I think that all that lighting and exposure trickery was already in place for his earlier work, but it certainly helps The Thief.
alright question Garrett
ever considered restoring thief according exclusively to the wp?
no extra footage?
There wouldn't be much point to that, but using the released versions as a source basically turns it into what the Recobbled Cut is, regardless.
Someone with access to the 35mm "Moment In Time" workprint could make other editing decisions, but I was going based on the best and clearest material we could find or create ... sometimes from very obscure, low quality VHS versions of the film. And early on, we only had low quality material.
The Recobbled Cuts, in fact, gradually got CLOSER to what Dick intended in many ways, as I was able to use more complex restoration and technology to replicate it.
In particular the opening sequence took me about 8 years to figure out -- as Dick's intentions were not super clear just from the storyboards -- and what's in the Mk4 is closer than in previous versions. The opening and the "roses" scene that introduces Yum Yum had similar issues, since we had lots of rare tests from them that had to be incorporated somehow.
Original animator Andreas Wessel Therhorn came back and did new art, which allowed me more latitude in how I could edit the sequence, including footage we'd just found. After that I was able to reconstruct the first two shots of Tack, and other rare material.
But I wasn't going to make the film purposely worse, or more incomplete.
If you're working from the released versions, it's impossible to draw a line fully between Williams and Calvert work, since Calvert was finishing Williams' work - with varying levels of success -- between acceptable and bad.
Using that material, and other rare material -- which gets us closer in many scenes to the "Moment in Time" workprint anyway -- turns the project into what the Recobbled Cut is. It was hardly a choice.
Before I did what I did, available versions of the workprint were so low quality as to be unwatchable by today's standards.
https://twitter.com/TygerbugGarrett/sta ... 0449468416
The 2006 Recobbled Cut tests were the first version of the film available publicly that I would call "watchable," and the workprint footage was so poor at that point that the released versions' footage was why it was watchable.
If you just want to watch the restored workprint for historical purposes, that's out there too, and is a good guide for further work ... but to prefer that version is to make fun of what I spent 8 years doing. It really is less complete, and certainly was tough to watch in its old nth generation VHS form, compared to 2nd-gen versions we tracked down later.
Having only a low quality workprint, and better quality copies of the released versions, obviously set the tone for what I was going to include in the first attempts at Recobbling the film, whether in 2000 or 2006.
The pencil tests were not clear and visible in those old bootlegs.
But regardless, the goal was to include footage which was clearest and gave the clearest idea of what the shots would look like.
I didn't have the luxury of pretending that the Fred Calvert versions hadn't happened, and I saw them as imperfect or unfinished versions of the shots, like storyboards.
I never got a straight answer on this, but I always assumed this made the film unwatchable for Richard himself, who had always tried to pretend that the Fred Calvert versions hadn't happened. Or at least, some people around him were wary of my work for that reason.
But objectively, many of the "finished"/reshot shots in the released versions are good enough to include in an edit of the film.
At the end of the day, it's always going to be a compromised film that had "stuff done to it."
I made the best version of the film I could put together under those circumstances.
Some discussion of this appears here as commentary: