screening at the Cary Grant Theater on the Sony lot, and it was packed with studio personnel, their families, friends and various other general audience members. And it was the most exhilarating and gratifying screening I had ever experienced in my life. People were enjoying the hell out of the film from the get-go, but when the T-1000 got shot in the mall hallway and then healed and got up again, the audience when absolutely crazy, screaming and cheering. I had been working on it with Jim and the team for years by that point, and I knew what a great film it was and how pioneering the VFX work was, but at that moment, I just got to feel what it was like to be an audience member seeing something mind-blowing for the first time.

Coate: Which do you think is better: the theatrical cut or longer director’s cut?

Ling: I always have to correct people when they ask this question: calling one version the “director’s cut” implies that the other version is somehow NOT the director’s approved version, that it is compromised in some way. BOTH versions are the “director’s cut,” as Jim Cameron had full approval over the two cuts; that’s why we specifically called it the “Special Edition.” It’s just that the Theatrical version was shorter and more tightly-paced to be able to run more screenings a day in theaters, while the Special Edition had more narrative depth and a slightly slower pace. As the producer of the Special Edition version, I can appreciate both cuts for their purposes, but I like the longer cut particularly for the “Resetting the Switch” scene in the middle.

Coate: It’s been many, many years since you produced the exhaustive supplemental material for the T2 LaserDisc boxed set. Is there anything else you would like to do special edition-wise should another opportunity arise?

Ling: I once calculated that as of 2015, I have fully-produced or had been involved with something like a dozen releases of the film to home video, and each time I tried to add something new… so I think I may have strip-mined that quarry bare! Although the few things I would have liked to have included over the years but never got a chance due to licensing or clearance issues were: the T2 crew video (it was a private-viewing-only video cut to music that would require expensive clearances); some of the more fabled auditions we had for John Connor and the T-1000 (with Macauley Culkin and Billy Idol, respectively); and the actual film segments from the T2:3D Battle Across Time theme park attraction (which may be possible now that the attraction is gone from the Universal theme parks). And the famed Guns ’N’ Roses T2 music video directed by Stan Winston hasn’t been on any of the releases since the original Special Edition LaserDisc, because the band’s music label understandably wanted a ton of money to re-license it for DVD/home video.

Coate: Where do you think T2 ranks among director James Cameron’s body of work?

Ling: This is a really tough question, since nearly everything in Jim’s body of work is pretty spectacular! I would say it is certainly in the top four, along with Aliens, The Terminator and Titanic. I’m not sure which order I’d put those in, though.

Coate: What is the legacy of T2?

Ling: T2 was to me a watershed film in the history of visual effects because it was a great blend of old and new techniques that had to work seamlessly together to create a key character that could not have been done without the effects. A lot of people don’t realize that there were only about three to four dozen digital shots in the entire film… the rest are all done with traditional VFX techniques like puppets, miniatures, prosthetics, practical explosions and even stop-motion. It built upon the things we did and learned on The Abyss and paved the way for computer graphics to go to the next level on Jurassic Park. One of the things that we did in T2 that I think had the biggest impact on the entire movie industry was the full-on use of digital composites in the film, and not only for ILM’s three dozen T-1000 shots. PDI did some seamless digital wire removals, scratch removals and signage flops in which we were able to literally alter the image invisibly in ways that could not have been done without serious generational loss without the use of digital compositing. Some prior films had done digital image manipulation before (we had ONE digital composite in The Abyss), but I believe it was on T2 that it became a truly practical, realistically-affordable tool in the VFX arsenal. So hidden underneath all the cool morphing, the CG liquid metal character animation and the great Stan Winston gags, the real legacy-making revolution that came out of T2 was in my opinion the practical use of digital compositing and digital image manipulation, and those techniques are now the most commonplace VFX work being done in every movie in every genre. And it showed that digital visual effects were a technique that could be used on any type of project — historical, contemporary, romantic comedy, anything — and not just science fiction or action films… . And most importantly, T2 has stood the test of time because it’s a hell of a great ride as a movie, which is the ultimate legacy for any film. But maybe I’m a little biased.

Coate: Thank you, Van, for sharing your thoughts about Terminator 2 on the occasion of its 25th anniversary.

--T2--

SPECIAL THANKS

Al Alvarez, Don Beelik, Rachel Bernstein, Bobby Henderson, Bill Kretzel, Joanne Lammers, Van Ling, Monty Marin, Brad Miller, Cliff Stephenson, J. Thomas, Kurt Wahlner, Sean Weitzel, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project, and to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Margaret Herrick Library and Fairbanks Center for Motion Picture Study.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

Primary references for this project were promotional material published in daily newspapers archived digitally and/or on microfilm plus numerous articles published in film industry trade publications Billboard, Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety.

SELECTED IMAGES

Copyright Artisan Entertainment / Canal+ / Carolco Pictures / Lightstorm Entertainment / Lionsgate Home Entertainment / LIVE Home Video / Pacific Western / Pioneer Entertainment / TriStar Pictures

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

IN MEMORIAM

• Mali Finn (Casting), 1938-2007
• Stan Winston (Special Makeup Producer), 1946-2008
• Joseph Viskocil (Special Effects Supervisor), 1952-2014

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached at: michaelcoate@thedigitalbits.com

Aliens, directed by James Cameron (The Terminator, Titanic), opened 30 years ago this week, and for the occasion The Bits features a compilation of box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context, passages from vintage film reviews, a list of the 70-millimeter “showcase” presentations, and, finally, an interview segment with a group of Alien franchise authorities.

ALIENS NUMBER$

• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 1 = Rank among top-earning R-rated movies of 1986 (calendar year)
• 2 = Number of Academy Awards
• 2 = Rank among top-earning R-rated movies of 1986 (legacy)
• 4 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie (weeks 1-4)
• 4 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1986 (summer season)
• 6 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1986 (calendar year)
• 7 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 7 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 7 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1986 (legacy)
• 9 = Rank among Fox’s top-earning movies of all time at close of original run
• 56 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1980s
• 59 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release (rental)
• 63 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release (gross)
• 151 = Number of 70mm prints
• 1,437 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $89.95 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release
• $6,995 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $10.1 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross
• $18.0 million = Production cost
• $39.6 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $42.5 million = Box-office rental (domestic)
• $85.2 million = Box-office gross (domestic)
• $93.5 million = Box-office rental (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $98.2 million = Box-office gross (international)
• $183.3 million = Box-office gross (worldwide)
• $187.4 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $215.9 million = Box-office gross (international, adjusted for inflation)
• $403.1 million = Box-office gross (worldwide, adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“The class act thriller for many summers to come…. Guaranteed to knock the wind and wits out of you.” — Peter Travers, People

“Spectacular! For sheer intensity, Aliens is not likely to be matched by any movie this year. A triumph of bravura action.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“[W]ritten and directed by James Cameron, the Canadian boy from Chippawa, Ont., Aliens is smartly conceived and executed, and it does contain its share of thrills and scares. But it is very much a sequel, and the element of surprise, the most invaluable of commodities in enterprises such as this, has been lost.” — Ron Base, Toronto Star

“Director James Cameron makes all the right moves. [H]e brings to Aliens a solid gift for action, pacing and excitement…. Though Aliens is unable to eschew some obvious sci-fi conventions and those of other genres as well, it brings a fresh and lively spirit to this tired cinematic clime. Scene to scene, encounter to encounter, its tension builds unrelentingly. So, fasten your seat belts. It’s a blast.” — Rick Kogan, Chicago Tribune

“Aliens is about nothing at all beyond squeezing yet another buck from what seven years ago was an original, arresting — and profitable — science-fiction-horror [film]. Alien was so good because it said all that needed to be said on its subject. [S]equels are superfluous, dictated by pure greed as opposed to any driving artistic compulsion.” — Richard Freedman, The (Springfield, MA) Morning Union

“One of the best science fiction movies ever!” — Michael Healy, The Denver Post

“If the sequel doesn’t equal Alien in cardiac-arrest value, it’s only because stainless-steel teeth, repulsiveness and slime have gone about as far as they could go (with John Carpenter’s 1982 The Thing), then gone on to be a laughing matter in Ghostbusters.” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“The greatest horror movie since Frankenstein!” — Scott Cain, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

“Long after the thrills and chills wear off, I would argue that Aliens will be remembered not for its military saltiness, but for the role that Weaver takes to full-bodied heroics.” — Peter Stack, San Francisco Chronicle

“Director James Cameron’s continuation of Ridley Scott’s Alien is long on brawn and short on brains. Too many Marines, too much noise, and too many acres of heavy hardware clutter up the scenery.” — Catharine Rambeau, Detroit Free Press

“[Aliens is] a sequel that exceeds its predecessor in the reach of its appeal while giving Weaver new emotional dimensions to explore.” — Richard Schickel, Time

“Aliens could have used a lot more of what made the first ill-fated voyage such a harrowing experience: creeping horror that is so cold-blooded and unspeakable you scream but nothing comes out.” — Glenn Lovell, San Jose Mercury News

“An action-thriller that women will cheer for.” — Judith Crist, WOR-TV

“In a summer of disappointing sequels, it’s a pleasure to announce that Aliens is every bit as good as the original. That said, it’s also quite different, which is probably why it succeeds where other sequels have failed.” — Marylynn Uricchio, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“Talk about relentless. There probably has never been a cliffhanger as outrageous or as ingeniously sustained as Aliens, writer-director James Cameron’s absolutely smashing sequel to Alien, Ridley Scott’s 1979 science-fiction/horror classic…. Aliens proves that a bigger budget and more elaborate special effects haven’t spoiled Cameron, and that he can still generate that involvement. In many ways, this is one sequel that improves on the original.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“Count me out of the fan club for this one. To me Aliens is one extremely violent, protracted attack on the senses…. Toward the end, the film resorts to placing a young girl in jeopardy in a pathetic attempt to pander to who knows what audience. Some people have praised the technical excellence of Aliens. Well, the Eiffel Tower is technically impressive, but I wouldn’t want to watch it fall apart on people for two hours.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“The director, James Cameron, has been assigned to make an intense and horrifying thriller, and he has delivered. Weaver comes through with a very strong, sympathetic performance. The supporting players are sharply drawn. The special effects are professional. I’m giving the movie a high rating for its skill and professionalism and because it does the job it says it will do. I am also advising you not to eat before you go to see it.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“[L]ittle touches make Aliens much more fun than the run of the science-fiction genre. And its creatures are much more ingeniously mean than the gremlins of two summers ago.” — Marsha McCreadie, The (Phoenix) Arizona Republic

“[O]ne of the things that makes Aliens work is the performance of Sigourney Weaver, reprising her role from the first film. She is strong and serious and very human. And she puts to shame the spate of one-dimensional macho heroes we’ve had lately who all look like plastic imitations of each other.” — Christopher Hicks, (Salt Lake City) Deseret News

“The special-effects specialists are featured prominently in the credits that precede Aliens, and so they should be. Under the direction of James Cameron, they have put together a flaming, flashing, crashing, crackling blow-’em up show that keeps you popping from your seat despite your better instincts and the basically conventional scare tactics.” — Walter Goodman, The New York Times

“The original Alien was a haunted-house movie, brilliantly transposed to outer space. Claustrophobia was its primary tool of terror, and it featured a gross out unparalleled in movie history. Aliens writer James Cameron had the good sense to try to make a different kind of movie. Aliens resembles less its predecessor than The Terminator.” — John Podhoretz, The Washington Times

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a list of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Aliens in the United States and Canada. These were, arguably, the best theaters in which to experience Aliens and the only way to faithfully hear the movie’s Oscar-nominated audio mix and Oscar-winning sound effects editing. Only eleven percent of the film’s initial print run was in the deluxe, expensive-to-manufacture 70mm format. And of the 200+ new movies released during 1986, Aliens was among only sixteen to have 70mm prints produced, and the film had the highest number of large-format prints that year and the second-highest in 20th Century Fox’s history behind Return of the Jedi (1983).

For this release, Fox employed the services of Lucasfilm’s Theater Alignment Program (TAP) to evaluate and approve the theaters selected to book a 70mm print. As well, the movie was booked into as many THX-certified venues as possible.

The film’s 70mm prints were blown up from spherical 35mm photography and were pillarboxed at approximately 1.85:1. The noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the prints was Dolby “A,” and the soundtrack was Format 42 (three screen/one surround + baby boom).

A 70mm trailer for The Fly was sent out with the 70mm Aliens prints and which the distributor recommended be screened with the presentation.

The listing includes those 70mm engagements that commenced July 18th, 1986. The listing does not include any of the additional wave, mid-run upgrade, move-over, second-run, re-release or international engagements, nor does it include any of the movie’s thousands of standard 35mm engagements.

So, which North American theaters screened the 70mm version of Aliens? Read on…

ALBERTA

• Calgary — Famous Players’ Palace
• Calgary — Famous Players’ Sunridge 5-plex
• Edmonton — Famous Players’ Londonderry Twin
• Edmonton — Famous Players’ Paramount

ARIZONA

• Phoenix — Plitt’s Cine Capri
• Phoenix — United Artists’ Chris-Town Mall 6-plex

ARKANSAS

• Little Rock — United Artists’ Cinema City 7-plex <THX>

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Burnaby — Famous Players’ Lougheed Mall Triplex
• Vancouver — Famous Players’ Capitol 6-plex

CALIFORNIA

• Alhambra — Edwards’ Alhambra Place 5-plex
• Buena Park — United Artists’ Buena Park Mall 8-plex <THX>
• Cerritos — United Artists’ Cerritos Mall Twin
• Costa Mesa — Edwards’ South Coast Plaza Triplex
• El Cajon — United Artists’ Parkway Plaza Triplex
• Hayward — United Artists’ Hayward 5-plex
• Huntington Beach — Edwards’ Charter Centre 5-plex
• Long Beach — United Artists’ Marina Marketplace 6-plex
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) — United Artists’ Egyptian Triplex
• Los Angeles (North Hollywood) — United Artists’ Valley Plaza 6-plex
• Los Angeles (Sherman Oaks) — General Cinema’s Sherman Oaks 5-plex <THX>
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) — General Cinema’s Avco Center Triplex <THX>
• Los Angeles (Woodland Hills) — United Artists’ Warner Center 6-plex <THX>
• Marina del Rey — United Artists’ Marina Marketplace 6-plex
• Monterey — United Artists’ Cinema 70
• Mountain View — Syufy’s Century 10-plex
• National City — Pacific’s Sweetwater 6-plex
• Newark — Syufy’s Cinedome West 7-plex
• Newport Beach — Edwards’ Newport Twin
• Oakland — Renaissance Rialto’s Grand Lake 4-plex
• Orange — Syufy’s Cinedome 6-plex
• Pasadena — United Artists’ United Artists
• Pinole — Syufy’s Century 9-plex
• Redwood City — United Artists’ Redwood 6-plex
• Sacramento — Syufy’s Century 6-plex
• Sacramento — Syufy’s Cinedome 8-plex
• San Diego — United Artists’ Glasshouse 6-plex
• San Diego — United Artists’ Horton Plaza 7-plex <THX>
• San Francisco — United Artists’ Coronet
• San Rafael — Marin’s Regency 6-plex
• San Ramon — Festival’s Crow Canyon 6-plex
• Santa Barbara — Metropolitan’s Arlington
• Santa Clara — United Artists’ Cinema 150
• South San Francisco — Syufy’s Century Plaza 8-plex
• Thousand Oaks — United Artists’ Oaks Mall 5-plex
• Westminster — United Artists’ Westminster Mall Twin

COLORADO

• Colorado Springs — Commonwealth’s Cinema 70 Triplex
• Denver — Commonwealth’s Continental

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — K-B’s Fine Arts

FLORIDA

• Coral Springs — General Cinema’s Coral Square 8-plex
• Fort Lauderdale — General Cinema’s Galleria 4-plex
• Largo — AMC’s Tri-City 8-plex
• North Miami Beach — Wometco’s 163rd Street Triplex
• Orlando — General Cinema’s Colonial Promenade 6-plex
• South Miami — Wometco’s Dadeland Triplex
• Winter Park — Wometco’s Winter Park Triplex

GEORGIA

• Atlanta — Columbia

• Atlanta — GTC’s Lenox Square 6-plex
• Kennesaw — Storey’s Town Center 8-plex
• Savannah — Litchfield’s Tara 4-plex
• Tucker — AMC’s Northlake Festival 8-plex

HAWAII

• Honolulu — Consolidated’s Cinerama

ILLINOIS

• Belleville — BAC’s Cinema 4-plex
• Calumet City — Plitt’s River Oaks 8-plex
• Chicago — Plitt’s Carnegie
• Evanston — M&R’s Evanston 5-plex
• Evergreen Park — M&R’s Evergreen 5-plex
• Niles — Essaness’ Golf Mill Triplex
• Norridge — M&R’s Norridge 8-plex
• Northbrook — Center’s Edens Twin
• Schaumburg — Plitt’s Woodfield 9-plex

[On to Page 2] 

[Back to Page 1]

KANSAS

• Overland Park — Dickinson’s Glenwood Twin

LOUISIANA

• Baton Rouge — General Cinema’s Cortana Mall Triplex
• New Orleans — General Cinema’s Robert E. Lee

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg — Famous Players’ Metropolitan

MARYLAND

• Catonsville — Einbinder & Brehm’s Westview 8-plex

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston — Sack’s Cinema 57 Twin

MICHIGAN

• Ann Arbor — United Artists’ Fox Village 4-plex
• Bloomfield Hills — Redstone’s Showcase 10-plex
• Cascade — Redstone’s Showcase 8-plex
• Harper Woods — AMC’s Eastland 7-plex
• Livonia — Nicholas George’s Mai Kai
• Southfield — Nicholas George’s Americana 8-plex
• Sterling Heights — Redstone’s Showcase 11-plex
• Troy — United Artists’ The Movies at Oakland 5-plex

MINNESOTA

• Bloomington — General Cinema’s Southtown Twin
• Roseville — United Artists’ The Movies at Pavilion Place 7-plex
• St. Louis Park — General Cinema’s Shelard Park 5-plex

MISSOURI

• Independence — Mid-America’s Blue Ridge East 5-plex
• Richmond Heights — AMC’s Esquire 4-plex
• Springfield — Dickinson’s Century 21

NEBRASKA

• Lincoln — Commonwealth’s Cooper/Lincoln
• Omaha — Commonwealth’s Indian Hills Twin

NEVADA

• Las Vegas — Syufy’s Cinedome 6-plex

NEW JERSEY

• Paramus — RKO Century’s Route 17 Triplex
• Sayreville — Redstone’s Amboy 12-plex

NEW MEXICO

• Albuquerque — General Cinema’s Louisiana Blvd. Triplex

NEW YORK

• Albany — Cinema Centers’ Crossgates Mall 12-plex
• Cheektowaga — AMC’s Holiday 6-plex
• Henrietta — Loews’ Towne 4-plex
• Commack — Redstone’s Commack 10-plex
• Hicksville — Town & Country’s Mid-Plaza 6-plex
• Levittown — Loews’ Nassau 6-plex
• Nanuet — United Artists’ Route 59
• New York — Loews’ 84th Street 6-plex
• New York — Loews’ Orpheum Twin
• New York — RKO Century’s Warner Twin (#1)
• New York — RKO Century’s Warner Twin (#2)
• New York — Trans-Lux’s Gotham
• Valley Stream — RKO Century’s Green Acres Triplex

NOVA SCOTIA

• Halifax — Famous Players’ Scotia Square

OHIO

• Beavercreek — Chakeres’ Beavercreek 7-plex
• Cincinnati — USA’s Carousel Twin
• Columbus — General Cinema’s Eastland Mall Twin
• Woodmere — Loews’ Village

OKLAHOMA

• Oklahoma City — General Cinema’s Quail Springs Mall 6-plex

ONTARIO

• Mississauga — Famous Players’ Square One 4-plex
• North York — Famous Players’ Town & Countrye Twin
• Ottawa — Famous Players’ Nelson
• Scarborough — Famous Players’ Cedarbrae 8-plex
• Toronto — Famous Players’ Runnymede Twin
• Toronto — Famous Players’ University 

OREGON

• Beaverton — Moyer’s Tanasbourne Triplex
• Portland — Luxury Theatres’ Eastgate Triplex

PENNSYLVANIA

• Bensalem — AMC’s Premiere Twin
• Montgomeryville — Budco’s 309 9-plex
• Philadelphia — Budco’s Orleans 8-plex
• Philadelphia — Budco’s Regency Twin

QUEBEC

• Dorval — United’s Dorval Triplex
• Laval — United’s Laval 5-plex
• Montreal — United’s Imperial <THX>
• Sainte-Foy — Cinemas Unis’ Canadien

TEXAS

• Addison — United Artists’ Prestonwood Creek 5-plex <THX>
• Austin — Presidio’s Arbor 4-plex <THX>
• Dallas — General Cinema’s Northpark West Twin <THX>
• Houston — General Cinema’s Galleria 4-plex
• Houston — Plitt’s West Oaks 7-plex
• San Antonio — Santikos’ Northwest 10-plex <THX>

UTAH

• Riverdale — Plitt’s Cinedome Twin
• Salt Lake City — Plitt’s Crossroads Triplex
• South Salt Lake — Syufy’s Century 5-plex

VIRGINIA

• Richmond — Neighborhood’s Ridge 7-plex
• Virginia Beach — AMC’s Lynnhaven 8-plex

WASHINGTON

• Bellevue — SRO’s John Danz
• Lynnwood — SRO’s Grand Cinemas Alderwood 8-plex
• Seattle — SRO’s Northgate
• Seattle — United Artists’ Cinema 150
• Tacoma — SRO’s Tacoma Mall Twin
• Tukwila — SRO’s Southcenter

WISCONSIN

• Milwaukee — United Artists’ Southgate
• West Allis — Marcus’ Southtown 6-plex

THE INTERVIEW

Andrew David Clark is writing the biography of Trevor Steedman (who played Private Wierzbowski in Aliens) and is the director of Alien Encounters: Superior Fan Power Since 1979, a documentary about the fan culture that evolved around the Alien franchise. He was an Art Editor in publishing in the United Kingdom, working at The Daily Mirror, Loaded, The Big Issue and as an illustrator and photographer had works published in The Times, Total Film and Empire among others before making a career change to directing documentaries, music promos and working as a news cameraman. He lives on the road in a motorhome called RV-426.

Willie Goldman contributed materials to the Alien Quadrilogy DVD and Alien Anthology Blu-ray sets. He is the co-executive producer and co-creator of the hit Food Network series Ace of Cakes and author (with brother Duff) of The New York Times Bestseller Ace of Cakes: Inside the World of Charm City Cakes. A screenwriter and producer, Willie began his career at NBC Burbank, where he worked on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Later with Greg Kinnear, and Hang Time, and then moved on to Warner Bros. Television, where he worked on the Emmy-winning drama ER for seven seasons. He lives in Los Angeles with his wife, daughter, and massive collection of Aliens memorabilia.

Harry Harris is owner/curator of The Harry Harris Aliens Collection and Archive, one of the largest collections of costumes, props and production material from Aliens. In addition to featuring the collection in both magazines and television, Harry was a key contributor to the Alien Quadrilogy DVD set and a Creative Consultant on the Alien Anthology Blu-ray set. He also served as co-producer on the documentary Alien Encounters: Superior Fan Power Since 1979, and currently works with several 20th Century Fox licensees in helping bring fresh and new Alien themed products to market.

Charles de Lauzirika is the producer of the special features on the award-winning Alien Quadrilogy DVD and Alien Anthology Blu-ray sets. Charles is an acclaimed film documentarian and DVD/Blu-ray producer with over 100 credits, including Blade Runner, Twin Peaks, Prometheus, Top Gun and The Martian. His feature directorial debut Crave, starring Ron Perlman, was released in 2013, and won multiple awards at festivals around the world. He recently produced the Star Wars: Launch Bay featurette now playing at both Disneyland in Anaheim and Disney’s Hollywood Studios in Orlando, which explores the past, present and future of the Star Wars franchise.

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Aliens worthy of celebration on its 30th anniversary?

Andrew David Clark: Aliens has just got better with time. Young people I’ve met who weren’t even born when it was released often credit it among their favorite films. That’s partly because unlike modern blockbusters that follow a formulaic, studio safe template in order to make money, films such as Alien, Aliens, Jaws and Star Wars had far more to do with passionate writing, art, design and director’s vision than much of today’s output that’s micro managed by studio executives. And the kids do notice the difference. The proof is most definitely in the pudding. There’s a reason why they prefer the older Indiana Jones movies, the older Alien movies. Like all those classics, 30 years later people still talk about Aliens, they quote lines from it, other movies and computer games still borrow from it. That’s what a classic is, a movie that transcends generations of audiences to entertain as powerfully as it did when it was first released…. Thirty years on and we’ve had conventions where the cast and fans gather to discuss all sorts of aspects of the film, often attended by people in costume dressed as colonial marines and even Aliens — it’s crazy, the love for the film that people have and it shows just how respected this movie is. And this July at San Diego ComicCon, even the director James Cameron will make a rare appearance on stage to join Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn and the rest of the principal cast for a reunion that few other films can muster three decades on. It will probably be the biggest draw of the entire convention…. I attended DragonCon in Atlanta a few years ago and there were 70 colonial marines and four Aliens parading through the city center, flocked by thousands of people at the sides of the street. That’s extraordinary. Star Wars is known for that kind of thing but it would probably surprise people just how popular Aliens really is…. Aliens had a few “firsts”: mixed gender combat units; ‘Nam era subtext; Terraforming; believable Alien life cycles rooted in science and reason; smart weaponry; even wide screen monitors — back in 1985…. Okay, so some of those things may have appeared in sci-fi literature previously, like in some of Heinlein’s work but it was fresh to cinema audiences. There’s so many reasons for Aliens’ enduring appeal that I suspect somewhere people will be celebrating its 50th anniversary one day.

Willie Goldman: You’re probably asking the wrong guy, since I celebrate its worthiness constantly! Honestly, though, so many reasons. Aliens is the reason it became a “franchise.” If Alien 2 had tanked, that would have been it, but instead it did the complete opposite. Putting Empire Strikes Back aside, as a kid in the 70s and 80s, I think a lot of us were conditioned that sequels were always subpar rehashes of what’s come before — but this movie comes along, and did something that made me fall in love with storytelling: it logically followed-up on the events of the first film, but did so with a story that was absolutely unique and a fresh take. It absolutely respected the narrative trajectory of the first film, and asked the question, “Okay, if this really happened in this universe, what logically would happen next?”…. James Cameron has this scene in Terminator 2 — an action movie — where he gathers all his characters around a kitchen table and they... talk to each other. They explain the fantastical situation they are in — and it was my favorite scene in the film, because it made sense — it made it real. Way too many storytellers rely on characters simply not talking to one another in order to superficially advance the plot — but here Cameron did the opposite, and I really admire the way he thinks logically within the context of the sandboxes he plays in…. And I think this is a huge reason a lot of folks were let down by the story in Alien 3. The bad guy in 1 and 2 ain’t the alien — it’s the evil corporation and their desire to get their hands on this creature at all costs. We spent two movies where that single goal drove both plots, and logically should have been the focal point of the third film. It was the unfulfilled promise of Alien and Aliens. I always say the end of Aliens was the greatest lay-up shot in modern movie franchise history, and they totally bricked it. The set up was all there: the four survivors returning to Earth, the much heard about bio-weapons division — if that isn’t a set up for a great Alien story, I don’t know what is (ironically well followed-up and explored in alternate timelines featured in comics, books, and games)…. Maybe this is something that will ultimately get addressed in what Neill Blomkamp is championing — and as a long-time fan, I have no problem with this. Every Alien movie made begins with Ellen Ripley in a state of sleep — the role of sleeping and dreaming is even explored further in Prometheus — so if the events of 3 and 4 end up being addressed as a hypersleep dream, well, works for me. It doesn’t erase those films or events from existence — so personally I’d be happy with a new take on what happened after the events on LV-426. If you really wanted to get picky, there are certainly plenty of “tells” in Alien 3 that could allude to those events taking place in memory as opposed to the original universe (the Sulaco logo colors, the cryo tubes, etc.)…. So, all this time later, worth celebrating? Absolutely. Aliens came in at a perfect time prior the onslaught of FX-driven filmmaking — where you had this wonderful marriage of story and practical effects. It was a movie where you not only have so many creative participants firing on all cylinders, but the craftsmanship on display absolutely serves as a historical showcase of special effects techniques. So just on a technical level, if you love film it’s completely fascinating — but when you add the addition of a fantastic story, worthy of what’s come before, that’s not just the sort of thing that gets celebrated 30 years later, that’s a franchise maker.

Harry Harris: If you ask people to name five great sci-fi movies, Aliens will probably be in that list. It’s one of the greats for me, a seminal sci-fi movie up there with Star Wars, Blade Runner, Terminator (1 and 2), Predator…. I could go on!

Charles de Lauzirika: I think it’s fair to say that Aliens remains the most popular Alien movie, at least with mainstream audiences, and is still referenced throughout pop culture to this day. It’s almost impossible to go through life without hearing someone quote Hudson at some point. But more than that, I think Aliens stands as a powerful and immensely pleasing sequel that has inspired many other films, comics and video games. And I say all of that as a dyed-in-the-wool Alien purist.

Coate: Can you recall the first time you saw Aliens?

Clark: I first saw it at the cinema and I was nervous going in because I’d seen the first one when I was eleven and it gave me nightmares for ages! I think that set me up for some palpable anxiety and the movie didn’t disappoint. It was a relentless adrenaline rush of a film and I remember it being so dark, it really weighed down on you. There’s not a lot of films that achieve that; the original Dawn of the Dead is another one that succeeds in doing that. Roger Ebert expressed similar in his review of the film at the time…. People like to harp on Aliens being an action film and it is, I guess. But to simply label it as such does it an injustice, I think, because there is real horror to the film. It’s like watching someone else’s nightmare. It even starts and ends with someone asleep…. Talking of which…. I really thought that Cameron did an amazing job mimicking some of Ridley Scott’s stylistic ideas, while making a very different film at the same time. I liked the way he moved the camera in a similar manner and pace in some scenes, which helped it connect to Alien. And in the way that at times he also achieved stylistic similarities by not having music at key points, which as Ridley Scott proved, helped to make scenes more realistic…. When you get to the part where Bishop rescues Ripley and Newt in the drop ship, you’re totally satisfied that you’ve seen an amazing film and you think you’re at the end and then — bang! — you get to see Ripley suit up in the loader and she’s fighting the Queen in hand to hand combat, pretty much. It was just a jaw dropping and unexpected amazing, final scene. Cameron had aped what Scott had done in the first film but he really pushed the boat out with Aliens, the way he’d managed to keep the film going at the end with the false ending. That trick has been used a lot over the years but both those guys really nailed it with their endings. When you see Weaver come out in that power loader, you know it’s on. And it’s the most incredible battle you’ve ever seen!.... As in Alien, the bar just keeps getting raised as Aliens goes along, and that’s one of the reasons I think it succeeds in amazing the audience.

Goldman: I first saw Aliens in the summer of ‘86 at the mall theater in Tysons Corner, Virginia — I remember it was blazing hot outside, and the theater was such a cool relief. I saw it with my brother and a few of our mallrat friends, and we all just went nuts for it — I remember all of us cracking ourselves up, quoting Hudson’s lines on the walk back home. I think what struck me the most, even at such a young age was just how believable the world was. It just all seemed so real to me (as opposed to a lot of the genre films of the time) — and that’s when I think I learned that if you’ve got a good enough story, it makes it that much easier for everything else to fall into place.

Harris: I remember it well! I saw it back in ‘86 in my home town in the UK. A friend and I had gone to the cinema to see another movie which was sold out so we decided to see this film called Aliens, which I don’t think we really knew about. I mean I’d definitely read Alan Dean Foster’s novelization of Alien and had probably seen it on video by then but I wasn’t aware of a sequel…. It must have been towards the end of its run because it was on screen 4 (of 4 screens; remember this was the eighties!) so it was pretty small, less than 100 seats definitely. I was completely blown away by everything I saw, and I remember leaving the cinema with a great sense of exhilaration; I mean what a ride, right? Looking back and thinking of that quote from James Cameron that while Alien was a creepy haunted-house, Aliens was a rollercoaster that you couldn’t stop or get off until the end. I completely agree and that was how I felt at the time (and still do!)…. I was only in my early 20s so I don’t think I was experienced enough to think “what fantastic production design,” or “how impressive that nearly all the effects were practical and in-camera” or any of that stuff (that came much later). But something about it stuck with me. I clearly remember thinking how “believable” it all seemed, or at least could have been in the real world. That for me is what sells it in many ways.

Lauzirika: As I mentioned in our previous conversation about Top Gun, I was living in Europe while many of the films from the summer of 1986 were being released. But even while I was living in Barcelona, that first teaser trailer for Aliens had been released there and thoroughly blew my mind. I remember standing in the rain to watch that teaser over and over again as it played on a video monitor outside a local theater. I returned to Los Angeles about two weeks into the theatrical run of Aliens, so I had already heard the raves and the hype. On my flight back, they even had the Time Magazine with Sigourney Weaver on the cover available to read. So as a huge, huge Alien fanatic, my expectations were very high. Probably impossibly high. But I saw it for the first time with a sold out crowd at the Avco Theater in Westwood. The energy level was so high, it was kind of like going to a rock concert. But I ended up having two very different experiences during that first viewing. The movie geek in me had a blast. I was screaming and cheering and laughing along with everyone else. But the Alien snob in me sat there with some concerns. I mean, tonally it was different. Visually it was different. The Aliens seemed different. The humans, aside from Ripley, felt more like comic book characters than the relatively real people who inhabited Alien. And overall, it kind of covered a lot of the same beats as the first film, including the fourth act surprise at the end. So to me, Alien was such an immersive and harrowing visceral experience, while Aliens seemed more like a kick-ass movie-movie. Keep in mind, I still loved Aliens very much. But that love came with a bit of that skeptical super nerd squint where you’re not entirely convinced it’s as great as people are saying it is. But now I look back on it as tremendously engaging film that completely captures an audience the way that few movies do.

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

Coate: Does Aliens work as a stand-alone movie, or is it effective only as a piece of a series?

Clark: It’s hard for me to say, since I saw all the movies in order and I’ve always viewed them as a trilogy (I can’t stand the fourth one). Having said that, much as I like the recent(ish) “assembly cut” of Alien 3, that one always felt a bit out of place so I’ll be interested to see what the proposed Blomkamp sequel to Aliens turns out like and whether or not that will feel like a proper end to the story…. I guess the director’s cut of Aliens would play better as a stand-alone film to someone who hasn’t seen any of them, since the set up at the beginning is fleshed out more. Someone watching would gather that the Alien was something inside the derelict and wouldn’t need references to the first film to make sense of it. I think Cameron put enough in Aliens for that to be the case and certainly any producer would have to insist on it making sense to a virgin audience, to a certain degree. But it’s definitely stronger though, when you put it next to Alien. There are few sequels that complement the original so well.

Goldman: I think Aliens works as a stand-alone movie, sure — and I know plenty of people who discovered the series through the second film first, and then enjoy the discovery of the others. While I have one die-hard friend that likes to refer to Alien as the Aliens prequel — I really do think both films complement one another in a fantastic story and journey of this character. We really do learn a whole lot more about Ripley in the second film, and when combined, the two films give her a much more complete arc. Three really could have taken it in a fantastic direction, but sadly, well….

Harris: I think both, and that’s probably the secret to a good sequel. You don’t need to have seen Alien to see Aliens, although Alien obviously does enhance your experience of Aliens, but it doesn’t complete it, if that makes sense. Cameron sets it up perfectly to not have to have seen Alien to understand and enjoy Aliens…. There’s a whole other debate here about whether the Alien series of films is accepted in the fan-base, and I’m more on the side that the series stops at Aliens, but that’s a personal opinion of course.

Lauzirika: I think you could watch it as a stand-alone movie, since it recaps enough information for you to get by with, especially with the Weyland-Yutani inquest scene. But you’d miss out on quite a bit of important foundation and emotional investment established by the original film. It’s funny when I talk to people of a certain age who saw Aliens before Alien. They almost always consider the first film boring, which I naturally find very amusing. And, with all due respect, wrong.

Coate: How is Aliens significant in terms of genre filmmaking?

Clark: I have think Cameron’s masterstroke was making Ripley the action hero as opposed to Hicks, which was the convention at the time. Ripley was Rambo in a way, for a moment, particularly in the scene where she obliterates Alien eggs with a Pulse rifle in the Queen’s chamber. This was a turning point for actions films because it showed that the girls could do it, too — and believably so. Aliens also upped the ante for the action genre simply because of the clever dynamics of the film. It’s not a case of a great action scene at the end. There’s loads of action scenes. And each one fuels the next. It’s not a typical case of set piece after set piece like a lot of contemporary movies. And by the time you get to the final confrontation with the Queen and the power loader, you’re aghast. I remember the first time I saw it I just couldn’t believe what I was seeing because it looked so real. Up to that point you’d already felt like you’d seen a full movie and all of a sudden you’re presented with this huge scene, this epic battle and I remember thinking that each action sequence was getting bigger and bigger but not for the sake of it, not purely for spectacle, but because that was always where the story was going. 

Goldman: When you watch all those incredible behind-the-scenes documentaries that Charlie produced, you realize that Aliens really was a Corman film with a decent budget. The techniques they applied on all the FX work, from the models and miniatures and rear projection, with the money and “tech” they had at the time — pure magic — it all just gelled so perfectly. These guys used every “low-budget” trick in the book and they made it look incredible. As for the creature itself, budgetary constraints may have kept the Alien in the shadows in the first two films, but damn if that constraint didn’t completely service the story. You make an Alien movie today, with hundreds of well-lit CG Xenomorphs running around, and it completely pulls you out of the verisimilitude.

Harris: For me it’s significant because it’s a perfect example of telling a great story. I’ve seen dozens of sci-fi films where the story isn’t as complete or as rounded as that of Aliens. And it’s multi-layered; the Ripley and Hicks possible romance, the Ripley and Newt mother/daughter relationship, the expansion from the eggs being present to us seeing the Queen that’s laying them…. It definitely set the bar, and in terms of influencing others; I mean Aliens is everywhere! There are nods to it in The Simpsons, Red Dwarf, Robot Chicken, Firefly — you name it. If that isn’t a measure of how significant this movie is to people then I don’t know what is. I’m sure there are filmmakers out there now who wanted to do what they do because they saw Aliens when they started out.

Lauzirika: It used down-and-dirty filmmaking ingenuity to create an off-world epic on a relatively low budget, which in turn inspired several filmmakers to push their own boundaries. Not just technically, but also artistically and emotionally. It’s a fun film that also demanded you to take it seriously. I think some people missed all that and just wanted to indulge in the “bug hunt” war porn of it all. But beneath its rollercoaster surface, Aliens is a pretty sophisticated genre classic.

Coate: Which is better: the theatrical cut or the extended “home video” cut?

Clark: My preference leans toward the director’s cut, although it’s understandable why they made those cuts for the theatrical release, notably, time constraints. In Alien, Scott cut the Dallas cocoon scene in the original edit to keep the pacing of Ripley’s escape to the shuttle craft as fluid and suspenseful as possible. Cameron achieves the same thing in Aliens; the relentless pace of the theatrical cut compounds the helplessness of the characters’ situation, and I think that in a movie theater that cut makes much more sense and is partly why so many people describe the experience of watching it as “a roller coaster ride”…. The advent of home video afforded us the luxury of experiencing the longer cut without having to get cramps in an uncomfortable multiplex seat, allowing us time to explore in more detail how events unfolded on LV-426. So watching at home on a hi-def Blu-ray on a big TV or projector, the director’s cut is a no-brainer. Those additional scenes are rich in illustrating a colony we don’t see in the theatrical cut, one where we actually get to see a working population on the base and just how normal it is with people going about their business, children playing and really showing the audience the vulnerability of the people there — the families…. There’s more time for Cameron to connect to Scott’s Alien, showing a geologically ravaged Derelict and explaining just how the Aliens infiltrated the colony base. By revealing Newt’s family and Ripley’s long lost daughter early on, Cameron deftly sets up real motivation for Ripley’s maternal instincts coming to the fore as well as Newt’s initially reluctant acceptance of a much needed mother figure. All of which plays neatly into the final act with the Queen and her instinct to protect her own, as is often commented on.

Goldman: This one is easy — I absolutely love the longer cut. Look, I’m an Aliens nut, I’m of the mind that any more of this movie can only be a good thing. I was lucky enough to work with Charlie on the Blu-ray and got to spend a lot of time in an editing room watching dailies, alternate takes and scenes, etc., and from a rabid fan’s perspective, it was completely mind-blowing. Cameron really didn’t leave much out, but it was a blast to see. I understand why there was the original cut, but the addition of both the colony infestation and sentry gun scenes, along with the extended bits on Gateway, really do help give the story a little more gravity. I know when we cut to the colony it’s the first time in the series we leave the Ripley narrative, but it never really bothered me, and I loved seeing the Hadley’s Hope before the infestation. 

Harris: I think the Theatrical Cut works extremely well as Cameron removed exactly the right bits that we didn’t need to see to understand the story (the colony establishing scenes, the entire Sentry Gun sequences and other smaller moments), but every fan wants to see more of what they love so I’ll have to say the Special Edition works best for me.


Lauzirika: I think they’re both very good but I prefer the leaner, meaner theatrical cut. It gets to the point and isn’t bogged down by interesting but ultimately unnecessary side stories. I will say that as far as deleted scenes go, the additional material that was added to the longer Special Edition is pretty damn good. Usually you understand why scenes are removed but in this case, with the exception of the completely unused Burke Cocooned scene, it’s all really good stuff. There was just too much of it for a mainstream theatrical experience. The extra footage is all really great for later viewings. Whenever I introduce Aliens to anyone, I begin with the theatrical cut.

Coate: Of all the roles Sigourney Weaver has played in her career, where does Ripley rank?

Clark: There’s little doubt that Alien shot Sigourney Weaver to stardom and I think that Aliens helped to raise her up even more. While she has a pretty mixed body of work, having been involved in everything from indies to documentaries, her most iconic role, Ripley, is what she’ll mostly be remembered for, (mostly)…. It’s well known that her portrayal of Ripley in Aliens is generally accepted to be the first female action hero, paving the way for heroines galore which today, sees possibly as many female action lead roles for women as there are for men. Ripley made it okay for women to be tough yet sensitive but pragmatic enough to take charge and to kick ass without the need for a tough guy…. Ripley is a bona fide cinema pop icon. And you can’t think of Ripley without thinking of Weaver. Which is why people will flock to see her in Alien 5. If they ever try and remake the Alien films, they’re going to have a tough time of casting anyone that’ll come close to Sigourney…. Aliens is right up there for Weaver as far as performances are concerned. It’s a powerhouse performance which draws solid acting from the rest of the cast anytime they’re in a scene with her. And she has some of the most quotable lines in modern cinema. Who could forget, “Get away from her, you bitch!”? Everyone knows that line.

Goldman: As far as ranking this amount Sigourney’s body of work — right at the top. I mean her performance in the first one was such an important milestone for having a female lead in that role, and she hit it out of the park. I don’t even know if you could even quantify her performance in the second one as “better” — again, back-to-back, she just completely and believably takes the audience on Ripley’s journey — you never not believe she isn’t the character, which obviously is the hallmark of a talented performer.

Harris: Ripley is probably the character that people most strongly associate with Sigourney, and it is of course the role that started her career. I haven’t seen everything she’s done but just in terms of how she’s best known; Ripley is up there.

Lauzirika: Considering she was nominated for an Oscar for Aliens, I think it should rank very highly. She brought an amazing emotional range to what could have just been a standard popcorn flick. But between her commitment and Cameron’s inventiveness, they elevated Aliens far above what it would have been in the hands of other filmmakers. Honestly, I think Sigourney Weaver is superb in all three films of the original Alien trilogy and actually doesn’t get enough credit for her really strong work in Alien 3. Across the first three films, she takes Ripley on an epic personal journey and because of her performances, we’re along for the ride with her every step of the way.

Coate: Where do you think Aliens ranks among director James Cameron’s body of work?

Clark: As far as James Cameron’s body of work is concerned, my feeling is that Aliens is one of the few films that, despite his undeniable talent as a filmmaker and also as a writer, is generally more acclaimed by both fans and critics alike, as opposed to more commercial successes such as Titanic and Avatar…. As is often remarked of rock bands and music artists, it’s also the case with film makers that for many it’s the early stuff that is revered most fondly. Aliens occupies a space with Terminator 1 & 2 as a film that feels plausible in spite of its fantastical premise. There isn’t much wrong with Aliens, it’s one of those films that you couldn’t really suggest a way of improving it. How could you make it better? You probably can’t, it’s as good as it gets, perhaps…. We all know now you could improve The Phantom Menace: Jar Jar. Easy. But Aliens? How? And why? Why is the bigger question because there’s no need. It’s just an incredible film and one that has high replay value. If you’re switching channels and you have it on for a few minutes then you’re probably watching it til the end. Again…. I think that James Cameron succeeded on so many levels with the film that it’s sort of hard to top in many ways. In many ways, he has topped it when you consider some of his other work, notably Avatar with some of the amazing accomplishments of that film, especially visually…. But I think Avatar is flawed, story-wise, but Aliens isn’t and I also think that the adult nature of Aliens is quite rare in science fiction movies and I strongly believe that audiences want more of these kind of stories…. I put Aliens right up there with any of Cameron’s stuff, to be honest. I think he had a hunger and passion when he wrote and made that film, and sort of willed the stars to align.

Goldman: I rank Aliens right at the top of Cameron’s CV. It’s great when you watch his films in chronological order and see his progression as a director — but also spot all his other little trademarks and echoes that give his movies such distinct signatures. I have to admit, one of the things that impressed me the most, and still does today, is not only did he direct the film, but he wrote it. If you ever have a chance to read it, the script is like a master class in action screenwriting technique — it really is so incredibly well done — and one of those facts about the movie that tends to get overlooked. I enjoyed Avatar — I’m a sucker for mil-tech, and sure I’m excited to see where the next installments take us, but I still hope to see him do something from outside that world as well.

Harris: That’s such a subjective question as it’s like saying, “what’s your favorite James Cameron movie?” As I said earlier about Sigourney it’s probably the movie that he’s most strongly associated with, well maybe Aliens and Terminator 1 & 2.


Lauzirika: I would rank only The Terminator and The Abyss higher than Aliens. I’m more in awe of Cameron’s work when he’s up against the limits of budget and technology, and he has to use his extraordinary vision and talent to will something new into existence. The scope of his later films is certainly impressive by any measure, but his earlier films, where he had to rely upon his Roger Corman chops to make his imagination a reality are what I find to be truly inspirational. And Aliens certainly falls into that category.

Coate: What is the legacy of Aliens?

Clark: One of the legacies of Aliens is an enduring fascination for space exploration and, in particular, the space marines that might inhabit such a future. This is constantly explored in video games, Halo being an obvious example, but there are many others and there’ll be plenty more to come…. Movies though, can’t seem to capture our attention in the same way. No one’s done it better since, or even come anywhere close, for that matter…. And if you go to an Aliens convention some time, or even to San Diego ComicCon this July, you’ll probably see some guys — and girls — dressed in Colonial Marine armor and maybe even the odd Alien dotted around. And if you ask them their age, you’ll likely find some weren’t even born when the film was released. Aliens is here to stay. The only question now is, how do they keep it going without fucking it up? Hopefully, Neill Blomkamp will have the answer.

Goldman: I think the legacy of Aliens is that it turned the series into a franchise. Again, if Alien 2 had been a big miss, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Most likely there would have been nothing more to say. But Cameron came in, followed up on the first film with some wildly innovative ideas, and really gave us a much larger universe to explore. I think the simple fact that now here we are, three decades later, and this summer you’ll be able to go out and buy action figures of Vasquez, Frost and Newt is a huge testament to the legacy of the film.

Harris: I think the best example of its legacy is that we’re still talking about it 30 years on. It makes me happy that a film that I love so much is still so popular, and over the years I’ve met many cast members who are surprised and happy that there’s still so much love for it today. Just look at how Aliens still holds up, not only in that it’s hardly dated (Sigourney’s haircut being the only example I can think of and even that’s not too bad!) but also in terms of how much it’s respected, and imitated…. After 30 years the fan base is still incredibly strong and fans still want new stuff; there are videogames, merchandise (look at how crazy the world went recently for a few hundred pairs of Reebok sneakers), comic books, and novels. There are companies making replica props, fans costume as Aliens and Marines — plus as a collector, prices that original, screen used items from Aliens go for are probably at an all-time high.

Lauzirika: As a Reagan Era revisionist shoot ‘em up fantasy, I think it’s terrific. But its examination of Ripley as both a mother figure and a reluctant warrior also makes it more sophisticated than I’ve been giving it credit for. It’s the perfect end to a Cameron-written trilogy in which Rambo: First Blood Part II deals with warriors from the past, The Terminator deals with warriors in the present, and Aliens deals with warriors in the future, all of whom are forced to use their wits to survive. I think Aliens is an essential product of its time but it will always engage an audience simply because it has its finger on the pulse of the viewer and knows how to keep the thrills coming.

Coate: Thank you — Andrew, Willie, Harry, and Charlie — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Aliens on the occasion of its 30th anniversary.

--=--

SOURCES/REFERENCES

Primary references for this project were promotional material published in hundreds of daily newspapers archived digitally and/or on microfilm plus numerous articles published in film industry trade publications Billboard, Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety.

SELECTED IMAGES

Copyright Brandywine Productions, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment. Harry Harris image by Russell Clark. 70mm presentation logo art designed by Bobby Henderson. Home-video cover-art collage by Cliff Stephenson. 70mm frames courtesy Rebecca Lyon/Celluloid Chicago.

SPECIAL THANKS

Greg W. Anderson, Julian Antos, Claude Ayakawa , Laura Baas, Don Beelik, Deb Bier, Bert Branson, Raymond Caple, Andrew David Clark, Scott Clark, Andy Crews, Nick DiMaggio, Diane Donham, Stephen Gailey, Willie Goldman, Sheldon Hall, Harry Harris, Bobby Henderson, William Inge, Matthew Kendall, Sarah Kenyon, Bill Kretzel, Charles de Lauzirika, Mark Lensenmayer, Monty Marin, Tim O’Neill, Joshua D. Owens, Stephen Rice, James Shearouse, Alex Smith, Cliff Stephenson, John Stewart, J. Thomas, Jessica Wakefield, Sean Weitzel, John Wilson, Vince Young, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

IN MEMORIAM

• Roy Charman (Production Sound Mixer), 1930-1990
• Paul Maxwell (“Van Leuwen”), 1921-1991
• Tip Tipping (“Private Crowe”), 1958-1993
• John Lees (“Power Loader Operator”), 1942-1997
• Ray Lovejoy (Editor), 1939-2001
• Mary Selway (Casting), 1936-2004
• Michael A. Carter (Re-Recording Mixer), 19??-2004
• Don Sharpe (Supervising Sound Editor), 19??-2004
• Gordon Carroll (Producer), 1928-2005
• Adrian Biddle (Director of Photography), 1952-2005
• Stan Winston (Alien Effects), 1946-2008
• Dan O’Bannon (Based on characters created by), 1946-2009
• H.R. Giger (Original Alien Designer), 1940-2014
• James Horner (Composer), 1953-2015
• Trevor Steedman (“Private Wierzbowski”), 1954-2016

-Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached at: michaelcoate@thedigitalbits.com

Okay, it’s a big article, so let’s get right to it and introduce the participants. In alphabetical order…

Mark A. Altman has been called “the world’s foremost Trekspert.” He is co-author (with Edward Gross) of the bestselling The Fifty-Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek, recently published by St. Martin’s Press (currently available in hardcover, Kindle and audiobook). In addition to being the writer/producer of the award-winning romantic comedy Free Enterprise, starring William Shatner and Eric McCormack (see our roundtable on the film here), he is currently co-executive producer of The Librarians for TNT and has been a writer/producer on such series as Agent X, Necessary Roughness, Castle and Femme Fatales, which he co-created for Cinemax.

Jeff Bond is the author of The Music of Star Trek (Lone Eagle, 1999). He also wrote Danse Macabre: 25 Years of Danny Elfman and Tim Burton (included in The Danny Elfman & Tim Burton 25th Anniversary Music Box, Warner Bros., 2011) and is co-author with Joe Fordham of Planet of the Apes: The Evolution of the Legendary Franchise (Titan, 2014). Jeff is the former editor of Geek magazine, covered film music for The Hollywood Reporter for ten years, and has contributed liner notes to numerous CD soundtrack releases. He also has portrayed Dr. McCoy on the Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II Internet series.

Robert Meyer Burnett directed, co-wrote and edited Free Enterprise (see our roundtable on the here) and co-produced and edited the supplemental material for the Blu-ray season sets of Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Enterprise. He has worked as a Star Trek consultant for Viacom Licensing and edited all of the video packages at the late Star Trek Experience in the Las Vegas Hilton. He developed and produced The Hills Run Red and co-produced Agent Cody Banks and its sequel, as well as directed and edited several episodes of the Cinemax series Femme Fatales. He is the owner of Ludovico Technique, which specializes in the production of Value Added Material for DVD and Blu-ray releases. He has produced VAM for titles such as The Usual Suspects, Superman Returns, X-Men, and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. He also recently edited the award-winning Star Trek fan film Prelude to Axanar and was slated to direct the feature film Axanar before the project was hit with a copyright lawsuit from franchise rights holders Paramount and CBS and shut down.

[Editor’s Note: In the interest of full disclosure, Digital Bits editor Bill Hunt was also the screenwriter for the Axanar feature film project.]

Marc Cushman is a Los Angeles-based screenwriter and director, who also writes books documenting the making of classic TV series, including the Saturn Award winning three-book set These Are the Voyages, (Jacobs Brown Press, 2013-2015; www.thesearethevoyagesbooks.com), with one volume for each of Star Trek’s three broadcast seasons. Other books include I Spy: A History and Episode Guide to the Groundbreaking Television Series (McFarland, 2007) and Irwin Allen’sLost in Space: The Authorized Biography of a Classic Sci-Fi Series, (Jacobs Brown Press, 2016), tracing the development and production of the show that paved the way for Star Trek, as well as the early career of creator/producer Irwin Allen.

Daren R. Dochterman has worked in the motion picture industry for over thirty years as a concept designer and production illustrator, storyboard artist, visual effects artist, and art director. He’s been a director, editor, sound man, model builder, compositor, and actor. He also is an instructor at Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California, and creative director of the Star Trek Original Series Set Tour. He was also Visual Effects Supervisor on Star Trek: The Motion Picture—The Director’s Edition and is arguably the only person in the world to do a Gene Roddenberry impression.

Dorothy Fontana was the Story Editor for the first two seasons of Star Trek and writer (or co-writer) of several episodes including Charlie X, Tomorrow Is Yesterday, This Side of Paradise, Journey to Babel, Friday’s Child, and The Enterprise Incident. Subsequent Trek series scripts included Yesteryear (The Animated Series), Encounter at Farpoint (The Next Generation), Dax (Deep Space Nine) and To Serve All My Days (Star Trek: New Voyages). As well, she has written for numerous other TV series, including Babylon 5, Bonanza, Dallas, Land of the Lost, Logan’s Run, The Six Million Dollar Man, The Streets of San Francisco, and The Waltons.

Gary Gerani is the author (with Paul H. Schulman) of Fantastic Television: A Pictorial History of Sci-Fi, The Unusual, and the Fantastic from Captain Video to the Star Trek Phenomenon and Beyond (Harmony, 1977). Gary is known as the Card King, having written and edited more trading cards than anyone else, including the Topps Star Wars sets, which Abrams Books has recently reprinted in book form. He co-wrote the screenplay for Stan Winston’s Pumpkinhead and is currently directing a documentary about the film/TV composer Billy Goldenberg (Spielberg’s Duel, among others). He also owns his own publishing company, Fantastic Press, in a partnership with IDW.

David Gerrold is the writer of several episodes of the various Star Trek shows, including The Original Series (The Trouble with Tribbles), The Animated Series (More Tribbles, More Troubles and Bem) and The Next Generation (Blood and Fire, which was rejected by TNG producers but eventually produced as an episode of Star Trek: New Voyages). His Star Trek-themed non-fiction includes The Trouble with Tribbles: The Birth, Sale, and Final Production of One Episode (Ballantine, 1973) and The World of Star Trek (Ballantine, 1973; revised in 2016), and Trek-themed fiction include The Galactic Whirlpool (Bantam, 1980) and Encounter at Farpoint (Pocket, 1987). Non-Trek-themed novelettes and books penned by Gerrold include The Martian Child (1994), and the Star Wolf (Spectra, 1972-2004) and The War Against the Chtorr series (Spectra, 1983-1993). He has also written for Babylon 5, Land of the Lost, Sliders and The Twilight Zone (1985).

Edward Gross is a veteran entertainment journalist who has been on the editorial staff of a wide variety of magazines, among them Geek, Movie Magic, Cinescape, Starlog, SFX, Life Story, CFQ and Sci Fi Now. He has authored or co-authored such nonfiction books as Planet of the Apes Revisited, Rocky: The Complete Guide, Above & Below: A 25th Anniversary Beauty and the Beast Companion and summer 2016’s two-volume The Fifty-Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek. Currently he serves as executive editor on Empire magazine’s empireonline.com/us.

Bill Kraft spearheaded the successful 13-year campaign (1985-1998) to honor Star Trek on a U.S. postage stamp. He grew up on the remote plains of Strasburg, North Dakota, and cultivated his passion for movies at the town’s only theater until television arrived in 1953. He got his B.A. in English from St. John’s University, Collegeville, MN, and taught high school English at Pipestone, MN, and at St. Cloud Cathedral High School, St. Cloud, MN. He has a passion for the writings of Thomas Wolfe and Washington Irving and fulfilled life-long ambitions with pilgrimages to Wolfe’s gravesite, Thomas Wolfe Memorial in Asheville, NC, and Irving’s residence of Sunnyside on the banks of the Hudson River in New York. Bill’s favorite movie is Lawrence of Arabia, but the last 15 minutes of Star Trek: The Motion Picture became the impetus behind his “conversion” to Star Trek and the motivation behind the Star Trek stamp campaign and his book Maybe We Need a Letter from God: The Star Trek Stamp (2013). Bill and his wife Karla live in Sauk Rapids, MN.

Herbie J Pilato is a classic television historian and the author of Dashing, Daring, and Debonair: TV’s Top Male Icons from the 50s, 60s, and 70s (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2016), which includes profiles of William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley and Gene Roddenberry. The writer, producer, lecturer and consultant has penned numerous other books, including Glamour, Gidgets, and the Girl Next Door: Television’s Iconic Women from the 50s, 60s, and 70s (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2014), The Bionic Book: The Six Million Dollar Man & the Bionic Woman Reconstructed (Bear Manor Media, 2007), The Bewitched Book (Delta, 1992), Bewitched Forever: The Immortal Companion to Television’s Most Magical Supernatural Situation Comedy (Tapestry, 1996; and updated in 2004), Twitch Upon a Star: The Bewitched Life and Career of Elizabeth Montgomery (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2012), The Essential Elizabeth Montgomery: A Guide to her Magical Performances (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2013), and NBC & Me: My Life as a Page in a Book (Bear Manor Media, 2008). He heads the production company Television, Ink., was a consulting producer on the DVD season sets of Bewitched, CHiPs, Kung Fu and The Six Million Dollar Man, and established The Classic TV Preservation Society.

Melinda Snodgrass was the Story Editor for the second season of Star Trek: The Next Generation and writer (or co-writer) of several episodes including The Measure of a Man, Pen Pals and The High Ground, as well as the Trek novel The Tears of the Singers (Pocket, 1984). She is a recovered lawyer, a screenwriter and novelist with works available from Tor Books — The Edge of Reason, The Edge of Ruin and The Edge of Dawn, and Titan Books — The Imperials series (The High Ground and the soon to be released Evil Times). She’s working on the third book in that series. She also co-edits and writes for the Wild Cards book series with George R.R. Martin, and is the executive producer on the upcoming Wild Cards TV series. As well, she has written for numerous other TV series, including L.A. Law, The Outer Limits (1995-2002), Profiler, and Sliders. She is an FEI dressage rider who owns two Lusitano horses — her stallion Vento da Broga, and her new young horse Donhador.

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Star Trek worthy of celebration on its 50th anniversary?

Mark A. Altman: Star Trek is a remarkable cultural touchstone. It’s more than just a TV series, but one of the most significant landmarks of 60s popular culture. Along with the Beatles, James Bond and Woodstock, it is the 60s. Star Trek wasn’t just a science fiction series, it had something meaningful to say about the human condition; who we were and are as a race. It also was remarkably prescient in terms of anticipating technological developments, if not over the next 300 years, certainly the next 30 years. It is hard now to realize the immense achievement of the series given the constraints of the time in advancing the nature of visual effects, futurism and humanism and is being justifiably lauded for its remarkable achievement.

Jeff Bond: It’s stunning and gratifying to me that Star Trek is still viable and a huge part of our culture 50 years after it was first broadcast and almost 50 years after it essentially failed and was cancelled. It’s certainly one of the most amazing success stories in entertainment.

Robert Meyer Burnett: Aside from an errant voyage by James Cameron to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, humanity no longer has any more real frontiers to conquer. Sure, technology marches on, and assuming we survive the 21st Century, biotech, AI and god knows what other Lawnmower Man comes screaming down the pike, will keep changing human life, hopefully for the better, but we currently don’t have many places to go, nor the technology to get there…. But Star Trek constantly reminds us one day, we will indeed boldly go where no one has gone before, and ultimately, it will be a good thing, a very good thing, we’ve done so. From the first men cowering in caves from the moonlight, who awakened the next morning to push forward over the next hill, an element of humanity must constantly be moving, exploring and pushing the boundaries of our experience of the world, indeed the universe, around us. To be the first person to stand on a mountaintop, feel the wind through your hair and see the unique sunrise from that vantage point, informs our very soul…. Star Trek reminds us we must continue to strive for the stars, continue to push the boundaries of knowledge and imagination, even in the face of the constant turmoil of our day to day existence here on this planet. Perhaps now more than ever, mankind needs to be reminded although we are a mere speck of cosmic dust, we have the ability to reach for the very secrets of the universe itself. 

Marc Cushman: If ever a series was worthy of having a big bash of a 50th anniversary celebration, this is the one…. Following I Spy, from one season earlier, Star Trek helped to establish multi-racial casting on television in non-stereotypical roles. In fact, this was the first multi-racial series on primetime TV in the U.S. And the first to send a black woman into outer space! It brought us TV’s first interracial kiss — between white and black, white and green, human and Vulcan, you name it! And that is major…. Gene Roddenberry was into taking chances because he was a writer with much to say. Back in the mid-1960s, entertainment shows in primetime were not supposed to touch on hot topic issues, and few dared to risk upsetting the networks. But Roddenberry and Star Trek did, every week. We saw stories about racism, sexism, religion, overpopulation, Vietnam, the U.S.S. Pueblo, and on and on. And America got its first look at the mini-skirt! With these type of stories, and its sexiness, Star Trek was considered by many TV critics to be America’s first “adult science fiction series.”…. Star Trek was the first to win a Hugo award as “Best Science Fiction Presentation of the Year” (in 1967 for The Menagerie, a year when three of the five nominated “films” were Star Trek episodes), and again, in 1968 (The City on the Edge of Forever, a year when all five nominations were for episodes from Star Trek!). It was the first sci-fi series to be nominated for a primetime Emmy award as “Best Dramatic Series” (two years in a row, in 1967 and 1968). And Leonard Nimoy was the first actor in a science fiction series to be nominated for a primetime Emmy (as Best Supporting Actor in a Dramatic Role), three years in a row, no less, in 1967, ’68 and ’69! These accomplishments are historic, and opened people’s minds and the doors of the entertainment industry for acknowledging science fiction in the future…. It was the first series to film a miniature (if you can call that eleven foot, two inch Enterprise they used a miniature) in front of a blue screen. And the first to use several animation plates to create moving stars, as a composite shot to combine with that of the Enterprise. This was state of the art for its time. It invented the art! And let’s not forget the innovations in science that came about as a result of Star Trek — a mere TV series. Many inventors from the last thirty years have admitted that they got their ideas from watching Star Trek when they were children. Did your first cell phone look like Kirk’s flip-open communicator? Of course, and for good reason. Censor activated automatic doors, Bluetooth, CDs, DVDs the PC, the Internet, the MRI, Kindle, and on and on — you can see all of these things decades before they were invented in Star Trek episodes. And you can be sure the inventors saw them too.   

Daren R. Dochterman: Star Trek existed in a strange nexus of time and history. It happened as societal pressures were boiling over, and technical advancements were heading to one of the most important events in human history, the moon landing. It was a barometer of these happenings, it was a release valve, it was a sign post leading to a world where all these factors had advanced and represented a future where mankind would not only survive, but flourish. Its integrated cast didn’t call attention to itself, by saying, “Hey, look at how progressive we are being”… it just was. It inspired to show where we might be going, while masquerading as a simple adventure show. It is almost unheard of for something from popular culture maintaining its presence 50 years later… and I think that it is interesting how many things from that specific time period are still remembered fondly with vociferous fan bases, but none of those other pop culture offerings have gone through so many reworkings and variations and still held on to its innate qualities. With all the permutations and up-rezzing that has gone on to the “franchise,” the original 79 still remain an interesting and engaging look into both our past, and our future.

Dorothy Fontana: How many other fifty-year-old shows are still being syndicated — and adored by fans — the same way Star Trek is? It’s still a kick for me to meet younger people who tell me they watched the show with their parents and are still watching it in syndicated reruns.  And they’re buying the reissued shows on DVD and Blu-ray, to watch them all over again in these new formats. The stories and the characters still hold up — and still engage and entertain audiences.

Gary Gerani: It was the first science fiction series with fully-defined characters that you cared about, and the fantastical notions never insulted your intelligence — they were based on real scientific principles or theories. It also helped viewers to appreciate racial diversity, using science fiction to show us the way to a smarter, more progressive and hopeful future.

David Gerrold: No other television show has had the cultural impact of Star Trek. It has become an iconic American mythology. Star Trek predicted tablets and talking computers and personal communicators, sliding doors and silvery discs for storing data — and now we have all those things. And more. But more than that, Star Trek continues to inspire the audience with an optimistic vision of the future, a future in which everybody is valued for what they can contribute.

Edward Gross: In the same way that James Bond was back in 2012 or the 50th anniversary of The Beatles’ “invasion” of America was in 2014: to have an element of pop culture not only be celebrated, but to still be thriving half a century after its inception is remarkable. Especially today when things have become so disposable. New feature film, new television series, and a franchise that remains so revered is absolutely worthy of celebration.

Bill Kraft: Star Trek broke ground for science fiction on television. Before then, TV science fiction was strictly Saturday morning “kid-stuff,” which no one took seriously. It didn’t deal with ideas or comment on the human condition as Star Trek does. Star Trek’s longevity and sheer output of over 700 hours of storytelling attest to its durability. I think the first 50 years are but a harbinger of another 50 years or more. It’s time to acknowledge and celebrate the achievement of one of the most durable franchises in the annals of entertainment and pop culture.

Herbie J Pilato: First and foremost, the scripts, visuals, and characters were vibrant with imagination, wonder, hope, discovery, excitement, and adventure… all the colors of the Universe, however they are defined within the specific confines of optimum storytelling. The casting of each character, be they a regular or a guest character, was on-the-money. The importance of casting far too-many times is ignored when producing any kind of production for television, film or stage, for that matter. And on Star Trek — the original series, the casting was pristine.

Melinda Snodgrass: Star Trek presented the possibility of a united Earth and people who no longer saw national borders or skin color. That was a major achievement during the 1960s while fear of Communism raged and African-Americans were struggling for equal protection and acceptance in their own country.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: Can you recall when you first saw the show?

Altman: I’m not sure if my first exposure to Star Trek was watching The Animated Series on NBC or watching repeats on WPIX Channel 11 in New York. What I do remember is watching it a lot. And then immersing myself in the James Blish novelizations as well as the Gold Key comic collections surrounded by a lot of Mego toys and my prized set of Franz Joseph Blueprints and the indispensable Technical Manual. Virtually every night and Saturdays, and like many of my generation, tape recording our favorite episodes since VCRs did not yet exist. The other great way to relive a favorite episode was reading the Fotonovels, a long extinct way of telling a story, which was like a comic book made up of frame grabs and word ballots. Those are some of my most cherished Trek collectibles. As a kid, I recall getting Leonard Nimoy’s autograph at Macy’s and I asked him about In Search Of instead of Star Trek since he had just published the infamous I Am Not Spock book. I guess you could say that was the beginning of my career as a journalist.

Bond: I actually remember this vividly — our family was on vacation the week of the moon landing in July, 1969 — I remember watching the moon landing on a television in our room at a little vacation resort an uncle of ours ran. They also had a kind of lodge/bar with a color television mounted up over the bar — for a kid back then it was rare and exciting to see a color TV. I remember being in the bar at night with my dad and seeing Star Trek playing on the TV — I remember seeing the engineering room and I’m pretty sure I remember seeing the Klingon ship so I’ve always thought the episode must have been Elaan of Troyius — it would be interesting to see when the rerun of that episode ran that summer. I was 8 and I had seen 2001: A Space Odyssey and been kind of freaked out by that, and I remember getting a little of the same feeling from Star Trek — thinking it all seemed very strange, bizarre and a little scary. But then within a year or two I was eagerly watching episodes of it in daily syndication.

Burnett: I don’t remember a time when I ever didn’t see it. Although my mother maintains I’ve watched Trek since I was three.

Cushman: It was The Devil in the Dark, when NBC repeated the episode during the summer of 1967. We couldn’t pick up the NBC affiliate out of Portland, Oregon, where I grew up on a farm, except in the summer months when it would fade in and out. All the other kids at school, and the teachers too, had been talking about Star Trek for six months. I was the only kid in my class who couldn’t watch it. And then, finally, Channel 8 out of Portland faded in on the night The Devil in the Dark had its repeat broadcast. The show seemed huge to me and my family; we’d never seen anything like it. And it seemed to be about something — it had feeling, and a message. It challenged us as most TV shows did not back in those days. My parents and sisters and I were immediately hooked! The first episode I saw in color was This Side of Paradise, also during that summer, while visiting a friend and watching it at his house with his family on their brand new RCA color TV. I had never imagined anything so vibrant looking.

Dochterman: My earliest recollections are seeing it on TV while my Grandfather watched it. I had no idea what it was, I was probably around four or five. When The Animated Series hit in ’73, and I was enthralled by it, I began to realize that it existed in a live action show, and that was what he had been watching years earlier. When the live action show was on every weekday in syndication, I couldn’t get enough, and I was recording episodes on my dad’s old reel-to-reel tape recorder. I do recall that I watched it in black-and-white for years and years, until we finally got a color TV around 1977. What a revelation to finally see it in full glorious color.

Fontana: If you are talking about the very first pilot (starring Jeffrey Hunter), I was on the production from the first day Gene Roddenberry began the script. It was shot at Desilu Culver City, and our offices were at Desilu Gower, so I didn’t get a chance to go down to see the shooting. I did see the pilot when it was finished and ready for NBC to see. I liked it overall — though, as we know, NBC ultimately claimed it was “too cerebral” and ordered a new take on it. I was closer to Where No Man Has Gone Before, as we had offices at Desilu Culver that time. (Gene Roddenberry was producing his pilot Police Story and a Western pilot for his friend, Sam Rolfe, in that same summer, so it was easier to have our production offices at the Culver lot.) I was able to go down to the set and to see some dailies and first cut to take notes for Roddenberry. I felt the new pilot moved faster and had more science fiction elements on the screen, but the characters came through well. William Shatner put more energy into our captain, and Mr. Spock had undergone some interesting changes (no more smiles!).  It was a good pilot — and that one convinced NBC we had a viable show. (Police Story and the Western did not sell.)

Gerani: I was there when the Salt Vampire started killing crewmen right and left.

Gerrold: 8:30 pm, September 8th, 1966.

Gross: It was during the second season in 1967. I was a little kid of seven in Brooklyn, New York, and my friends and I used to “play” Star Trek. I was Bones, and I specifically remember having a tiger water gun as my phaser and a binocular case as my tricorder.

Kraft: When Star Trek debuted in 1966, science fiction was a bit alien to me. I paid but causal attention to its potential as a vehicle for ideas and its allegorical and metaphorical implications. It was after I saw Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979 that I went back to fill in the gaps. The 1:00 am repeats on channel 5 in Bismarck, North Dakota, brought heavy eyelids with rich rewards. I really didn’t begin to grasp it all until the early 1980s.

Pilato: I am of the fortunate original watchers of the series when it initially aired on NBC, if when in its third and final season, when it was broadcast on Friday nights at 10:00 pm. But I remember it well… one episode from that season in particular. It was titled The Savage Curtain, in which Kirk and Spock meet up with Abraham Lincoln; or at least the alien illusion of what was presented as Lincoln. It was a fascinating episode to me, as Spock might say… because, for one, Lee Bergere was so perfect as Lincoln. This episode also did so well what Star Trek also did well with overall: the show always presented a tapestry of different worlds, even dimensions, connecting, through different perspectives, and yet somehow allowed the viewer to relate on a very real, and mainstream and unifying level.   

Snodgrass: First night the first episode aired. It was the one about the salt monster. When that ship sailed across our color TV (the first one on our block) I was lost. This is the world I had been dreaming about my entire life.

Coate: Where do you think Star Trek ranks among the all-time great TV shows?

Altman: The original Star Trek series is the best of the Star Trek shows which doesn’t negate the colossal achievement of The Next Generation or Deep Space Nine, which are both remarkable television shows in their own right, but The Original Series is the DNA on which everything else was built and was so far and beyond any other series being produced in the era that you can’t not recognize the magnitude of its achievement. In the annals of television, it ranks right alongside such shows as The Twilight Zone, The Wire, Breaking Bad, The West Wing and Hill Street Blues as one of the best television shows ever made. 

Bond: I think the original series ranks among the best TV series of all time and I think the original series is the only one that was really on the cutting edge of quality television at the time. The other shows all had their strengths and I particularly enjoyed Deep Space Nine and The Next Generation, and both of those had some very strong seasons and episodes, but I think if you rank them against the best TV shows on the air when they were running, they were not quite up to the level of the best shows, but you could definitely put the best of the original series up against any dramatic TV show of the late 1960s. I think that gets lost in the fact that the original show was very much of its time and does some things you couldn’t get away with today from a cultural standpoint. It was both ahead of its time and at the same time somewhat hobbled by where society was in terms of sexism, etc., so now it’s common for people to look back on the original show as very primitive and kind of goofy because of the style, but you have to rank it against what was being done at the time.

Burnett: Television has finally surpassed the cinema in terms of a storytelling experience... but the original Star Trek changed the television medium forever... and I’d consider it just below The Twilight Zone as the most important television show of the 1960s. Where it ranks in terms of all television shows? With The Sopranos, The Wire, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Walking Dead and Breaking Bad... who knows what history will say?

Cushman: I truly believe the original Star Trek is among the Top 10 best series ever made for television. We cannot, and should not, expect it to match the scope and production values of shows made today, with their greater budgets and the availability of CGI. Looked at in its time, Star Trek was state of the art and cutting edge in all ways. The thing that makes it timeless, and allows it to outrank so many series that have come along since, is the writing. The themes of those classic 79 episodes gave that series importance. Many series today merely attempt to entertain. Star Trek entertained us as well as enlightened us…. As far as the other Star Trek series are concerned, the first remains the best. From a writing perspective, those characters on the first series were far more interesting because they were flawed. All the best characters are. Spock’s inner-conflict alone outdoes all the others to come along since. And those flaws make the original series the best of all the Treks.

Dochterman: There is no question (or comparison for that matter) that Star Trek is one of the most widely known and honored shows in a crowd of widely known and honored shows. In terms of worldwide familiarity, instant recognition, and number of people who know who Kirk and Spock are, it’s at the top. I enjoy all of the spin off shows and movies to some extent. Certainly not equally, though. But for Trek in its purist form, un-diluted, not distracted by the need to have unrestricted mass appeal, there is only The Original Series. It is honest. It doesn’t try to be anything else but what it is: an entertainment rooted in cowboy shows, thrust into a hopeful future where people are still people, and the characters are worthy of emulating. These are people we could aspire to be like. They were the best at what they did, and no one thought that they needed to be made “more accessible” to people. They raised expectations. People were successful in Star Fleet because they earned it, not because they were lucky. (We saw at least a couple examples of poor unready characters who weren’t good enough to make the grade — Ben Finney in Court Martial or Robert Merrick in Bread and Circuses — they were not capable of achieving greatness, and they were pitied because of it.) This created more drama and gave viewers the feeling that you could do anything if you followed the lead of the main characters.

Fontana: In my opinion, Star Trek is in the top ten of all-time great TV shows. While it is a different kind of show (anthology/half hour/contemporary and futuristic in its episodes), Twilight Zone would probably be ranked up there too and possibly top the list for science fiction on TV. But for character strength and audience attraction, storytelling in a powerful continuing universe, and audience recognition — it has to be Star Trek.

Gerani: My four biggies are The Outer Limits, The Twilight Zone, Star Trek, and The Prisoner. Although Star Trek: The Next Generation was more sophisticated than its predecessor, those original characters remain fresher and stronger. It was almost like Mister Roberts in space, but with action-adventure thrown in.

Gerrold: I think The Original Series has to be considered as important as I Love Lucy, M*A*S*H, All in the Family, and The West Wing — because watching those shows, you ended up feeling good about people. At our silliest, at our most courageous, even at our worst, we all have possibilities. Great entertainment transforms the audience — that’s what makes it great.

Gross: Maybe I’m biased because of my life-long love of Trek, but it’s pretty high up there, mostly because when the scripts work, they still manage to transcend time and illuminate who we are as a people. And the actors, led by Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley, absolutely sold the situations they found themselves in. I’d have to rank The Original Series at the top of the various series, with Deep Space Nine a close second.

Kraft: I would rank Star Trek among the top five best TV shows and The Original Series first among the Star Trek canon. Your first love is the one that makes the greatest impact because it introduces you to something new. The original series was my first love. Even though you feel great affection for the loves that follow, it can never be quite the same. It’s like a parent being asked which is his/her favorite child. You love them all, but maybe not in the same way. Star Trek: The Next Generation might be more complex in some ways and ranks a close second. Because of the Kirk, Spock and Bones dynamic, however, and the wonderful interplay among those three, I’d give the original series the edge.

Pilato: To me, Star Trek is definitely in the top of all-time favorite shows, joining series like The Twilight Zone, Bewitched, Kung Fu, Father Knows Best, Perry Mason, All in the Family, The Andy Griffith Show, Dr. Kildare, Route 66, and The Defenders. I enjoy all the sequels, especially Star Trek: The Next Generation… and the first season of The Next Generation, in particular… because in many ways that first season was very similar to The Original Series in execution. I also enjoy Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. That said, like all true Trekkers… who are concerned with the show’s philosophies, and Trekkies… who are into the costumes and make-up, etc… are looking forward to the new Star Trek: Discovery series, which hopefully will create new Trek-isms like the “Triad of Stability,” represented by William Shatner’s Captain Kirk; “Logic,” represented by Leonard Nimoy’s Mr. Spock; and “Emotion,” represented by DeForest Kelley’s Dr. McCoy. The Discovery show will be a hit because of the key creative force behind the scenes, including Gene Roddenberry’s son, Rod Roddenberry, and Nicholas Meyer, who directed Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, the best of the feature films. The Animated Series was a wonderful sequel to the original show, as it featured a reunion of the original cast, if only via voiceover. The Animated Series lasted only two seasons on NBC, the original network for the first series, which lasted three years. So, with those two shows combined, the initial “five year mission” of the original Enterprise crew was ultimately completed.

Snodgrass: I prefer the original show to all the rest of the shows and the movies. There were some dreadful episodes, but there were also brilliant thought provoking episodes.

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

Coate: Which are the show’s standout episodes?

Altman: City on the Edge of Forever. Other favorites are Mirror, Mirror; A Taste of Armageddon and Arena. And from The Next Generation: Q Who, Who Watches The Watchers, The Survivors, All Good Things and Trials and Tribble-ations, and In the Pale Moonlight on Deep Space Nine. Also, Mudd’s Passion and Yesteryear for The Animated Series. Do you want to know the worst? We probably don’t have time for that. Guiltiest pleasures: Spectre of the Gun and The Savage Curtain, and The Royale from The Next Generation.

Bond: City on the Edge of Forever; Mirror, Mirror; Errand of Mercy; The Devil in the Dark — there are many original series episodes, especially in the first season and a half. 

Burnett: This is a question already answered a hundred thousand times before... but I’d like to offer what I’d call a “Meat and Potatoes” episode for each series. That is... not the greatest episode, but a consistent example of what makes Trek great. For The Original Series, I offer season one’s A Taste of Armageddon, about two warring planets fighting a virtual war with computers, but expecting their actual population to pay the price in order to stave off the destruction of an actual shooting war…. For The Animated Series, I have to choose the Larry Niven-scripted Slaver Weapon. First, he incorporated elements of his own Known Space series, including the Cat-Like Kzinti, awesome antagonists I’d dearly love to see one day incorporated into “real” Trek. Any fans of the table-top role playing game Starfleet Battles love the race. Also, it’s one of the only episodes where James T. Kirk does not appear! Bryan Fuller should totally bring back the Kzinti into Discovery…. I’ve always been a fan of The Next Generation’s quiet, mysterious third season episode The Survivors, offering up an elderly couple as the sole survivors of a terrible alien attack which destroyed their entire planet. John Anderson’s superlative performance coupled with a shocking revelation makes this one of the very best of TNG’s seven season run…. DS9’s two-parter, In Purgatory’s Shadow and By Inferno’s Light remain, after The Menagerie, my absolute favorite Trek two-parter (with Chain of Command bringing up the rear). The less said about these episodes the better, but in the context of the show dramatically illustrated just how far the writing staff had come in shaking up the established status quo by offering some shocking and significant character alteration, causing signification doubt in viewer’s minds where things were going. These shows trumpeted Executive Producer Steven Ira Behr’s real desire to expand Trek storytelling beyond the bounds of traditional five-act structure and embrace the nature of true serialization which later became a staple of the current golden age of television storytelling…. Voyager’s Blink of an Eye, co-written by Star Trek: Discovery’s Joe Menosky, is my absolute favorite Voyager episode. Combining Brannon Braga’s penchant for time anomalies with Menosky’s sometimes problematic use of fringe intellectual concepts, Eye spins a heady tale of a planet out of the normal time stream, with a stuck-in-orbit Voyager itself becoming part of the collective mythology of people living there. A great stand-alone science fiction story with a surprisingly moving climax, Eye provides a fleeting glimpse of what kind of series Voyager might have been if the show concentrated more on modern science fiction concepts and less on the idea of making the long journey home…. My favorite Enterprise remains Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens The Forge. No one understands Star Trek from a modern perspective then the best couple in Star Trek. The authors of my very favorite Star Trek novel, Prime Directive, showed us a glimpse of Vulcan we could only scarcely ever dream of. Fantastic canon episode.

Cushman: Amok Time, when Spock loses his sanity due to an urge to mate. And Kirk must risk his career, and his command, to save the life of his First Officer, who he owes his life to many times over. This episode was so edgy when it first aired in September 1967…. Journey to Babel, an examination of a complex father/son relationship — and the true meaning of love. And the biggest gathering of aliens until the cantina scene in the first Star Wars ten years later, which owes much to this episode…. The City on the Edge of Forever — among the greatest and most heartbreaking love stories ever told on the screen — big or small — and right up there with Gone with the Wind and Somewhere in Time and the 1940s film version of The Ghost and Mrs. Muir…. The Naked Time. With only its fourth broadcast episode on NBC, Star Trek dared to strip its characters naked in front of America. Kirk confessed he obsessively loved his ship; Spock cried and admitted he was never able to tell mother he loved her; and a sweaty bare-chested Sulu, with a saber, chased crewman up and down halls with intoxicated and sadistic delight…. Charlie X — because I first saw it when I was a young teen, and my stomach was aching because I was experiencing my first crush. I didn’t know why I felt sick every time I was near her. And then Charlie admitted to the same affliction. And Kirk explained it. Nowhere else on TV had I ever seen that conversation take place before… or since. My father and I never had it. But Kirk and Charlie did, and I was there to learn from it…. The Doomsday Machine — because it’s Moby Dick in space. When we saw William Windom play Commodore Decker, who wanted to join his crew in death, we truly ached. We felt empathy. And any moving picture that can make you do that is a resounding success…. Shore Leave because everything about it is perfect! Watch it and see for yourself.  

Dochterman: There are so many that it is tough to form a list that isn’t 79 episodes long. I think the ones that are the best examples of what the pinnacle of Trek can be are: Balance of Terror — it gives us a glimpse at a villain that is completely understandable and honorable. The Enemy Within — a fascinating look at the nature of man’s good/evil aspects. The Doomsday Machine — old-fashioned, nail-biting adventure filled with thrills and danger. Amok Time — a fun look at the mysterious culture of Vulcan. The Enterprise Incident — a nice cold war adventure. And Requiem for Methuselah — one of my all-time favorites from the often belittled third season.

Fontana: In no particular order — The City on the Edge of Forever, The Trouble with Tribbles, The Devil in the Dark, This Side of Paradise, Journey to Babel.

Gerani: Hmmm.… The Cage/The Menagerie; Where No Man Has Gone Before; The Corbomite Maneuver; Balance of Terror; Mirror, Mirror; The Doomsday Machine.

Gerrold: Mirror, Mirror; City On The Edge of Forever; Balance of Terror; Devil In The Dark; A Taste of Armageddon; The Corbomite Maneuver; Doomsday Machine; Journey to Babel; Paradise Syndrome; Day of the Dove; Shore Leave....

Gross: The Devil in the Dark — gives a whole new meaning to the adage of not judging a book by its cover. Metamorphosis — a treatise on the true nature of love, and one of Shatner’s finest moments as Kirk. The Trouble with Tribbles — they proved Star Trek could be funny without losing an ounce of its integrity. A Taste of Armageddon — not usually a Top 10 episode, but a wonderful allegory of Vietnam. Space Seed — Ricardo Montalban as Khan goes up against William Shatner as Kirk! Balance of Terror — A World War II submarine film transported to space with genuine tension and characterization. It just goes on from there.

Kraft: (1) The City on the Edge of Forever. Harlan Ellison’s tale employs a familiar plot device, time travel, and infuses it with a very poignant human theme of love, sacrifice and ethical dilemma. Kirk must choose between his love for Edith Keeler and humankind’s common good. Edith Keeler’s death for a greater good foreshadows Spock’s death in The Wrath of Khan when Spock decides that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” (2) The Doomsday Machine. It’s not only a tale of pulsating suspense, but also a cautionary tale about the perils of technology run amuck in the form of a super weapon that turns into a Frankenstein monster. I interpreted the narrative to be an admonition about nuclear war and the potential extinction of the human race. (3) Errand of Mercy. Both sides get their comeuppance in this tale of planetary meddling by the Federation and the Klingon Empire. It puts the Prime Directive at the forefront and reminds us of its wise guiding principle. Kirk is flummoxed when asked by the Organians if he’s defending the right to start a war. The Klingon commander, of course, remains blinded by his bloodlust. His only regret is that he was cheated of a war that “would have been glorious.” Human and Klingon hubris are brought down a peg. The Organians are truly the ethical/moral superiors. (4) Space Seed. Ricardo Montalban’s charismatic Khan and the moral/ethical implications of the Superman theory highlight this episode. Do superior intelligence and strength (Khan) absolve the inevitable abuse of power that comes with it? Are “Supermen” above the moral imperatives of compassion and mercy? Again Trek poses the big ethical and moral questions. Apparently the learned Khan had no acquaintance with the catastrophic consequences of the Superman theory in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment or was blinded to those consequences by ego and hubris. (5) A Taste of Armageddon. This episode parallels the horrors of the Vietnam War. As never before, that war invaded the living rooms of every home in America with an intimate immediacy and revulsion. It was like a ringside seat at a nightmare courtesy of the national media. When Kirk destroys the disintegration chambers in which millions are “painlessly” disposed of as “antiseptic casualties of war” waged by computer simulation, it forces the warring factions to begin negotiations toward a treaty or face the alternative of real blood and carnage.

Pilato: There are so many wonderful and favorite episodes. Miri…with Kim Darby. Metamorphosis…with Elinor Donahue. Or City on the Edge of Forever…with Joan Collins, just to name a few.

Snodgrass: Charlie X, Balance of Terror, Trouble with Tribbles, The Devil in the Dark.

Coate: If you could name only one, which episode is your favorite?

Altman: I’m boring. City on the Edge of Forever. (The syndication cut for WPIX where the scene of the bum picking up and shooting himself with the phaser is omitted.)

Bond: Amok Time still has my favorite moment in all of Star Trek, which is the moment when Spock realizes that he hasn’t killed Kirk, that Kirk is alive, and the outburst of pure joy from that character. I think it’s one of the greatest moments on television, period, because in just about one second it peels the mask off this character and shows this incredible evolution from a remote, mysterious alien to a character that we know feels very deeply. It’s a great science fiction story written by a great science fiction writer (something the new Star Trek shows really lacked for the most part) and a magnificent character study that gets at what Star Trek is all about, which is understanding each other.

Burnett: City on the Edge of Forever or The Inner Light? Far Beyond the Stars or Blink of an Eye? Aside from the first and last episodes, the entirety of Enterprise’s fourth season? There are over seven hundred hours of televised Trek to choose from and my answer to this question might depend any day on the price of gas at my local Chevron. But there is one episode I’ve dearly loved since I was a wee lad which nobody ever mentions in any list of their favorite episodes: the second season TOS episode The Immunity Syndrome. The one with the 11,000 mile-long space amoeba, easily once of the most compelling alien creatures to ever appear in science fiction. Beginning with Spock sensing the death of the all-Vulcan starship Intrepid, a moment directly referenced in Star Wars, the plot becomes at once scary as hell and mysteriously wondrous at the same time. From the exhausted crew of the Enterprise entering the zone of darkness to their horrifically incredulous discovery of the amoeba itself, the episode remains both a compelling mystery and very hard science fiction with tremendous character beats…. Robert Sabaroff’s crackling script contains some of the best dialogue exchanges of the entire series, including some of the very best Spock and McCoy scenes ever written. “You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours.” — Spock to McCoy, on the deaths of the Intrepid crew…. “Suffer the death of thy neighbor, eh, Spock? You wouldn’t wish that on us, would you?” “It might have rendered your history a bit less bloody.” — McCoy and Spock on feeling empathy for the dead Intrepid crew…. “Vulcan dignity? How can I grant you what I don’t understand?” “Then employ one of your own superstitions. Wish me luck.” — McCoy and Spock, outside the hangar deck door…. And finally...one of my very favorites: “Shut up, Spock! We’re rescuing you!” “Why, thank you ... Captain McCoy.” — McCoy and Spock, as the Enterprise locks tractor beams onto the shuttlecraft…. Perhaps my love of this episode offers some insight into why Star Trek: The Motion Picture will always be my favorite Trek feature film.

Cushman: This Side of Paradise — a study in loneliness. Spock tells Kirk at the end, “For the first time in my life … I was happy.” But he gave it up, out of loyalty for Kirk. And we see how tortured and lonely Kirk is, when his crew abandons him and he is left alone on the Enterprise. Brilliant. And heartbreaking.

Dochterman: When forced, I would have to say Mirror, Mirror, for the simple reason that it is so enjoyable to see our crew trying to exist in the mirror universe, and extremely enjoyable to see the mirror counterparts caged in our universe. I just enjoy it so much every time I see it.

Fontana: I can’t name just one.

Gerani: Probably Harlan Ellison’s The City on the Edge of Forever. That one just seemed to have it all… a great premise, a strong leading lady, powerful Ellison time warp concepts, and a memorable closing line. Oh, and the glowing gateway “guardian” was a pretty cool on-set prop.

Gerrold: Obviously, The Trouble with Tribbles. It jump-started my career. Without it, I would have had a much harder time.

Gross: It’s a cliché, but The City on the Edge of Forever. The concept is brilliant, as is the execution. It is so incredibly hard to sell a love story in a self-contained 60-minute episode, but City absolutely does it. And when Kirk sacrifices that love to save history? Still so moving.

Kraft: Of all the gems in the Star Trek treasure chest, The City on the Edge of Forever sparkles the most for me.

Pilato: My favorite episode is Amok Time, in which Spock begins behaving very strangely and, come to find out, he must return to his home-planet Vulcan to marry his betrothed from birth. Due to the Vulcan ceremonial rituals explained in the episode, he ends up battling Kirk for the love of his life, seemingly killing Kirk in the process, and realizing that as he says, “having is not so pleasing as wanting. It isn’t logical, but often true.” And that remains one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite episodes.  

Snodgrass: City on the Edge of Forever.

Coate: Is there an ideal “gateway” episode to introduce someone to the series?

Altman: If I was writing Trek101, I would suggest a neophyte start with The Corbomite Maneuver, which encapsulates the entire Trek philosophy in one episode, and probably The Devil in the Dark and Errand of Mercy. For The Next Generation, Measure of a Man, and Enterprise, Dear Doctor. For Deep Space Nine, watch Duet and In the Tears of the Prophets. And if you like those, binge the next six years.

Bond: I use my wife as an example for this — she’s never had any interest in Star Trek and I made a huge mistake when I first met her by showing her Mirror, Mirror, which has Kirk going into a parallel universe and having to behave like some savage, pirate version of himself, and dealing with an evil Spock who’s wearing a beard — the whole episode basically introduces a completely different TV series concept, which works if you’ve spent a year or so watching the characters, but to have someone come in cold who knows nothing about Star Trek, it’s just asking too much. I actually think The Corbomite Maneuver is a perfect introduction to the characters, and it was designed to do exactly that, but because back then it took them so long to finish the special effects it wound up running much later in the first season. It’s also tough for modern audiences to deal with Clint Howard playing an alien as a little kid, I think — you could get away with that and it was an original idea back then but it’s tough for modern audiences. I would go back to Amok Time — it’s just a great personal story that gives you tremendous insight into the Vulcans and Spock, and his relationship with Kirk. And just to be controversial, the first J.J. Abrams movie is actually a terrific introduction to the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and I’m sure that has brought a lot of younger viewers into the franchise.

Burnett: It really depends on the person. But I’ve maintained the very best Star Trek gateway episode is The Corbomite Maneuver. Everything you need to know is in those 52 minutes. Great science fiction, a great mystery and a great conclusion. Plus, the First Federation is a fantastic conceit. And booze.

Cushman: I always thought The Corbomite Maneuver served as a great introduction to Star Trek. It was the episode Gene Roddenberry wanted to open the series with on NBC, but the photographic effects weren’t ready. So I showed that to my son first, when he was 12. It bored him to death. Too slow paced for today’s kids. So then I showed him Journey to Babel and he loved it.

Dochterman: Well, it’s a very serious subject to me, and a very difficult question to answer thoroughly. But I think that it depends on the person. If they are likely to react better to action or Klingons, then I would say Balance of Terror or Errand of Mercy. If they are more open to science fiction or character moments, City on the Edge of Forever or Bread and Circuses. And if they respond better to fun romps, then perhaps The Trouble with Tribbles or I, Mudd. Of course, The Menagerie gives you a spoon fed version of The Cage, along with a fascinating sci-fi and character framework.

Fontana: This is a difficult question. I would choose The Devil in the Dark, though it is a later episode in the first season. The reason is, our captain and crew are presented with a situation in which “something evil” is killing miners — endangering the working people, their livelihoods and the production of the planet — and our team has to solve the problem. And then, through Spock’s mind meld ability (I believe that was the first time it was used), they discover the creature is not a murdering, mindless beast but a mother protecting its young. Pure, perfect Star Trek — and unlike anything anyone else would have done. (Thank you, Gene Coon.)

Gerani: Corbomite is a good choice, as it dramatizes the mission of the Enterprise and enables viewers to experience both the fear and wonder associated with first contact.

Gerrold: I have been told by many that The Trouble with Tribbles is a good start, but I disagree because it’s so different from many of the other episodes. I’d say start with The Man Trap, which was also the first episode broadcast. It hooked me.

Gross: I’ll be honest, the first episode that popped into my mind was The Corbomite Maneuver, which happens to be the first episode filmed after the pilots. It captures the mystery of the unknown, ultimately demonstrates that what we encounter out there isn’t necessarily dangerous, has Kirk make mistakes as a leader, there’s a bit of sniping followed by reconciliation between the captain and Spock, and Mr. Bailey — despite whiney personality — proves to be an appropriate surrogate for the audience.

Kraft: I would recommend The City on the Edge of Forever because it is science fiction that is at once so very human and so ethically complex. Sometimes science fiction seems abstractly remote, more about machines and ideas than about people. The City on the Edge of Forever proves that science fiction can be poignant and smart.

Pilato: I would say you can’t go wrong by watching Miri, Metamorphosis, City on the Edge of Forever, or Amok Time.

Snodgrass: I would probably use Tribbles.

[On to Page 4]

[Back to Page 3]

Coate: What are your thoughts on the various home-video releases and season sets of the series and, in particular, the new visual effects shots added into selected episodes?

Altman: I am deeply appreciative that the Blu-rays of The Original Series feature both versions of the shows as I was deeply unhappy with the new VFX for the series which were rushed and have largely replaced the original effects on SVOD which is unfortunate. I always felt like the new effects looked like a video game. With more time and money this could have been avoided. I prefer to watch the HD versions with the original effects…. I think The Next Generation Blu-rays were really well done. Beautiful VAM [Value Added Material] from Roger Lay and Robert Meyer Burnett and the re-compositing of the original film elements was done tastefully and smartly. They look great and CBS should be lauded for the care and money they lavished on this restoration project. I also think the Enterprise sets are terrific due to all the fantastic VAM that Roger Lay created. Really insightful material that actually helped elevate my appraisal of that often maligned series. I really hope at some point CBS tackles the release of Deep Space Nine which warrants a proper restoration, but it’s complicated due to the nature of the standard-def VFX and primitive early CG. My fervent hope, however, is that the movies do get a full 4K restoration akin to the Lowry Bond restorations in the very near future. And I’d love to see a version of Trek V with new VFX.

Bond: It’s very unfortunate that so many of creative talent behind The Original Series were gone by the time any serious DVD and Blu-ray releases of the show were being done. There were tremendous interviews done by the Sci-Fi Channel for the show’s first remastering and broadcast there, but the Sci-Fi Channel owns those — I would love to see those incorporated with the original episodes on Blu-ray someday. I really enjoyed the remastered episodes’ new visual effects at the time, but in a way a lot of those effects now look as dated as the original shots because CG effects have come so far in the past few years. They did a number of absolutely beautiful, photo-real shots of the Enterprise and other space shots, but there are many others that are too obviously CG animation. But a lot of the other enhancements for the live-action shots and the matte paintings they did are really wonderful. What I really like is the fact that Paramount made the original versions of the episodes available on the Blu-ray sets instead of erasing them from history.

Burnett: I’ve owned VHS, LaserDisc, DVD and now Blu-Ray versions of The Original Series. In terms of the updated VFX, I think they’re best when they accentuate story points and advance our understanding of the Trek universe. First season’s Court Martial is a great example of this. We finally know where the Enterprise was damaged in that Ion storm and just where the pod was jettisoned from. Those are enhancements I just love…. As someone who spent three years creating documentaries for the unprecedented restoration of The Next Generation on Blu-Ray, the most herculean restoration in the history of the television medium, I’d say they are essential viewing for any Trek fan. If you’ve only ever seen The Next Generation on BBC America, let me tell you... the Blu-rays will change your life.

Cushman: The Blu-ray release from a few years ago is the best, because they tried to correct the lighting and contrast issues that screwed the series up when it was first released to home video, when Paramount adjusted the contrast to make it appear more contemporary. Star Trek was filmed dark, to play moody, and look cinematic. It looked great in the 1960s and 1970s, and it wasn’t until the 1980s that it stopped looking like those of us who were there in the beginning remembered. But the Blu-ray release comes close. And you can pick between the original photographic effects or CGI. Well, guess what, for the average episode, in which we are just seeing Enterprise fly-bys and orbiting shots, the originals look better. That 11-foot-two-inch model was tangible. It feels real. It looks good. A computer can’t better that. But in the episodes where more was needed, such as The Doomsday Machine and Balance of Terror, go with the remastered episodes and the CGI. They did a great job.  

Dochterman: This is quite a close related question to me, because it was me in the early 2000s that went to the studio pitching to remaster the original series in HD with new effects… my version would have been more faithful to the original look of the effects, only straying when absolutely necessary. So I think the idea of doing that is a valid one. I was ultimately disappointed in the result, however, not only because they didn’t hire me to do the job, but because it was obvious they didn’t put enough money or time into it, and forced the production to be done without enough preparation or the luxury of an art director to keep things consistent.

Fontana: Generally speaking, the visual effects of the time were difficult, time consuming, and expensive to do. We had to be careful about what we called for in the scripts — but the visual effects people did well for the era. While the new visual effects may be prettier, they don’t change the power of the stories, the attraction of the characters and the strong messages in our story telling.

Gerani: Star Trek is unique and timeless; I can understand why some folks felt that upgraded special effects would be acceptable in this case… a kind of digital face-lift. But I’m against the practice, in general. It’s especially unfortunate in an episode like The Tholian Web, which won an Emmy for its original special effects. The amazing visual results those 60s craftsmen achieved with limited technology are now somewhat obscured and compromised by spiffed-up CG additions from a century later. This is indeed prettier material to watch, but the film’s historical value has been massacred. And while it’s true that the original versions of these episodes are still available for viewing, 99% of the time it’s the new incarnations that are aired, and reach the widest audience. 

Gerrold: I wish we were all getting residuals from those sales. Other than that, I’m thrilled that Star Trek continues to find new viewers. It says that what we accomplished was something timeless.

Gross: Generally, I’m very pleased with the releases. The Original Series and The Next Generation look wonderful in their remastered forms, and I hope that we’ll eventually see the other series (though I’m not so sure that will happen). As to the enhanced visual effects done for the original series: personally, I love them. While I absolutely appreciate that they did the best that they could with the state of the art of the technology at the time, I feel that the new effects makes the show more watchable to younger people who would most definitely be turned off to those original effects. For people who were there in the beginning, there’s no problem watching what was created then. For Millennials and younger who have no patience for anything more than a decade or so old, it makes it more likely they’ll sit through and actually experience Star Trek.

Kraft: They are the best way for fans who want to own all of Trek to get it, sometimes at bargain prices rather than piecemeal purchasing which is more expensive. Advanced visual effects aesthetically enhance selected episodes, but the heart of Star Trek is great storytelling. Visual effects while establishing verisimilitude of a story’s setting should always be subordinated to the narrative.

Pilato: I love all the DVD/Blu-ray releases of the show, and especially the new added visual effects. I think they enhance the series perfectly, and I also think that Gene Roddenberry would approve of revamped special effects for each episode. You have to remember Star Trek was on a limited budget the first time around. There wasn’t a lot of money to go around for special effects, and the technology was somewhat limited, too. They even used salt and pepper shakers from the NBC Commissary for some of Dr. McCoy’s medical portable scanners. The CGI resources that new TV shows and movies have today were not available during Star Trek’s initial run. And if they were, I believe Gene Roddenberry would have utilized them.

Coate: What is the legacy of Star Trek?

Altman: Fifty years later we’re still talking about Star Trek. I suspect and hope that as long as Star Trek remains optimistic and never cynical, we’ll still be talking about it another 50 years... or, at least, someone will, if not us. It’s a remarkable cultural legacy of which everyone involved has every reason to be proud of. I could not be more excited about the upcoming series from Bryan Fuller knowing that he combines both an enthusiasm for the material as a fan with an unerring aesthetic vision and a brilliant team of writers. Star Trek has always been best on TV. The movie series is fun and engaging when it works, but TV is the beating, bleeding heart of the franchise. 

Bond: It’s still being written. I’m very excited about the new TV series coming up, and I will be fascinated to see if it measures up to “peak television” — the standards for television drama are now incredibly high and the new Star Trek series must measure up to them or it’s going to fail. And to measure up to shows like Mad Men and Game of Thrones while still serving the ideals and even the conventions of Star Trek that fans expect is an incredible challenge. But [as I mentioned earlier] it’s stunning and gratifying to me that Star Trek is still viable and a huge part of our culture 50 years after it was first broadcast and almost 50 years after it essentially failed and was cancelled. It’s certainly one of the most amazing success stories in entertainment.

Burnett: The legacy is Star Trek remains the excellence of the human spirit. To think, analyze, and surmount any problem. To excel, to bring the best of the best humanity has to offer to discover the mysteries of the universe. To be the best we can be, to use diversity as a tool, acceptance as a strength and to use intellect as the fulcrum of transcendence. The legacy of Star Trek is the advancement of every being on Planet Earth.

Cushman: The greatest legacy of Star Trek is that we are still watching it, still reading about it, and still talking about it 50 years later. Beyond that, see my answers for [your first question]. If that isn’t one hell of a legacy, what is?

Dochterman: I think the legacy of Star Trek might just be double edged. While it represented a culmination, at least in pop culture, of the Kennedy era dream of space, I think that its vision of the future did inspire a couple generations of scientists and artists to push through new frontiers and advance the human race. Conversely, I do think that there is a little bit of the effect of disappointment in reality. The unfortunate outcome is that Star Trek’s vision was so exciting and distant, that it may have made us a little impatient with the realities of NASA, and that the space program was so far away from the fantastic future that Trek portrayed, it made it difficult to believe that we as a people would ever make it that far…. Recently, I was noting some reactions to the latest SpaceX launch attempt that resulted in a spectacular explosive failure… and saw that so many people were negative and putting this visionary company down for “blowing up another rocket.” I found that appalling and sad that people don’t remember how hard this is, how difficult it is to push technology and nerves past the outside of the envelope… and that they are missing the main tenet of Star Trek: “Risk… Risk is our business. That’s what this starship is all about. That’s why we’re aboard her.” Indeed.

Fontana: We were able to tell stories other shows couldn’t do at the time — stories that addressed racism, feminism, the war in Vietnam, new national and international relationships in a growing, changing world — all under the science fiction mission statement of seeking out new worlds, new civilizations and boldly going where no man has gone before. The stories still hold up, still entertain and touch audiences’ hearts and minds, and are remembered. Not too bad a legacy, I’d say. 

Gerani: With the possible exception of Star Wars, it is the most popular and impressive science fiction drama with continuing characters ever created. It taught us that a better world was possible, that the future was an endlessly exhilarating adventure.

Gerrold: It’s curious that we talk about “legacy” — because that’s about the past. Star Trek points toward the future. It has the hopeful optimism of classic science fiction. It says we can do better, we can be better, and we can accomplish amazing things — if we want to. If we put our small petty differences aside. Star Trek is about the essential human aspiration of finding out what’s out there and what’s our place in the universe, because that will give us a real answer to the question, “Who are we?”

Gross: Besides everything that Star Trek stands for — its inherent hope for our future — and characters who have become so iconic, for me one of the great legacies is that for the first time in pop culture history, a television show’s fan base refused to accept the fate one of the networks handed to something they loved. NBC said that Star Trek was over, and the fans said no. That “no” ultimately led to the show’s record-breaking numbers in syndication, the conventions, Star Trek: The Motion Picture and everything that has followed. That’s one hell of a legacy.

Kraft: On television, Star Trek took science fiction from pulp fiction and gave it a heretofore unknown respectability. Its cultural and educational impact have been enormous. Star Trek has become part of the curriculum in higher education, secondary and primary schools in a wide spectrum of academic disciplines, including science, history, ethics, philosophy, theology, law, mathematics, and language. It steers young people to pursue careers in the sciences. It took us on voyages to discoveries in the final frontier of space and into discoveries in the human heart. Most of all, however, it left a legacy of hope and optimism that humankind has a future. If we cultivate the potential of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations so that we embrace a universe brimming with the riches of life in all of its forms, then humankind can evolve into something finer and nobler. I think that is what Gene Roddenberry meant when he said that the human adventure is just beginning.

Pilato: The legacy of Star Trek is impact the show has left behind in the hearts, minds and souls of millions of fans. Besides the fact that the show inspired original designs for things like flip-up cell phones, laptops, and inspired holographic designs that are off and running today, the show gave us hope for the future… that people of all races…different cultures and different religious and spiritual beliefs… that we can all one day work together and live in peace… which is what the show’s canonical term IDIC stood for: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

Snodgrass: It presented a hopeful view of the future and was also a window into the attitudes of the 1960s reflecting as it did the Kenndyesque belief in “the new frontier.” Making change through intervention. The number of times Kirk violated the Prime Directive was really rather funny.

Coate: Thank you, everyone, for participating and for sharing your thoughts about Star Trek on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Live long and prosper.

In closing, I would like to dedicate this article to the numerous cast and crew members who helped make Star Trek so memorable. On a personal level, I’d like to dedicate this article to James Rhoads, who passed away while this article was being prepared. James was a childhood friend with whom I attended my first Star Trek convention. And to Mr. Don Braden, one of my high school teachers, who had the audacity to screen Star Trek episodes in his tough but rewarding Critical Thinking class, which opened my eyes to the possibility that television could be more than mere entertainment.

Selected images copyright/courtesy CBS, Desilu Productions, NBC, Norway Productions, Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment.

– Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached at: michaelcoate@thedigitalbits.com

The Bad News Bears, from Bill Lancaster’s WGA-winning screenplay about a Southern California Little League team comprised of an alcoholic coach, a female pitcher, and “a bunch of jews, sp*cs, ni**ers, pansies, and a booger-eating moron,” opened 40 years ago this week, and for the occasion The Bits features a compilation of box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context, a collection of noteworthy passages from vintage film reviews, a list of the theaters that played the movie upon its initial release, and, finally, an interview segment with baseball authority and Walter Matthau biographer Rob Edelman.

BAD NEWS BEARS NUMBER$

• 3 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 4 = Number of sequels, remakes and spin-offs
• 4 = Rank on list of top box-office earners of 1976 (calendar year)
• 9 = Rank on list of top box-office earners of 1976 (legacy)
• 27 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement
• 47 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release
• 459 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $2.4 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross
• $9.0 million = Production cost
• $22.3 million = Box-office rental (domestic, 1976 calendar year)
• $24.9 million = Box-office rental (domestic, through 1979)
• $37.5 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $42.3 million = Box-office gross (domestic)
• $176.5 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“The year’s funniest movie!” — Jay Cocks, Time

“The Bad News Bears is the funniest adult-child comedy film since Paper Moon, and should do just as well for Paramount. Walter Matthau stars to perfection as a bumbling baseball coach in the sharp Stanley R. Jaffe production about the foibles and follies of little-league athletics. Tatum O’Neal also stars as Matthau’s ace pitcher. Michael Ritchie’s film has the correct balance of warmth and empathy to make the gentle social commentary far more effective than in his Smile of a year ago. This is home run b.o. material.” — A.D. Murphy, Variety

“The Bad News Bears is what a good Disney comedy might look like today if the Disney studios hadn’t lost the knack long ago.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“The sad fact is that [The Bad News Bears] is unbearable since it fails on [every] level, creating a final product that’s as spotty as a fireman’s dog.” — Ken Williams, (Hamilton, OH) Journal News

“Because of its humor and care, Bad News Bears is really good news.” — Susan Stark, Detroit Free Press

“For pure, nutty escapism, don’t miss The Bad News Bears.” — Rex Reed, New York Daily News

“One of Matthau’s funniest performances and Tatum O’Neal is dazzling!” — John Simon, New York Magazine

“Nowhere does The Bad News Bears strike us with the fresh insight, the original perspective, or the new sympathy that movies, comic or otherwise, must have to make them worth our while.” — Joy Gould Boyum, The Wall Street Journal

“Run, run, run to The Bad News Bears. You’ll be making an error if you skip this movie!” — Gene Shalit, WNBC-TV

“The Bad News Bears is cloyingly precocious, feisty and foul-mouthed…. The Bad News Bears is still an enjoyable movie, mostly because of the delightful performance of Walter Matthau.” — Bill Hagen, Copley News Service

“If Neil Simon ever wrote a kiddie comedy, it might very well sound like Michael Ritchie’s The Bad News Bears.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“Despite all its home-run potential, Bad News Bears is a long fly ball that finally drifts foul.” — Maureen Orth, Newsweek

“Funny and sweet!” — Liz Smith, Cosmopolitan

“A good, clean hit!” — Frank Rich, New York Post

“Unbeatable as all-around satisfying entertainment!” — Judith Crist, Saturday Review

“The Bad News Bears isn’t up to the standard of [Michael Ritchie’s] Smile. Its characters are more types than people. But Ritchie manages to work some magic through his use of music and through his manipulation of the film’s uncertain ending…. The kids themselves are exaggerated brats. They talk like standup comics working a Dean Martin roast. Their foul-mouth dialog is overdone…. In sum, The Bad News Bears is a better comedy about Little League baseball than you’d expect from anyone but talented Michael Ritchie.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“Michael Ritchie’s The Bad News Bears is intended as a comedy, and there are, to be sure, a lot of laughs in it. But it’s something more, something deeper, than what it first appears to be. It’s an unblinking, scathing look at competition in American society—and because the competitors in this case are Little Leaguers, the movie has passages that are very disturbing.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Ritchie deflates the pretensions of a sacrosanct piece of Americana without draining away any of the fun.” — Richard Cuskelly, Los Angeles Herald-Examiner

“While no way related to the Disney definition of a wholesome family picture, Bad News Bears is ultimately a sentimental ode to the spirit of good sportsmanship, or maybe a blow to kids’ lib. But how many message movies have Matthau on deck to guarantee a grand-slammer?” — Playboy

“What should have been family fare is more suited for adults, especially regarding the language used by both adolescents and grownups. Since many regard obscenities as objectionable as sex or violence on the screen, the Paramount release may run into difficulty.” — Boxoffice

“Ritchie’s cynicism finds its most deserving target in the little league parents—the fathers who care more about a team victory than their children’s stability. But the film’s sharpness on this point throws the movie out of focus. It’s like finding a bitter tonic in the middle of a tasty cream puff…. Although the plot recalls the early 1930s comedies, the dialogue is pure 1976. For once, onscreen contemporary kids sound just like offscreen contemporary kids.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“The Bad News Bears is a lovely, spontaneously funny entertainment. [T]he presence of Walter Matthau and Tatum O’Neal at the head of the cast may help to attract a mass audience that never heard about [Ritchie’s] Smile…. [T]he comedy scenes are so expert and the interplay between Matthau and the juveniles is so uninhibited and amusing that the picture looks virtually certain of wide, well-earned popular appeal.” — Gary Arnold, The Washington Post

“The Bad News Bears is nothing but good news. It’s the best American screen comedy of the year to date.” — Kevin Thomas, Los Angeles Times

“Purely as a hip kiddie comedy about life in the little leagues, The Bad News Bears is amiable, easily digestible diversion. But unfortunately it haplessly aspires to be something more: a mildly caustic comment on our costly obsession with winning. Elsewhere, a skillful satirist of this particular form of American madness (in Smile and The Candidate), here director Michael Ritchie merely seems dutifully ideological. The message is tacked on, not woven, into the movie and, what’s more, it’s not really justified by the action. Part of the fault lies in Bill Lancaster’s indecisively conceived, unevenly written and thickly padded script.” — John Koch, Boston Herald American

“The Bad News Bears suggests the title of a Disney movie. But Michael Ritchie’s film of that name might be rated ‘X’ by Disney standards…. Ritchie took risks with this one—baseball, kids, the un-Disney honesty of true junior high school dialogue—and won. I think it is the best of his five feature films to date.” — William Hogan, San Francisco Chronicle

“It is simply a very fine movie that would be a great deal of fun for persons of all ages. It has enough intelligent comment to keep adults interested and enough wild humor to keep children of all ages roaring with laughter.” — Mike Petryni, The (Phoenix) Arizona Republic

“[The Bad News Bears] has an exploding sense of life and joyful, jubilant sense of self that’s absent from far too many films…. Bad News Bears recalls with joy when baseball was a sport, not a business. It remembers when sandlot baseball was played by kids for their own delight, not for their parents’ ego-tripping. When the idea was sportsmanship, not gamesmanship. It recollects when baseball was a reflection of the kind of game life should be instead of a warring simulation of the mechanism it’s becoming. That’s as joyful as it is romantic.” — Tom McElfresh, The Cincinnati Enquirer

THE ORIGINAL ENGAGEMENTS

A distribution overview…. The Bad News Bears was sneak-previewed in several markets on April 2nd, 1976. The movie’s world premiere was held at Plitt’s Century Plaza in Los Angeles on April 4th as the closing night screening of FILMEX ’76. Paramount booked over 400 prints of the film for the initial release wave in North America, a huge sum for the company at the time. The opening-week bookings were held over the course of four days, depending on the opening-day preference of each exhibitor, and these have been cited below, alphabetized by U.S. state and Canadian province. Two theaters in Manhattan opened the movie on Tuesday, April 6th. The Wednesday, April 7th openings have been cited with a single asterisk. The double-asterisk entries opened Thursday, April 8th, and the triple-asterisk entries opened Friday, April 9th. The thousands of bookings that commenced during the subsequent weeks and months (including move-over extensions and international engagements) have not been listed in this work. The length of engagement, measured in weeks, has been provided for selected entries to give a sense of the movie’s popularity.

ALABAMA

• Bessemer — ABC Southeastern’s Bessemer Twin*** (8)
• Birmingham — ABC Southeastern’s Roebuck Plaza*** (8)
• Huntsville — Martin’s Westbury Cinerama*** (10)
• Mobile — ABC Southeastern’s Airport Twin*** (11)
• Montgomery — Martin’s Governor’s Square Twin*** (12)
• Muscle Shoals — Martin’s Cinema Twin*** (5)
• Tuscaloosa — ABC Southeastern’s Fox Twin*** (5)

ALASKA

No theaters in Alaska played The Bad News Bears during Release Wave #1

ALBERTA

• Calgary — Famous Players’ Palliser Square Twin*** (23)
• Edmonton — Famous Players’ Capitol Square 4-plex*** (7)
• Edmonton — Famous Players’ Westmount Twin*** (24)

ARIZONA

• Phoenix — General Cinema Corporation’s Thomas Mall*** (6)
• Tucson — Mann’s Buena Vista Twin*** (11)

ARKANSAS

• Fort Smith — American Multi-Cinema’s Phoenix Village Twin*
• Jonesboro — Malco’s Trio Triplex***
• Little Rock — United Artists’ Cinema City 4-plex*** (12)
• North Little Rock — General Cinema Corporation’s McCain Mall Twin*** (6)

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Burnaby — Famous Players’ Lougheed Mall Triplex*** (26)
• West Vancouver — Famous Players’ Park Royal Twin*** (9)

CALIFORNIA

• Bakersfield — General Cinema Corporation’s Valley Plaza* (7)
• Berkeley — Blumenfeld/Cinerama’s Oaks Twin* (6)
• Capitola — Kindair’s 41st Avenue Playhouse Triplex* (11)
• Citrus Heights — Mann’s Birdcage Walk Triplex*** (24)
• Concord — General Cinema Corporation’s Sun Valley* (9)
• Daly City — Plitt’s Serramonte Plaza Twin* (10)
• El Monte — Pacific’s Starlite Drive-In* (11)
• Eureka — Redwood’s State Triplex*** (6)
• Fountain Valley — Pacific’s Fountain Valley Drive-In* (12)
• Fresno — General Cinema Corporation’s Manchester Mall* (10)
• Hayward — General Cinema Corporation’s Southland Twin* (9)
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) — Mann’s Chinese* (11)
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) — Mann’s National* (11)
• Menlo Park — West Side Valley’s Park* (9)
• Napa — Blumenfeld’s Uptown Twin* (4)
• Newport Beach — Edwards’ Newport Twin* (11)
• Oakland — Foster’s Parkway Twin* (11)
• Orange — Syufy’s Cinedome 4-plex* (12)
• Palm Desert — Metropolitan’s Palms to Pines Triplex* (15)
• Sacramento — Syufy’s Century 24* (11)
• Salinas — Kindair’s Northridge 4-plex* (12)
• San Diego — Mann’s Cinema 21* (11)
• San Francisco — Blumenfeld’s Regency II* (10)
• San Jose — Syufy’s Century 24 Twin* (11)
• San Mateo — General Cinema Corporation’s Hillsdale Center Twin* (9)
• San Rafael — Blumenfeld/Cinerama’s Northgate* (10)
• Santa Barbara — Metropolitan’s Granada* (6)
• Sonoma — Redwood’s Coddingtown Triplex* (7)
• Stockton — General Cinema Corporation’s Sherwood Plaza Twin* (9)
• Vallejo — Syufy’s Cine 21 Triplex* (5)
• Visalia — Mann’s Fox* (5)

COLORADO

• Boulder — Mann’s Fox*** (8)
• Colorado Springs — General Cinema Corporation’s Citadel Twin*** (12)
• Denver — Mann’s Century 21* (16)
• Fort Collins — Mann’s Fox*** (6)
• Greeley — Cooper-Highland’s Wilshire Twin*** (7)
• Pueblo — American Multi-Cinema’s Southside 4-plex*** (11)

CONNECTICUT

• Bridgeport — Perakos’ Beverly* (5)
• Danbury — RKO Stanley-Warner’s Cinema* (5)
• East Hartford — Redstone’s Showcase 4-plex* (9)
• Orange — Redstone’s Showcase 5-plex* (7)
• Stamford — Trans-Lux’s Avon* (7)
• Waterbury — General Cinema Corporation’s Naugatuck Valley Mall Triplex* (11)
• Westport — Nutmeg’s Fine Arts Triplex* (9)

DELAWARE

• Wilmington — Budco’s Concord Mall* (12)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — General Cinema Corporation’s Jenifer Twin* (11)

FLORIDA

• Bay Harbor Islands — Loews’ Bay Harbor*** (11)
• Bradenton — General Cinema Corporation’s Bayshore Twin*** (7)
• Casselberry — General Cinema Corporation’s Seminole*** (8)
• Clearwater — ABC Florida State’s Capitol*** (7)
• Coral Gables — General Cinema Corporation’s Riviera Twin*** (11)
• Daytona Beach — General Cinema Corporation’s Bellair Plaza Twin*** (10)
• Deerfield Beach — ABC Florida State’s Ultravision Twin*** (7)
• Fort Lauderdale — General Cinema Corporation’s Sunrise Twin*** (11)
• Fort Walton Beach — Martin’s Brooks Plaza Triplex*** (8)
• Gainesville — Eastern Federal’s Royal Park 4-plex*** (11)
• Hollywood — General Cinema Corporation’s Hollywood*** (11)
• Jacksonville — General Cinema Corporation’s Expressway Mall Twin*** (9)
• Jacksonville — Mandell’s 5 Points*** (11)
• Kendall — Loews’ Kendall Mall Twin*** (12)
• Lakeland — General Cinema Corporation’s Imperial Mall Twin*** (6)
• Merritt Island — General Cinema Corporation’s Merritt Twin***
• Miami — General Cinema Corporation’s Westchester Twin*** (9)
• North Miami Beach — Loews’ 167th Street Twin*** (12)
• Ocala — Wometco’s Ocala Twin*** (5)
• Orlando — ABC Florida State’s Plaza Twin*** (7)
• Pensacola — ABC Southeastern’s Plaza Twin*** (8)
• Plantation — ABC Florida State’s Plantation*** (6)
• St. Petersburg — ABC Florida State’s Plaza Twin*** (7)
• St. Petersburg — General Cinema Corporation’s Gateway*** (4)
• Sarasota — ABC Florida State’s Plaza Twin*** (4)
• Tampa — General Cinema Corporation’s Austin Twin*** (11)
• Tampa — General Cinema Corporation’s University Square Mall 4-plex*** (12)
• West Palm Beach — ABC Florida State’s Plaza Twin*** (8)

GEORGIA

• Atlanta — General Cinema Corporation’s Perimeter Mall Triplex*
• Atlanta — Loews’ Tara Twin*
• Augusta — Weis’ Cinema Centre Twin*** (11)
• Columbus — Martin’s Peachtree Twin*** (9)
• Decatur — Eastern Federal’s Belvedere* (7)
• Fort Oglethorpe — Martin’s Southgate Twin***
• Jonesboro — Weis’ Arrowhead Triplex*
• Macon — Weis’ Cinema Centre Triplex***
• Savannah — Weis’ Cinema Centre Triplex***
• Smyrna — Eastern Federal’s Miracle***

HAWAII

• Honolulu — Royal’s Marina Twin* (19)

IDAHO

No theaters in Idaho played The Bad News Bears during Release Wave #1

ILLINOIS

• Aurora — L&M’s Isle*** (4)
• Belleville — Bloomer Amusement Company’s Cinema*** (5)
• Bloomington — General Cinema Corporation’s Eastland Triplex***
• Calumet City — Plitt’s River Oaks Triplex*** (11)
• Carbondale — Kerasotes’ Saluki Twin*** (5)
• Champaign — Kerasotes’ Orpheum** (10)
• Chicago — Playboy*** (6)
• Decatur — Kerasotes’ Lincoln*** (5)
• Joliet — General Cinema Corporation’s Jefferson Square Triplex*** (10)
• Lombard — General Cinema Corporation’s Yorktown Twin*** (11)
• Milan — Redstone’s Showcase 6-plex* (11)
• Norridge — Marks & Rosenfield’s Norridge Triplex*** (11)
• Oak Lawn — Lucas’ Coral*** (11)
• Peoria — Kerasotes’ Beverly*** (9)
• Rockford — Kerasotes’ State*** (6)
• Schaumburg — Plitt’s Woodfield Twin*** (11)
• Skokie — Marks & Rosenfield’s Old Orchard Twin*** (11)
• Springfield — Kerasotes’ Esquire Triplex** (12)
• Waukegan — General Cinema Corporation’s Lakehurst Triplex*** (9)

INDIANA

• Columbus — General Cinema Corporation’s Courthouse Twin*** (5)
• Elkhart — Kerasotes’ Concord Mall Twin*** (7)
• Evansville — CinemaNational’s Washington Square Twin*** (20)
• Fort Wayne — General Cinema Corporation’s Southtown Mall Twin***
• Fort Wayne — Mallers-Spirou’s Holiday Twin***
• Gary — General Cinema Corporation’s Ridge Plaza Twin*** (7)
• Greenwood — General Cinema Corporation’s Greenwood Triplex*** (12)
• Indianapolis — General Cinema Corporation’s Lafayette Square*** (9)
• Indianapolis — Loews’ Norgate Twin*** (6)
• Kokomo — General Cinema Corporation’s Kokomo Mall Triplex***
• Lafayette — United Artists’ Market Square Twin*** (9+)
• Michigan City — General Cinema Corporation’s Dunes Plaza 4-plex***
• Muncie — General Cinema Corporation’s Northwest Plaza Twin***
• South Bend — River Park***
• Terre Haute — General Cinema Corporation’s Honey Creek Square Twin*** (10)

IOWA

• Ames — Central States’ Ames** (2)
• Cedar Falls — Central States’ College Square Twin** (7)
• Cedar Rapids — Dubinsky’s World*** (7)
• Des Moines — Dubinsky’s Riviera* (10)
• Dubuque — Dubuque Theatre Corporation’s Cinema Center Triplex* (7)
• Iowa City — Central States’ Mall Twin** (5)
• Mason City — Central States’ Park 70*** (4)
• Sioux City — Dubinsky’s Orpheum*** (6)

KANSAS

• Lawrence — Commonwealth’s Hillcrest Triplex* (6)
• Manhattan — Commonwealth’s West Loop Twin* (4)
• Overland Park — Guy-Con’s Valley View Twin* (#1: 27)
• Overland Park — Guy-Con’s Valley View Twin* (#2: 14)
• Salina — Dickinson’s Mid-State Twin*** (5)
• Topeka — American Multi-Cinema’s Gage 4-plex* (11)
• Wichita — Commonwealth’s Twin Lakes Twin* (23)

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

KENTUCKY

• Erlanger — Redstone’s Showcase 5-plex* (20)
• Lexington — General Cinema Corporation’s Fayette Mall Twin*** (8)
• Louisville — Redstone’s Showcase 6-plex* (15)
• Paducah — Transcontinental’s Paducah Twin* (7)

LOUISIANA

• Alexandria — General Cinema Corporation’s Alexandria Mall Twin*** (7)
• Baton Rouge — University 4-plex*** (21)
• Gretna — General Cinema Corporation’s Oakwood Triplex*** (9)
• Lafayette — Nona***
• Metairie — General Cinema Corporation’s Lakeside 4-plex*** (11)
• Monroe — Joy’s Eastgate Triplex*** (11)
• Shreveport — General Cinema Corporation’s Southpark Twin*** (7)
• Shreveport — Ogden-Perry’s Eastgate 4-plex*** (7)

MAINE

• Lewiston — General Cinema Corporation’s Northwood Plaza Twin* (4)
• Old Town — Cinemette’s University Twin* (4)
• Portland — E.M. Loew’s Fine Arts Twin* (6)
• Waterville — Sonderling Broadcasting Corporation’s Cinema Center 4-plex* (4)

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg — Famous Players’ Northstar Twin*** (7)

MARYLAND

• Catonsville — Einbinder & Brehm’s Westview 4-plex* (15)
• Frederick — Rechir/Cohen’s Holiday* (4)
• Hagerstown — Interstate’s Long Meadow Twin* (7)
• Landover — Neighborhood’s Landover Mall 6-plex* (15)
• Parkville — General Cinema Corporation’s Perring Plaza Twin*

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston — Sack’s Cinema 57 Twin* (10)
• Braintree — General Cinema Corporation’s South Shore Plaza Twin* (11)
• Framingham — General Cinema Corporation’s Shoppers World 4-plex* (11)
• North Dartmouth — General Cinema Corporation’s North Dartmouth Mall 4-plex* (10)
• Peabody — General Cinema Corporation’s Northshore Center Twin* (11)
• West Springfield — Redstone’s Showcase 6-plex* (11)
• Woburn — Redstone’s Showcase 4-plex* (11)
• Worcester — Redstone’s Webster Square*** (7)

MICHIGAN

• Ann Arbor — Mann’s Fox Village***
• Battle Creek — Butterfield’s West Columbia Twin*** (7)
• Benton Harbor — CinemaNational’s Fairplain Twin*** (7)
• Bloomfield Township — Suburban Detroit’s Kingswood* (7)
• Dearborn — Wayne Amusement’s Dearborn Entertainment Center Triplex* (10)
• Flint — Butterfield’s Genesee Valley Twin*** (14)
• Grand Rapids — Butterfield’s Eastbrook Twin*** (14)
• Harper Woods — Suburban Detroit’s Eastland Twin* (7)
• Jackson — Butterfield’s Plaza Twin*** (7)
• Kochville Township — Goodrich’s Tri-City Quad 4-plex*** (9)
• Lansing — Mann’s Spartan Twin***
• Livonia — General Cinema Corporation’s Livonia Mall Triplex* (8)
• Madison Heights — Suburban Detroit’s Abbey Triplex* (8)
• Mt. Clemens — Suburban Detroit’s Parkway Twin* (7)
• Port Huron — Huron*** (4)
• Portage — Loeks’ Plaza Twin***
• Rochester Hills — Nicholas George’s Hampton Triplex* (12)
• Southfield — Nicholas George’s Americana 4-plex* (11)
• Taylor — Suburban Detroit’s Southland Twin* (10)
• Westland — Wayne Amusement’s Quo Vadis Entertainment Center 4-plex* (7)

MINNESOTA

• Bloomington — General Cinema Corporation’s Southtown*** (11)
• Duluth — Cinema Entertainment Corporation’s Kenwood Twin*** (12)
• Rochester — Plitt’s Oakview*** (5)
• Roseville — General Cinema Corporation’s Har-Mar Twin*** (11)
• St. Louis Park — Cooper-Highland’s Cooper*** (7)

MISSISSIPPI

• Hattiesburg — ABC Interstate’s Cloverleaf Mall Twin*** (4)
• Jackson — ABC Interstate’s Jackson Square*** (8)

MISSOURI

• Clayton — Arthur’s Shady Oak*** (12)
• Columbia — Wehrenberg’s White Gate Village Twin*** (7)
• Florissant — General Cinema Corporation’s Jamestown Mall Twin*** (11)
• Joplin — Dickinson’s Eastgate Triplex* (7)
• St. Ann — General Cinema Corporation’s Northwest Plaza Twin*** (11)
• St. Joseph — Mann’s Fox East Hills* (4)
• Springfield — Dubinsky’s Petite Triplex*** (8)
• Sunset Hills — General Cinema Corporation’s Sunset Hills Twin*** (11)

MONTANA

• Billings — Theatre Operators’ World* (4)
• Great Falls — Carisch’s Twilite Cinema Center Twin*

NEBRASKA

• Lincoln — Cooper-Highland’s Cooper/Lincoln*** (10)
• Omaha — Cooper-Highland’s Indian Hills*** (11)

NEVADA

• Las Vegas — Plitt’s Parkway Triplex* (11)
• Reno — Syufy’s Century 4-plex* (11)

NEW BRUNSWICK

No theaters in New Brunswick played The Bad News Bears during Release Wave #1

NEW HAMPSHIRE

• Manchester — Movie Center Twin*
• Portsmouth — Jerry Lewis Twin* (2)

NEW JERSEY

• Asbury Park — Baronet* (4)
• Bloomfield Township — Royal* (6)
• Brick Township — Circle Twin* (7)
• Cherry Hill — General Cinema Corporation’s Cherry Hill Mall Twin* (11)
• Clifton — Clifton* (6)
• East Brunswick — Loews’ Route 18 Twin* (8)
• Fort Lee — Moss’ Linwood* (8)
• Freehold Township — Triangle’s Pond Road* (7)
• Hackensack — RKO Stanley-Warner’s Oritani* (6)
• Hackettstown — Mall* (6)
• Hazlet Township — Redstone’s Route 35 Drive-In* (2)
• Jackson Township — Director’s Chair* (6)
• Jersey City — Loews’ State Triplex* (6)
• Lawrence Township — General Cinema Corporation’s Mercer Mall Triplex* (14)
• Little Ferry — General Cinema Corporation’s Hackensack Drive-In*
• Livingston — General Cinema Corporation’s Livingston Drive-In*
• Matawan — Music Makers’ Cinema 34* (7)
• Morristown — Jersey* (8)
• Newark — Newark Drive-In*
• Paramus — RKO Stanley-Warner’s Route 4* (8)
• Parsippany — General Cinema Corporation’s Morris Hills Twin* (6)
• Ridgewood — RKO Stanley-Warner’s Warner* (6)
• Shrewsbury — General Cinema Corporation’s Shrewsbury Plaza Twin* (6)
• Somerset — General Cinema Corporation’s Rutgers Plaza Twin* (6)
• Somerville — General Cinema Corporation’s Somerville Circle Twin* (8)
• Totowa — General Cinema Corporation’s Totowa Twin* (8)
• Union — RKO Stanley-Warner’s Union* (6)
• Ventnor City — Frank’s Plaza Twin*
• Watchung — General Cinema Corporation’s Blue Star Twin* (6)
• West Milford — Music Makers’ Abby 4-plex* (7)
• West Orange — General Cinema Corporation’s Essex Green Twin* (6)

NEW MEXICO

• Albuquerque — Commonwealth’s Cinema East Twin* (21)

NEW YORK

• Amherst — General Cinema Corporation’s Boulevard Mall Triplex*
• Bay Shore — Loews’ South Shore Mall* (6)
• Cheektowaga — Holiday’s Holiday 6-plex*
• Chester — Quickway* (4)
• Colonie — Sonderling Broadcasting Corporation’s Northway Mall 6-plex* (23)
• Commack — RKO Stanley-Warner Twin* (6)
• Coram — United Artists’ Coram Drive-In* (3)
• DeWitt — CinemaNational’s Shoppingtown Twin* (11)
• Hartsdale — General Cinema Corporation’s Hartsdale Twin* (7)
• Henrietta — Jo-Mor’s Towne Twin* (6)
• Hicksville — Mann’s Mid-Island Plaza Twin* (7)
• Kingston — Walter Reade’s Mayfair* (6)
• Liberty — Liberty Triplex*
• Manhasset — United Artists’ Manhasset* (6)
• Merrick — Brandt’s Merrick* (6)
• Middletown — Fair Oaks Drive-In* (3)
• Mineola — Calderone’s Mineola* (6)
• Mohegan Lake — General Cinema Corporation’s Westchester Mall Triplex* (7)
• Monticello — General Cinema Corporation’s Monticello Mall Twin* (7)
• Mt. Kisco — Mt. Kisco*
• New Rochelle — RKO Stanley-Warner’s Proctor’s Triplex* (7)
• New York (Bronx) — Loews’ Riverdale* (6)
• New York (Bronx) — Redstone’s Whitestone Drive-In* (2)
• New York (Bronx) — RKO Stanley-Warner’s Fordham Triplex* (7)
• New York (Brooklyn) — Loews’ Georgetowne Twin* (6)
• New York (Brooklyn) — Loews’ Oriental* (6)
• New York (Brooklyn) — RKO Stanley-Warner’s Kenmore* (6)
• New York (Manhattan) — Cinema 5’s Paramount (7)
• New York (Manhattan) — Cinema 5’s Sutton (7)
• New York (Queens) — Interboro’s Elmwood* (6)
• New York (Queens) — Interboro’s Parsons* (6)
• New York (Queens) — Loews’ Bay Terrace* (6)
• New York (Staten Island) — Goldman’s Rae Twin* (6)
• New York (Staten Island) — United Artists’ Island Twin* (5)
• Newburgh — CinemaNational’s Brookside Drive-In* (2)
• Orangeburg — Orangeburg* (6)
• Ossining — General Cinema Corporation’s Arcadian Twin* (7)
• Patchogue — United Artists’ Sunwave Twin* (7)
• Poughkeepsie — CinemaNational’s Dutchess* (7)
• Rochester — Loews’ Ridge Road Twin* (7)
• Spring Valley — Brandt’s Cinema 45* (6)
• Stonybrook — Loews’ Stony Brook Twin* (6)
• Valley Stream — Calderone’s Valley Stream* (6)
• Valley Stream — Redstone’s Sunrise Drive-In* (2)
• Warwick — Warwick Drive-In* (3)
• Westhampton — United Artists’ Westhampton* (1)

NEWFOUNDLAND

No theaters in Newfoundland played The Bad News Bears during Release Wave #1

NORTH CAROLINA

• Asheville — Irvin-Fuller’s Merrimon Twin*** (7)
• Chapel Hill — Eastern Federal’s Plaza Triplex*** (7)
• Charlotte — ABC Southeastern’s Park Terrace Twin*** (9)
• Charlotte — General Cinema Corporation’s Eastland Mall Triplex*** (14)
• Durham — Fuqua’s Northgate Twin*** (7)
• Fayetteville — ABC Southeastern’s Cardinal*** (9)
• Greensboro — Stewart & Everett’s Quaker Village Twin*** (10)
• Raleigh — Schneider & Merl’s Valley Twin*** (7)
• Wilmington — Stewart & Everett’s Oleander Twin*** (6)
• Winston-Salem — Schneider & Merl’s Parkway*** (6)

NORTH DAKOTA

• Fargo — Cinema Entertainment Corporation’s West Acres Twin*** (12)

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

No theaters in Northwest Territories played The Bad News Bears during Release Wave #1

NOVA SCOTIA

• Dartmouth — Famous Players’ Penhorn Mall Triplex*** (7)
• Halifax — Famous Players’ Paramount Twin*** (4)

OHIO

• Akron — National’s Akron Square 6-plex* (11)
• Boardman — National’s Boardman Plaza* (9)
• Canton — General Cinema Corporation’s Mellett Mall Twin* (10)
• Cleveland — Loews’ Yorktown Twin* (10)
• Columbus — General Cinema Corporation’s Eastland Mall*** (7)
• Columbus — Sugarman’s Cinema North Twin*** (12)
• Cuyahoga Falls — Loews’ State Twin* (10)
• Dayton — Loews’ Ames Twin* (9)
• Kettering — Mann’s Fox Kettering* (10)
• Mansfield — Cinemette’s Cinema World 4-plex* (10)
• Mentor — National’s Great Lakes Mall Twin* (9)
• Niles — National’s Eastwood Twin* (10)
• Richmond Heights — Loews’ East Twin* (10)
• Rocky River — Loews’ West Twin* (10)
• South Euclid — Loews’ Cedar Center Twin* (10)
• Springdale — Redstone’s Showcase 5-plex* (20)
• Springfield — General Cinema Corporation’s Upper Valley Twin*** (8)
• Steubenville — Cinemette’s Fort Steuben Mall Triplex* (9)
• Toledo — Redstone’s Franklin Park Twin* (13)

OKLAHOMA

• Oklahoma City — Family Theatres’ Shepherd Twin* (27)
• Tulsa — Family Theatres’ Boman Twin* (16)

ONTARIO

• Hamilton — Famous Players’ Jackson Square Twin*** (10)
• Kingston — Famous Players’ Capitol Twin*** (4)
• London — Famous Players’ Century Twin*** (12)
• Mississauga — 20th Century’s Square One 4-plex*** (11)
• Ottawa — 20th Century’s Elgin Twin*** (23)
• St. Catharines — Famous Players’ Pen Centre Twin*** (9)
• Sudbury — 20th Century’s City Centre Triplex*** (8)
• Thunder Bay — Famous Players’ Paramount Twin*** (7)
• Toronto — Famous Players’ Cedarbrae 4-plex*** (11)
• Toronto — Famous Players’ Hollywood Twin*** (11)
• Toronto — Famous Players’ Imperial 6-plex*** (11)
• Windsor — Famous Players’ Devonshire Twin*** (11)

OREGON

• Beaverton — Moyer’s Town Center Triplex* (8)
• Corvallis — Adamson’s State*
• Eugene — Western Amusement’s Oakway* (7)
• Portland — Mann’s Hollywood* (10)
• Portland — Mann’s Music Box* (11)

PENNSYLVANIA

• Allentown — United Artists’ Colonial*
• Altoona — Neff’s Playhouse Twin* (6)
• Camp Hill — CinemaNational’s Capital City Mall 6-plex*** (11)
• Center Township — Cinemette’s Movie World 4-plex* (12)
• Erie — Cinemette’s Cinema World 4-plex* (12)
• Harrisburg — Trans-Lux’s Colonial Park Plaza Twin*** (7)
• Hazleton — Fox’s Church Hill* (3)
• Johnstown — Act Twin* (10)
• King of Prussia — General Cinema Corporation’s Valley Forge Twin* (11)
• Lancaster — RKO Stanley-Warner’s Twin* (7)
• Lebanon — Trans-Lux’s Lebanon Plaza Twin*** (5)
• Matamoras — Tri-States Indoor/Outdoor Twin* (4)
• Philadelphia — Budco’s Orleans Twin* (11)
• Philadelphia — Budco’s Regency* (3)
• Pittsburgh — Cinemette’s Warner* (11)
• Reading — Fox’s Fox East 4-plex* (8)
• Scranton — Sportservice’s Comerford* (5)
• Stroudsburg — Sherman Twin* (4)
• Uniontown — Manos’ Uniontown Mall Twin 40*** (7)
• Washington — Cinemette’s Cinema 19 Twin* (10)
• Wilkes-Barre — Sportservice’s Barre Triplex* (5)
• Williamsport — Cinecom’s Rialto*
• York — Trans-Lux’s York Mall Twin***

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

No theaters in Prince Edward Island played The Bad News Bears during Release Wave #1

 [On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

QUEBEC

• Dollard-des-Ormeaux — United’s Dollard Twin Drive-In*** (4)
• Montreal — United’s Claremont*** (11)
• Montreal — United’s Le Parisien 5-plex*** (4)

RHODE ISLAND

• Lincoln — General Cinema Corporation’s Lincoln Mall 4-plex* (11)
• Warwick — General Cinema Corporation’s Warwick Mall Twin* (10)

SASKATCHEWAN

• Regina — Famous Players’ Capitol Twin*** (5)
• Saskatoon — Famous Players’ Midtown Twin*** (13)

SOUTH CAROLINA

• Columbia — Irvin-Fuller’s Jefferson Square Ultravision*** (10)
• Greenville — Stewart & Everett’s Wade Hampton Mall*** (6)
• North Charleston — ABC Southeastern’s Terrace*** (8)

SOUTH DAKOTA

• Rapid City — Commonwealth’s Northgate Twin* (5)

TENNESSEE

• Goodlettsville — Martin’s Rivergate Mall Twin*** (10)
• Hixson — Martin’s Northgate Triplex***
• Jackson — Malco’s Paramount*** (6)
• Knoxville — ABC Southeastern’s Tennessee*** (8)
• Memphis — General Cinema Corporation’s Plaza Twin***
• Memphis — General Cinema Corporation’s Raleigh Springs Mall Twin***
• Memphis — General Cinema Corporation’s Whitehaven Twin***
• Nashville — Martin’s Martin*** (10)

TEXAS

• Amarillo — ABC Interstate’s Western Square Twin*** (7)
• Arlington — General Cinema Corporation’s Six Flags Mall Twin*** (11)
• Austin — Mann’s Fox Twin*** (12)
• Beaumont — General Cinema Corporation’s Gateway Twin***
• Brownsville — ABC Interstate’s North Park Plaza Twin*** (4)
• Corpus Christi — Mann’s National Twin*** (11)
• Dallas — ABC Interstate’s Medallion*** (11)
• El Paso — ABC Interstate’s Morningside Mall Twin*** (11)
• Fort Worth — General Cinema Corporation’s Seminary South Twin***
• Galveston — General Cinema Corporation’s Galvez Plaza Triplex*** (7)
• Harlingen — ABC Interstate’s Morgan Plaza Twin*** (4)
• Houston — ABC Interstate’s Woodlake Triplex***
• Houston — General Cinema Corporation’s Gulfgate Twin***
• Houston — General Cinema Corporation’s Meyerland Twin***
• Houston — General Cinema Corporation’s Northline Twin***
• Lubbock — Mann’s Fox 4-plex*** (12)
• McAllen — ABC Interstate’s Cinema Twin***
• Odessa — Hodge’s Grandview*** (5)
• Port Arthur — Gulf States’ Park Plaza Twin*** (4)
• San Antonio — ABC Interstate’s Wonder*** (17) <theater twinned mid run>
• San Antonio — Santikos’ Century South 6-plex*** (11)
• Texas City — Tradewinds Twin*** (4)
• Tyler — Guy-Con’s Gaslite 4-plex*** (12)
• Waco — ABC Interstate’s 25th Street*** (6)
• Wichita Falls — American Multi-Cinema’s Sikes Senter 6-plex*** (12)

UTAH

• Salt Lake City — Mann’s Villa* (11)
• South Ogden — Country Club* (9)

VERMONT

No theaters in Vermont played The Bad News Bears during Release Wave #1

VIRGINIA

• Charlottesville — ABC Southeastern’s Terrace Twin*** (5)
• Danville — ABC Southeastern’s Riverside Twin*** (5)
• Fredericksburg — Rechir/Cohen’s Virginians Twin* (5)
• Hampton — General Cinema Corporation’s Coliseum Mall Twin*** (11)
• Norfolk — General Cinema Corporation’s JANAF Plaza*** (10)
• Richmond — Neighborhood’s Willow Lawn*** (12)
• Richmond — Trans-Lux’s Twin*** (7)
• Roanoke — Consolidated’s Valley 4-plex*** (7)
• Springfield — General Cinema Corporation’s Springfield Mall 4-plex* (12)
• Vienna — Neighborhood’s Tysons* (12)

WASHINGTON

• Bellevue — Sterling Recreation Organization’s John Danz* (6)
• Everett — General Cinema Corporation’s Everett Mall Triplex* (9)
• Lynnwood — Sterling Recreation Organization’s Lynn Twin* (7)
• Seattle — Sterling Recreation Organization’s Lake City* (6)
• Spokane — Sterling Recreation Organization’s Lincoln Heights Twin* (5)
• Tukwila — Sterling Recreation Organization’s Lewis & Clark Triplex* (14)

WEST VIRGINIA

• Charleston — State*** (14)
• Morgantown — Cinemette’s Warner Triplex***

WISCONSIN

• Appleton — Marcus’ Marc Twin*** (9)
• Brookfield — General Cinema Corporation’s Brookfield Square Twin*** (12)
• Eau Claire — Plitt’s State*** (3)
• Fond du Lac — General Cinema Corporation’s Forest Mall Twin*** (4)
• Green Bay — Marcus’ Marc Twin*** (5)
• Janesville — United Artists’ Janesville Mall Triplex*** (6)
• Kenosha — United Artists’ Twin*** (5)
• La Crosse — Marcus’ Rivoli*** (2)
• Madison — General Cinema Corporation’s East Towne Mall Twin*** (7)
• Madison — Madison 20th Century’s Hilldale*** (7)
• Milwaukee — Marcus’ Skyway Triplex*** (10)
• Milwaukee — RKO Stanley-Warner’s Capitol Court*** (12)
• Racine — Marcus’ Marc Twin*** (9)
• Sheboygan — Marcus’ Marc Twin*** (5)

WYOMING

• Casper — Commonwealth’s Beverly Twin* (4)

YUKON

No theaters in Yukon played The Bad News Bears during Release Wave #1

THE INTERVIEW

Rob Edelman is the author of Great Baseball Films: From ‘Right Off the Bat’ to ‘A League of Their Own’ (Citadel, 1994) and Baseball on the Web (MIS Technology, 1998). He teaches film history at the State University of New York at Albany, and is a film commentator on WAMC Northeast Public Radio, a contributing editor of Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide (published annually), a frequent contributor to John Thorn’s Base Ball: A Journey of the Early Game, and was the keynote speaker at this year’s NINE Spring Training Conference in Arizona. His essay on early baseball films appears on the Reel Baseball: Baseball Films from the Silent Era, 1899-1926 DVD. As well, he was an interviewee for supplemental material included on the director’s cut DVD and Blu-ray release of The Natural. His other books include Matthau: A Life (Taylor, 2002) and Meet the Mertzes: The Life Stories of I Love Lucy’s Other Couple (Renaissance, 1999), both of which he co-authored with his wife, Audrey Kupferberg.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is The Bad News Bears worthy of celebration on its 40th anniversary?

Rob Edelman: Unlike so many films made across the decades that spotlight pre-teenagers, The Bad News Bears is much more than entertaining escapism. It offers a pointed reminder that the sole purpose of Little League is for its participants to have fun. All the kids should be allowed to participate, not just those who are the most aggressive or athletically gifted. The bottom line here is that Little League is for the kids, and not their parents or coaches. Plus, the fact that the Bears do not cop the championship is what makes the film so appealing. Sometimes, the very best films do not feature cookie-cutter happy-ever-after endings.

Today, in our ever-competitive culture, it seems that too many ball-playing youngsters are pressured to win at all costs. This alone makes the points-of-view expressed in The Bad News Bears as relevant as ever.

Coate: What compelled you to write your baseball and Walter Matthau books?

Edelman: Anybody who knows me will recognize that, beyond my feelings for Audrey, my wife, the two great passions in my life are baseball and film. So to get to do a book on baseball films was a special treat—not to mention all the articles I've published on both subjects. But it certainly has been a privilege and an honor to be able to combine baseball and film in my writings and teaching.

But as I say, I do not always combine the two. This past fall, I published a piece on Hilda Chester, who was a famous Brooklyn Dodgers fan-atic back in the 1940s and early 50s. At the time, Hilda was within her domain a major celebrity; however, while researching, I discovered that she ended up living in obscurity and for many years was buried in an unmarked grave. Fascinating stuff! (The piece may be found in The Baseball Research Journal, a publication of The Society for American Baseball Research [SABR]).

As for the Matthau book: His background was especially intriguing on a deeply personal level. He grew up on the Lower East Side during the 1920s and 30s and, while researching, I felt as if he easily could have been my uncle. He was a real character, and it was a special pleasure to explore his life and times.

Coate: When did you first see The Bad News Bears?

Edelman: I saw it—and liked it—when it first came out. However, when I began researching my baseball book, my goal was to revisit all the baseball films I'd already seen—as well as the non-baseball films with baseball sequences or references. And there are plenty of these….

Coate: What did casting a “movie star” type of actor in Walter Matthau bring to the project?

Edelman: Matthau was more than a movie star. He—like his good buddy Jack Lemmon—was a consummate actor. I would say that Matthau's casting—he was a major name and box-office commodity—added a certain cache and marketability to the project. But as I say, Matthau was a multi-talent—and he offers a crackerjack performance as Morris Buttermaker.

Coate: Where do you think The Bad News Bears ranks among sports movies?

Edelman: Difficult question. There are so many sports films, and I could discuss them for hours. But I would say that The Bad News Bears easily is one of the better baseball films—and sports films. 

Coate: Where do you think The Bad News Bears ranks among director Michael Ritchie’s body of work?

Edelman: Near the top. I would add that his earliest films—Downhill Racer, The Candidate, and Smile, along with The Bad News Bears—are his best. And these titles are like The Bad News Bears in that they offer trenchant commentary on their respective subjects.

While researching Walter Matthau, I had occasion to interview Ritchie by telephone. At the end of our conversation, I was able to tell him how much I admired these early films. Afterward, I felt great that I was able to do so. And then, a couple months later, I was shocked to learn that Ritchie had died of cancer. When I interviewed him, I had no idea that he was afflicted with the disease, but I felt good that I was able to complement him. Perhaps, for a fleeting moment, it made him smile. And I also was lucky to have been able to interview him. He gave me some excellent material and quotes for the book—and there is a moral to this story: Do not put off for tomorrow what you can do today, because tomorrow may be too late.

Coate: Compare and contrast the original The Bad News Bears with its sequels and remake.

Edelman: There is no comparison. [And] I found the remake to be crass and dispiriting. When it was released, I reviewed it on WAMC Northeast Public Radio, where I offer film commentary. Here is [what I said]:

The Bad News Bears, the latest in the line of endless Hollywood remakes, is a movie for our time—and this is not intended as a compliment.

The original The Bad News Bears was released almost three decades ago, back in 1976. Both films essentially tell the same story. The primary character is a broken-down ex-baseball player who in a movie like The Lost Weekend or Days of Wine and Roses would be depicted as a pathetic alcoholic rather than a comical one. The scenario charts his redemption as he coaches a bunch of ragtag Little Leaguers.

The original Bad News Bears was more than just a throwaway comedy. It was an immensely entertaining film, but it also exuded intelligence. As the story plays itself out, the coach recruits a twelve-year-old girl with a whale of a pitching arm. Her mere presence helps make the Bears a competitive team and, in so doing, The Bad News Bears shows how a girl can play ball as well as a boy—which was controversial stuff back in 1976.

Even more tellingly, the older film offers a reminder that the purpose of Little League is to have fun. All the kids should be allowed to participate, not just the athletically gifted. Little League is, after all, for the kids, and not their parents or coaches. This point is succinctly expressed during the championship game, when a rival coach cruelly berates his pitcher, who also happens to be his son. The adult even smacks the child when he does not throw the ball exactly as instructed.

And finally, in the original film, the Bears are flawed—but they are human. They triumph not because they win the game but because they try, they have spirit, they take no guff from those born with silver baseball bats in their hands.

However, in this new version, a 12-year-old girl who might be the Pedro Martinez of Little League does rescue the team. But each and every other female character is either a Playboy Playmate-like bimbo or a harsh, humorless stereotype of a type-A 21st-century businesswoman. And in the film, there even is product placement for Hooters.

In this new version, the obnoxious rival coach is more of a pompous jerk, a character to be laughed at rather than an outright villain whose actions are jarring and harmful to the children in his charge.

Finally, in no uncertain terms, this new version of The Bad News Bears subverts its predecessor by expressing the view that, while moral victories are okay, it is far far better to win. Because that is the American way….

What is so dispiriting here is that thousands if not millions of children likely will see the new Bad News Bears and be exposed to its twisted sense of values.

Coate: What is the legacy of The Bad News Bears?

Edelman: [Re-emphasizing a point made in my response to your first question, I think the legacy of The Bad News Bears is that] the points-of-view expressed in [it remain] as relevant as ever. 

Coate: Thank you, Rob, for participating and sharing your thoughts about The Bad News Bears on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

---END---

SPECIAL THANKS

Jerry Alexander, Al Alvarez, Laura Baas, Don Beelik, Raymond Caple, Bill Cronauer, Nick DiMaggio, Rob Edelman, Bill Gabel, Stephen Gailey, Ralph Grassi, Wendy Hall, John Hazelton, Bill Huelbig, Thomas Hutchens, Stephanie Johnson, Sarah Kenyon, Bill Kretzel, Joanne Lammers, Ronald A. Lee, Mark Lensenmayer, Stan Malone, Adam Martin, Deborah May, Andrew Miller, Alexis Neapolitan, Tim O’Neill, Melissa Scroggins, Desirée Sharland, Daniel Sheahan, Tim Spindle, Cliff Stephenson, John Stewart, Jack Tegel, Mike Thomason, Tim Van Beek, Kurt Wahlner, Joel Weide, Stacy Wierenga, Vince Young, Beth Zak-Cohen, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project, and to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Margaret Herrick Library and Fairbanks Center for Motion Picture Study.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

Primary references for this project were promotional material published in hundreds of daily newspapers archived digitally and/or on microfilm plus numerous articles published in film industry trade publications Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety. Additional references for selected information included Cosmopolitan, Newsweek, Playboy, and Time.

SELECTED IMAGES

Copyright 1976 Paramount Pictures Corporation

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

IN MEMORIAM

• Jerry Fielding (Music), 1922-1980
• Vic Morrow (“Roy Turner”), 1929-1982
• Ben Piazza (“Bob Whitewood”), 1933-1991
• Bill Lancaster (Screenwriter), 1947-1997
• Walter Matthau (“Coach Morris Buttermaker”), 1920-2000
• John A. Alonzo (Director of Photography), 1934-2001
• Michael Ritchie (Director), 1938-2001
• John Wilkinson (Re-recording Mixer), 1920-2002
• Joe Brooks (“Umpire”), 1923-2007
• Polly Platt (Production Designer), 1939-2011
• Gene Cantamessa (Sound Mixer), 1931-2011

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached at: michaelcoate@thedigitalbits.com

The infamous feature film was directed by Willard Huyck (Best Defense), executive produced by George Lucas (Star Wars) and written by Huyck and Gloria Katz who (with Lucas) also wrote the screenplays for American Graffiti, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Radioland Murders. Howard the Duck was a high profile failure upon its release and spearheaded an uncharacteristically poor and unmemorable year for Lucas and his company, Lucasfilm Ltd. Both of his productions, Labyrinth and Howard the Duck, which were released only five weeks apart from one another, performed dismally at the box office with each failing to recoup its enormous cost. (The year 1986 also saw the termination of Marvel’s original Star Wars comic series and the cancelation of the animated Droids and Ewoks television series. And Howard the Duck snapped Industrial Light & Magic’s six-year streak of Visual Effects Oscars. About the only bright spots for Lucas that year were the home-video release of Return of the Jedi, cable television premiere of The Empire Strikes Back and premiere of Captain EO at Disneyland.)

The Bits’ retrospective on Howard the Duck features passages from vintage film reviews, a listing of the movie’s “showcase” presentations, a compilation of box office data that places the movie’s performance in context, and an interview segment with a group of authors, historians and film industry analysts.

So, was Howard the Duck justifiably blasted by critics? Did Howard the Duck understandably bomb at the box office? Does Howard the Duck deserve to be reevaluated several decades later? Well, you decide….

HOWARD NUMBER$

• 0 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie
• 3 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 4 = Number of Golden Raspberry (“Razzie”) awards
• 5 = Number of months between theatrical release and home video release
• 8 = Number of Golden Raspberry (“Razzie”) nominations
• 20 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1986 (summer season)
• 28 = Number of 70mm prints
• 43 = Rank among top box-office rentals of 1986 (calendar year)
• 53 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1986 (legacy)
• 1,554 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $34.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (LaserDisc)
• $79.95 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (VHS and Beta)
• $3,262 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $5.1 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross
• $9.8 million = Box-office rental (domestic)
• $11.2 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $16.3 million = Box-office gross (domestic)
• $21.6 million = Box-office rental (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $21.7 million = Box-office gross (international)
• $34.5 million = Production cost
• $35.9 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $38.0 million = Box-office gross (worldwide)
• $47.8 million = Box-office gross (international, adjusted for inflation)
• $76.0 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $83.7 million = Box-office gross (worldwide, adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“After the movie was released everybody said that it was insane to make a movie about a duck from outer space. But, I don’t know, I think it would have been possible for Howard to maybe have worked if only they had started with a funny, likable duck in a comedy. Instead they made a grim, worried duck in a special effects adventure. And then they filled the soundtrack with bittersweet and even downbeat music to be sure that we didn’t get to feeling too good. What a miscalculation!” — Roger Ebert, Siskel & Ebert & the Movies

“Donald, Huey, Louie, Dewey, and even Daffy can rest easy; Howard is no threat to the duck pecking order on this planet. And that’s no wise quack…. Cartoon characters frequently make good cartoon films; this one didn’t. Howard the Duck has plenty of cheek, but no tongue to put in it.” — Dick Wolff, The Seattle Times

“A hopeless mess. A gargantuan production which produces a gargantuan headache.” — Leonard Maltin, Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide

“The second half of the movie is devoted to truly magnificent visual tricks, created by George Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic company and equal to anything in that director’s Star Wars.” — Caryn James, The New York Times

“Daffy Duck will be pleased to hear he didn’t miss any career opportunities when he wasn’t chosen to star in Howard the Duck, although producers certainly could have benefited from his talents.” — Jane Galbraith, Variety

“Jeffrey Jones, who played the unlucky scientist, made a deep impression as the emperor in Amadeus. Since then, he has fallen on tough times. In Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, he had the year’s most humiliating role as a crazed principal willing to go to any lengths to catch Ferris in the act of playing hooky. His role in Howard the Duck requires him to do a massive amount of eye rolling as the Dark Overlord takes control of his body. You feel sorry for Jones, going through undignified screechings and contortions. His predicament makes you wonder if acting is a suitable profession for a grown man.” — Scott Cain, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

“Lucas’ redoubtable Industrial Light and Magic Co. was behind all this sturm und drang, so you can believe that it is the very top-of-the-line magic, but did this summer, or this year, or this decade, for that matter, need one more impeccably turned-out giant monster — tentacled, suction-cupped or chest-bursting? The sickening, rolling-over-and-over crash of this many more cars? One more threat of a nuclear-powered meltdown? The imagination of the opening is a hint of what the movie might have been: a view of our world that made kids consider it from another angle — as well as a spoof of the superhero. But what are all the pleasant duck effects in the face of any of this numbing waste? In this respect, the movie’s PG rating is a joke. And the movie itself is a pretty base canard.” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“The most inventive creature to hit the screen since E.T. A good-natured adventure with a terrific cast and nifty special effects.” — Tom Green, USA Today

“Willard Huyck, the director, and Gloria Katz, the producer, collaborated on the screenplay, as they did on American Graffiti and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Their touch is not as sure this time. There’s good stuff around the edges of the film — all that word play and all those visual gags demand that you pay attention lest you miss something even in the slow scenes. But at the center, no magic.” — Bill Cosford, The Miami Herald

“Has George Lucas lost his way? He’s specializing in black holes this summer. The master of the Skywalker Ranch, godfather of Jim Henson’s Labyrinth, was apparently also the godfather to the new film Howard the Duck, written by his colleagues Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, produced by Katz and directed by Huyck. What I’d like to know is when did any of them think this witless and overblown fantasy was worthy of such time and expense?” — David Foil, (Baton Rouge) State Times

“The cinematography is crisp and lush as one might expect from a Lucas production, but director Willard Huyck has his hands so full trying to convince people the dwarf in the duck suit is real that he has little time for subtleties that might have made Howard take flight.” — Paul Johnson, (Little Rock) Arkansas Gazette

“As a mild-mannered scientist possessed by a demon from outer space, Jeffrey Jones is amazing. H-bomb explosions in his eyes, a ghastly critter unreeling from his mouth, his chassis outlined in electricity, Jones’s performance makes the picture worth seeing.” — Catharine Rambeau, Detroit Free Press

“A lot of things get blown up in this movie — or crashed, or smashed, or sometimes atomized. For sheer destructiveness, the film calls to mind Steven Spielberg’s legendary failure 1941, though Howard the Duck displays little of the malicious joy or stylistic grace that Spielberg showed off when he was smashing his toys. But the destructiveness of Howard the Duck springs from simple desperation. In the absence of anything resembling structure, character, point of view or sense of purpose, there is no place else for this empty project to go.” — Dave Kehr, Chicago Tribune

“Put the blame on Huyck and Katz. To be sure, they’re credited with the screenplay for American Graffiti. But, lest we forget, they are also responsible for French Postcards, the film about American college kids in Europe that succeeded only in giving small movies a bad name. They are also responsible for the script of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the Raiders sequel that succeeded only in giving big movies a bad name. With Howard, they have the triple crown: They’ve succeeded in giving medium-size movies a bad name.” — Carrie Rickey, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“Howard the Duck is about as cute as Earl the Dead Cat. He is a symbol of the general lack of charm of this picture. What we end up with, after a rambling first half, is a fairly interesting adventure story about monsters from outer space, with a really intriguing performance by Jeffrey Jones as a sleazy, fire-breathing ’overlord.’ The last 20 minutes or so, when Lucas and director Willard Huyck pull out all the stops with bizarre special effects, are OK, but not good or original enough to save a movie that, on the whole, is mediocre and lacking in the one thing we thought Lucas had — imagination.” — Harper Barnes, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

“Howard the Duck is a movie for bored 9-year-olds who have run out of ways to pester their mother until school resumes. Once kids see this movie, they’ll be anxious to get back to those algebra books, which may seem more lively than this plastic space toy devised by George Lucas with his left hand as if he, too, was trying to kill time and didn’t have an idea in his head…. Howard the Duck has one major moment of wonder: Who, you wonder, was it made for? It’s too silly for young teenagers, too hip for pre-teens, too dorky for older teens and too scary for tots.” — Gerald Nachman, San Francisco Chronicle

“Will Hollywood never relax its fanatical diet of action fantasies? There must be other human beings who would like a better balance of movies about people whose problems can’t be solved with massive weaponry.” — Ed Blank, The Pittsburgh Press

“Quite frankly, the whole thing gave me a headache. Howard himself is supposed to be a cynical but charming fowl, but he’s mostly foul, a feathered costume devoid of personality.” — Roxanne T. Mueller, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“Howard the Duck is an example of Hollywood gone loony. For whom has this lavish but boring picture intended as a major summer entertainment been made? If it’s for children, it’s in atrocious taste and steeped in so much special effects violence that parents might think twice about taking an impressionable youngster. If it’s meant as a comic strip for teen-agers or young adults, the script insults the intelligence. Senior citizens straying in might just want to take aspirin. Howard the Duck is a presentation of George Lucas, which makes the mess all the more astonishing. Lucas, as the world knows, is a king of special effects. But is merely piling on effects enough anymore?” — William Wolf, Gannett News Service

“Lucas might consider getting the old team to work on something with Indiana or Jedi in the title. Howard is reputed to have cost $52 million to produce. To make such an investment pay off, the film would have to perform like Top Gun or The Karate Kid II. It may, in fact, perform more like Return to Oz. Whatever Howard the Duck cost, it looks expensive. It is a virtual catalog of special effects, a stunning demo reel for Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic effects studio. What it lacks is a coherent story, a dependable hero and a convincing title character.” — Ted Mahar, The (Portland) Oregonian

“Howard the Duck may be the most highly publicized, widely anticipated movie of the summer — but this special effects extravaganza is a major letdown. Oh sure, there are some interesting elements here, some funny ideas and a lot of in-jokes for movie buffs, and I’m the guy who usually likes off-kilter comedies… Buckaroo Banzai included. But Howard the Duck is so self-conscious, so frenzied, so overloaded with special effects and duck puns that it winds up just being loud and obnoxious.” — Christopher Hicks, (Salt Lake City) Deseret News

“Mr. Lucas knows how to spend money, and he can produce a few dazzling sequences, but imagine his impotence if he were forced to make a movie about articulate people.” — David Brooks, The Washington Times

“While it would not be fair to say that Howard the Duck is a turkey, it’s nonetheless true that this live-action adventure comedy about a feathered, web-footed visitor from outer space is not well done. In fact, this duck is half-baked.” — James Verniere, The Boston Herald

“Once — and only once — is there any real magic. It occurs in the movie’s first 10 minutes when we see Howard in his cosmopolitan apartment on Duck World, just before he’s snatched by a cross-dimensional laser. Here the puns and parodies come thick and fast — a TV commercial in which athletic fowl in football uniforms shill feather fungus salve, copies of Rolling Egg and Playduck magazine (complete with centerfold), posters for the movies Splashdance and My Little Chickadee starring Mae Nest and W.C. Fowls. This is the sort of deadpan playfulness that should have dominated the entire movie. So we breathe a sigh of regret when, to save the world at film’s end, Howard is forced to destroy his only means of returning home. A sequel set entirely on Duck World would have been far more welcome than Howard’s tiresome antics in the back alleys of Cleveland.” — Henry Mietkiewicz, Toronto Star

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

On occasion, event and prestige movies (and instances to appease a filmmaker’s ego) are given a deluxe release in addition to a standard release. This section of the article includes a reference/historical listing of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Howard the Duck in the United States and Canada. These were arguably the best theaters in which to see Howard the Duck and the only way to faithfully hear the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix. Only about two percent of the film’s print run were in the 70mm format, which are more time- and labor-intensive to manufacture and cost several times that of conventional 35mm prints. Of the 200+ new movies released during 1986, Howard was among only two from Universal Studios and sixteen for the entire industry to have 70mm prints prepared for selected engagements.

For the release of Howard the Duck, Universal employed the services of Lucasfilm’s TAP (Theater Alignment Program) to evaluate and approve the theaters selected to book a 70mm print. As well, the movie was booked into as many THX-certified venues as possible.

The film’s 70mm prints were blown up from spherical 35mm photography and were pillarboxed at approximately 1.85:1. The noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the prints was Dolby “A,” and the soundtrack was Format 42 (three discrete screen channels + one discrete surround channel + “baby boom” low-frequency enhancement).

Trailers for An American Tail and Brighton Beach Memoirs were sent out with the Howard the Duck prints and which the distributor recommended be screened with the presentation.

The listing includes those 70mm engagements that commenced August 1st, 1986. Not listed are any second run or international engagements, nor does the listing include any of the movie’s thousands of standard 35mm engagements. The duration of the engagements, measured in weeks, has been included in parenthesis.

So, which North American theaters screened the 70mm version of Howard the Duck, and, more importantly, did it help the movie’s box-office prospects? (Note the relatively brief duration of most of the engagements.)

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Vancouver — Cineplex Odeon’s Oakridge Centre Triplex (6 weeks) [THX]

CALIFORNIA

• Corte Madera — Marin’s Cinema (3)
• Costa Mesa — Edwards’ Town Center 4-plex (2)
• Los Angeles — Mann’s Village (2) [THX]
• Los Angeles — Pacific’s Cinerama Dome (3)
• San Diego — Mann’s Cinema 21 (2)
• San Francisco — Blumenfeld’s Regency I (5*)
• San Jose — Syufy’s Century 21 (3)

COLORADO

• Denver — Mann’s Century 21 (2) [THX]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — Circle’s Uptown (2)

ILLINOIS

• Calumet City — Plitt’s River Oaks 8-plex (2)
• Chicago — Plitt’s Esquire (2)
• Schaumburg — Plitt’s Woodfield 9-plex (2)
• Skokie — M&R’s Old Orchard 4-plex (3)

KANSAS

• Overland Park — Dickinson’s Glenwood 4-plex (2)

MASSACHUSETS

• Boston — USA’s Charles Triplex (2) 

NEW YORK

• New York — Loews’ 34th Street Showplace Triplex (2)
• New York — Loews’ 84th Street 6-plex (2)
• New York — Loews’ Astor Plaza (3)
• New York — Loews’ New York Twin (2)

OHIO

• Cleveland Heights — National’s Severance Center 8-plex (2) [THX]

ONTARIO

• Toronto — Cineplex Odeon’s Hyland Twin (4)

PENNSYLVANIA

• Philadelphia — SamEric’s Sam’s Place Twin (3)

QUEBEC

• Montreal — Cineplex Odeon’s Alexis Nihon Plaza Triplex (5)

TEXAS

• Dallas — General Cinema’s Northpark West Twin (4)
• Houston — General Cinema’s Meyerland Plaza Triplex (4)

UTAH

• Salt Lake City — Plitt’s Trolley Corners Triplex (2)

VIRGINIA

• Springfield — General Cinema’s Springfield Mall 6-plex (3) [THX]

*The final week of the San Francisco run was double-billed with Back to the Future.

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

THE Q&A

Caseen Gaines is the author of Howard the Duck: The Oral History, published by decider.com earlier this year. He is a high school English teacher and co-founder of the Hackensack Theatre Company. His books include We Don’t Need Roads: The Making of the Back to the Future Trilogy (2015, Plume), A Christmas Story: Behind the Scenes of a Holiday Classic (2013, ECW Press) and Inside Pee-wee’s Playhouse: The Untold, Unauthorized, and Unpredictable Story of a Pop Phenomenon (2011, ECW Press).

Scott Mendelson is a box office analyst and film critic for Forbes magazine. He has also written for Film Threat, The Huffington Post and Salon.

John Wilson is the co-founder of the Golden Raspberry (“Razzie”) Awards and author of The Official Razzie Movie Guide: Enjoying the Best of Hollywood’s Worst (2005, Grand Central). Says Wilson: “The Razzies, which people often misunderstand, actually come from a place of loving a well-made movie. We consider ourselves more of a banana peel on the floor than a slap in the face. We’re not saying, ’How dare you.’ We’re saying, ’Look at what you had to work with — credentials, opportunity and money — and look at what you came up with.’”

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way should Howard the Duck be remembered on its 30th anniversary?

Caseen Gaines: Howard the Duck is a reminder that sometimes a great team can come together to make a flawed product. There are some elements of the movie that stand out as being pretty enjoyable, like Lea Thompson’s performance and Thomas Dolby’s great songs, but all of those things are clouded in the confusion that is the overall movie. It’s still hard to believe that Howard was the first Marvel comic character to hit the big screen.

Scott Mendelson: Well, in its own way, it was a clear example of a preordained blockbuster that wasn’t.

John Wilson: It is a touchstone of what happens when Hollywood does everything wrong. All these years later almost nobody is going to defend that movie. I know that it’s being claimed that it has achieved some kind of cultural status, but I’m not aware that it has ever been reevaluated from when it got only a 15 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes and co-won the Razzie for Worst Picture. It won the Worst Screenplay award and was nominated for multiple other Razzie awards. And then a few years later it was one of the nominees for our Worst Picture of the Decade award. I think part of the problem the film had is that it came along at a point when if they had waited just a couple more years, they could’ve done something with CGI for the duck, but instead they had someone in a not very convincing duck costume… and it just did not work.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing Howard the Duck for the first time?

Gaines: I can’t remember the first time, but I’m certain it was on a VHS tape that had been recorded on HBO. There was a period of time in my life when I watched the movie daily; I’m not exaggerating. As a kid, you don’t have any sense of whether or not a movie was critically or commercially successful. You just sort of enjoy it if you find it fun. That was my experience with Howard the Duck. The movie was kind of adult, yet sort of kid-friendly, and I think I found a lot of the duck puns really funny at the time. It probably did more to inform my sense of humor than I’d like to admit.

Mendelson: I saw it on VHS as a rental after it left theaters. I was six or seven years old (depending on when it dropped on video), and I enjoyed it in that way that kids of a certain age enjoy everything. I thought Howard was an amusing character, I thought Lea Thompson’s rocker character was “hot,” and I liked that it seemed just violent/scary enough to make me feel like I was getting away with something.

Wilson: I remember being shocked to note it was only 110 minutes. It felt like it was 110 years. I just remember it being really slow and all of the jokes fell flat. I don’t remember anything about the movie that actually worked including the fact that although at this point the character of Howard the Duck may have been a cultural touchstone, I don’t think the public had any idea what the hell Howard the Duck was when they made the movie. It wasn’t really clear what audience they were trying to reach when they spent all that money making the film. And the clip that we chose to show at that year’s Razzie awards ceremony was the bedroom scene between Lea Thompson and the duck, which wasn’t funny, wasn’t romantic, and was kind of creepy.

Coate: Howard the Duck went over budget, had terrible buzz, and ultimately tanked at the box office. What do you think went wrong?

Gaines: Very little went right on Howard. I’ll zero in on two elements that sunk the film. The script was pretty cheesy but, more importantly, struck a very odd tone. It’s hard to tell who the movie is for, which is a phrase I know the screenwriters hated hearing at the time, but it’s true. It’s too childish for adults and too provocative and snarky for kids. That makes it very hard to find an audience. Additionally, I don’t know if Howard was ever a believable character — and it seemed like the film knew it. Some characters in the movie think he’s a guy in a duck costume, others think he’s an actual anthropomorphic duck. There’s a lack of coherence to the entire project.

Mendelson: Well, the movie is far too risqué for kids, with a certain upfront eroticism/sexuality (never mind bestiality) that would be out of place in all but the most R-rated dramas today. It also has a rather terrifying monster in its action finale. Now you can argue whether those things would have been a problem (or a draw) to kids, but it’s parents that buy the ticket to a so-called kids movie. And parents didn’t bite. And since the movie isn’t as kid-friendly as perhaps hoped, and it certainly wasn’t something that would appeal to adults (this was back when there were plenty of “adult” movies in the multiplex), the film ended up with a relative demographic of none.

Wilson: I don’t really remember anything in the movie that was compelling, involving or emotionally resonant. I sat there watching it with my jaw hanging open wondering, why did they do this? What were they thinking??? It’s also significant this was 1986 before you would get instant word-of-mouth trashing on the Internet. For something to have bad buzz thirty years ago before it was released the buzz has to have been pretty stinky. I think what shocked everybody is that this was George Lucas and comic book material which generally speaking even that long ago was successful. You had reputable actors and reputable writers. Huyck was nominated for the Razzie for Worst Director… which he lost to Prince. I don’t think anybody was going to beat Prince doing Under the Cherry Moon that year! There are a handful of Razzie movies that I will occasionally go back and watch because they’re funny bad. Howard the Duck is not one of those. This is pretty excruciating, and I think everyone involved was embarrassed, and if it were up to them we would not be recalling that this is the 30th anniversary of Howard the Duck.

[On to Page 4]

[Back to Page 3]

Coate: Is it surprising that Howard the Duck failed to connect with moviegoers considering George Lucas’s level of success and with Lea Thompson coming off a memorable role in the extremely popular Back to the Future?

Gaines: As I alluded to before, a lot of very successful and talented people worked on the movie, but the end result wasn’t very good. Given the end product, I’m not surprised the movie failed to hit. There’s no denying that the box office returns were disappointing for all involved, but I think that had to do more with the fact that critics loved to hate it. The movie isn’t very good, but it wasn’t really deserving of all the hazing they received by the press.

Mendelson: No, because Lucas’s post-Star Wars movies (save Indy) weren’t terribly successful. Even Labyrinth was something of a bomb in the same year as Howard. And while Thompson was a familiar face, she wasn’t a “get butts into the seats” movie star.

Wilson: I’m not sure that Lea Thompson was that big of a deal. Yes, she had just played the mom in Back to the Future, but when people think of that movie they tend to think of Michael Fox and Christopher Lloyd. I think part of the problem was that it was George Lucas, and at that point he had at least as impressive a box office track record as Steven Spielberg. This was the first chink in his armor… prior to the three Star Wars prequels. And he seems to have been at least the financial giant behind the movie. Huyck and Katz had worked with him on his first huge success, American Graffiti — and they were Oscar nominees for that — so it’s not like the people who worked on it had no credentials. Looking at the cast and credit list you would have expected at least a competent film. I would argue this wasn’t even a competent film.

Coate: What did you think of the performances of the leads?

Gaines: I’m a big fan of Lea Thompson and am fortunate enough to have met her a few times and chatted her up a bit about her work. She mentioned to me that she thinks she did her hardest work to date in Howard the Duck because she was singing, dancing, jumping around in a mini skirt, and helping to make the audience believe this duck was real. To that end, I think her performance is great…. Tim Robbins’s role in the film is a bit all over the place, but I still love to watch it. He’s such a serious actor in so many of his movies, so we get to see a different side of him here…. Jeffrey Jones does a great job in Howard, by my count. The problem with the film really isn’t in too many of the performances.

Mendelson: I think all of the acting is fine, frankly. The amusing thing is that Tim Robbins is a lot more comfortable here than he was in Green Lantern, a 2011 comic book superhero movie that is actually shockingly similar to Howard the Duck in terms of plot and structure. I don’t think anyone puts this at the top of their achievement reel, but I think they all nailed the tone and served the movie, for better or worse.

Wilson: I think it’s significant that Lea Thompson was not nominated for a Razzie. Tim Robbins was, and obviously he went on to do much better things. And Jeffrey Jones basically was just doing what he had already done in five previous films and would then do in ten more.

Coate: Where do you think Howard ranks among George Lucas’s body of work?

Gaines: George Lucas wasn’t really intimately involved in the filmmaking of Howard the Duck, so I’m a bit reluctant to answer the question on that front. It became kind of fun for the critics to blame him for the movie’s failure and, if we’re being fair, Universal did heavily promote his involvement with the movie, which probably set up unattainable expectations. Let’s just say, I think we can all agree that Howard is no Star Wars.

Mendelson: Well, again, save for the Indiana Jones stuff, most of what Lucas tried after Return of the Jedi struck out, which is partially why he ended up returning to Star Wars. Willow is fine, as is Tucker, while I’m actually partial to Red Tails. But given the choice between watching Howard the Duck and Radioland Murders or More American Graffiti, I’ll take Howard the Duck for its sheer gonzo entertainment value. It’s not remotely a good movie, and I kinda knew that when I was a kid, but it’s not boring.

Coate: Considering how incredibly successful and popular comic-book-themed movies are today, do you think maybe Howard was simply produced at the wrong time? Should it be remade?

Gaines: I have pretty strong feelings on this. If you read my oral history of Howard the Duck, you’ll see there were lots of technical aspirations for this film that were just too expensive to realize at the time. There were also lots of problems with Howard’s suit, in terms of making it look believable to an audience. When you look at the sardonic tone of a movie like Deadpool, it’s not that different from the tone of the original Howard comics. Were the movie remade today, I think it would have a better chance of succeeding, but I don’t know if it could ever shake the reputation of the 1986 film.

Mendelson: I think the issue was more with the final product than the concept. Sure, stuff like Howard the Duck would be taken more seriously today than in the 1980s, but the same movie, with a bigger budget and what-have-you, would likely face similar obstacles. I severely doubt a Disney-produced Marvel Cinematic Universe movie is going to have, as its centerpiece relationship, a human female and an anthropomorphic duck flirting with each other like they are Natalie Portman and Jean Reno in The Professional. No, I don’t think it should be remade, because I don’t think every remotely familiar property should be arbitrarily brought back to life.

Wilson: One of my favorite Hollywood quotes is from the director I most admire, Billy Wilder, the man who did Sunset Boulevard and Some Like it Hot and The Apartment. He once said, “They should stop remaking the movies they already did right and remake the ones they screwed up.” That argument would certainly apply to Howard the Duck. I would guess no one would want to remake it given its track record, but it might be an interesting challenge.

Coate: What is the legacy of Howard the Duck?

Gaines: Howard the Duck was the first Marvel movie, in a broad sense. There wasn’t the Marvel Entertainment brand that exists now, so it’s kind of a different thing, but the point is still valid. The movie was among the first gigs for Holly Robinson Peete and Tim Robbins. So many of the people that worked on that film went on to great success. That’s something that can never be taken away from its legacy. For as flawed as the film is, it’s sort of a technical achievement in a lot of ways. In that regard, I don’t know if it gets the credit it deserves. I’m not saying it’s great, but I have seen many films that are worse. I guess some bad movies are just forgettable while others live on in infamy forever.

Mendelson: In a normal, less nostalgia-obsessed world, I would argue it would have vanished into the ethers of time along with any number of “blockbusters that weren’t.” Offhand, I’d argue that it is an infamous example of a film that looked on paper like a huge hit, but where the studio/filmmakers/etc. just didn’t deliver a good movie to justify the “Wait, it’s about a talking duck?” premise. Oh well, it has its weird retro appeal, but its fate is mostly earned.

Wilson: I think the biggest lesson is that there is no such thing as a sure thing in Hollywood. Especially in the case of Howard the Duck, you had every credential, every opportunity, and a boatload of money… and look at what you came up with!

Coate: Thank you — Caseen, Scott and John — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Howard the Duck on the occasion of its 30th anniversary.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

Primary references for this project included promotional material published in numerous daily newspapers archived digitally and/or on microfilm plus articles published in film industry trade publications Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety.

SELECTED IMAGES

Copyright Lucasfilm Ltd., Universal Pictures, Universal Studios Home Entertainment. 70mm presentation logo art designed by Bobby Henderson. Home-video cover-art collage by Cliff Stephenson. Howard the Duck: The Oral History illustration by Jaclyn Kessel; photos Everett Collection.

SPECIAL THANKS

Claude Ayakawa , Laura Baas, Don Beelik, Rachel Bernstein, Herbert Born, Raymond Caple, Andrew Crews, Caseen Gaines, Thomas Hauerslev, Mike Heenan, Bobby Henderson, Sarah Kenyon, Bill Kretzel, Mark Lensenmayer, Monty Marin, Scott Mendelson, Tim O’Neill, Ayana Reed, Tim Spindle, Cliff Stephenson, J. Thomas, Brian Walters, John Wilson, Vince Young, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project, and to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Margaret Herrick Library and Fairbanks Center for Motion Picture Study.

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

– Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

The participants (in alphabetical order)…

John Cork is the author (with Collin Stutz) of James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007) and (with Bruce Scivally) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002) and (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek. He recently wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman); the film is available on iTunes, Google Play and other streaming platforms.

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies, a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Lisa Funnell is the author (with Klaus Dodds) of The Geographies, Genders, and Geopolitics of James Bond (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) and editor of For His Eyes Only: The Women of James Bond (Wallflower, 2015). She is Assistant Professor, Women’s and Gender Studies Program and Affiliate Faculty, Film and Media Studies Program at the University of Oklahoma. Her other books include Warrior Women: Gender, Race, and the Transnational Chinese Action Star (State University of New York, 2014), (with Man-Fung Yip) American and Chinese-Language Cinemas: Examining Cultural Flows (Routledge, 2015) and (with Philippa Gates) Transnational Asian Identities in Pan-Pacific Cinemas: The Reel Asian Exchange (Routledge, 2012).

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001), and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.”

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), and Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 2015). As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He is Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course) and cueing up the soundtrack album to Casino Royale, and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Casino Royale worthy of celebration on its 10th anniversary?

John Cork: Casino Royale saved Bond. The safe thing to do after Die Another Day would have been to make another Brosnan film, stick to that formula which pleased a lot of viewers, but like with the Roger Moore films in the 1980s, that was a path of diminishing returns. With all the studio chaos erupting between the 2002 and 2006, an unsuccessful Bond film could have permanently wounded the series. Casino Royale was filled with brave, risky choices that thankfully paid off. On a whole other level, the film returned Bond to Ian Fleming. This was not done with a small homage here or there, but with remarkable respect for the original novel in the second half of the film. That, for me, is a huge part of why it succeeds and why it should be celebrated.

Bill Desowitz: Casino Royale is pivotal not only because it was the franchise holy grail to finally adapt Ian Fleming’s first Bond novel, but also because it introduced an origin story and a character arc. After 40-plus years, the focus was finally on Bond, and Daniel Craig humanized and demystified him, delving into his troubled psyche and providing a rare glimpse into the “taciturn mask.” Now we finally witnessed more fully the consequences of having a license to kill and living with death every day. Timothy Dalton’s Bond was actually a middle-aged precursor: burned out and emotionally raw and vengeful in his second outing. However, Craig’s newbie Bond explored the blunt instrument and diamond in the rough. He didn’t have all of the answers — he was reckless and impulsive and unsure of his place in the world. It was refreshing and vital in making Bond more relevant in the post 9/11 world.

Lisa Funnell: Much like GoldenEye in the 1990s, Casino Royale helped to reignite interest in the Bond franchise in the 2000s after a four-year hiatus. The film not only updates but also recalibrates many key elements of the Bond brand while introducing the iconic superspy to a new generation of filmgoers.

Lee Pfeiffer: Casino Royale is a vitally important film in the James Bond canon. Although the series was still very popular, the 2002 entry Die Another Day turned off purists and hardcore fans with its over-the-top plot devices, some surprisingly shoddy special effects and a return to the kind of silly humor we hadn’t seen for a couple of decades. Royale reinvented the formula in a very bold manner. The producers could have kept grinding out profitable but by-the-numbers fare. Instead they took a substantial gamble by bringing in an element of grittiness and realism that was much more in tune with modern audiences. They also took a major risk with the casting of Daniel Craig, who was widely lambasted during production as the actor who would bring about the demise of the series. The press was almost entirely against him and an anonymously-written website, www.craigisnotbond.com, was widely quoted, citing all the reasons why Craig would fail. You have to give a lot of credit to producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson for going against the tide and sticking with Craig. He has revitalized the series and has proven to be enormously popular not only with older fans of the series but with younger viewers as well. 

Bruce Scivally: Casino Royale was a game-changer. Previous Bond films, despite changes of actors in leading roles, were all clearly meant to be separate installments of the same series. Casino Royale was a total reboot; the only obvious link to the past was Judi Dench’s reprisal of the role of M. But there was no Moneypenny, no Q, and the actor playing Bond was a dramatic departure from what had come before. After the over-the-top extravagances of Die Another Day, Casino Royale elevated James Bond from the realm of comic book fantasy to more adult, hard-boiled action-drama.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like watching Casino Royale for the first time?

Cork: I was fortunate enough to be invited to the world premiere in London at the Leicester Square Odeon. The excitement was electric. I had read the novel at the age of 12. To see the story unfold in a way that merged what we wanted from the cinematic Bond and what I loved from the literary Bond was a deeply satisfying experience. It was one of the four greatest experiences I’ve ever had watching a Bond film.

Desowitz: I attended the first press screening at the New York junket and it was thrilling. It was like looking forward and back at the same time, which best describes Craig’s tenure as Bond. And then the following day, I sat down with Craig for my first and only 1:1 interview and we had a great conversation about what he’d accomplished and what his aspirations were for continuing as Bond. We even speculated on the return of Blofeld, and he was intrigued about the possibility of updating him in a much more modern, realistic fashion.

Funnell: Casino Royale is the first Bond film I saw in the theater. I went with my dad and we sat in the center of the very top row. Although he really enjoyed it, I did not and left the theater confused and upset. It was not what I expected. As a professor, I teach my students to be highly aware of their emotional reaction to a film and to use this as a stepping stone for film analysis. As a Bond scholar, I have done the same by re-watching the film and analyzing it through a range of lenses. Over time, I have gained a strong appreciation for Casino Royale and especially how it reintroduced and rebranded the franchise. As my thoughts have evolved, so too have my feelings; I am surprised by how much I enjoy the film, so much so that it is now one of my favorites. It certainly was not “love at first sight” but I have grown very fond of Casino Royale over time.

Pfeiffer: I had been invited to attend the Royal Premiere in London at the Odeon Theatre in Leicester Square. Nobody does big, splashy premieres as well as the Brits and none of the Brits can do it better than the Bond team. They actually red-carpeted the Square just for one evening and built walkways and mini-bridges to accommodate the attendees and thousands of on-lookers. I hosted a party at a nightclub/restaurant called Ruby Blue right in the Square and I recall standing on the balcony in a tux smoking cigars while watching the crowds assemble. It was quite a night. Queen Elizabeth attended and the security was air-tight. Everyone had to be in their seats a full hour before the royals arrived. Their arrival was simulcast on the big screen so you could see Her Majesty being introduced to the producers, cast and crew. When the proceedings started, the royal trumpeters came on stage to announce the arrival of the Queen. Lord Richard Attenborough introduced the cast and crew on stage. It was that kind of magical night. I thought the film might be an afterthought but when Craig said “Bond. James Bond” at the movie’s climax, the normally reserved crowd cheered to high heaven. I thought “Well, I guess we won’t be hearing much from the ’Craig Is Not Bond’ website henceforth.”

Scivally: Casino Royale opened just after I moved from Los Angeles to the Chicago suburbs, so I first saw it in a theater in Evanston, Illinois, that I recall being pretty packed. Having been disappointed in the previous 007 film, I went into Casino Royale with low expectations, but from the first frame to the last I found it fresh and exciting. This was in no way a throwback, but a fresh, original, exciting take on a character that was in danger of becoming stale and passé.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Daniel Craig’s inaugural performance as Agent 007 with that of the other actors who have portrayed the character?

Cork: I love all the Bond actors and what they bring to the screen, even David Niven! Here’s the thing: there is never a moment in Craig’s Bond films where I don’t believe he is James Bond. There are times in Thunderball, You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever where I very much enjoy watching Sean Connery playing James Bond, but you can tell he’s saying lines for the audience, that there is a wink to the absurdity of it. I love it, but I can tell it is artifice. That play to the artifice a huge part of the appeal of Roger Moore. With Brosnan, I always wished he played Bond more like he played Osnard in The Tailor of Panama, embracing the relaxed self-assurance that Le Carré saw in his denouncement of a Bond-type spy. With Craig, there is no artifice, but nor is there the inner rage that stokes Timothy Dalton’s 007. I’ll never let go of Sean being my “favorite” Bond, but I love watching Daniel Craig.

Desowitz: Craig is the only Bond actor working from an origin story and with a character arc, and he has since become the most creatively involved actor in franchise history (getting a producer’s credit on SPECTRE). For him, it always has to be personal, which obviously was taken to the utmost extreme in SPECTRE. He came under intense fire for not looking the part (but then Connery wasn’t exactly Fleming’s Hoagy Carmichael inspiration). He was blond, he was shorter than all of his predecessors and he wasn’t suave. He broke the mold as a rough and tumble 007, who has his heart broken, and he passed his rite of passage. Casino Royale was a significant commercial and critical success that launched the Craig era.

Funnell: Casino Royale introduces a new heroic model of masculinity that depends more on muscularity and physical endurance than libido and sexual conquest. It breaks from the lover literary tradition from which James Bond has his roots and presents a more Hollywood-inspired and body-focused spy. As a result, Craig’s Bond is more muscular and physically engaged than his predecessors, and this factors into his depiction as more of a “blunt instrument,” as Dench’s M would have it, who has much to learn about the value of patience, strategic calculation, and finesse. He is the most bloodied, battered, and bruised Bond in history, and his ability to endure excessive pain (such as Le Chiffre’s attack on his “crown jewels”) and recover from it (for instance, when he sleeps with Vesper Lynd after the attack) becomes emblematic across the Craig era of the resilience of M16 and Britain. Through his tough yet tender performance (as Klaus Dodds would describe it), Craig presents a compelling interpretation of Bond who is action-oriented, emotionally vulnerable, and morally inclined.

Pfeiffer: Every actor who has played Bond to date has had the good sense not to try to emulate any of his predecessors and this is especially true of Daniel Craig. I saw him on stage recently being interviewed in New York and he spoke of his reluctance to take on the mantel of Bond, knowing that he would carry the fate of the entire series on his back. He said he told the producers he would only do it if they threw out the rule book and completely reinvented the formula. He felt there would be no point in him trying to play Bond in the manner in which the character had been developed on screen since 1962. He felt the actors who preceded him all did a great job but that the character had to be in sync with his own personality. Each Bond actor was the right person for their time. Connery and Lazenby had a rugged but charming appeal. Roger Moore emphasized the humor. Timothy Dalton brought some gravitas to the role. And Pierce Brosnan’s charm helped reinvent the franchise. That Daniel Craig, too, has succeeded is evident not only by the critical acclaim the series now enjoys but by the overwhelming box office success of the Craig films. I believe Skyfall is the highest grossing British film in history.

Scivally: Although every actor who has played Bond infused the part with some of his own personality, the basics of the character remained the same for 40 years — tall, dark-haired, classically handsome, urbane and sophisticated. When Daniel Craig’s casting was announced, my first reaction was that he seemed more like a blue-collar thug than a high-society secret agent. But that was part of the conceit of Casino Royale — this was a new Bond, a rugged-faced, blond-haired, inexperienced “blunt instrument.” I would never have cast Craig as Bond, which just goes to show the genius of producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson. Casting Craig was a statement that this would be a bold break from the past, and it worked — from his first moments onscreen, Craig totally owned the role, redefining James Bond for a new generation. That said, I think it is a little unfair to compare his Bond to previous ones, since the conception of the role was so different; he wasn’t being asked to play the flippant sophisticated action man. Some fans noted that Craig’s Bond was a throwback to Timothy Dalton’s conception of the character, especially as seen in Licence to Kill, and I do agree that Craig’s 007 is closer to Dalton’s Bond than the Bond of Goldfinger or The Spy Who Loved Me... except Craig’s Bond doesn’t smoke like a chimney.

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way was Mads Mikkelsen’s Le Chiffre a memorable villain?

Cork: Mads is a fantastic actor, but he is not even on my radar when it comes to the most memorable Bond villains. You are just never going to hear folks make a pop culture reference to Le Chiffre the way they do to Goldfinger, Dr. No or Blofeld. His performance is great, but this is Bond’s film.

Desowitz: He was the best Bond baddie in recent memory. He was charismatic and sadistic, and his scar linked him to Blofeld in You Only Live Twice. The suspenseful poker scenes and his brutal beating of Bond took the “dance” to a whole new level of wicked fun.

Funnell: Le Chiffre is a memorable villain because of his vulnerability. This goes beyond his malformed tear duct, which causes him to inadvertently cry tears of blood. Like Bond, Le Chiffre is fallible and makes mistakes. His actions, especially after Bond foils the bombing plot, are driven by his desperation and desire for self-preservation, even at the expense of his lover Valenka. Unlike other villains who are depicted somewhat two-dimensionally as megalomaniacs desiring world power, Le Chiffre is humanized through his positioning as a middleman who is visibly terrified of the organization for which he works. The compelling performance of Mads Mikkelsen renders Le Chiffre a more humanized and sympathetic villain much like Francisco Scaramanga in The Man with the Golden Gun (1974).

Pfeiffer: I very much enjoyed Mads Mikkelsen’s performance as Le Chiffre. The character has a special place in Bond history as the first Bond villain in the first Bond novel. I think Mikkelsen managed to convey the traditional attributes (if you want to call them that) of the great Bond villains: he’s urbane, suave, superficially charming and somehow reassuring even to the person about to be victimized by him. It’s worth noting for the sake of inclusion that he’s the third actor to play the role following Peter Lorre in the 1954 live TV version of Casino Royale and Orson Welles in the 1967 big screen spoof version. I also thought Welles would have made a superb Bond villain in a serious Bond film. He was rumored to have agreed to play one in the mid-70s aborted version of Warhead, which was to be produced by Kevin McClory, but by the time it morphed into Never Say Never Again a decade later, Welles was no longer associated with the project.

Scivally: Mikkelsen was perfectly cast as Le Chiffre. He’s cold, calculating, and very creepy. He’s not a cartoon baddie (though he does have the Bondian touch of a scarred eye that weeps blood) — he’s a serious bad-ass, one not to be crossed. He makes one believe that if Mr. White had arrived just a few minutes later, Bond’s torture would truly have ended in a painful and grisly death.

Coate: In what way was Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd a memorable Bond Girl?

Cork: She wins the award for most eye make-up worn by a Bond woman! My favorite shot of her in the film is when you see her without the make-up and she looks so stunningly beautiful and human in that moment. On a serious note, Eva Green is a rare actress who understands how to play the façade and not the fragility of a character. Her strength, her armor, the wall she has built up around herself makes her a woman we believe James Bond can love. It’s a great performance. The character of Vesper is a keystone character in understanding 007, and you can read the entry in the James Bond Encyclopedia to see how passionate Collin Stutz and I are about Vesper. I’d still vote for less mascara.

Desowitz: Vesper was the most important Bond Girl since Tracy, and in this ret-con universe, Vesper was both the forerunner and echo of Tracy. The testy train meeting, the tender shower scene and her tragic suicide, among others, helped humanize Bond. And their love defined his motivations and actions in subsequent films. It even provided a “quantum of solace” at the end of SPECTRE when Bond gets a second chance at happiness (the last line of the script — “We have all the time in the world” — was cut from the film).

Funnell: To me, Vesper Lynd is not a Bond Girl. Across the orphan origin trilogy — Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall — the Bond Girl archetype is deconstructed and the qualities typically associated with the figure are divided among two or more characters in each film. In Casino Royale, it is Bond and not Lynd who emerges from the sea in a bathing suit — an homage to the introduction of quintessential Bond Girl Honey Ryder from Dr. No — as Solange Dimitrios and, in a later scene, Lynd watch him from the shore, an act that effectively establishes the female look in the film. Thus, it is Bond who is positioned in the traditionally exhibitionist role of Bond Girl and presented as the object of desire (as Laura Mulvey would describe it). As a result, Vesper Lynd is freed from the constraints of the Bond Girl archetype and presented as more of a “Woman” than a “Girl” in the film. Her characterization shares much in common with Judi Dench’s M as she is depicted as a bureaucrat and bean counter who wields both institutional and emotional power over Bond. She is a complicated and multifaceted character, and this makes her both a compelling and sympathetic figure.

Pfeiffer: Eva Green represented how far the image of the Bond woman has changed with the times. It isn’t actually true that Bond’s lovers have all been stereotypical airheads, all bust and no brains. In fact, most of them were courageous, intelligent and self-reliant characters. These attributes continued to be emphasized even more as society evolved and female characters became treated with more respect. In the Bond films this was especially true in the Craig films, where women were not just used as recipients for sexually-charged bon mots tossed out by Bond. Vesper is a complex, fully-fleshed out character who obsesses Bond in a way that no female has done since Tracy in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Bond isn’t just excited by her; he is in love with her. They have a mature, believable, but ultimately tragic relationship that continues to haunt him through the next film.

Scivally: Vesper Lynd is probably the most three-dimensional female character in any Bond film, and Eva Green hits all the right notes in her performance. In remarking on the performances, credit must also to be given to the writers (the team of Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, followed by Paul Haggis) for giving the characters more shades of dimensionality than was found in the previous Bonds, and to director Martin Campbell for getting such superior performances from his cast. Campbell had previously proven his mettle introducing Pierce Brosnan as Bond in GoldenEye, and he does an excellent job introducing Craig. It’s a pity he hasn’t been given more 007 assignments, since he clearly has the right touch for them.

Coate: Where do you think Casino Royale ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Cork: Fifth, which sounds too low for how much I love this film. But after all my praise, I still hold Skyfall just a smidge higher on my list (that could change on a whim). All the others that rank higher are the early Connery Bonds.

Desowitz: In the top five, right behind From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Dr. No and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. It holds up very well after 10 years and may be the best of the Craig films, despite his gaining confidence and improving in the subsequent films.

Funnell: Not only is Casino Royale one of the best in the Craig era, but it also ranks highly in the series as a whole. It has a solid narrative, strong character development, dynamic action sequences (such as the parkour-inspired chase sequence), and a compelling soundtrack that enhances the emotional tenor of the film. From start to finish, Casino Royale is an exciting and immersive Bond film.

Pfeiffer: I would certainly rank Royale in the top tier of Bond films… up there with the best of them. In a way it’s hard to compare it to all the films that preceded it because it is so unique in terms of content and style. For example, I love Goldfinger (who doesn’t?) but would it really be appropriate to try to directly compare it to Royale? The Craig films almost exist in their own universe. I would argue that it’s the best of those films (but a case could be made for Skyfall).

Scivally: If I were to rank the 007 films, Casino Royale would definitely be in my top five. It’s tightly scripted, directed with style and confidence, and has superior performances, as well as one of David Arnold’s best scores and a brilliant Daniel Kleinman title sequence. Like Goldfinger, it fires on all cylinders from beginning to end.

Coate: What is the legacy of Casino Royale?

Cork: There are the James Bond films before Casino Royale and there are the ones after. You can love or hate any of them, but Casino Royale changed the look, feel and tone of the Bond movies. Before Casino Royale, certain things were a given. We will open with the gun barrel. We will hear The James Bond Theme as white dots move across the screen. The movie will be in color. James Bond will be an experienced agent already at the top of his game. With the exception of one film, Bond will get the girl at the end. Once Casino Royale successfully broke that mold, for better or worse, everything was on the table. The other legacy of Casino Royale is the ascendancy of Daniel Craig. Barbara Broccoli is the one who picked Daniel Craig, insisted on him over some very strong objections. Michael Wilson backed her instinct on that. Craig is Bond for a legions of filmgoers around the world, and arguably the actor who has wielded the most direct influence over the creative aspects of the series. He’s now been afforded something no other Bond actor ever achieved: he hand-picked Sam Mendes, the director of the last two Bond films, and he has been afforded a co-producer credit, something Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman would have never given to Sean Connery or Roger Moore. These films are now being made in a very different way than they were in the 60s or 70s, not just technologically, but the entire business model has changed. I think Barbara and Michael still approach these films with the same level of personal and business integrity that Cubby embraced, but there is a sense that they know the stakes were raised with Casino Royale, that these can no longer feel like films that are made by a bunch of good friends out having a lark (not that this was ever the case). With Casino Royale, the Bonds became very serious business.

Desowitz: The legacy is that Bond was reborn with Craig in the new millennium. It marked a new dramatic direction that made the character the center of his universe. It began as an origin story and continued as a four-film rite of passage. It also re-connected with Fleming, which was partially cut short when Sam Mendes came aboard for the last two films. He not only developed a more personal Bond story, but also shifted the tone back toward the early Connery films.

Funnell: As a prequel, Casino Royale is an important revisionist film (as Christoph Lindner and James Chapman, among others, have described it) that finally tells the origin story of the iconic superspy from the moment he attains his “00” license to kill. It updates the Bond brand while remaining true to Ian Fleming’s depiction of James Bond as a man who makes mistakes, feels pain, and even harbors doubts about his role as an agent. It is a film that reaches forward cinematically while remaining connected to the literary past.

Pfeiffer: Casino Royale will also have a rich legacy in the Bond canon. The Brosnan films had run their course and needed a creative boost. I also thought it was a pity that Pierce never got his chance to do a gritty, ultra-realistic Bond film because he’s quite a good actor and audiences stayed with him even if some of his movies didn’t live up to their potential. There was such excitement following the premiere of Royale that I could tell a new era had arrived in terms of the Bond movies. Realism was in, gadgets were out. Believable relationships were the order of the day and female characters with sexually suggestive names were relegated to the past. Most important, Royale made Bond relevant to an entirely new and younger audience, which is essential for any series to survive and thrive.

Scivally: As stated before, Casino Royale was a game-changer. It brought James Bond definitively into the 21st century, and did so — ironically — by remaining largely faithful to a novel written more than fifty years earlier. By eschewing many of the traditional trappings of previous 007 films, the filmmakers created a new paradigm for Bond. Unfortunately, it raised the bar so high that Craig’s subsequent 007 films pale in comparison; Quantum of Solace particularly seemed to be a Jason Bourne movie rather than a James Bond film, and Craig’s latter Bond films, while restoring more of the classic Bondian elements, were not as tightly plotted. Perhaps Casino Royale benefited from being the only one of his films to be directly based on an Ian Fleming novel.

Coate: Thank you — John, Bill, Lisa, Lee, and Bruce — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Casino Royale on the occasion of its 10th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “Diamonds are Forever” on its 45th Anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Eon Productions Limited, Danjaq LLC, Columbia Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, United Artists Corporation.

SPECIAL THANKS

Mike Heenan

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

For the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a historical/reference listing of the film’s first-run theatrical engagements; and, finally, an interview segment with an esteemed group of film authorities and historians.

ROCKY NUMBER$

• 1 = Box-office rank among films in the Rocky franchise (adjusted for inflation)
• 1 = Number of opening-week engagements
• 1 = Peak Billboard chart position for Gonna Fly Now
• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1976 (legacy)
• 2 = Rank among United Artists’ all-time top-earning movies at close of original run
• 3 = Box-office rank among films in the Rocky franchise
• 3 = Number of Academy Awards
• 3 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1977 (calendar year)
• 6 = Number of sequels and spinoffs
• 7 = Number of weeks North America’s top-grossing movie (weeks 10-16)
• 8 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release
• 10 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 15 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1970s
• 20 = Number of days of principal photography
• 26 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 36 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement (in a single-screen theater)
• 52 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement (in a multiplex)
• 78 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing films (adjusted for inflation)

• $5,488 = Opening day box-office gross
• $33,809 = Opening week box-office gross
• $1.6 million = Production cost
• $6.8 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $55.9 million = Domestic box-office rental
• $107.8 million = International box-office gross
• $117.2 million = Domestic box-office gross
• $222.9 million = Domestic box-office rental (adjusted for inflation)
• $225.0 million = Worldwide box-office gross
• $430.1 million = International box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $467.6 million = Domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $676.3 million = Domestic box-office gross (entire Rocky franchise)
• $897.5 million = Worldwide box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $1.6 billion = Domestic box-office gross (entire Rocky franchise; adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Rocky is a movie overtly about a boxer, a stale jock in his decline, which is knee-deep in clichés without tripping over any of them. It is a simple story that is not simple-minded; it is a warm and human film with blunt emotions leavened by humor and above all, it is a totally derivative movie that manages to be original…. We live in a time that disparages heroism because there is no longer an accepted definition of it, and Stallone has been smart or, more accurately, sly enough to sense the gap that is left. He has filled it with earthy humor, poignance and decency and there is still enough of that around for Rocky to find the vast audience and success that it deserves.” — Desmond Ryan, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“Rocky is a pugnacious, charming, grimy, beautiful fairy tale. A formidable accomplishment. One of the best scripts and performances of the year.” — John Simon, New York

“There have been a number of first-rate American films released in 1976, but none has combined, to the degree Rocky does, artistic excellence, emotional impact and a good, old-fashioned, romantic, happy ending. It is both gripping and up-beat — that rare bird which is a so-called audience picture and a so-called critic’s picture.” — John L. Wasserman, San Francisco Chronicle

“The climactic fight sequence is brutal and breath-taking — guaranteed to reduce even the most skeptical observer to a quivering fan. Even the most jaded preview crowds have burst into applause at the film’s closing.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“Not since The Great Gatsby two years ago has any film come into town more absurdly oversold than Rocky, the sentimental slum movie…. Under the none too decisive direction of John G. Avildsen, Mr. Stallone is all over Rocky to such an extent it begins to look like a vanity production. His brother composed one of the film’s songs and appears briefly, as does his father, while his dog, a cheerful mastiff named Butkus, plays Rocky’s dog. It’s as if Mr. Stallone had studied the careers of Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola and then set out to copy the wrong things.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“A lot of [the credit] goes to Stallone when he wrote this story and then peddled it around Hollywood for years before he could sell it. He must have known it would work because he could see himself in the role, could imagine the conviction he’s bringing to it, and I can’t think of another actor who could quite have pulled off this performance. There’s that exhilarating moment when Stallone, in training, runs up the steps of Philadelphia’s art museum, leaps into the air, shakes his fist at the city, and you know he’s sending a message to the whole movie industry.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Rocky is a glowing tribute to the human spirit. A wonderfully tender love affair. It’s the creation of a truly sensational new talent, Sylvester Stallone.” — Kathleen Carroll, New York Daily News

“A delightfully human comedy that will undoubtedly wind up as the sleeper of this movie year. Packed with comedy, perception, and sensitivity, Rocky is a sincere, rousing film that raises the spirits and gladdens the heart.” — Judith Crist, Saturday Review

“Writer Stallone’s own acting in the central role is an expert catalogue of dese-dem-dose speech patterns and Adorable Bum mannerisms. At times his work is more like a nightclub routine than a complex characterization. But lovable he sets out to be and lovable he is, and you’d need a heart of granite not to be cheering for him when the bell rings.” — Clyde Gilmour, The Toronto Star

“[Rocky] gives the movie season a shot of adrenalin. As modern as today, it is nevertheless made like an old fashioned movie, with vitality and heart. A real upper in a year of downers.” — Bob Thomas, Associated Press

“Rocky hits right on the button! Rocky seems as brilliantly orchestrated as a fine if raucous symphony…. Stallone’s own performance is a once-in-a-lifetime coming together of man and material…. Rocky got roaring, sustained, standing ovations the likes of which I can’t remember hearing at a movie before.” — Charles Champlin, Los Angeles Times

“Although Rocky is a familiar kind of screen romance, in which a nobody gets a chance to become a somebody, watching the film is still an invigorating experience. For one thing, it glows with sincerity. It also introduces an outstanding performer, Sylvester Stallone, who has passed virtually unnoticed in earlier, not particularly noteworthy, pictures. Rocky makes a star of Stallone.” — Susan Stark, Detroit Free Press

“Despite realistic touches like Rocky’s apartment and his girl friend’s frumpy wardrobe, Rocky isn’t a realistic movie. The purpose is escapism, and the audience’s howls during a fight scene make it plain that Rocky appeals to the lurking punk in all of us…. Rocky, the Italian Stallion, is kind of hard to take seriously. What, for instance, is an audience to make of a black leather jacketed shakedown man with a fondness for turtles, goldfish and big, dumb dogs?” — Joel Clark, The Grand Rapids Press

“When it opened in New York and Los Angeles late last year, a low-budget movie about a small-time boxer called Rocky was widely heralded as the sleeper of the season. It has since been the subject of a phenomenal media blitz, won two major awards as the year’s best movie, and will undoubtedly figure prominently in the Oscar nominations. When it makes its local debut, Rocky won’t be a sleeper anymore, but if no one’s likely to be taken by surprise by its virtues, neither is there likely to be a significant post-hype letdown. The film is such an exuberant audience-pleaser that it’s practically hype-proof.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“A great movie? Hardly. Stallone as the next Brando? You’ve got to be kidding. A nice little fantasy picture? Maybe.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“Sylvester Stallone will have to appear in some additional film before it will be possible to tell whether his performance is real craft or just an initial exposure to the actor’s charismatic reality.” — Tom McElfresh, The Cincinnati Enquirer

“Rocky is a winner. The movie is the kind of tight, rewarding and entertaining little movie that has kept the industry alive. Indeed, it may be a sign of the present desperate condition of the business that a good film like Rocky seems even better than it is. We’ve had so few genuinely engaging and human-scaled films lately that it shines more brightly by comparison. But, even if it has been overpraised in some quarters, a movie like Rocky deserves our best wishes for the clarity and honesty of its vision.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“The story is achingly familiar, and the though Stallone has a certain power, he is certainly not the subtlest actor to crawl out from under Marlon’s overcoat.” — Richard Schickel, Time

“Not since Jaws has there been a crowd-pleaser like Rocky, where the pleasure can be gauged by the crowd’s audible response.” — Susan Stark, Knight News Wire

“The movie is a tremendous victory, not only for Rocky, but for its creator Stallone. Both serve as inspiration that the dream of America as the land of untold possibility and opportunity might not be so preposterous after all.” — Donna Chernin, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“The film has brought a great deal of pleasure to many audiences, and I liked it a lot. But ‘liking it a lot’ won’t do; Rocky is a film which insists you must love it. The truth is, though, that Rocky manipulates its audience as clearly as any 1930’s movie that pops up on the Late Show. There’s nothing wrong with a film’s being manipulative (most of my favorite movies have been knowing, willing manipulators); but John Avildsen’s direction lets us see the strings once too often.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“If you already thought boxing is the sport of barbarians, Rocky should do nothing to dispel the notion. If any notion is dispelled, it should be that they don’t make movies like they used to. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they make them better today than they did then. Rocky may be one of those times.” — Ted Mahar, The (Portland) Oregonian

“There are Marty overtones in abundance here, and that’s a strong commercial omen for the $1,000,000 gamble herein. The very best way to enjoy Rocky is not to examine it too carefully; better simply to relax and roll with the Walter Mitty, Cinderella, or what-have-you notion that the least of us still stands a chance of making it big.” — A.D. Murphy, Variety

THE FIRST-RUN THEATRICAL ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a (work-in-progress) historical/reference listing of the first-run theatrical engagements of Rocky in the United States and Canada. It is not a complete listing. The objective here was to cite the major first-run markets and principal cities of each U.S. state and Canadian province in which the film first played to illustrate the slow, staggered nature of (most) 1970s era film distribution and exhibition as well as to provide some nostalgia for those who saw the movie during the original release. A sprinkling of small-town and college-town engagements have been included, as well (even though they fall below the population threshold of this project), but understand these represent only a fraction of the thousands of total bookings throughout the many cycles of distribution over the course of the film’s release. The duration of the engagements, measured in weeks, is provided for some of the entries to provide a sense of the movie’s popularity.

For a few of the very largest markets (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, etc.) the subsequent release wave(s) have been included, whereas in most cases only the first booking in a given market has been cited. With a couple of exceptions, “moveover” continuation engagements have not been included.

Some liberties have been taken in regard to some of the generically named theaters (i.e. “Cinema,” “Cinema Twin”). Typically such theaters were located in shopping plazas and as such they have been identified in this work whenever possible by the name of the shopping plaza even if, technically, such wasn’t the actual name of the venue.

Regarding multiplex venues, effort has been made to identify the total number of screens in a complex (at the commencement of the engagement) even if in some situations a “complex” consisted of screens spread out among separate buildings or an expansion/renovation occurred during the run. Additionally, simplified nomenclature for the sake of stylistic consistency has been utilized for venue screen counts (i.e. “twin,” triplex,” 4-plex,” etc.) instead of retaining the (often inconsistent) individualistic usage of numbers or Roman numerals that may have been present in advertising or used on marquees. In cases where the film was screening in more than one auditorium in a complex, both engagements are cited but the numbers provided represent print numbers and do not necessarily reflect the auditorium number in which the film was playing.

In a few cases, the name of a location has changed since 1976/77 (typically due to annexation or incorporation) and such cases have been listed according to the city or recognized name at the time of engagement.

The chain names have not been included, and the work does not include any international or re-release engagements.

The release prints of Rocky were spherical 35mm with an intended aspect ratio of 1.85:1 and with standard monaural audio.

So…which theaters played Rocky on first release?

• 1976-11-20 … New York (Manhattan), NY — Paramount (world premiere screening)

• 1976-11-21 … New York (Manhattan), NY — Cinema II (9 weeks)

• 1976-12-01 … Los Angeles (Westwood Village), CA — Plaza (20)

• 1976-12-10 … New York (Manhattan), NY — 86th Street East (9)
• 1976-12-10 … New York (Manhattan), NY — Murray Hill (9)
• 1976-12-10 … New York (Manhattan), NY — State Twin (9)
• 1976-12-10 … Totowa, NJ — Cinema 46 Triplex (#1: 6)
• 1976-12-10 … Totowa, NJ — Cinema 46 Triplex (#2: 6)
• 1976-12-10 … Woodmere, NY — Five Towns (6)

• 1976-12-16 … San Francisco, CA — Regency I (15+)
• 1976-12-16 … San Jose, CA — Century 21 (15)

• 1976-12-17 … Anaheim, CA — Century 21 Twin (22)
• 1976-12-17 … Cerritos, CA — Los Cerritos Mall Twin (8)
• 1976-12-17 … Costa Mesa, CA — South Coast Plaza Triplex (40)
• 1976-12-17 … El Monte, CA — Starlite Drive-In (15)
• 1976-12-17 … Long Beach, CA — Los Altos 3-Screen Drive-In (8)
• 1976-12-17 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Pix (26)
• 1976-12-17 … Los Angeles (Studio City), CA — Studio (15)
• 1976-12-17 … Pasadena, CA — Academy (22)
• 1976-12-17 … Santa Ana, CA — Harbor Blvd. Drive-In (8)
• 1976-12-17 … Torrance, CA — United Artists (18)

• 1976-12-21 … Chicago, IL — Water Tower 4-plex (#1: 20)
• 1976-12-21 … Chicago, IL — Water Tower 4-plex (#2: 20)
• 1976-12-21 … McLean, VA — Tysons Corner 5-plex (#1: 27)
• 1976-12-21 … McLean, VA — Tysons Corner 5-plex (#2: 22)
• 1976-12-21 … Philadelphia, PA — Eric Rittenhouse Square Twin (#1: 18)
• 1976-12-21 … Philadelphia, PA — Eric Rittenhouse Square Twin (#2: 18)
• 1976-12-21 … Toronto, ON — Uptown 5-plex (52)
• 1976-12-21 … Washington, DC — Avalon Twin (#1: 27)
• 1976-12-21 … Washington, DC — Avalon Twin (#2: 15)
• 1976-12-21 … Wynnewood, PA — Eric Wynnewood (21)

• 1976-12-22 … Boston, MA — Cheri Triplex (27)

• 1977-01-14 … Goleta, CA — Fairview (16)

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

• 1977-01-19 … Babylon, NY — Babylon (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Bay Shore, NY — Bay Shore Drive-In (3)
• 1977-01-19 … Bedford, NY — Playhouse (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Brick, NJ — Brick Plaza Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Brookfield, CT — Fine Arts (14)
• 1977-01-19 … Carmel, NY — Cinema Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Clifton, NJ — Allwood (5)
• 1977-01-19 … East Brunswick, NJ — Brunswick Square Twin (18)
• 1977-01-19 … East Hampton, NY — Easthampton Twin (3)
• 1977-01-19 … East Meadow, NY — Meadow Brook (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Freehold, NJ — Mall Triplex (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Garden City Park, NY — Park East (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Greenwich, CT — Greenwich (15)
• 1977-01-19 … Hackettstown, NJ — Mall Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Hanover, NJ — Morris County Mall Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Hazlet, NJ — Cinema Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Huntington, NY — Shore Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Jersey City, NJ — Hudson Plaza Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Long Branch, NJ — Movies Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Lynbrook, NY — Lynbrook (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Massapequa, NY — Jerry Lewis Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Monticello, NY — Mall Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New Rochelle, NY — Town (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Bronx), NY — Interboro (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Bronx), NY — Paradise Triplex (19)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Brooklyn), NY — Alpine Twin (18)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Brooklyn), NY — Brook (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Brooklyn), NY — Kingsway Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Manhattan), NY — 83rd Street Triplex (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Manhattan), NY — Columbia Twin (9)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Manhattan), NY — Greenwich (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Queens), NY — Cross Bay Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Queens), NY — Forest Hills (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Queens), NY — Meadows (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Staten Island), NY — Richmond (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Newburgh, NY — Windsor (12)
• 1977-01-19 … Paramus, NJ — Route 17 Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Patchogue, NY — Patchogue (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Pearl River, NY — Pearl River (18)
• 1977-01-19 … Plainview, NY — Morton Village (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Poughkeepsie, NY — Juliet (16)
• 1977-01-19 … Rutherford, NJ — Route 3 Drive-In (2)
• 1977-01-19 … Rye, NY — Rye Ridge (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Secaucus, NJ — Harmon Cove 4-plex (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Shrewsbury, NJ — Shrewsbury Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Smithtown, NY — Smith Haven Mall (5)
• 1977-01-19 … South Plainfield, NJ — Middlesex Mall Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Suffern, NY — Lafayette (16)
• 1977-01-19 … Toms River, NJ — Ocean County Mall Triplex (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Union, NJ — Union Drive-In (2)
• 1977-01-19 … Watchung, NJ — Blue Star Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … West Orange, NJ — Essex Green Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Westport, CT — Fine Arts Triplex (15)
• 1977-01-19 … Yonkers, NY — Central Plaza Twin (5)

• 1977-01-21 … Berkeley, CA — Oaks Twin (23)
• 1977-01-21 … Carmel, CA — Golden Bough (22)
• 1977-01-21 … Citrus Heights, CA — Sunrise 4-plex
• 1977-01-21 … Closter, NJ — Closter (5)
• 1977-01-21 … Dallas, TX — Cine Twin (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Dallas, TX — Park Forest (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Fresno, CA — Movies 4-plex
• 1977-01-21 … Fresno, CA — Sunnyside Drive-In
• 1977-01-21 … Hayward, CA — Festival 6-plex (28)
• 1977-01-21 … Houston, TX — Gaylynn Terrace
• 1977-01-21 … Independence, MO — Blue Ridge 4-plex
• 1977-01-21 … Las Vegas, NV — 1-2-3 Cinemas Triplex (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Leawood, KS — Ranch Mart 4-plex
• 1977-01-21 … Oakland, CA — Century 21 (10)
• 1977-01-21 … Palo Alto, CA — Palo Alto Square Twin (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Pleasant Hill, CA — Century 5-plex (#1: 48)
• 1977-01-21 … Pleasant Hill, CA — Century 5-plex (#2: 23)
• 1977-01-21 … Reno, NV — Granada Twin (25)
• 1977-01-21 … Sacramento, CA — Century 5-plex
• 1977-01-21 … San Mateo, CA — Manor Twin (27)
• 1977-01-21 … San Rafael, CA — Montecito (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Santa Cruz, CA — Rio (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Stockton, CA — Stockton Royal 4-plex
• 1977-01-21 … Wayne, NJ — Willowbrook (5)

• 1977-01-26 … Ann Arbor, MI — Fifth Forum
• 1977-01-26 … Brockton, MA — Westgate Mall 5-plex (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Cicero, NY — Penn-Can Mall Triplex (24)
• 1977-01-26 … Colorado Springs, CO — Peak (8)
• 1977-01-26 … Dearborn, MI — Dearborn Entertainment Center Triplex (17)
• 1977-01-26 … Denver, CO — Colorado 4-plex
• 1977-01-26 … Denver, CO — Denver (The Pub)
• 1977-01-26 … Denver, CO — U-Hills Triplex (#1)
• 1977-01-26 … Denver, CO — U-Hills Triplex (#2)
• 1977-01-26 … DeWitt, NY — Shoppingtown Twin (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Harper Woods, MI — Eastland Twin (17)
• 1977-01-26 … Honolulu, HI — Waikiki Twin
• 1977-01-26 … Lawrence, MA — Showcase 4-plex (17)
• 1977-01-26 … Livonia, MI — Livonia Mall Triplex (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Modesto, CA — Briggsmore
• 1977-01-26 … New Hartford, NY — Paris (21)
• 1977-01-26 … Norfolk, VA — Circle 6-plex
• 1977-01-26 … Palm Springs, CA — Village (15)
• 1977-01-26 … Pikesville, MD — Pikes (22)
• 1977-01-26 … Portland, OR — Bagdad Twin (14)
• 1977-01-26 … Portsmouth, NH — Jerry Lewis Twin (21)
• 1977-01-26 … Pueblo, CO — Pueblo Twin (14)
• 1977-01-26 … Roseville, MI — Macomb Mall Triplex (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Sayreville, NJ — Amboys Drive-In (2)
• 1977-01-26 … Seekonk, MA — Showcase 4-plex
• 1977-01-26 … South Burlington, VT — Century Plaza Twin (20)
• 1977-01-26 … South Portland, ME — Maine Mall Triplex (16)
• 1977-01-26 … Southfield, MI — Northland Twin (22)
• 1977-01-26 … Sterling Heights, MI — The Movies at Lakeside 4-plex (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Sterling Heights, MI — Showcase 5-plex (10)
• 1977-01-26 … Stratford, CT — Stratford (16)
• 1977-01-26 … Taylor, MI — Southland Twin (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Timonium, MD — Yorkridge Twin (22)
• 1977-01-26 … Toledo, OH — Franklin Park Twin (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Waterford, MI — Pontiac Mall Twin (17)
• 1977-01-26 … West Springfield, MA — Showcase 8-plex (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Westland, MI — Quo Vadis Entertainment Center 4-plex (17)
• 1977-01-26 … Worcester, MA — Showcase 4-plex (19)

• 1977-01-28 … Atlanta, GA — Greenbriar Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Atlanta, GA — Lenox Square Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Birmingham, AL — Eastwood Mall Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Brighton, MI — Brighton Triplex (14)
• 1977-01-28 … Carlsbad, CA — Plaza Camino Real 5-plex (23)
• 1977-01-28 … Decatur, GA — North DeKalb Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Decatur, GA — South DeKalb Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Fall River, MA — Center Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Gretna, LA — Westside Twin (18)
• 1977-01-28 … Knoxville, TN — Capri 70
• 1977-01-28 … Metairie, LA — Lakeside 4-plex (22)
• 1977-01-28 … Montreal, QC — Loews 4-plex (25)
• 1977-01-28 … Nashville, TN — Crescent (8)
• 1977-01-28 … New Orleans, LA — Kenilworth Twin (27)
• 1977-01-28 … New Orleans, LA — State Triplex (16)
• 1977-01-28 … Orange, CT — Showcase 5-plex (20)
• 1977-01-28 … Ottawa, ON — Elgin Twin (22)
• 1977-01-28 … Peoria, IL — Westlake Triplex
• 1977-01-28 … Richmond, VA — Westhampton (20)
• 1977-01-28 … Rockford, IL — Belford (8)
• 1977-01-28 … Rockford, IL — North Towne Mall Twin (15)
• 1977-01-28 … San Diego, CA — Campus Drive-In (15)
• 1977-01-28 … San Diego, CA — Cinerama (8)
• 1977-01-28 … Smyrna, GA — Cobb Center Triplex
• 1977-01-28 … Windsor, ON — Capitol Triplex (20)

• 1977-02-02 … Albuquerque, NM — Los Altos Twin (34)
• 1977-02-02 … Allentown, PA — Eric Twin
• 1977-02-02 … Boulder, CO — Flatirons
• 1977-02-02 … Buffalo, NY — Amherst Triplex
• 1977-02-02 … Casper, WY — Rialto (4)
• 1977-02-02 … Cheektowaga, NY — Como Mall 6-plex
• 1977-02-02 … Claymont, DE — Eric Tri-State Mall Twin (12)
• 1977-02-02 … Cincinnati, OH — Carousel Twin (27)
• 1977-02-02 … Cincinnati, OH — Studio Twin (25)
• 1977-02-02 … Columbus, OH — Continent 4-plex (32)
• 1977-02-02 … Columbus, OH — Forum Triplex (#1: 23)
• 1977-02-02 … Columbus, OH — Forum Triplex (#2: 13)
• 1977-02-02 … Doylestown, PA — Barn 4-plex (23)
• 1977-02-02 … East Hartford, CT — Showcase 5-plex (20)
• 1977-02-02 … Edwardsville, PA — Gateway
• 1977-02-02 … Eugene, OR — Valley River Twin (19)
• 1977-02-02 … Fairless Hills, PA — Eric Twin (16)
• 1977-02-02 … Fort Collins, CO — Aggie (7)
• 1977-02-02 … Frazer, PA — Eric Twin (26)
• 1977-02-02 … Harrisburg, PA — Eric East Park Center Twin
• 1977-02-02 … King of Prussia, PA — Eric King Twin (21)
• 1977-02-02 … Lancaster, PA — Eric Twin
• 1977-02-02 … Leominster, MA — Leominster 4-plex (14)
• 1977-02-02 … Little Ferry, NJ — Hackensack Drive-In (2)
• 1977-02-02 … Louisville, KY — Showcase 7-plex (21)
• 1977-02-02 … Montgomeryville, PA — Eric Triplex (19)
• 1977-02-02 … Murray, UT — Fashion Place 4-plex (23)
• 1977-02-02 … Penfield, NY — Panorama (29)
• 1977-02-02 … Pennsauken, NJ — Eric Twin (16)
• 1977-02-02 … Phoenix, AZ — Chris-Town 5-plex (29)
• 1977-02-02 … Princeton, NJ — Eric Garden (15)
• 1977-02-02 … Provo, UT — Pioneer 2-Screen Drive-In (3)
• 1977-02-02 … Provo, UT — Paramount (3)
• 1977-02-02 … Reading, PA — Eric Twin (19)
• 1977-02-02 … Salem, OR — Southgate Triplex (10)
• 1977-02-02 … Salt Lake City, UT — Highland 2-Screen Drive-In (6)
• 1977-02-02 … Salt Lake City, UT — Trolley Square 4-plex (20)
• 1977-02-02 … South Salt Lake, UT — Century 5-plex (26)
• 1977-02-02 … Stratford, NJ — Eric Twin (21)
• 1977-02-02 … Tempe, AZ — University Twin (23)
• 1977-02-02 … Trenton, NJ — Eric Independence Mall Twin (19)
• 1977-02-02 … Tucson, AZ — El Dorado Twin (15)
• 1977-02-02 … West Seneca, NY — Seneca Mall Twin

• 1977-02-04 … Augusta, GA — Miller (1)                       
• 1977-02-04 … Baton Rouge, LA — Broadmoor Twin (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Baton Rouge, LA — North Park Twin (6)
• 1977-02-04 … Biloxi, MS — Surfside Twin (15)
• 1977-02-04 … Cedar Rapids, IA — Stage 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Charlotte, NC — Charlottetown Triplex (21)
• 1977-02-04 … Chattanooga, TN — Brainerd Village
• 1977-02-04 … Coral Gables, FL — Gables (17)
• 1977-02-04 … Deerfield Beach, FL — Ultravision Twin (18)
• 1977-02-04 … Des Moines, IA — Fleur 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Des Moines, IA — Sierra Triplex (21)
• 1977-02-04 … Evergreen Park, IL — Evergreen Twin (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Fort Lauderdale, FL — Coral Ridge Twin (16)
• 1977-02-04 … Gainesville, FL — Royal Park 4-plex
• 1977-02-04 … Greendale, WI — Southridge Triplex
• 1977-02-04 … Hampton, VA — Coliseum Mall Twin
• 1977-02-04 … Hattiesburg, MS — Broadacres 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Hialeah, FL — Palm Springs Twin (12)
• 1977-02-04 … Hollywood, FL — Florida Twin (18)
• 1977-02-04 … Homewood, IL — Diana Triplex (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Jackson, MS — Jackson Mall (18)
• 1977-02-04 … Jacksonville, FL — Cedar Hills
• 1977-02-04 … Jacksonville, FL — Plaza Twin
• 1977-02-04 … Lake Charles, LA — Charles Triplex (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Lauderdale Lakes, FL — Lakes Mall 6-plex (#1: 22)
• 1977-02-04 … Lauderdale Lakes, FL — Lakes Mall 6-plex (#2: 10)
• 1977-02-04 … Little Rock, AR — Heights (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Madison, WI — East Towne Mall Twin (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Madison, WI — Strand (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Mary Esther, FL — Santa Rosa Triplex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Merrillville, IN — Crossroads Twin (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Miami, FL — Concord Twin (12)
• 1977-02-04 … Miami Beach, FL — Byron (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Milwaukee, WI — Northridge Triplex
• 1977-02-04 … Milwaukee, WI — Skyway Twin
• 1977-02-04 … Monaca, PA — Movie World 4-plex (15)
• 1977-02-04 … Monroe, LA — Eastgate Triplex
• 1977-02-04 … Monroeville, PA — Showcase 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Montgomery, AL — Capri
• 1977-02-04 … Niles, IL — Golf Mill Triplex (21)
• 1977-02-04 … North Miami Beach, FL — Sunny Isles Twin (17)
• 1977-02-04 … Northbrook, IL — Edens Twin (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Oak Brook, IL — United Artists Twin (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Oak Park, IL — Lake (7)
• 1977-02-04 … Odessa, TX — Scott Triplex (18)
• 1977-02-04 … Omaha, NE — Cinema Center 4-plex (21)
• 1977-02-04 … Omaha, NE — Q Cinema 4-plex (20)
• 1977-02-04 … Palatine, IL — Willow Creek (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Pensacola, FL — University Mall Triplex
• 1977-02-04 … Pittsburgh, PA — Chatham (16)
• 1977-02-04 … Shreveport, LA — Shreve City (19)
• 1977-02-04 … South Miami, FL — Suniland Twin (17)
• 1977-02-04 … Tinley Park, IL — Bremen Triplex (13)
• 1977-02-04 … West Palm Beach, FL — Palm Beach Mall 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Wichita, KS — Twin Lakes Twin

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

• 1977-02-09 … Alexandria, VA — Mt. Vernon Twin (#1: 18)
• 1977-02-09 … Alexandria, VA — Mt. Vernon Twin (#2: 11)
• 1977-02-09 … Annandale, VA — Bradlick (8)
• 1977-02-09 … Arlington, VA — Arlington (15)
• 1977-02-09 … Bakersfield, CA — Stockdale 6-plex (#1: 19)
• 1977-02-09 … Bakersfield, CA — Stockdale 6-plex (#2: 4)
• 1977-02-09 … Bedford, NH — Bedford Mall Triplex (15)
• 1977-02-09 … Buena Park, CA — Lincoln Drive-In (7)
• 1976-02-09 … Cerritos, CA — Los Cerritos Mall 4-plex (#1: 7 [15]) [moveover from Mall Twin]
• 1976-02-09 … Cerritos, CA — Los Cerritos Mall 4-plex (#2: 7)
• 1977-02-09 … Columbia, MO — Uptown
• 1977-02-09 … Covina, CA — Fox Triplex (18)
• 1977-02-09 … Dayton, OH — Washington Square
• 1977-02-09 … Dubuque, IA — Cinema Center Triplex (18)
• 1977-02-09 … Erie, PA — Strand
• 1977-02-09 … Inglewood, CA — Century 2-Screen Drive-In (3)
• 1977-02-09 … Johnstown, PA — Act Twin
• 1977-02-09 … La Mirada, CA — La Mirada 4-plex (13)
• 1977-02-09 … Landover, MD — Landover 6-plex (#1: 16)
• 1977-02-09 … Landover, MD — Landover 6-plex (#2: 6)
• 1977-02-09 … Laurel, MD — Laurel Twin (12)
• 1977-02-09 … Lawrence, KS — Varsity (5)
• 1977-02-09 … Long Beach, CA — Long Beach Drive-In (7)
• 1977-02-09 … Los Angeles (Del Rey), CA — Marina Marketplace 4-plex (23)
• 1977-02-09 … Los Angeles (Van Nuys), CA — Sepulveda Drive-In (7)
• 1977-02-09 … Los Angeles (Woodland Hills), CA — Topanga Twin (10)
• 1977-02-09 … Manhattan, KS — Campus (5)
• 1977-02-09 … Milan, IL — Showcase 6-plex (18)
• 1977-02-09 … Okemos, MI — Meridian Mall 4-plex (#1: 26)
• 1977-02-09 … Okemos, MI — Meridian Mall 4-plex (#2: 13)
• 1977-02-09 … Old Town, ME — University Twin (15)
• 1977-02-09 … Oxnard, CA — Sky View Drive-In (3)
• 1977-02-09 … Oxon Hill, MD — Oxon Hill (14)
• 1977-02-09 … Riverside, CA — Tyler Mall 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-09 … Rockville, MD — Randolph Twin (#1: 20)
• 1977-02-09 … Rockville, MD — Randolph Twin (#2: 20)
• 1977-02-09 … St. Joseph, MO — Hillcrest 4-plex (15)
• 1977-02-09 … Santa Fe Springs, CA — La Mirada Drive-In (4)
• 1977-02-09 … Seattle, WA — Town (36)
• 1977-02-09 … Spokane, WA — Garland (18)
• 1977-02-09 … Springfield, MO — Petite Triplex
• 1977-02-09 … Tacoma, WA — Tacoma Mall Twin
• 1977-02-09 … Trotwood, OH — Salem Mall 4-plex
• 1977-02-09 … Ventura, CA — Ventura (11)
• 1977-02-09 … Washington, DC — Lincoln Twin (6)

• 1977-02-10 … Carbondale, IL — Varsity Twin (13)
• 1977-02-10 … Champaign, IL — Co-Ed Twin
• 1977-02-10 … Springfield, IL — Esquire Triplex (20)

• 1977-02-11 … Altamonte Springs, FL — Altamonte Mall Twin (17)
• 1977-02-11 … Augusta, GA — Masters 4-plex (12)
• 1977-02-11 … Bradenton, FL — Cortez Plaza Twin
• 1977-02-11 … Calgary, AB — Chinook (18)
• 1977-02-11 … Clearwater, FL — Clearwater 4-plex (21)
• 1977-02-11 … Corpus Christi, TX — Cine 4-plex (18)
• 1977-02-11 … Daytona Beach, FL — Bellair Plaza Twin (12)
• 1977-02-11 … Daytona Beach, FL — Sunshine Mall Twin (12)
• 1977-02-11 … Decatur, IL — Northgate Mall Twin (11)
• 1977-02-11 … Edmonton, AB — Capitol Square 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-11 … El Paso, TX — Morningside Mall Twin (19)
• 1977-02-11 … Fayetteville, NC — King Twin (17)
• 1977-02-11 … Fort Myers, FL — South Trail Twin (7)
• 1977-02-11 … Gulfport, MS — Hardy Court Twin (3)
• 1977-02-11 … Hamilton, ON — Century
• 1977-02-11 … Huntsville, AL — Lyric
• 1977-02-11 … Lakeland, FL — Polk (3)
• 1977-02-11 … Lincoln, NE — Douglas Triplex (20)
• 1977-02-11 … London, ON — Century Twin (14)
• 1977-02-11 … Merritt Island, FL — Merritt Square 6-plex (17)
• 1977-02-11 … Mississauga, ON — Square One 4-plex
• 1977-02-11 … North Palm Beach, FL — Twin City Mall Twin (11)
• 1977-02-11 … North York, ON — Sheridan Mall Twin
• 1977-02-11 … North York, ON — Town & Countrye Twin
• 1977-02-11 … Ocala, FL — Ocala Twin (5)
• 1977-02-11 … Orlando, FL — Orange Blossom Twin (12)
• 1977-02-11 … Orlando, FL — Plaza Twin (18)
• 1977-02-11 … Raleigh, NC — Valley Twin (7)
• 1977-02-11 … Regina, SK — Capitol Twin
• 1977-02-11 … Roanoke, VA — Tanglewood Mall Triplex
• 1977-02-11 … St. Petersburg, FL — Crossroads Twin (18)
• 1977-02-11 … Salina, KS — Sunset Plaza Twin (7)
• 1977-02-11 … Sarasota, FL — Gulf Gate Twin (14)
• 1977-02-11 … Satellite Beach, FL — Satellite (7)
• 1977-02-11 … Scarborough, ON — Cedarbrae 4-plex
• 1977-02-11 … Tampa, FL — Tampa Bay Mall Twin
• 1977-02-11 … Tampa, FL — Varsity 6-plex
• 1977-02-11 … Waukegan, IL — Belvidere Mall
• 1977-02-11 … Winnipeg, MB — Capitol (20)

• 1977-02-16 … Albany, NY — Hellman (6)
• 1977-02-16 … Altoona, PA — Logan Valley Mall 4-plex (13)
• 1977-02-16 … Annapolis, MD — Playhouse (11)
• 1977-02-16 … Austin, TX — Americana (17)
• 1977-02-16 … Baltimore, MD — Carlton (17)
• 1977-02-16 … Baltimore, MD — Charles (11)
• 1977-02-16 … Billings, MT — Rimrock 4-plex
• 1977-02-16 … Butte, MT — Plaza Twin (9)
• 1977-02-16 … Colorado Springs, CO — Cinema 70 Triplex (18)
• 1977-02-16 … Columbia, MD — Columbia City Twin (14)
• 1977-02-16 … Connellsville, PA — Laurel Mall (7)
• 1977-02-16 … Hagerstown, MD — Long Meadow Twin (12)
• 1977-02-16 … Lexington, KY — Chevy Chase (11)
• 1977-02-16 … Manchester, NH — Brandt Studio Twin (10)
• 1977-02-16 … Morgantown, WV — Met (11)
• 1977-02-16 … Oklahoma City, OK — Continental (17)
• 1977-02-16 … Pasadena, MD — Jumpers Mall Triplex (19)
• 1977-02-16 … Pittsfield, MA — Paris (12)
• 1977-02-16 … Pocatello, ID — Starlite Triplex (11)
• 1977-02-16 … Scranton, PA — Strand (14)
• 1977-02-16 … Stroudsburg, PA — Sherman Twin (5)
• 1977-02-16 … Tulsa, OK — Continental (17)
• 1977-02-16 … Twin Falls, ID — Twin Triplex (10)
• 1977-02-16 … Wichita Falls, TX — Parker Square Twin (3)
• 1977-02-16 … York, PA — Delco Plaza Triplex (12)

• 1977-02-17 … Iowa City, IA — Englert (9)

• 1977-02-18 … Abilene, TX — Westwood (5)
• 1977-02-18 … Amarillo, TX — Western Square Twin (14)
• 1977-02-18 … Bloomington, MN — Southtown (18)
• 1977-02-18 … Brooklyn Center, MN — Brookdale
• 1977-02-18 … Charlottesville, VA — University
• 1977-02-18 … Fayetteville, AR — Mall Twin (17)
• 1977-02-18 … Greeley, CO — Wilshire Twin (11)
• 1977-02-18 … Greensboro, NC — Janus 7-plex (30)
• 1977-02-18 … Kenosha, WI — Lake Twin (10)
• 1977-02-18 … Kitchener, ON — Lyric (11)
• 1977-02-18 … La Crosse, WI — Cinema Twin (10)
• 1977-02-18 … Lebanon, PA — Trans-Lux Twin (11)
• 1977-02-18 … Lubbock, TX — Winchester (21)
• 1977-02-18 … Memphis, TN — Malco 4-plex
• 1977-02-18 … Memphis, TN — Southbrook 4-plex
• 1977-02-18 … Oshkosh, WI — Time (10)
• 1977-02-18 … Racine, WI — Capitol Twin (12)
• 1977-02-18 … Roseville, MN — Har-Mar Twin
• 1977-02-18 … Waco, TX — 25th Street
• 1977-02-18 … Winston-Salem, NC — Parkway Plaza (10)

• 1977-02-23 … Akron, OH — Akron Square 6-plex (20)
• 1977-02-23 … Bennington, VT — Cinema Twin (9)
• 1977-02-23 … Canton, OH — McKinley Twin (18)
• 1977-02-23 … Cleveland, OH — Embassy (3)
• 1977-02-23 … Cleveland, OH — Richmond (16)
• 1977-02-23 … Cleveland, OH — Riverside (16)
• 1977-02-23 … Cleveland, OH — Show Place (16)
• 1977-02-23 … Cuyahoga Falls, OH — State Twin (14)
• 1977-02-23 … Elyria, OH — Midway Twin (10)
• 1977-02-23 … Indiana, PA — Manos (5)
• 1977-02-23 … Jefferson City, MO — Ramada 4-plex (10)
• 1977-02-23 … Lima, OH — Ohio (8)
• 1977-02-23 … Mansfield, OH — Cinema World 4-plex (17)
• 1977-02-23 … North Olmsted, OH — Great Northern (20)
• 1977-02-23 … Northfield, OH — Northfield Plaza Twin (16)
• 1977-02-23 … Parma, OH — Parmatown Triplex (20)
• 1977-02-23 … Queensbury, NY — Route 9 Triplex
• 1977-02-23 … State College, PA — Garden (5)
• 1977-02-23 … Steubenville, OH — Hollywood Plaza (13)
• 1977-02-23 … Washington, PA — Cinema 19 Twin (12)
• 1977-02-23 … Waterville, ME — Cinema Center 4-plex (9)

• 1977-02-25 … Arlington, TX — Forum 6-plex (18)
• 1977-02-25 … Benton Harbor, MI — Fairplain Twin (9)
• 1977-02-25 … Bloomington, IN — College Mall Triplex
• 1977-02-25 … College Station, TX — University Square Twin (5)
• 1977-02-25 … Evansville, IN — Carrols Twin (13)
• 1977-02-25 … Evansville, IN — Washington Square Twin (16)
• 1977-02-25 … Fargo, ND — Fargo
• 1977-02-25 … Fond du Lac, WI — Retlaw (10)
• 1977-02-25 … Fort Worth, TX — Wedgwood Twin
• 1977-02-25 … Great Falls, MT — Fox (5)
• 1977-02-25 … Indianapolis, IN — Lafayette Square 4-plex (22)
• 1977-02-25 … Indianapolis, IN — Norgate Twin (18)
• 1977-02-25 … Indianapolis, IN — Washington Square Twin (17)
• 1977-02-25 … Joliet, IL — Jefferson Square Triplex
• 1977-02-25 … Lafayette, IN — Market Square Twin (#1)
• 1977-02-25 … Lafayette, IN — Market Square Twin (#2)
• 1977-02-25 … Lethbridge, AB — Paramount Twin (9)
• 1977-02-25 … Mishawaka, IN — Town & Country Twin
• 1977-02-25 … Mobile, AL — Airport Twin (16)
• 1977-02-25 … Orem, UT — University Twin (14)
• 1977-02-25 … St. Catharines, ON — Pendale Mall Twin
• 1977-02-25 … San Antonio, TX — Laurel (22)
• 1977-02-25 … Sheboygan, WI — Stage Door (8)
• 1977-02-25 … Sioux Falls, SD — State (14)
• 1977-02-25 … Tallahassee, FL — Tallahassee Mall Twin
• 1977-02-25 … Vienna, WV — Grand Central Twin

• 1977-03-02 … Cape Girardeau, MO — Esquire (6)
• 1977-03-02 … Grand Rapids, MI — Alpine Twin
• 1977-03-02 … Groton, CT — Groton Plaza Twin (12)
• 1977-03-02 … Marysville, MI — Playhouse Twin (9)
• 1977-03-02 … Riverdale, UT — Cinedome 70 Twin (15)
• 1977-03-02 … Richmond Heights, MO — Esquire (19)
• 1977-03-02 … Tuscaloosa, AL — Capri (9)

• 1977-03-03 … Ames, IA — Ames
• 1977-03-03 … Terre Haute, IN — Indiana (7)

• 1977-03-04 … Alexandria, LA — Alexandria Mall Twin (9)
• 1977-03-04 … Asheville, NC — Biltmore Twin (15)
• 1977-03-04 … Chapel Hill, NC — Plaza Triplex (10)
• 1977-03-04 … Columbia, SC — Richland Mall Twin (17)
• 1977-03-04 … DeKalb, IL — Campus Triplex (13)
• 1977-03-04 … Durham, NC — Northgate Twin (10)
• 1977-03-04 … Fort Wayne, IN — Gateway Triplex
• 1977-03-04 … Fort Wayne, IN — Southtown Mall Twin
• 1977-03-04 … Greenville, SC — Camelot Twin (14)
• 1977-03-04 … Kokomo, IN— Kokomo Mall Triplex (9)
• 1977-03-04 … Missoula, MT — Fox
• 1977-03-04 … Niles, OH — Eastwood Twin (13)
• 1977-03-04 … Santa Fe, NM — Coronado Twin (10)
• 1977-03-04 … Sioux City, IA — Plaza Twin
• 1977-03-04 … Spartanburg, SC — WestGate Twin (11)
• 1977-03-04 … Youngstown, OH — Liberty Plaza (13)

• 1977-03-09 … Alamogordo, NM — Sands (2)
• 1977-03-09 … Eau Claire, WI — London Square Twin (13)
• 1977-03-09 … Midland, TX — Westwood (6)

• 1977-03-11 … Anderson, IN— Mounds (9)
• 1977-03-11 … Gadsden, AL— Cinema Twin (6)
• 1977-03-11 … St. Cloud, MN — Paramount (8)
• 1977-03-11 … Saskatoon, SK — Midtown Twin (11)

• 1977-03-16 … Augusta, ME — Turnpike Mall Triplex (6)
• 1977-03-16 … Fredericksburg, VA — Virginians Twin (8)
• 1977-03-16 … Joplin, MO — Eastgate Triplex (12)

• 1977-03-17 … Cedar Falls, IA — College Square Twin (13)

• 1977-03-18 … Boise, ID — FairVu
• 1977-03-18 … Charleston, WV — Plaza East Twin (13)
• 1977-03-18 … Halifax, NS — Paramount Twin (10)
• 1977-03-18 … Huntington, WV — Camelot
• 1977-03-18 … Lafayette, LA — Westwood (11)
• 1977-03-18 … Norman, OK — Cinema East
• 1977-03-18 … St. John’s, NL — Avalon Mall 4-plex (7)
• 1977-03-18 … Sikeston, MO — Mall (5)
• 1977-03-18 … Sudbury, ON — City Centre Triplex
• 1977-03-18 … Vancouver, BC — Capitol 6-plex (19)

[On to Page 4]

[Back to Page 3]

• 1977-03-23 … Helena, MT — Circus Twin (4)

• 1977-03-24 … Victoria, BC — Capitol (10)

• 1977-03-25 … Brownsville, TX — North Park Plaza Twin (4)
• 1977-03-25 … Harlingen, TX — Morgan Plaza Twin (4)
• 1977-03-25 … High Point, NC — Martin Twin (4)
• 1977-03-25 … Lawton, OK — Video Twin (8)
• 1977-03-25 … Naples, FL — Kon Tiki (4)
• 1977-03-25 … Port Arthur, TX — Park Plaza Twin (6)

• 1977-03-26 … Myrtle Beach, SC — Rivoli (9)

• 1977-03-30 … Beaverton, OR — Westgate Triplex (10)
• 1977-03-30 … Flagstaff, AZ — Flag East (4)
• 1977-03-30 … Gallup, NM — Aztec Twin (8)
• 1977-03-30 … Hazleton, PA — Hersker (6)
• 1977-03-30 … Highland, CA — Baseline Drive-In (4)
• 1977-03-30 … Kalispell, MT — Liberty (2)
• 1977-03-30 … Lancaster, CA — Antelope (4)
• 1977-03-30 … Leavenworth, KS — Landing 4-plex (4)
• 1977-03-30 … San Bernardino, CA — Central City Mall 4-plex (17)
• 1977-03-30 … Santa Maria, CA — United Artists Triplex (12)
• 1977-03-30 … Yuma, AZ — Plaza Twin (7)

• 1977-04-01 … Albany, GA — Mall Twin
• 1977-04-01 … Cerritos, CA — Los Cerritos Mall Twin (7 [22]) [moveover from Mall 4-plex]
• 1977-04-01 … Denton, TX — Fine Arts (4)
• 1977-04-01 … Latham, NY — Towne (10)
• 1977-04-01 … Melbourne, FL — NASA (5)
• 1977-04-01 … Panama City, FL — Florida Triplex (9)
• 1977-04-01 … Rochester, MN — Northbrook Twin
• 1977-04-01 … San Jose, CA — Century 22 Triplex (10 [25]) [moveover from Century 21]
• 1977-04-01 … Wilmington, NC — Oleander Twin (7)

• 1977-04-07 … Portland, OR — Rose Moyer 6-plex (17)

• 1977-04-08 … Charleston, SC — Pinehaven Twin (12)

• 1977-04-15 … Green Bay, WI — Bay (10)
• 1977-04-15 … South Lake Tahoe, CA — Stateline
• 1977-04-15 … Victoria, TX — Uptown (3)

• 1977-04-20 … Saugus, CA — Mustang Drive-In (2)

• 1977-04-22 … Danville, VA — Park (4)
• 1977-04-22 … Galveston, TX — Galvez Plaza Triplex (6)
• 1977-04-22 … Texas City, TX — Tradewinds Twin (1)

• 1977-04-27 … Lancaster, CA — Jet Drive-In (2)

• 1977-04-29 … Florence, SC — Crown (4)
• 1977-04-29 … Las Cruces, NM — Video Twin (3)
• 1977-04-29 … Loveland, CO — Orchards Twin (6)
• 1977-04-29 … Stevens Point, WI — Campus (4)

• 1977-05-04 … Milwaukie, OR — Southgate 4-plex (6)

• 1977-05-06 … Battle Creek, MI — Bijou (5)
• 1977-05-06 … Flint, MI — Flint

• 1977-05-11 … Barstow, CA — Barstow Twin (2)
• 1977-05-11 … Lancaster, CA — Lancaster 3-Screen Drive-In (2)
• 1977-05-11 … Victorville, CA — El Rancho Twin (2)

• 1977-05-13 … Anniston, AL — Cheaha Twin (2)

• 1977-05-18 … Eureka, CA — State Triplex (10)
• 1977-05-18 … Ocean City, NJ — Village

• 1977-05-20 … Waycross, GA — Cinema Twin

• 1977-05-25 … Barstow, CA — Skyline Drive-In (1)
• 1977-05-25 … Palmdale, CA — Palace (1)
• 1977-05-25 … Victorville, CA — Joshua Drive-In (1)

• 1977-05-27 … Dartmouth, NS — Penhorn Mall Triplex (5)
• 1977-05-27 … Galesburg, IL — Orpheum (5)

• 1977-06-01 … California City, CA — Showcase (1)

• 1977-06-03 … Columbus, IN — Crump (3)

• 1977-06-10 … San Jose, CA — Century 25 Twin (10 [35]) [moveover from Century 22]

• 1977-06-24 … Traverse City, MI — State (6)

• 1977-06-29 … Anchorage, AK — Totem Triplex

• 1977-08-14 … Fairbanks, AK — Goldstream Twin (2)

THE Q&A

Leger Grindon is the author of Knockout: The Boxer and Boxing in American Cinema (University of Mississippi Press, 2011). He is a professor of film studies at Middlebury College in Vermont. His other books include The Hollywood Romantic Comedy: Conventions, History, Controversies (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011) and Shadows on the Past: Studies in the Historical Fiction Film (Temple University Press, 1994). Leger is currently writing a book on contemporary documentary film.

Edward Gross is the author of Rocky: The Ultimate Guide (DK, 2006). He is a veteran entertainment journalist who has been on the editorial staff of a wide variety of magazines, among them CFQ, Cinescape, Geek, Life Story, Movie Magic, Sci Fi Now, SFX, and Starlog. His other books include (with Mark A. Altman) The Fifty-Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek (St. Martin’s, 2016), Above & Below: The Unofficial 25th Anniversary Beauty and the Beast Companion (BearManor Media, 2012) and (with Joe Russo and Larry Landsman) Planet of the Apes Revisited (St. Martin’s, 2001). Currently Edward serves as Executive Editor of Empire Magazine’s empireonline.com/us.

Eric Lichtenfeld is the author of I, of the Tiger, an in-depth study of the Rocky series published in The Ultimate Stallone Reader: Sylvester Stallone as Star, Icon, Auteur (edited by Chris Holmlund, Wallflower, 2014). He has taught or spoken about film at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the American Cinematheque, Loyola Marymount University, UCLA, Wesleyan University, and the Harvard School of Law. His other book is Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie (Wesleyan, 2007).

Cliff Stephenson is the producer of Sylvester Stallone: A Director in Action (which is featured on The Expendables: Extended Director’s Cut). He is the owner of Off the Cliff Productions and has produced Value Added Material for numerous DVD and Blu-ray releases, including The Hunger Games, Rambo (2008) and the Hannibal television series.

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

--- 

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Rocky worthy of celebration on its 40th anniversary?

Leger Grindon: Rocky has had a significant impact on contemporary Hollywood in 1976 and beyond. The success of Creed last year with a worldwide theatrical box office of over $170 million on a budget of $35 million is a testimony to its continuing drawing power. Rocky remains one of the most significant “sleeper” hits in modern Hollywood. On a budget of about a million dollars and a fairly simple plot the film won lavish critical praise and established a long series of big commercial hits. Low budget, independent filmmakers have been looking to Rocky as an example of a film that doesn’t need a big budget, glamorous stars or special effects to make an impact on an audience. The recent release, Bleed for This, is yet another low budget child of Rocky…. Rocky is a film that addresses the sensibility of the frustrated, embattled white working class man and woman who only a few weeks ago made Donald Trump President. Paulie is an important character in developing this vision of working class life. In that sense it still speaks vividly to the conflicts and tensions in today’s America.

Edward Gross: When you think of enduring franchises, usually it’s things like James Bond, Star Wars, Star Trek. But a low budget movie about a boxer looking for his shot in life? And which remains so relevant all these decades later, even being reborn in the form of Creed? How is something like that not worthy of celebration? The story of Rocky touched audiences four decades ago and continues to do so today. 

Eric Lichtenfeld: Rocky deserves to be celebrated first because of how it’s always made people feel: capable and empowered. Then there’s the fact that it’s also a cultural landmark. Rocky gave us the fanfare, the song, and the proper use of the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s front steps — and for better or worse, the sequels. Rocky is a classic in its own right, but it’s also the cornerstone of a franchise that helped define an important period in American culture, a period that formed many of the film people I know.

Cliff Stephenson: Rocky, on so many levels, is iconic. It’s transcended being just a movie and has become part of the fabric of our culture. Whether it’s lines from the movie or the Bill Conti themes, even if people have never seen Rocky, they know Rocky. Not many films have left as deep a footprint or created so many ongoing ripples as Rocky has. The character has been a staple in our lives fairly consistently for 40 years. You don’t maintain that popularity consistently over 40 years unless you’ve created something very, very special. 

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing Rocky for the first time?

Grindon: I thought the film was rather old fashioned in its style and emotions compared to the many more innovative films during the 1970s, such as The Godfather, Nashville or Chinatown. I didn’t see it immediately after it opened, but went after it was receiving a lot of critical attention, maybe even after the Academy Award nominations for the year were announced. I thought the film’s emotional impact was effective and the ending brought the movie to a rousing conclusion. However, I was offended by the harsh treatment of blacks, the latent racism, in the film, especially when Rocky loses his locker to an up and coming African-American fighter or when the black newswoman interviews Rocky. Of course, Apollo Creed is a thinly veiled treatment of Muhammad Ali. Obviously the later films in the series attempt to back off from this.

Gross: I was sixteen years old when I saw Rocky for the first time. Really just getting started in life, and that movie genuinely made me believe that anything was possible if — as corny as it sounds — you believed in yourself. Now granted it’s not the same thing as stepping into a boxing ring, but 40 years later and I’m at a point where I have spent the vast majority of my life working as a professional entertainment journalist, continuing to live the dream I had as a teen. And as a side note, when Rocky Balboa was released in 2006, I was 46 years old, at a very different stage in my life, and damn it if that film didn’t inspire me as well to believe in the road ahead. 

Lichtenfeld: I first saw Rocky so long ago, at such a young age, and have seen it so many times since, that I don’t remember what that first time was like. I’m sure I only really appreciated the outlines of it: the underdog, David-and-Goliath aspects of it. It was later that I saw how much more there is to the movie than just those mythic qualities — in depth, but also in breadth.

Stephenson: I remember seeing Rocky II in 1979 before seeing the original. The original I eventually saw on cable in the early 80s. Remember, Rocky was released at the dawn of both the home video and cable TV era, so unless it was in a release there wasn’t a way to see it easily. So, for me, seeing Rocky for the first time didn’t have that emotional impact that I’m sure it had on those who were able to see it in its original run. 

Coate: How is Rocky significant as a sports movie?

Grindon: Boxing films have a long history of being the most successful of sports films and Rocky is a vivid case in point. I think it is partly because of the focus on the single boxer and the limited, but intense drama in the boxing ring. The boxer’s agony and overcoming suffering is a central issue that exercises a strange attraction in boxing films. Furthermore, there is a distinguished history to draw upon from both literature and the cinema. There would be on Rocky without On the Waterfront (1954) and no On the Waterfront without Golden Boy or Hemingway’s Fifty Grand.

Gross: I am not a sports guy at all, but for me the significance of Rocky is that it didn’t matter. The boxing, albeit a highlight of the film, wasn’t its driving, emotional force. It was the love story between Rocky and Adrian, and the journey of this guy who just wanted to prove he wasn’t another bum from the neighborhood. Truth be told, and I’m not sure if this is common or not, that film did turn me into a boxing fan.

Lichtenfeld: It’s certainly thought of as one of the great sports movies — but I’m not sure that it even is a “sports movie” per se. It actually has less to do with boxing than a person might expect. There isn’t even that much boxing in the final fight! To me, Rocky is more like a drama and a portrait of a place and time that wears the clothes of a sports movie. Rocky doesn’t even get the challenge from Apollo’s promoter until an hour into the movie. I think that alone is a big tip-off that this movie isn’t really about what it might seem to be about…. In fact, most of the movie’s first half is taken up with Rocky wandering around a socially and economically depressed Philadelphia. To me, that makes it a lot like the neorealist movies that came out of post-World War II Italy — movies that used loose plots, lots of actual locations, and often times, an unpolished visual style to create slices of life against a battered socioeconomic backdrop. So I think Rocky can be categorized just as much in those terms as it can be in terms of the sports film genre, as strange as that may sound.

Stephenson: The interesting thing is that I don’t consider Rocky a sports movie. It’s a drama where the main character happens to be a boxer. Stallone’s genius, and why the series works so well as a whole, is that Rocky’s success or failure has really nothing specific to do with a specific sport. The drive to “go the distance” could be placed against a backdrop of just about anything and still resonate with audiences. Rocky could have been a race car driver or a business man or a politician and the underlying theme of endurance and pushing to get the most out of yourself would remain the same. It’s just that sports represents the cleanest through-line of going the distance. It could be about a spelling bee. That’s the power of Rocky’s storytelling.

Coate: Where do you think Rocky ranks among John Avildsen’s body of work?

Grindon: I think most people would agree that Rocky is his most successful film, but the author of this film is Sylvester Stallone.

Gross: Right below Rocky V. Kidding! It’s the top of the list for me. Many of Avildsen’s films have a Capra-esque quality to them — we’ve also seen it in things like The Karate Kid and Lean on Me — and when they work, they genuinely connect with the audience. But none of them have worked and remained as relevant as Rocky. 

Lichtenfeld: I haven’t seen all of Avildsen’s movies, but the ones I have seen don’t match Rocky — though the better-known ones followed Rocky’s template to one degree or another. The Karate Kid is the best example, doing everything it sets out to do very well. I haven’t seen it in about a decade, but as recently as ten years ago, it seemed to hold up. And it obviously inherited a lot from Rocky. It just didn’t inherit everything. In all fairness, though, I don’t know if any movie could. Rocky is just a nearly perfect convergence of story, style, character, performance, place, and moment in time — even if it wasn’t Avildsen who was solely or even primarily driving that. Rocky is just one of those lightning-in-a-bottle movies.

Stephenson: You know, Avildsen is an interesting director in that I don’t think he left much of a wake behind him. He was responsible for directing what are arguably the best (Rocky) and worst (Rocky V) films in the series. If you take out the Karate Kid and Rocky films, I don’t think most film fans could name five other movies he directed. I don’t mean that as a slight on him, but simply to point out that most of the films he chose to helm throughout his career never connected in the way that the original Rocky or The Karate Kid did. I watched Karate Kid Part II again recently, and I was struck by how uninspired it is. I always remembered it being good, but that was obviously a feeling clouded by nostalgia. But I think that speaks to Avildsen’s career as a whole... uninspired except for these two very specific lightning strikes. Again, this all sounds incendiary toward Avildsen; most directors could only dream of having two such hits on their resume, but I think this is a case where Rocky gave as much (or more) to Avildsen than Avildsen gave to Rocky. His early filmography showed promise, but he seemed to drift after Rocky into a career that never really found itself again. What Avildsen really brought to Rocky was this gritty underdog spirit that sort of permeated his early work. I think Avildsen’s real legacy will be the genius casting and creation of the original Karate Kid, but I think Rocky will always belong to Stallone.

[On to Page 5]

[Back to Page 4]

Coate: Of all the roles Sylvester Stallone has played in his career, where does Rocky Balboa rank (and in particular his performance in the original movie)?

Grindon: Clearly this was his performance of a lifetime in a film in which he is more genuinely the author, as screenwriter, lead actor, and inspirational source, rather than Avildsen. And, of course, he takes the role into a whole series of sequels. But maybe, as Creed and Rocky demonstrate, Stallone gives his best performances when directed by another.

Gross: He may have made an impression with Rambo, but he left his mark with Rocky. His performance as Rocky in that first film was so strong that it immediately convinced pretty much everyone that that’s who Stallone was. Obviously not the case — let’s not forget he wrote all six films in the series and directed four of them. Relatively speaking it was “easy” for him to slip back into the part for the first four sequels, but look at the nuance of his performance in Rocky Balboa and, then, in Creed. How do you not come away from all of that with great respect for the man and his skills? 

Lichtenfeld: Rocky Balboa is Stallone’s greatest role, partly because it is (or became) his most personal. And his portrayal of Rocky in the original film is the best performance he ever gave or ever will. That’s because the character more than just the righteous underdog of the sequels. Again, most of Rocky is not about that. The movie — and Stallone’s performance in it — is really about a guy who wants to connect with people more than he knows how to, about someone who just wants other people to really see him. There’s a sweetness and a biting loneliness that are mixed together inside Rocky, and Stallone brings it all out…. And then there’s Stallone’s sniffling! It’s a subtle device, but it’s really effective at getting you to sense the coldness of late-fall Philadelphia. Don’t discount that. It’s always special when movies make you feel their weather.

Stephenson: Rocky is Stallone. If he did nothing else in his career, he’ll be remembered forever as Rocky Balboa. The interesting thing about Stallone is that he’s the only actor in history to portray the same character in films spanning five consecutive decades. Stallone was also smart in that Rocky’s journey is a mirror for Stallone’s — Rocky: Young, hungry up and comer looking to escape his struggles and make his mark. Rocky II: Trying to deal with newfound fame and success. Rocky III: Getting a bit too absorbed and lost in your own hype. Rocky IV: Becoming a global icon. Rocky V: Trying to recover from that global explosion and strip it back to basics. Rocky Balboa: Finding relevance in a world that’s moved beyond you. Creed: Passing the baton and grooming the next generation. If you look at the films, they’re really metaphors for Stallone’s life and career at those points. I truly believe that what you see in Rocky is a pretty accurate representation of who Stallone was through those films. The original film had the benefit of Stallone being a relative unknown and therefore free of the baggage he brought into the later films. But, again, that baggage is what helped shape those other films.

Coate: The year 1976 was arguably a very strong one for the film industry. Did Rocky deserve to win the Oscar for Best Picture? If yes, why? If not, which film do you believe was the best from 1976?

Grindon: I think Rocky was a deserving picture with a well-organized plot and excellent performances. It also touched audiences intensely. From the perspective of 40 years later its commercial success and enormous influence is obvious. In my experience teaching the film contemporary audiences still enjoy the film immensely. Personally I prefer Taxi Driver among the nominees for “Best Picture” that year, but Rocky was an excellent film.

Gross: At another time, maybe not. The competition included Taxi Driver, Network and All the President’s Men. It was a pretty dark time in America, possibly best represented that year by All the President’s Men and its subject matter. America needed an escape from reality; it needed to believe again and Rocky provided them the opportunity to do so.

Lichtenfeld: If you’re asking about Network (since that was the movie that was really slugging it out with Rocky at the Oscars), then I think Rocky definitely deserved it. They’re different movies — Network is mainly a subversive, satirical look at a societal ill; Rocky is about people in their environments and in their lives as they live them. Personally, I think Network strays beyond satire and into parody; it’s a less consistent movie, and I’m always struck by how much more I’m invested I am in the first half than the second. But with Rocky, I’m engaged in everything equally…. Taxi Driver could also have been a contender (so to speak). And with its own use of locations, a wandering main character, and a plot that doesn’t fully announce itself until relatively late, it has a lot in common with Rocky. So between Rocky and Taxi Driver, which one deserved the Oscar for Best Picture? That’s easy — whichever one I’ve seen more recently!

Stephenson: On one hand I say no. I could make the argument that all four of the other nominees that year were as good or better movies in the broader sense, but with the exception of Taxi Driver, none of those other films have endured anywhere close to the same degree that Rocky has. So is the Best Picture the one that strikes the zeitgeist in the moment or the one that resonates and leaves ripples of influence far beyond the awards season? If you consider the best picture the one we’re still talking about and celebrating its title character now 40 years later... I don’t know if there is a better picture than Rocky for that or most any year. 

Coate: Compare and contrast the original “Rocky” with its sequels and spin-offs.

Grindon: Rocky is by far the best of the series. Creed from last year was a surprisingly strong film and probably the runner up to the original Rocky from among the series.

Gross: Rocky gets the credit for being the original, by packing such power on a low budget and by the conviction of everyone in front of and behind the camera…. Rocky II deserves kudos for feeling like a natural continuation and next chapter in the character’s life, though the schmaltz factor went up a bit there with Adrian’s coma…. Rocky III began to enter cartoon territory, but what a glorious “cartoon” it was. Pure entertainment with some heart, and a solid story for the Italian Stallion as he has to rediscover who he was while dealing with the death of Mickey…. Rocky IV is full-blown cartoon, cut like an MTV video, and for the most part lacks the heart of its predecessors. It’s also a ridiculous (especially in hindsight) tool of propaganda. The Russians wrap the American flag around Rocky’s shoulders? C’mon!.... Rocky V — the second you hear that Paulie was given power of attorney, it’s over. There is zero credibility…. Rocky Balboa is a return to the qualities of the original, Stallone pretty much making you believe that Rocky could successfully take this one last shot. Or so we thought…. Creed, while branching off from the main franchise, manages to maintain and modernize the elements that worked so well in the original, while introducing audiences to a new character to identify with.

Lichtenfeld: I never saw Creed in its finished form, so it wouldn’t be fair for me to judge. As for the others, Rocky II is a surprisingly credible sequel. Sure, it’s more melodramatic than the original and it has a much flatter visual style. (I attribute the latter to Stallone, as director and star, wanting to make sure there’s no ambiguity about where the viewer’s eye should be.) But Rocky II is moving and funny and feels like a natural extension of what came before. It satisfies the most basic criterion I have for a sequel: that it tells a believable story about what happened next to these people…. Rocky III is a grotesque freakshow of racism, narcissism, and redemption fantasies. Luckily, there is nothing — absolutely nothing, not a single solitary thing — going on in America’s current political life that should make that feel at all familiar. I mean, Rocky III is a movie where the villain is made to embody the most vile clichés of the stereotypical savage black man, and wear the iconography of the stereotypical savage Indian. And then the white hero vanquishes him while essentially wearing the American flag. This is a movie that should be on Steve Bannon’s Top Ten, right under Schindler’s List (selected scenes)…. Rocky IV is Rocky IV, and always will be. If you were to put a movie in a time capsule that captured the mainstream filmmaking and pop-culture vogues of the mid-1980s, Rocky IV would be a great choice based on its politics, depictions of conspicuous consumerism and excess, heightened style, and threadbare story. (It takes something special to kick off three music video sequences within ten minutes or so, the first set to a song called Burning Heart and the last set to a song called Heart’s on Fire.) It’s actually a little bizarre how Rocky and Rocky IV are so utterly different yet fundamentally connected. The fact that they belong to the same series could support the theory of a multiverse…. Thinking of Rocky V makes me feel a little wistful, but not because of anything in the movie. It’s because I remember how striking it was in 1990 to see a Rocky movie fail to connect with the public, and how strange it was to feel like the times had left this institution behind. It was the first time I felt that something from my youth had become irrelevant in the world and was now suddenly anachronistic…. Rocky Balboa was a great comeback. It captured the original’s heart and intimacy and sense of place much more than most of the other sequels had. To put Rocky Balboa in context, it belongs to a rash of real reboots: franchises that Hollywood dusted off and/or re-envisioned. After James Bond and Rocky in late 2006, there would be Die Hard, Rambo, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, and even The X-Files, all within a few years. But Rocky Balboa was one of the first into the pool, and had to prove that it had credibility. Which it does. I loved seeing how Rocky Balboa won people back from their assumptions about how ridiculous it was going to be, and how ridiculous it was to have made it.

Stephenson: Rocky II carries all the same DNA as the original and it’s understandable that so many consider it a worthy sequel. It continues Rocky’s story while giving audiences the completely uplifting ending they were denied in the original. Rocky III is really the Mason/Dixon (coincidentally also a Rocky “villain”) line in the series. Rocky and Rocky II both have a small, almost indie dramatic spirit. Rocky III begins to diverge into the popcorn spectacles that they were for a while. You would be hard-pressed to find the connective dramatic tissue between the original film and Rocky IV, with its robots delivering birthday cakes and MTV score and editing. Well, that connective tissue is Rocky III. I talked to Stallone about Rocky III one afternoon and he acknowledged that there’s just something about why Rocky III works so well that he can’t quite explain. I can’t say it’s the best one, but it’s my favorite and if I had to choose only one to watch, it’d be Rocky III, although Rocky Balboa is up there as well. Rocky IV moves away from the dramatic tension contained in the first three to become a full-blown, kinetic, crowd-pleasing experience. It’s a 90-minute music video that is all sensory overload... it’s Montage: The Movie. Some people think Rocky IV is a bad movie. Wrong! It’s a great movie that does exactly what it sets out to do extremely well; it’s just not a great Rocky movie. In many ways it exists in its own universe. Rocky V is an ambitious misfire. It took risks that were admirable, but really misunderstood what audiences wanted. Watching Rocky go from rags to riches only to lose it all was angering for many (myself included). Audiences had traveled too far and invested too much emotion in Rocky Balboa only to see everything stripped away from him. It doesn’t help that the late Tommy Morrison wasn’t a very good actor and that Rocky doesn’t actually box in the film. A street fight set to hip hop is possibly even a bigger departure from the series than anything seen in Rocky IV. But... without Rocky V we don’t get Rocky Balboa and Rocky Balboa is the best, most pure Rocky since the original. This is Stallone hungry and ready to prove himself all over again. There’s a million reasons why Rocky Balboa shouldn’t work and Stallone doesn’t allow any of those to infest his film. Creed is perhaps the most intriguing because it’s not a story created by Stallone (the only instance of that). It’s pretty insane that Creed director Ryan Coogler had the balls to take a character and universe that wasn’t his and, not only want to expand it, but get the creator to go along as a tourist. The thing to know about Sly is that he’s not a passive figure. If you’re a director working with Stallone, you better have a concrete vision with purpose because he’ll eat you up if you don’t. If you’re a director and you know exactly what you want in the film, Sly respects and responds to that. The fact that Coogler even had the courage to push the idea at all was probably one of the things Stallone responded to most. At its core, Creed is just a loose remake of the original, but it’s done with such heart and respect that I think it surprised almost everyone with how great it is, myself included.

Coate: What is the legacy of Rocky?

Grindon: Rocky has a rich legacy and certainly no boxing film can be made without looking over its shoulder to Rocky. Even Raging Bull (1980), in my view the greatest of all boxing films, is a reaction to Rocky, the antithesis to the Rocky thesis. There is also the legacy of the low budget, breakthrough “sleeper” hit that Rocky represents. It is a comeback movie, a comeback against the expensive film extravaganza that continues to dominate Hollywood. So that is an important part of its legacy as well. For more of my thoughts on Rocky, see pages 215 to 225 in my book, Knockout: The Boxer and Boxing in American Cinema.

Gross: Its inspirational quality. Whether you want to go the distance, gain the eye of the tiger, or prove that it ain’t about how hard you hit, it’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, it’s a message that has spanned 40 years and will likely keep on going.

Lichtenfeld: One part of its legacy is all the people it’s inspired. Just think of the ritual of running up those art museum steps. Rocky came out during the centennial year of the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s original charter, but, arguably, what Rocky has made people feel made the steps into an even greater institution…. Another big part of its legacy is Sylvester Stallone, just as a big part of his legacy will always be Rocky. The movie may be the ultimate fusion of star, character, and persona — especially considering how Stallone wrote all of the movies and directed most of them…. The legacy of Rocky is also its status as the ultimate underdog story, which is a little ironic since it’s also much more than that. That’s why I think one more part of Rocky’s legacy is — or should be — how it marked a transition between the New Hollywood movies of the 1960s and ‘70s and Star Wars. Star Wars is often seen as “redeeming” the ambiguity, ambivalence, and genre-bending of the New Hollywood movement for mass audiences ready to simply escape and feel good. Rocky has the angst of the former and sends you out of the theater with a feeling of triumph and exultation like the latter. But even Rocky’s triumph is not uncomplicated or pure…. So in a way, I think the legacy of the original Rocky is a lot like the character himself: inherently great but still not often seen for all it really is.

Stephenson: We talk about legacy in terms of “what will this leave behind” but in the case of Rocky, it feels so present still that I don’t even know that legacy is the right word. It’s sort of like Star Wars in that it’s ultimately ascended above legacy to iconography. It isn’t this thing that “was”... it’s just this thing that “is.” Legacy feels like something we remember, but Rocky is still on-going. There’s only been a handful of films throughout the medium that have achieved that level of total icon status. Commercials use the theme to this day. “Yo Adrian” needs no explanation. It joins a short list of films including Psycho, Jaws, Star Wars, Wizard of Oz, The Exorcist, The Godfather, 2001, and a few others that are on a different plane. It sounds silly to position Rocky up against those other titles, until you really stop and think about how ingrained in our society Rocky really is. I don’t even think about it in terms of pop culture, but simply the culture at large…. But I think the real legacy of Rocky is Sylvester Stallone. If Rocky never hit or if Stallone had been tempted by the bigger paycheck he was offered to not star, I think the movies throughout the 80s, 90s, and 2000s would look very different. 

Coate: Thank you — Leger, Edward, Eric, and Cliff — for participating and sharing your thoughts on Rocky on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

Primary references for this project included promotional material published in numerous daily newspapers archived digitally and/or on microfilm plus articles published in film industry trade publications Billboard, Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety, and the books Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History by Sheldon Hall and Steve Neale (Wayne State University Press, 2010), George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success edited by Alex Ben Block and Lucy Autrey Wilson (George Lucas Books/HarperCollins, 2010), and The Hollywood Reporter Book of Box Office Hits by Susan Sackett (Billboard, 1996),

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

SPECIAL THANKS

Jerry Alexander, Al Alvarez, Jim Barg, Don Beelik, Deb Bier, Laura Blair, Timothy Bulger, Raymond Caple, John Cork, Bill Cronauer, Beth Curran, Kimberly Diebolt, Nick DiMaggio, Heather R. Edwards, Lunden England, Laura Fazekas, Leger Grindon, Edward Gross, Christine Hadlow, Wendy Hall, Kathy Harger, Khalilah Hayes, John Hazelton, Blaine Holloway, Thomas Hutchens, William Inge, Bill Kretzel, Ronald A. Lee, Mark Lensenmayer, Eric Lichtenfeld, Sam Lollar, Stan Malone, Andrew Miller, Alexis Neapolitan, Gabriel Neeb, Tim O’Neill, Edwina Parks, Kristi Robb, Desiree Sharland, Daniel Sheahan, Grant Smith, Tim Spindle, Cliff Stephenson, John Stewart, John Tegel, Mike Thomason, Shannon Tippit, Robert Tucker, Kat Stone Underwood, Troy Valos, Jessica Wakefield, Vince Young, Kellyn Younggren; and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project, and to the California State Library and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Margaret Herrick Library and Fairbanks Center for Motion Picture Study.

SELECTED IMAGES

Copyright/courtesy 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, CBS-Fox Home Video, MGM Home Entertainment, United Artists Corporation. Home-video cover-art collage designed by Cliff Stephenson.

IN MEMORIAM

• Harry W. Tetrick (Sound), 1911-1977
• David Thayer (“Jergens”), 1927-1978
• Butkus Stallone (“Rocky’s Dog”), 1969-1981
• Bill Baldwin (“Fight Announcer”), 1913-1982
• James Crabe (Director of Photography), 1931-1989
• Joe Spinell (“Gazzo”), 1936-1989
• Burgess Meredith (“Mickey”), 1907-1997
• Stu Nahan (“Fight Commentator”), 1926-2007
• William L. McCaughey (Sound), 1929-2000
• Lyle J. Burbridge (Sound), 1922-2006
• Frank Stallone (“Timekeeper”), 1919-2011
• Joe Frazier (himself), 1944-2011
• Bert Schoenfeld (Post-Production Sound), 1920-2013
• B. Eugene Ashbrook (Sound Mixer), 19??-2014
• Robert Chartoff (Producer), 1933-2015
• Tony Burton (“Apollo’s Trainer”), 1937-2016
• Ray Alba (Post-Production Sound), 1926-2016

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

The participants (in alphabetical order)…

Jon Burlingame is the author of The Music of James Bond (Oxford University Press, 2012). He also authored Sound and Vision: 60 Years of Motion Picture Soundtracks (Watson-Guptill, 2000) and TV’s Biggest Hits: The Story of Television Themes from Dragnet to Friends (Schirmer, 1996). He writes regularly for the entertainment industry trade Variety and has also been published in The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He started writing about spy music for the 1970s fanzine File Forty and has since produced seven CDs of original music from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. for the Film Score Monthly label. His website is www.jonburlingame.com.

John Cork is the author (with Collin Stutz) of James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007) and (with Bruce Scivally) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002) and (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek. He recently wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman); the film is available on iTunes, Google Play and other streaming platforms.

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies, a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001), and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.” 

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), and Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 2015). As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He is Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course) and cueing up the soundtrack album to Diamonds Are Forever, and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Diamonds Are Forever worthy of celebration on its 45th anniversary?

Jon Burlingame: Oh, there are so many reasons. First, it marked the unexpected comeback of Sean Connery to the role of 007. He left on such unpleasant terms after You Only Live Twice that I think we were all surprised to see him again. Second, it was the first Bond film to be set largely in the United States. Third, it has one of the greatest Bond scores ever — and very possibly the greatest Bond song ever, sung by our Goldfinger diva Shirley Bassey, making her second appearance in a Bond film.

John Cork: Diamonds Are Forever is the great creative collaboration of four wonderful men who will never give us another film to enjoy: Guy Hamilton, Tom Mankiewicz, John Barry and Ken Adam. Each of these absolutely brilliant creators made films that are completely worthy to see on their own, but Diamonds melded their wit, their artistry, their elegance and their skills into a uniquely joyous brew. From “C-C-C-Cairo” to “Mouton Rothschild is a claret,” the film makes viewers smile. It is exactly the kind of film that Cubby Broccoli loved to produce: handsome men, beautiful women, tension, laughs, lavish sets, exotic locations, wonderful music and an ending that had viewers leaving the cinemas with a bounce in their step. The remarkable part of that is, Cubby didn’t set the tone of Diamonds. That was the work of UA’s David Picker.

Bill Desowitz: Diamonds Are Forever is noteworthy for two reasons: It marked Sean Connery’s last official appearance as Bond and tipped the franchise in a lighter, kitschy direction in the‘70s, which anticipates the Roger Moore era. If you don’t compare it to the first three Connery films, it’s actually a fun ride. Connery enjoys camping it up but still has the presence to pull it off. At the same time, his Bond is actually more assertive. Guy Hamilton was back and newbie screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz added the sharp wit, which even extended to the action (the Moon buggy and Vegas chases are pretty over the top). Blofeld is campy fun and Wint and Kidd are a hoot as the franchise’s first gay couple. It wasn’t From Russia with Love, but it was Connery saying goodbye with tongue very much in cheek.

Lee Pfeiffer: The film is worthy of commemoration primarily because it marked Sean Connery’s return to the role after having quit the series four years earlier. It’s worth commemorating, for better or worse, the fact that it was with this film that overt humor would became a part of the series for decades to come. 

Bruce Scivally: Diamonds Are Forever, is a middling Bond — not the worst of the series, certainly not the best, but with enough enjoyable moments to make for pleasant viewing. As the first James Bond film of the 1970s, it set the course for the Bond films of the 1970s — lighter, breezier, driven more by “set piece” action stunts than tight plotting, and deliberately seeking to give audiences a good time. The‘70s was not a decade when James Bond films took chances. It was a decade that began with scaled-back cost-cutting of the Bond films, and ended with two of the most extravagant entries in the series. After the much more Fleming-esque On Her Majesty’s Secret Service capped off the 1960s as a box-office disappointment, the Bond producers reinvented Bond for the 1970s as more of a cartoon character, a live-action Road Runner cartoon, with only passing nods to the Ian Fleming source material. While other films of the early to mid-1970s took chances, providing some of the greatest films of all time, the Bond series played it safe, content to merely be entertaining. It was a strategy that kept Bond popular, if not relevant, through the Watergate era and beyond.

Coate: Describe what it was like seeing Diamonds Are Forever for the first time?

Burlingame: I was in college at the time, so undoubtedly it was with my dorm buddies (which inevitably meant a lot of lecherous comments about Jill St. John, Lana Wood and the “Bambi & Thumper” girls). We were all Bond fans and I was already a John Barry nut. My memory is that we were all glad to see Connery back but did not feel that it ranked among the stronger entries like Goldfinger, Thunderball and From Russia with Love. But any Bond film was great to us in those days. There was nothing else like it in theaters — the action, the suspense, the humor, the series remained unique in cinema entertainment. And, of course, I could not wait to get hold of the LP in order to savor not only that memorable title song but also some of John Barry’s powerful score.

Cork: I saw Diamonds Are Forever in Montgomery, Alabama, in either late-December 1971 or early 1972. I went with my grandparents. I enjoyed it, but I was not hooked as a James Bond fan. The plot (such that it is) still makes virtually no sense, and I think that I was lost early on. It was not a film that stayed in my mind, probably because few of my friends saw it so it was not a movie that we discussed. The next time I saw it was when it premiered on U.S. television on September 12th, 1975. By then I was a huge Bond fan. I was so enraptured that during a late commercial break, I ran and got my cassette recorder and taped the audio of the end of movie. I used to listen to the dialog over and over. The recording began, appropriately enough with Blofeld ejecting a cassette and uttering, “I do so hate martial music.”

Desowitz: The first viewing was actually my first Bond experience at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood. And it was very memorable. It was an early afternoon screening and the second of the day. As much as I liked On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, it was great seeing Connery return to battle Blofeld. It was packed and everyone had a good time, though, again, it was a far cry from Connery in his prime.

Pfeiffer: I saw it on opening day, the first show after I got out of high school class (I was a sophomore at the time). My friends and I were quite thrilled to see Connery returning as Bond. We had all been highly impressed with the previous film On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and with George Lazenby, as well. The disappointment we felt when it was announced he was leaving the series after only one film was offset when I heard a TV report by gossip columnist Rona Barrett that Connery was to come back to the role of 007. There was enormous interest in the film and quite a bit of coverage leading up to the final release date. 

Scivally: The first time I saw Diamonds Are Forever is when it was first broadcast on ABC television in the 1970s. Seeing the Bond films on TV, Diamonds Are Forever was one of my favorites, and From Russia with Love one of my least favorite. In the early 1980s, when I had to opportunity to see the Bond films at the “revival house” theaters in Los Angeles, my feelings reversed; I now regard From Russia with Love one of the best, and Diamonds Are Forever only so-so. Why the change? I think it’s because the earlier film is one that is much more intricately plotted and requires more of the viewer’s attention; cutting it up with commercials destroys the flow of the story. Diamonds Are Forever, on the other hand, is very episodic. It’s more like a series of mini-movies tied together with a mere suggestion of a plot; chopping it up with advertisements has little effect on it. Like John Cork, I tape-recorded the film when it was shown on TV. To this day, I can recite every line of the pre-credits. Skills. I have skills….

Coate: Where do you think Diamonds ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Burlingame: That’s hard to say. I think it’s certainly the least significant of the Connery Bonds. To me it begins the downhill slide of the series in the 1970s, with a script that’s a bit too jokey, a climax that seems rushed and inadequate, and a Connery who doesn’t seem very interested in what was going on. But I’d take Diamonds over many of the even sillier Roger Moore outings. And, as you know, I love the song and the score. It was the most musically diverse Bond yet, with a third of the score being the wonderful Las Vegas jazz; a theme for subsidiary villains Wint and Kidd; a grand outer-space number (007 and Counting) and a title song that was not only useful for the romantic scenes but also dramatic moments as well. The release of the expanded Diamonds soundtrack in 2003 demonstrated its range and power far better than the original 1971 LP.

Cork: My son made me rank the films a few years back when we marathoned them. I put it smack in the middle then. I just re-watched it on a trip to Amsterdam and I just had so much fun with it. It is such a different film from Casino Royale (2006) or Skyfall, and it seems unfair to judge it against those. It’s nothing like On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, but I find it much more fun than You Only Live Twice. It is a great Bond film to revisit at one’s leisure. It is also a fine film to watch in small doses.

Desowitz: I would rank it last among the Connery films and maybe 16th overall. It’s more like a guilty pleasure today. Funny thing: I was at a reception a week ago and Bruce Glover was there. I went up to him and asked how Wint and Kidd were and he smiled and said, “I’m Wint.”

Pfeiffer: Diamonds was the first Bond film that left my friends and I feeling disappointed. The film wasn’t as sharp or exciting as the previous movies. The emphasis on humor seemed to be a misstep especially after the haunting final image of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. We all expected a continuation of that storyline. The movie starts off on that premise with Bond hunting down Blofeld presumably for murdering his wife. The first part of the film is engrossing and seems to be on track to be a winner but things go downhill once Bond gets involved with Tiffany Case. Initially she’s played by Jill St. John as a tough-talking, streetwise accomplice to a smuggling ring. Yet, a few scenes later she inexplicably morphs into a Lucille Ball clone — an inept, naive character who doesn’t provide much substance to the plot — or Bond — beyond sex appeal. The Case character’s seeming schizophrenia is representative of the film as a whole. It’s as though it was made by two competing teams of filmmakers and writers, each with a different vision of the story. Most of the trouble stems from the script, which was co-authored by long time Bond scribe Richard Maibaum and newcomer Tom Mankiewicz. Evidence would suggest that Mankiewicz’s vision prevailed since the movie is far more over-the-top in the gags department than anything Maibaum had previously written for the earlier films. Guy Hamilton’s direction is also all over the map, starting out strong and reaching its zenith with the elevator fight, which is the real action highlight of the film despite the elaborate chase sequences that come later in the film. Sometime later, Hamilton seems more interested in going for cheap laughs and wisecracks rather than presenting suspenseful scenarios. (He once told this writer that he tried to have a major action set piece staged in Disneyland with Bond fighting SPECTRE agents dressed like Disney characters!) The real disappointment comes with the Bond/Blofeld relationship, which doesn’t ring true at all. The casting of Charles Gray is also a major error. Gray is a fine actor and if they called his character anything but “Blofeld“, one could admire his witty performance. However, he doesn’t evoke the slightest traits that audiences had expected of Blofeld. First there is a complete lack of physical resemblance to the actors who preceded him (he’s not even bald!). Then there is his penchant for making quips — something that neither Telly Savalas nor Donald Pleasence had brought to their versions of the character. What is inexplicable is the cozy, humorous relationship Bond establishes with this Blofeld, which is all the more ludicrous given the fact that in the first frames of the film, Bond is on his mission of vengeance to see Blofeld dead. Yet when they finally do meet up, the two engage in some mutually witty banter and Bond seems to have forgotten the unpleasant fact that this man had murdered his wife, Tracy, in the previous film. The watering down of Blofeld goes into overdrive when he actually dresses in drag. The horror, the horror…. Not helping matters is that Gray appeared in another Bond film, You Only Live Twice, a scant four years before as Bond’s ally. So that image was still fresh in viewer’s minds when they were asked to accept him as Blofeld…. The film also suffers from casting errors that extend beyond Charles Gray. As mentioned previously, Jill St. John plays the same kind of “dumb broad” eye candy she had popularized in films such as Tony Rome or Come Blow Your Horn. The shtick was already kind of stale by 1971. It might have been more inventive for the producers to cast Lana Wood, who appears memorably but briefly, as Plenty O’Toole in the role of Tiffany Case. The role of Felix Leiter is played by Norman Burton, thus continuing an annoying pattern of casting a different actor in the role every time he appeared in a Bond film. Burton plays Leiter as a bit of a semi- doofus and there isn’t any way a viewer would believe that his Leiter and Bond are close colleagues. More successful is the casting of Bruce Glover and Putter Smith as gay assassins Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. They are a memorable team but watching the abundance of gay-bashing jokes today is a bit cringe inducing when some of us realize we thought this stuff was funny in 1971. I do like the casting of country singer (and frozen sausage magnate) Jimmy Dean as reclusive billionaire Willard Whyte. It’s an off-beat choice that works well. Similarly, some of the bit roles are well cast: Bruce Cabot (in his final screen appearance), Joe Robinson as the bad guy who goes mano-a-mano with Connery in the elevator fight and, of course, reliable regulars such as Desmond Llewelyn, Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell… along with a welcome appearance by Laurence Naismith…. The climax of the movie was most disappointing — a rather limp affair in which helicopters attack Blofeld’s oil rig in a scenario that seemed as improbable as his main scheme. He has gathered enough diamonds to launch them encrusted in satellite and threatens to destroy key cities around the world unless paid a ransom. Not for nothing’, but if you already have enough wealth to launch a diamond-encrusted satellite, exactly what is it that a ransom would buy you that you wouldn’t already have? The helicopter sequence is also rather blandly executed with some poor special effects (a problem with the film that is apparent earlier). Surely the major powers of the world could have taken down one little bitty oil rig with a well-aimed rocket or torpedo instead of a conventional WWII-era assault by helicopters…. Having denounced much of Diamonds Are Forever, there are plenty of things that make it watchable. Connery seems to be having a great deal of fun and that enthusiasm spills over into his performance. Ken Adam’s sets are up to par and John Barry’s score and the theme song are among the best in the Bond canon.

Scivally: As I stated before, it’s a middling film to me. I still enjoy watching it, despite its drawbacks. Sean Connery looked to have aged about 20 years, even though only 10 had passed since Dr. No, but he seems to be having fun in his return to the role. The quick production schedule seems to have infused the film with a certain energy, and the witty dialogue of Tom Mankiewicz lifts it considerably. Everything about the film is fun, including the villains. There’s absolutely nothing frightening or scary or remotely threatening about Blofeld (more on him below) or about Wint and Kidd, but what they lack in threat they more than make up for in personality. These are villains who could hold their own at the Algonquin Round Table, trading bon mots with Dorothy Parker and Robert Benchley, then casually murdering them on the way out. 

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way was Charles Gray’s Blofeld a memorable villain?

Burlingame: Gray was a fine actor, so memorable as Mycroft Holmes in both The Seven-Per-Cent Solution and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, not to mention his fairly minor role in You Only Live Twice. He seemed to me to be the most sophisticated Blofeld yet, which was frankly a bit confusing after the more evil Donald Pleasence and mostly nasty Telly Savalas; his appearance was a bit unsettling because of his looks and his demeanor. The fact that we’ve now gotten Blofeld twice more in the films (counting Max Von Sydow and Christoph Waltz) has made the whole Blofeld thing so tired and annoying that I hope we never see the character again.

Cork: Gray was a fun actor, but his Blofeld is a complete fool. Never for a moment do I feel a threat from him. He would much rather talk Bond to death than do anything. Clearly he has a phobia about actually seeing Bond bleed, as he passes up innumerable chances to dispatch 007. The show is completely stolen by Wint and Kidd. They should have had their own series. Yes, they play into the Leopold and Loeb stereotype of homicidal homosexuals, but, putting that aside, the dialog is just so fantastic. “Mrs. Whistler did want some pictures of the canals for the children.” That line is so warped, so perfectly written, played and presented. You just know that they are going to actually mail those photos back to the little school in Africa. It’s horrible, and horribly funny. I hear it and I imagine Alfred Hitchcock smiling, thinking to himself that he wishes one of his writers thought of that.

Desowitz: Again, I think Gray’s Blofeld is memorable for his camp. If he were more like Henderson from You Only Live Twice, he would have more gravitas. But he’s delicious in the way he confounds Bond with the doppelgangers and double entendres. For once, he’s enjoying himself as much as Bond.

Pfeiffer: As indicated [earlier in the interview], Charles Gray and Jill St. John were memorable — but for the wrong reasons. Both were essentially miscast, if not disastrously so, then certainly distractingly so. If Gray were playing a generic villain, his performance would have been appropriate. Similarly, if St. John were cast as an airheaded character, so, too, would her performance have been suitable — but not as a tough, street wise smuggler.

Scivally: I enjoy Charles Gray’s Blofeld. He doesn’t have the chilly, dispassionate demeanor of the business-like Blofeld of the early films, or the physical deformity of Donald Pleasence, or the uber-masculine physicality of Telly Savalas, but he does seem capable, confident, charismatic and utterly charming — a man who would smile in your face while his look-alike double deftly slits your throat from behind. And his encounter with 007 in Willard Whyte’s penthouse is one of the great Bond-villain confrontations, with a swaggeringly confident and calculating James Bond facing off intellectually with an equally conceited and confident — and condescending — Blofeld.

Coate: In what way was Jill St. John’s Tiffany Case a memorable Bond Girl? 

Burlingame: She’s so gorgeous and nonchalant that, in some ways, she was a breath of fresh air as an American Bond girl. After doing The Liquidator and Tony Rome, I think she understood the general territory pretty well. There’s nothing especially exotic about her, especially in the aftermath of Daniela Bianchi and Luciana Paluzzi; or especially sophisticated, as we had enjoyed with Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg. But she’s fine.

Cork: Tiffany Case wins the prize for the brassiest Bond girl. She always reminds me just a tad of Lucile Ball. When Bond finds her at her house after she ditched 007 for the diamonds, I keep expecting him to say, “Tiffany, you gotta lotta ‘splainin’ to do!” The thing I so love about her is that she cares about nothing but the diamonds. She is the spiritual mother of Jamie Lee Curtis in A Fish Called Wanda, completely amoral. If she had to sleep with Felix, Wint, Kidd and Blofeld’s cat to get those diamonds out of Earth orbit, she’d clearly have no compunction about doing so. “I’m cooperating, really.” Uh-huh. She is the first Bond woman whose character provides the “voice” of the Bond title song, its lyrics clearly coming from her world view.

Desowitz: She’s the first Bond bimbo — at least in the second-half — and literally becomes the butt of jokes. She’s as mercenary as they come, and the image of Bond and Tiffany in a fish-filled waterbed is the height of decadence.

Pfeiffer: [See response to the previous question.]

Scivally: And now we come to the weak link in the film. Jill St. John is an attractive woman, but her attempt to “play tough” in the beginning of the film is undone by overdubbed dialogue delivered so flatly that she seems to be reading off items on a lunch menu. And whereas Charles Gray, Bruce Glover and even Sean Connery play the comic moments with just the right insouciance, she tends to overdo it, coming off as a junior-league Lucille Ball, though one without Lucy’s comic timing or delivery. But then again, Lucy wouldn’t have looked nearly as fetching in a long-sleeved bikini.

Coate: What is the legacy of Diamonds Are Forever?

Burlingame: First off, the song. It is certainly one of the greatest Bond songs ever — as the author of the Bond music book, I am often asked which is my favorite and, while I change my mind just about every week, this one tops the list as often as not. John Barry’s sensuous melody, Don Black’s brilliant lyric and Shirley Bassey’s thrilling performance make it, let’s face it, one of the all-time great movie songs even beyond the Bond canon. The fact that the Academy Awards ignored it even for nomination was then, and is still, simply shameful. The film itself ranks somewhere in the middle — not great Connery but better than many Moores. Like many of the Bonds, it is of its time (1971): the films were becoming a bit lighter in tone; Connery’s interest was in a big payday that would benefit a favorite charity; the American setting was unusual for 007; and (just in case no one else mentions it) the poster art was phenomenal!

Cork: After the release of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, David Picker called Bond producer Cubby Broccoli to New York and told him the times they were a changing. He didn’t want more serious Bond films like Majesty’s. He wanted a Bond film like Goldfinger. He wanted it for a budget, and he wanted it to be fun, funny and shot the U.S. where the he could personally stay on top of the production. Cubby was eventually able to move the studio work back to Pinewood but only after Picker brought on Tom Mankiewicz to re-write Maibaum’s first draft, secured the return of Sean Connery and made it clear that if there were major overages on the budget, the studio would take over the film. It was a major rebuke to Broccoli and Saltzman who had made the previous three Bond films and independently two high-budget movies with virtually limitless budgets. So the legacy of Diamonds goes far beyond what appears on the screen. It marked the end of an era, and not just for Connery. It marked a growing interest at UA in controlling 007. Producer Harry Saltzman lasted two more films, and when he sold his share, United Artists purchased it. Gone were the days of the early-60s when UA would approve an independent production deal and then be invited to a screening of the producer’s delivery cut of the movie months later with scant creative involvement. David Picker became a major player in the Bond universe with Diamonds, and someone from UA, MGM or Sony has been deeply involved in each Bond film ever since. That’s the legacy. And, of course, to remember to keep wearing your radiation shields. G Section will be checking.

Desowitz: Again, the last Connery Bond with memorable farewells: dick-swinging with M, brow-beating Q, flirting with Moneypenny, and thrashing the baddies in grand style. He’s older, grayer, heavier, and slower — but still the best.

Pfeiffer: The legacy of Diamonds Are Forever is more important than its immediate qualities as a film are. If Connery had not returned to the role for this film, the series might well have faced an insurmountable crisis — especially since the producers had already cast American actor John Gavin in the role. The notion of an American ever playing Bond would seem unthinkable today but at the time it obviously seemed like a good idea. It wouldn’t have been. The unsung hero was United Artists production chief David V. Picker who agreed to sign Gavin but who couldn’t get comfortable with the idea. He flew to Spain to make a last ditch effort to convince Connery to return, despite his well-documented strained relationship with the producers. Over a game of golf, Picker agreed to pay Connery the highest salary in screen history — a now paltry $1.25 million, which Connery used to establish a charity in Scotland. Diamonds proved to be an enormous hit with even critics extolling its virtues even as hardcore purist fans expressed their disappointment. So the real value of the film is that it probably saved the franchise. For that we can forgive some casting errors, erratic writing and direction and a few cheesy special effects.

Scivally: I believe Diamonds Are Forever has a two-fold legacy. On the one hand, as mentioned before, it set a tone for the Bond films of the 1970s, giving rise to a period where the stunts were the stars, the more outrageous the better (and the ski jump opening of The Spy Who Loved Me being perhaps the best). In the case of Diamonds Are Forever, this meant a car chase on the streets of Las Vegas played for laughs as much as thrills and capped by a car going up on two wheels. It seems pretty tame today, but in 1971 this was exciting stuff, and so popular with audiences that car-chase movies became a 70s genre all their own, leading inevitably to Smokey and the Bandit and Cannonball Run, the latter featuring Roger Moore in an Aston Martin and proving Hal Needham to be a James Bond fan. Conclusion: without Diamonds Are Forever, we’d have been spared Stroker Ace.

Coate: Thank you — Jon, John, Bill, Lee, and Bruce — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Diamonds Are Forever on the occasion of its 45th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “You Only Live Twice” on its 50th Anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, CBS-Fox Home Video, Eon Productions Limited, Danjaq LLC, MGM Home Entertainment, United Artists Corporation.

SPECIAL THANKS

Mike Heenan

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

For the occasion The Bits features a compilation of box-office data and trivia for the movie which places its theatrical performance in context, a reference/historical listing of the movie’s Todd-AO roadshow presentations, and an interview segment with a group of film historians.

EIGHTY DAYS NUMBER$

• 1 = Number of opening-week bookings
• 2 = Rank among top-earning films of 1956 (legacy)
• 3 = Rank on all-time list of top-earning films at close of original run / peak chart position
• 5 = Number of Academy Awards
• 8 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 9 = Number of years United Artists’ most-successful film
• 48 = Number of 70mm prints
• 49 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing films (adjusted for inflation)
• 127 = Number of days it took to shoot the movie
• 127 = Number of weeks longest-running engagement played
• 1,569 = Number of first-run roadshow bookings, 1956-58

• $6.0 million = Production cost
• $22.0 million = Box-office rental (as of January 1, 1960)
• $23.0 million = Box-office rental (as of January 1, 1969)
• $23.1 million = Box-office rental (as of January 1, 1985)
• $42.0 million = Box-office gross
• $53.1 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $556.3 million = Box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

THE TODD-AO ROADSHOW ENGAGEMENTS

Presented here is a chronological listing of the “hard ticket” roadshow engagements in the United States and Canada of Around the World in Eighty Days that were presented in 70-millimeter and six-track stereophonic sound at the original Todd-AO projector speed of 30 frames per second. These were special, long-running, showcase presentations in major cities prior to the film being exhibited as a general release, and they featured advanced admission pricing, reserved seating, an overture/intermission/entr’acte/exit music, and with an average of ten scheduled screenings per week. Souvenir program booklet were sold, as well. (Beginning in late-Spring 1957, 35mm prints — at 24 frames per second — began circulating for most of the film’s roadshow bookings.)

Out of hundreds of films released during 1956, Eighty Days was among only four that were given deluxe roadshow treatment.

The film’s anniversary offers an opportunity to namedrop some famous and once-glorious cinemas, to provide some nostalgia for those who saw the film during this phase of its original release, and to reflect on how the film industry has evolved the manner in which event and prestige films are exhibited.

The film’s 70mm prints were intended to be projected in a 2.21:1 aspect ratio and the soundtrack featured five discrete screen channels plus one discrete (and possibly Perspecta-encoded) surround channel.

The listing does not include the film’s roadshow engagements that were presented in 35mm, nor does it include any of the subsequent general release, second run, international, and re-release engagements. The duration of the engagements, measured in weeks, has been included after each cinema name in parenthesis for most of the entries to provide some measure of the film’s success.

So, which North American theaters screened the Todd-AO 30fps version of Around the World in Eighty Days?

• 1956-10-17 … New York, NY — Rivoli (103 weeks)

• 1956-12-19 … Houston, TX — Tower (40)

• 1956-12-20 … Dallas, TX — Tower (46)

• 1956-12-21 … Baltimore, MD — Film Centre (54)                  
• 1956-12-21 … Miami (Miami Beach), FL — Sheridan (66)

• 1956-12-22 … Los Angeles, CA — Carthay Circle (127)

• 1956-12-26 … San Francisco, CA — Coronet (95)

• 1956-12-27 … Detroit, MI — United Artists (67)
• 1956-12-27 … Philadelphia, PA — Midtown (53)

• 1957-01-10 … San Antonio, TX — Broadway (34)

• 1957-01-23 … New Orleans, LA — Panorama (28)

• 1957-03-01 … Montreal, QC — Alouette (44)

• 1957-04-04 … Chicago, IL — Cinestage (90)

• 1957-04-05 … Buffalo, NY — Century (22)

• 1957-04-08 … Washington, DC — Uptown (51)

• 1957-04-11 … Pittsburgh, PA — Nixon (38)

• 1957-04-17 … Oklahoma City, OK — State (17)
• 1957-04-17 … Portland, OR — Broadway (36)
• 1957-04-17 … Seattle, WA — Blue Mouse (50)
• 1957-04-17 … Tulsa, OK — Rialto (17)

• 1957-04-20 … Boston, MA — Saxon (50)

• 1957-05-15 … Corpus Christi, TX — Tower (9)
• 1957-05-15 … Denver, CO — Tabor (36)
• 1957-05-15 … Little Rock, AR — Capitol (9)

• 1957-05-28 … Atlantic City, NJ — Virginia
• 1957-05-28 … Louisville, KY — Brown (18)

• 1957-05-29 … Kansas City, MO — Tower (27)
• 1957-05-29 … Syracuse (DeWitt), NY — Shoppingtown (35)

• 1957-06-12 … Milwaukee, WI — Strand (49)

• 1957-06-13 … Cincinnati, OH — Valley (35)

• 1957-06-14 … Cleveland, OH — Ohio (42)

• 1957-06-26 … Atlanta, GA — Roxy (30)

• 1957-07-12 … Minneapolis, MN — Academy (49)

• 1957-07-24 … Rochester, NY — Monroe (30)

• 1957-07-30 … Hartford, CT — Strand (15)

• 1957-08-01 … San Diego, CA — Capri (45)

• 1957-08-07 … Toronto, ON — Tivoli (48)

• 1957-08-08 … Fort Wayne, IN — Clyde (12)
• 1957-08-08 … Indianapolis, IN — Lyric (26)

• 1957-08-14 … Jacksonville, FL — 5 Points (12)

• 1957-08-22 … Beaumont, TX — Liberty (8)

• 1957-09-12 … Columbus, OH — Cinestage (37)

• 1957-10-03 … Buffalo, NY — Granada (20)

• 1957-10-10 … Providence, RI — Elmwood (29)

• 1957-10-16 … Youngstown, OH — State (12)

• 1957-10-17 … Shreveport, LA — Saenger (12)

• 1957-12-19 … Phoenix, AZ — Vista (11)

• 1958-07-16 … Oyster Bay (Syosset), NY — Syosset (15)

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE Q&A

Sheldon Hall is the author (with Steve Neale) of Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (Wayne State University Press, 2010). He is a Senior Lecturer in film studies at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. Other books of his include Zulu: With Some Guts Behind It—The Making of the Epic Movie (Tomahawk Press, 2005; updated in 2014) and (with John Belton and Steve Neale) Widescreen Worldwide (Indiana University Press, 2010).

Martin Hart is the curator of the American Widescreen Museum.

Kim Holston is the author of Movie Roadshows: A History and Filmography of Reserved-Seat Limited Showings, 1911-1973 (McFarland, 2013). Kim is a part-time librarian in the Multimedia Department of Chester County Library (Exton, PA) and lives in Wilmington, DE, with his wife Nancy and a menagerie of pets. He is the author of various film and performing arts books, including Starlet (McFarland, 1988), Richard Widmark: A Bio-Bibliography (Greenwood Press, 1990), Susan Hayward: Her Films and Life (McFarland, 2002), and (with Warren Hope) The Shakespeare Controversy (McFarland, 2nd ed., 2009), and recently Attila’s Sorceress (New Libri Press, 2014) and Naval Gazing: How Revealed Bellybuttons of the 1960s Signaled the End of Movie Cliches Involving Negligees, Men’s Hats and Freshwater Swim Scenes (BearManor Media, 2014). He is presently at work with Tom Winchester on a follow-up to their 1997 book, Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Film Sequels, Series and Remakes.

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): We’ve come upon the 60th anniversary of the release of Mike Todd’s production of Around the World in Eighty Days. In what way should the film be remembered?

Sheldon Hall: It’s one of those Oscar-winners that regularly appears on lists of films that don’t deserve to have been named Best Picture; that seems largely to be how it is remembered nowadays. But it’s a better movie than its current reputation suggests, with the simple bad luck to be unfashionable and lacking in a name director (though Michael Anderson was responsible for a number of other well-liked films and is of course happily still with us). It’s a well-crafted, entertaining film that tells us a lot about the popular taste of the time, as well as being a minor milestone technically and commercially.

Martin Hart: I think Around the World in Eighty Days should be viewed just as you would any other picture, but a knowledge of cinema history helps the viewer form an opinion. For some people it can be classified as a big boring movie filled with lots of actors we don’t know playing lots of bit parts; for others it can be seen as high adventure that works its way from London to New York with the aid of dozens of top stars of the forties and early fifties…. There are very few people still alive that were able to see it in a real Todd-AO equipped theater. Most people will have seen it only on television with its poorly panned and scanned crummy NTSC color and high fidelity mono sound. That was my first exposure to it and I was terribly disappointed. My parents had seen it in 1958 in a drive-in near St. Paul, Minnesota, and had told me that it was just dreadful. That’s why I was surprised at how awful it was when I saw it on TV; my folks didn’t know quality from day old popcorn so I was expecting it to be much better…. Fortunately Warner Home Video assembled a pretty decent looking and sounding DVD from the 35mm version negative. People have complained about the transfer not having been made from the 30fps Roadshow negative and knowing the folks at Warner Home Video I think we can take their word for it that the time and cost required to make it beautiful was way out of line with any possible return. For me, I found the complete picture to be far better than many roadshow films produced during the following decades.

Kim Holston: Along with that year’s The Ten Commandments and War and Peace, it heralded the golden age of roadshows that would ramp up dramatically by the end of the decade.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing Eighty Days for the first time?

Hall: I saw it for the first time on Good Friday, 1975 — its first showing on BBC television (though it had previously been shown by the UK commercial network ITV). I was ten years old and enjoyed it enormously (note: in order to see Eighty Days I had to miss the UK TV premiere of The Robe on the rival channel). It was more than two decades later before I saw it for the first time in a cinema and I have now seen it several times in 70mm, on both a curved and a flat screen.

Hart: I first saw it on my cheesy 19” black-and-white set with typical TV sound. Not too impressed. I caught it a few years later and I had a color TV by then but there wasn’t much good that could be said about the color of that pan and scan transfer. I just knew the movie had to be better than what I’d seen thus far. Finally, many years later I had built a home theater with huge screen and about a dozen and a half speakers and that’s when I bought the DVD. In that environment and with the vastly improved picture and sound I finally felt like I had some understanding why audiences raved about the “show.” (That’s Mike Todd Speak for moom pitchers.)

Holston: I saw it during its major re-release in 1968 at the new Theatre 1812 in Philadelphia. I liked it but it didn’t knock my socks off. This might have been caused by anticipating seeing an Academy Award winner that was epic in scope and had a music score by one of the masters, Victor Young. I’d been playing the soundtrack for years.

Coate: How is Eighty Days significant among spectacles?

Hall: It was one of the first blockbuster comedies and one of the first films with a truly all-star cast: as other contributors may well point out, Mike Todd adopted the word “cameo” to describe the fleeting guest appearance of a well-known personality.

Holston: It covered the globe and was not Biblical, based on historical fact, or a flat-out travelogue.

Coate: In what way was it beneficial for Eighty Days to have been released as a roadshow?

Hall: Todd rightly understood that the film needed to be sold as a special attraction: not just a movie but a “show.” Roadshow presentation created the sense of occasion that he wanted and took the film out of the normal run of cinema. Given its high cost, large scale and three-hour length, any other form of presentation would have been counter-productive — though some other very long films released the same year were not presented as roadshows in the U.S. (Giant, War and Peace). Conversely, I don’t think Eighty Days was ever given a regular general release in the UK.

Hart: Around the World in Eighty Days, and more specifically, Mike Todd, defined the way to sell a hard ticket roadshow film. It was Todd that convinced Cinerama to go the hard ticket route and the company continued to do so for approximately 15 years. When you bought your ticket for seats 1-4 in row 15 you knew you had a reserved place to sit and you knew that dumbass that lived next door wasn’t going to be able to see it for a while. For Mike Todd it was important to present the show just like the legitimate stage on Broadway. Indeed, 70mm came to be the predominant roadshow method of presentation. There were exceptions but they were rare.

Holston: It had the scope. Theaters had to spend lots of money to upgrade their screens and sound to present it properly, but they usually did, and it paid off. Subconsciously at least, roadshows were viewed as something akin to the opera or ballet, a special event or night out.

Coate: Around the World in Eighty Days was among only a handful of films produced in Todd-AO. In what way was using that process beneficial?

Hall: It makes more extensive use of the wide-angle lens than did the first film in the process, Oklahoma!, and obviously has a much wider range of locales that could be exploited for their scenic and spatial possibilities. The “bug-eye” lens is most effectively used in the London sequences, such as in Passepartout’s cycle ride through the streets. 

Hart: Strictly speaking there were only two features produced in the original Todd-AO format with its wide wall-to-wall, ceiling-to-floor curved screen [and 30 frames-per-second frame rate]. Those were Oklahoma! and Around the World in Eighty Days. [Then] it was decided to drop the frame rate to 24fps like other films. Starting with South Pacific (1958) all other Todd-AO productions were made at 24fps and most theaters used flat screens. The original Todd-AO process kicked off the large negative roadshow but the deeply curved screen did not survive other than in the unsatisfying 70mm Cinerama process.

Holston: The publicity for this new process helped entice audiences away from the small screen.

 [On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

Coate: Todd’s Around the World in Eighty Days was shot twice. Why?

Hall: The film was shot twice to allow a print-down 35mm version to be shown at the regular speed of 24 frames per second (fps) rather than the 30 fps of Todd-AO. But a 30-fps 35mm version was also made available in an anamorphic process Todd named Cinestage, so there was considerable room for flexibility!

Coate: Should both versions of the film be made available for the various ancillary markets?

Hall: Although it would be useful for scholars to have both versions available for comparison, the differences between them would most likely be too minimal to justify releasing both on a special edition Blu-ray.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Todd’s Eighty Days with the original novel and numerous film and TV adaptations?

Hall: I’ve not read the novel and the only other adaptation I’ve seen (aside from the children’s animated series that used to appear on television in the 1970s) is the 2004 version starring Jackie Chan and Steve Coogan, which is simply dreadful.

Hart: Neither Mike Todd’s nor any other film or television producers have paid a lot of attention to the Verne novel. That doesn’t bother me in the least.

Holston: It remains the biggest and most star-studded cinematic version.

Coate: Where do you think Eighty Days ranks among producer Mike Todd’s body of work?

Hall: Todd’s body of work in the cinema is not very great. His involvement in Oklahoma! and before that Cinerama was somewhat peripheral, and I can’t comment on his non-film work. Eighty Days is really the only thing for which he’s remembered, aside from marrying Elizabeth Taylor and dying in a plane crash, neither of which was unique.

Hart: Since Mike Todd’s body of work includes just one film, which was an unbelievable money maker, and a bunch of Broadway musicals of varying quality it’s hard to say anything other than Eighty Days was at the top.

Holston: The apotheosis.

Coate: Michael Todd’s involvement as producer seems to have overshadowed Michael Anderson’s contribution as director. What do you think Anderson brought to the project, and where do you think the film ranks among director Michael Anderson’s body of work?

Hall: Michael Anderson was an unusual choice of director because, at the age of 36 and with only a half-dozen, mostly low-budget feature films under his belt, he was relatively young and inexperienced for such a large-scale, expensive project as Eighty Days. Anderson had also only worked in Britain, not America; but it was perhaps this very freshness that appealed to Todd as a Hollywood outsider himself. Or perhaps it might have seemed to make the director more malleable and susceptible to the producer’s influence? In any event, Anderson had demonstrated his ability to handle complex logistics with his immediately preceding film The Dam Busters, a huge box-office hit in the UK, so perhaps that also gave him the commercial pedigree for the Todd job…. For me, The Dam Busters, Operation Crossbow and Eighty Days are (in that order) Anderson’s best film work, though I must admit to not having seen some of his early features (including a second 1956 release, the film adaptation of the TV play of George Orwell’s 1984, which sounds particularly intriguing).

Coate: What is the legacy of Around the World in Eighty Days?

Hall: It gave rise to two cycles of films in the late 1950s and 1960s: costume comedy-fantasies with a Victorian or Edwardian setting, often adapted from the work of Verne and other contemporary writers; and large-scale epic comedies involving a race or chase across continents. In artistic terms these films are not very significant, but some achieved considerable popularity if not much critical acclaim. The notion of all-star casts was also given a boost, appearing in a number of other films over the next few decades.

Hart: The legacy is muddled between Around the World in Eighty Days and Oklahoma!. The financial benefits found in the 70mm runs proved the roadshow concept. Only when Hollywood went ape-shit and started releasing horrible movies at high hard ticket prices thinking that they had created machines to print money did the attraction of the roadshow lose its mystique.

Holston: Merchandising and tie-ins: program, album, sheet music, game, ties, cuff links, bathrobes, carpetbags, costume jewelry. Todd is also credited with introducing “cameos,” the bit parts played by various internationally famous performers.

Coate: Thank you — Sheldon, Marty and Kim — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Around the World in Eighty Days on the occasion of its 60th anniversary.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

Primary references for this project included promotional material published in numerous daily newspapers archived digitally and/or on microfilm plus articles published in film industry trade publications Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety, and the books Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History by Sheldon Hall and Steve Neale (Wayne State University Press, 2010), George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success edited by Alex Ben Block and Lucy Autrey Wilson (George Lucas Books/HarperCollins, 2010), and The Hollywood Reporter Book of Box Office Hits by Susan Sackett (Billboard, 1996). The websites in70mm.com and boxofficemojo.com were referenced for some information.

SELECTED IMAGES

Copyright/courtesy American Widescreen Museum, Michael Todd Company, United Artists, Warner Bros., Warner Home Video.

SPECIAL THANKS

Jim Barg, Rachel Bernstein, Raymond Caple, Sheldon Hall, Martin Hart, Mike Heenan, Kim Holston, Bill Kretzel, Mark Lensenmayer, NYer, Stephen Rice, Bob Throop, Vince Young, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project, and to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Margaret Herrick Library and Fairbanks Center for Motion Picture Study.

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

As with our other celebratory articles, The Bits and History, Legacy & Showmanship offer this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of scholars and film historians who discuss the virtues, influence and legacy of Citizen Kane.

The participants (in alphabetical order)….

Joseph McBride is the author of three books on Orson Welles, most recently What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?: A Portrait of an Independent Career (University Press of Kentucky, 2006). McBride has written several other books, including Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit (Hightower Press, 2013), Frank Capra: The Catastrophe of Success (Touchstone, 1993), Steven Spielberg: A Biography (Simon & Schuster, 1997), Searching for John Ford (University Press of Mississippi, 2011), Hawks on Hawks (University of California, 1982), and Writing in Pictures: Screenwriting Made (Mostly) Painless (Vintage, 2012). McBride acted for Welles in The Other Side of the Wind (1970-76) and appears in his 1981 documentary Filming “The Trial”. His latest book is The Broken Places: A Memoir (Hightower Press, 2015), and he is currently working on a critical study of Ernst Lubitsch, How Did Lubitsch Do It?: The Films of Ernst Lubitsch. He is a co-writer of the screenplay for Rock ‘n’ Roll High School (1979). He is a professor in the School of Cinema at San Francisco State University. His website is josephmcbridefilm.com.

Patrick McGilligan is the author of Young Orson: The Years of Luck and Genius on the Path to Citizen Kane (HarperCollins, 2015). His other books include Clint: The Life and Legend (St. Martin’s, 2002), Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light (It Books, 2004), Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast (University of Minnesota, 2013), and Jack Nicholson: The Joker is Wild (W.W. Norton & Company, 2015).

James O. Naremore is the author of The Magic World of Orson Welles (University of Illinois, 2015). He is Emeritus Chancellors’ Professor at Indiana University. His other books include More Than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts (University of California, 2008) and Charles Burnett: A Cinema of Symbolic Knowledge (due in 2017).

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Citizen Kane worthy of celebration on its 75th anniversary?

Joseph McBride: Citizen Kane will always be “the film of films,” as François Truffaut has called it. He noted that it has “consecrated a great many of us to the vocation of cinéaste.” Including me. Though Kane did not create the new devices some people claim for it — it’s unwise to ever make that claim about a film, because you can always find a precedent — it is a treasure house of cinematic styles and devices and magic tricks, flamboyant and breathtakingly virtuosic and eloquent. The visual style that Welles put together with cinematographer Gregg Toland and other masterful technicians remains exhilarating no matter how often you’ve seen it — and I lost count after seeing it more than a hundred times. I now have to ration it to an occasional screening, because I know it by heart. Staying away for a while makes it seem more fresh. In a sense, Kane is as fresh as when it was made, a constant series of astonishments. More than that, the screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Welles is one of the greatest ever written, a profound character study and a multilayered narrative with brilliant dialogue, as richly textured as a novel. I also appreciated it for its savvy inside look at newspapers (my parents were reporters, as was I), and for its critique of the power of the media, which was ahead of its time. The film’s political insights into a fascist media baron were daring in 1941 (so much so that the film blighted Welles’s career in Hollywood and led to the FBI following him for fifteen years, which led to his blacklisting and exile), and are ever more timely today. I think what excited me as a youth were the style, the script, Welles’s youth when he made it (he was twenty-five when it was shot), and its daring. All that was inspirational, and still is.

Patrick McGilligan: Its 75th anniversary is one year off the centenary of Welles’s birth. That gives us two big reasons to celebrate Kane, along with our continuing appreciation for its greatness.

James O. Naremore: Film styles, modes of production, and modes of viewing are different today than when Kane first appeared — in fact, celluloid is no longer the chief basis of the medium. Then, too, the huge literature and debate around Kane has changed the way we see it. Donald Trump says it’s his favorite movie (I guess because he identifies with Charles Foster Kane). James Agee, Manny Farber, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Noel Burch have thought it over rated. Despite all this, I’d say Kane retains its stylistic fascination, youthful energy, satiric wit, and dramatic complexity. To analyze and discuss it at all, no matter what your opinion of its artistic qualities, is to realize that it’s one of the key pictures in the history of world cinema.

Coate: Can you describe your first viewing of Citizen Kane?

McBride: I first saw Kane in Professor Richard Byrne’s introductory film class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, on September 22, 1966. It was a coup de foudre. I was nineteen, and it changed my life. I was an English major and had planned to write novels and work as a journalist. I did work as a journalist, and have continued doing so since 1960, but I changed my goal from writing novels to writing screenplays and books about films and wanting to direct films. When I told Welles I wanted to direct a film by the time I was twenty-five, as he did, he said kindly, “You will.” I eventually turned down three chances to direct films and realized I was better suited to being a writer. I worked as a screenwriter for eighteen years but left that profession to write books fulltime, both on films and on other subjects…. I had started my first book (on baseball) in 1963, and wrote my first book on Welles (of three) from 1967 through 1971; Orson Welles was published in 1972 by the British Film Institute and the Viking Press. That project took over my life for four years, though I also worked on John Ford, a critical study I wrote with Michael Wilmington from 1969 through 1971. I obtained a 16mm print of Kane and watched it sixty times while writing the book on Welles. I found a copy of the screenplay at the Wisconsin Historical Society and lugged my portable typewriter there for a month to type an exact copy, since I couldn’t afford to Xerox it. I used the print and the script as my textbooks in my own curriculum of learning how to write films, direct films, and write about films. Our university had only three film courses, so after taking them I had to devise my own curriculum…. Orson Welles actually began as a book-length study of Kane, but after two years of work, I decided I needed to make it a full-length critical study of his entire body of work, since there wasn’t an adequate book on him in English. Shortly after I saw Kane, as it happened, the UW Memorial Union that fall had a series of six Welles films. I saw The Magnificent Ambersons and Touch of Evil, among others, for the first time, and realized there was much more to Welles than Kane. Some people still don’t realize that (fifty years later), which is why I’ve kept writing books on Welles. I am sure I will do another, called Orson Welles: The Last Word, when I am ninety. I’ve learned that once you start writing a book about someone, it never ends…. And Welles has been such an influence on my life. I also wrote Orson Welles: Actor and Director (1977), still the only book-length study of his acting career, which compelled me to see all the many (usually bad) films he acted in, and What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?: A Portrait of an Independent Career (2006). That book is partly a memoir of my work with Welles for six years as an actor on his still-unfinished roman à clef about Hollywood, The Other Side of the Wind, as a film critic and historian named Mister Pister, but What Ever Happened… is also an attempt to tell people all about what he was doing in the neglected last fifteen years of his life (1970-85), when he came back to Hollywood to live and work, the period when I knew him. In the process, I realized I had to tell the whole story of his career from new angles, showing people that (as film historian Douglas Gomery first proposed) he was always an independent filmmaker. He sometimes took advantage of the Hollywood studio system (as he did with RKO from 1939 until his firing in 1942) but was not a failed Hollywood director, as many in America think he was.

McGilligan: I saw Citizen Kane as a junior in high school. My older sister, by then a freshman in college, was taking a film class at the University of Wisconsin in Madison (which was only about a mile from where we lived), taught by Professor Russell Merritt. Kane was being screened. For some reason (it was unusual), I tagged along and was bowled over. For the first time I began to think seriously about film or, to put it differently, to take film seriously.

Naremore: I don’t remember the exact date, but I first saw it when it was re-released in the late 1950s. It played in a theater in Beaumont, Texas, about twenty miles from the Louisiana town where I lived. I was about fifteen years old and I travelled to Beaumont with an older friend who could drive. I had seen stills from Kane in Deems Taylor’s Pictorial History of the Movies (1950) and the idea of it filled me with high anticipation. I wasn’t disappointed, but I wasn’t overwhelmed. Certain images stuck with me: the dreamlike opening, the newsreel shot of Kane standing on a balcony with Hitler, the early newspaper scenes, and the “Raymond” episode. I don’t know if I could fully understand or appreciate such a film at that age, but I didn’t forget it.

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way is Citizen Kane significant and/or influential?

McBride: Welles was a maverick who always bucked whatever establishment he was working in and against. That’s one reason true Welles aficionados admire him so much. From Kane onward, he challenged everything about filmmaking technically, thematically, and politically, and brought new approaches to his work, blazing trails for all the rest of us.

McGilligan: It is hardly original to say Citizen Kane is a compendium of cinematic technique up to that time. (Of course I hardly realized this when I first saw it.) Still today, Kane has the capacity to astonish, technically as well as artistically. It has the deep, rich, complex texture of a novel as well as all the cinematic qualities expected of a screen masterpiece. It remains “modern.” And it also remains vastly “entertaining.”

Naremore: Kane was a crucially important film for Andre Bazin, one of cinema’s most influential theorists. Partly via Bazin, it and Welles’s other films were a major influence on the French New Wave. (“All of us will always owe him everything,” Godard famously said.) It influenced the American avant-garde in the 1940s, especially Maya Deren, and Hollywood film style in the 1940s and 50s. In the 1960s, it was a touchstone, not only for Truffaut but also for the “New Hollywood” of Bogdanovich, Scorsese, and Coppola. Since then, it’s been alluded to more times than I can count, though nobody has made quite such a politically dangerous film. Even Rupert Murdoch doesn’t have as much power over movies as Hearst had in 1941. Somebody should do Trump.

Coate: Where do you think Citizen Kane ranks among Orson Welles’s body of work?

McBride: My favorite Welles film — my favorite of all films — is The Magnificent Ambersons. That’s partly for personal reasons — the story and its Midwestern setting resonate deeply with me — and partly because of its more emotional nature than Kane. As Truffaut observed, Ambersons is something of a rebuke to Kane, which is rather chilly and detached; in Kane, he noted, Welles was thinking more about the medium, and in Ambersons, he was thinking more about the characters. I also have a special love for films maudit — damned films, ones that have been hacked up and mistreated, as this one has. One of my goals is to go to Brazil to try to hunt for the uncut work print, which might still exist. I think Chimes at Midnight is Welles’s best film. It is like Ambersons in being profoundly moving. It has Welles’s best performance, as Shakespeare’s Sir John Falstaff. I’ve championed the film for fifty years and was proud to participate in this year’s Blu-ray restored release from Criterion, which has brought it the larger audience it deserves. For many years, when people would tell me Welles hadn’t done anything of importance since Kane, I would ask, “Have you seen Chimes at Midnight?” Invariably the answer was no. They no longer have that excuse…. Welles said Ambersons and Chimes represent more than anything else what he wanted to do in films. Where does Kane fit in? It’s always one of a kind. I don’t have a ranking of the seven best or ten best Welles films. It’s somewhere high among them, as are Touch of Evil and some others. But I think it’s idle to rank films — even if I and others have done that. I wrote the highly personal and self-indulgent The Book of Movie Lists (1999) and participated in the 2012 Sight & Sound poll of international film critics. I feel somewhat embarrassed I didn’t put Kane on my list in that poll, but Welles was the only filmmaker with two films on my list of ten films, Ambersons and Chimes. I have somewhat worn out Kane, unfortunately, by watching it too much, but it remains the film of films for me in the sense of a life-changing, unique experience that can never be surpassed for its influence. It is still astonishing.

McGilligan: This is a tricky question to answer, because Welles has such a tremendous body of work — in radio, theater, television, and journalism, as well as film. But Kane is his signature film and the one that seems to cover all of these other fields, with sound innovation (influenced by radio), newsreel-type immediacy that evokes TV, and deep political and thematic concerns drawn from history and real life. Kane ranks high on his list, probably at the top, although hard core Wellesians (including Welles himself) might have their own favorites. 

Naremore: Chiefly because there’s a popular myth that Kane was Welles’s only great movie, but also because it has topped so many all-time-best lists, I seldom nominate it as Welles’s number one. I tell people to check out The Magnificent Ambersons, The Lady from Shanghai, Macbeth, Othello, Touch of Evil, and Chimes at Midnight. Andrew Sarris was right when he said that even if Welles had never made Kane, he would still be among the cinema’s Pantheon directors. I think Kane’s reputation has made its something of an albatross for Welles to carry. Having shown the film many times to students, I feel they always expect it to be earth shattering and aren’t that deeply impressed. It’s difficult for them to see it for the first time unburdened by its reputation.

Coate: What is the legacy of Citizen Kane?

McBride: I will turn over the podium to Truffaut, who wrote, “We loved this film because it was complete: psychological, social, poetic, dramatic, comic, baroque, strict, and demanding. It is a demonstration of the force of power and an attack on the force of power, it is a hymn to youth and a meditation on old age, an essay on the vanity of all material ambition and at the same time a poem on old age and the solitude of exceptional human beings, genius or monster or monstrous genius. It is at the same time a ‘first’ film by virtue of its quality of catch-all experimentation and a ‘last’ film by its comprehensive picture of the world.”

McGilligan: Kane towers over most other films. Few are in its league. It has a legacy for filmmakers as the film to beat, and for critics as one of the best of the best. For scholars, it provides bottomless theory and analysis. Kane has something for everyone, including a young high school student seeing it for the first time completely unaware of its mystique.

Naremore: Kane is central to the history of cinema; it shaped my own attitude toward films and that of many distinguished theorists and directors; but it has accrued such a reputation that new viewers seldom see it unburdened by the discourse around it.

Coate: Thank you — Joseph, Patrick and James — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Citizen Kane on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy The Criterion Collection, Mercury Productions, RKO Radio Pictures, Turner Pictures, Warner Home Video. Joseph McBride photo by Ann Weiser Cornell.

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

The infamous feature film was directed by Willard Huyck (Best Defense), executive produced by George Lucas (Star Wars) and written by Huyck and Gloria Katz who (with Lucas) also wrote the screenplays for American Graffiti, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Radioland Murders. Howard the Duck was a high profile failure upon its release and spearheaded an uncharacteristically poor and unmemorable year for Lucas and his company, Lucasfilm Ltd. Both of his productions, Labyrinth and Howard the Duck, which were released only five weeks apart from one another, performed dismally at the box office with each failing to recoup its enormous cost. (The year 1986 also saw the termination of Marvel’s original Star Wars comic series and the cancelation of the animated Droids and Ewoks television series. And Howard the Duck snapped Industrial Light & Magic’s six-year streak of Visual Effects Oscars. About the only bright spots for Lucas that year were the home-video release of Return of the Jedi, cable television premiere of The Empire Strikes Back and premiere of Captain EO at Disneyland.)

The Bits’ retrospective on Howard the Duck features passages from vintage film reviews, a listing of the movie’s “showcase” presentations, a compilation of box office data that places the movie’s performance in context, and an interview segment with a group of authors, historians and film industry analysts.

So, was Howard the Duck justifiably blasted by critics? Did Howard the Duck understandably bomb at the box office? Does Howard the Duck deserve to be reevaluated several decades later? Well, you decide….

HOWARD NUMBER$

• 0 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie
• 3 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 4 = Number of Golden Raspberry (“Razzie”) awards
• 5 = Number of months between theatrical release and home video release
• 8 = Number of Golden Raspberry (“Razzie”) nominations
• 20 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1986 (summer season)
• 28 = Number of 70mm prints
• 43 = Rank among top box-office rentals of 1986 (calendar year)
• 53 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1986 (legacy)
• 1,554 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $34.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (LaserDisc)
• $79.95 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (VHS and Beta)
• $3,262 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $5.1 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross
• $9.8 million = Box-office rental (domestic)
• $11.2 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $16.3 million = Box-office gross (domestic)
• $21.6 million = Box-office rental (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $21.7 million = Box-office gross (international)
• $34.5 million = Production cost
• $35.9 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $38.0 million = Box-office gross (worldwide)
• $47.8 million = Box-office gross (international, adjusted for inflation)
• $76.0 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $83.7 million = Box-office gross (worldwide, adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“After the movie was released everybody said that it was insane to make a movie about a duck from outer space. But, I don’t know, I think it would have been possible for Howard to maybe have worked if only they had started with a funny, likable duck in a comedy. Instead they made a grim, worried duck in a special effects adventure. And then they filled the soundtrack with bittersweet and even downbeat music to be sure that we didn’t get to feeling too good. What a miscalculation!” — Roger Ebert, Siskel & Ebert & the Movies

“Donald, Huey, Louie, Dewey, and even Daffy can rest easy; Howard is no threat to the duck pecking order on this planet. And that’s no wise quack…. Cartoon characters frequently make good cartoon films; this one didn’t. Howard the Duck has plenty of cheek, but no tongue to put in it.” — Dick Wolff, The Seattle Times

“A hopeless mess. A gargantuan production which produces a gargantuan headache.” — Leonard Maltin, Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide

“The second half of the movie is devoted to truly magnificent visual tricks, created by George Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic company and equal to anything in that director’s Star Wars.” — Caryn James, The New York Times

“Daffy Duck will be pleased to hear he didn’t miss any career opportunities when he wasn’t chosen to star in Howard the Duck, although producers certainly could have benefited from his talents.” — Jane Galbraith, Variety

“Jeffrey Jones, who played the unlucky scientist, made a deep impression as the emperor in Amadeus. Since then, he has fallen on tough times. In Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, he had the year’s most humiliating role as a crazed principal willing to go to any lengths to catch Ferris in the act of playing hooky. His role in Howard the Duck requires him to do a massive amount of eye rolling as the Dark Overlord takes control of his body. You feel sorry for Jones, going through undignified screechings and contortions. His predicament makes you wonder if acting is a suitable profession for a grown man.” — Scott Cain, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

“Lucas’ redoubtable Industrial Light and Magic Co. was behind all this sturm und drang, so you can believe that it is the very top-of-the-line magic, but did this summer, or this year, or this decade, for that matter, need one more impeccably turned-out giant monster — tentacled, suction-cupped or chest-bursting? The sickening, rolling-over-and-over crash of this many more cars? One more threat of a nuclear-powered meltdown? The imagination of the opening is a hint of what the movie might have been: a view of our world that made kids consider it from another angle — as well as a spoof of the superhero. But what are all the pleasant duck effects in the face of any of this numbing waste? In this respect, the movie’s PG rating is a joke. And the movie itself is a pretty base canard.” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“The most inventive creature to hit the screen since E.T. A good-natured adventure with a terrific cast and nifty special effects.” — Tom Green, USA Today

“Willard Huyck, the director, and Gloria Katz, the producer, collaborated on the screenplay, as they did on American Graffiti and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Their touch is not as sure this time. There’s good stuff around the edges of the film — all that word play and all those visual gags demand that you pay attention lest you miss something even in the slow scenes. But at the center, no magic.” — Bill Cosford, The Miami Herald

“Has George Lucas lost his way? He’s specializing in black holes this summer. The master of the Skywalker Ranch, godfather of Jim Henson’s Labyrinth, was apparently also the godfather to the new film Howard the Duck, written by his colleagues Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, produced by Katz and directed by Huyck. What I’d like to know is when did any of them think this witless and overblown fantasy was worthy of such time and expense?” — David Foil, (Baton Rouge) State Times

“The cinematography is crisp and lush as one might expect from a Lucas production, but director Willard Huyck has his hands so full trying to convince people the dwarf in the duck suit is real that he has little time for subtleties that might have made Howard take flight.” — Paul Johnson, (Little Rock) Arkansas Gazette

“As a mild-mannered scientist possessed by a demon from outer space, Jeffrey Jones is amazing. H-bomb explosions in his eyes, a ghastly critter unreeling from his mouth, his chassis outlined in electricity, Jones’s performance makes the picture worth seeing.” — Catharine Rambeau, Detroit Free Press

“A lot of things get blown up in this movie — or crashed, or smashed, or sometimes atomized. For sheer destructiveness, the film calls to mind Steven Spielberg’s legendary failure 1941, though Howard the Duck displays little of the malicious joy or stylistic grace that Spielberg showed off when he was smashing his toys. But the destructiveness of Howard the Duck springs from simple desperation. In the absence of anything resembling structure, character, point of view or sense of purpose, there is no place else for this empty project to go.” — Dave Kehr, Chicago Tribune

“Put the blame on Huyck and Katz. To be sure, they’re credited with the screenplay for American Graffiti. But, lest we forget, they are also responsible for French Postcards, the film about American college kids in Europe that succeeded only in giving small movies a bad name. They are also responsible for the script of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the Raiders sequel that succeeded only in giving big movies a bad name. With Howard, they have the triple crown: They’ve succeeded in giving medium-size movies a bad name.” — Carrie Rickey, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“Howard the Duck is about as cute as Earl the Dead Cat. He is a symbol of the general lack of charm of this picture. What we end up with, after a rambling first half, is a fairly interesting adventure story about monsters from outer space, with a really intriguing performance by Jeffrey Jones as a sleazy, fire-breathing ’overlord.’ The last 20 minutes or so, when Lucas and director Willard Huyck pull out all the stops with bizarre special effects, are OK, but not good or original enough to save a movie that, on the whole, is mediocre and lacking in the one thing we thought Lucas had — imagination.” — Harper Barnes, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

“Howard the Duck is a movie for bored 9-year-olds who have run out of ways to pester their mother until school resumes. Once kids see this movie, they’ll be anxious to get back to those algebra books, which may seem more lively than this plastic space toy devised by George Lucas with his left hand as if he, too, was trying to kill time and didn’t have an idea in his head…. Howard the Duck has one major moment of wonder: Who, you wonder, was it made for? It’s too silly for young teenagers, too hip for pre-teens, too dorky for older teens and too scary for tots.” — Gerald Nachman, San Francisco Chronicle

“Will Hollywood never relax its fanatical diet of action fantasies? There must be other human beings who would like a better balance of movies about people whose problems can’t be solved with massive weaponry.” — Ed Blank, The Pittsburgh Press

“Quite frankly, the whole thing gave me a headache. Howard himself is supposed to be a cynical but charming fowl, but he’s mostly foul, a feathered costume devoid of personality.” — Roxanne T. Mueller, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“Howard the Duck is an example of Hollywood gone loony. For whom has this lavish but boring picture intended as a major summer entertainment been made? If it’s for children, it’s in atrocious taste and steeped in so much special effects violence that parents might think twice about taking an impressionable youngster. If it’s meant as a comic strip for teen-agers or young adults, the script insults the intelligence. Senior citizens straying in might just want to take aspirin. Howard the Duck is a presentation of George Lucas, which makes the mess all the more astonishing. Lucas, as the world knows, is a king of special effects. But is merely piling on effects enough anymore?” — William Wolf, Gannett News Service

“Lucas might consider getting the old team to work on something with Indiana or Jedi in the title. Howard is reputed to have cost $52 million to produce. To make such an investment pay off, the film would have to perform like Top Gun or The Karate Kid II. It may, in fact, perform more like Return to Oz. Whatever Howard the Duck cost, it looks expensive. It is a virtual catalog of special effects, a stunning demo reel for Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic effects studio. What it lacks is a coherent story, a dependable hero and a convincing title character.” — Ted Mahar, The (Portland) Oregonian

“Howard the Duck may be the most highly publicized, widely anticipated movie of the summer — but this special effects extravaganza is a major letdown. Oh sure, there are some interesting elements here, some funny ideas and a lot of in-jokes for movie buffs, and I’m the guy who usually likes off-kilter comedies… Buckaroo Banzai included. But Howard the Duck is so self-conscious, so frenzied, so overloaded with special effects and duck puns that it winds up just being loud and obnoxious.” — Christopher Hicks, (Salt Lake City) Deseret News

“Mr. Lucas knows how to spend money, and he can produce a few dazzling sequences, but imagine his impotence if he were forced to make a movie about articulate people.” — David Brooks, The Washington Times

“While it would not be fair to say that Howard the Duck is a turkey, it’s nonetheless true that this live-action adventure comedy about a feathered, web-footed visitor from outer space is not well done. In fact, this duck is half-baked.” — James Verniere, The Boston Herald

“Once — and only once — is there any real magic. It occurs in the movie’s first 10 minutes when we see Howard in his cosmopolitan apartment on Duck World, just before he’s snatched by a cross-dimensional laser. Here the puns and parodies come thick and fast — a TV commercial in which athletic fowl in football uniforms shill feather fungus salve, copies of Rolling Egg and Playduck magazine (complete with centerfold), posters for the movies Splashdance and My Little Chickadee starring Mae Nest and W.C. Fowls. This is the sort of deadpan playfulness that should have dominated the entire movie. So we breathe a sigh of regret when, to save the world at film’s end, Howard is forced to destroy his only means of returning home. A sequel set entirely on Duck World would have been far more welcome than Howard’s tiresome antics in the back alleys of Cleveland.” — Henry Mietkiewicz, Toronto Star

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

On occasion, event and prestige movies (and instances to appease a filmmaker’s ego) are given a deluxe release in addition to a standard release. This section of the article includes a reference/historical listing of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Howard the Duck in the United States and Canada. These were arguably the best theaters in which to see Howard the Duck and the only way to faithfully hear the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix. Only about two percent of the film’s print run were in the 70mm format, which are more time- and labor-intensive to manufacture and cost several times that of conventional 35mm prints. Of the 200+ new movies released during 1986, Howard was among only two from Universal Studios and sixteen for the entire industry to have 70mm prints prepared for selected engagements.

For the release of Howard the Duck, Universal employed the services of Lucasfilm’s TAP (Theater Alignment Program) to evaluate and approve the theaters selected to book a 70mm print. As well, the movie was booked into as many THX-certified venues as possible.

The film’s 70mm prints were blown up from spherical 35mm photography and were pillarboxed at approximately 1.85:1. The noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the prints was Dolby “A,” and the soundtrack was Format 42 (three discrete screen channels + one discrete surround channel + “baby boom” low-frequency enhancement).