MovieChat Forums > Twice Upon a Time (1983) Discussion > Probably no one will read this :(

Probably no one will read this :(


Ohh I hate it,

i just discovered this little gem of a movie when re-reading my old cinefantastique back issues. So I went on to search the web, but there´s nothing but the trusty old IMDB. :(

The movie wasn´t even released over here in germany and even a dvd-release seems to be in a very distant future anywhere on the world. These are the moments we filmfreaks fear most - the missing movie.

So if anyone know how to get this pearl to a little german movie-maniac email me. And please no videotapes, because (singing with a strange voice) "the tiiimes they are cha-a-a-nging".


dia

PS See also under http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086162/ - just another missing movie :(

reply

There're a couple of fan sites that've posted information about the video release, and why a DVD release may not be in the future.

Supposidly there was somekind of rift between the two producers. One man wanted to create a traditional family film, where the other wanted to push the comic limits of the film to make it more funny. The result is the versions of the film that fans are familiar with. One that's fairly clean in language, but also shorter, and the other that's got some very minor swearing, but sets up the comedy for the rest of the film.

The reason this is important is because the clean version was released by Warner Home Video, but the funnier version was aired by HBO, copies of which are highly coveted. And the reason that's important because last I heard there was no reconciling the two versions between the two producers; hence no DVD version.

Further, one of the owners of one of the fan websites told me in a personal correspondence that they had asked one of the producers if the longer version would ever be published, only to have said producer accuse him/her of being a lawyer or somekind of representative for the other producers, and trying to gain rights to the film. Such is the state of the American film industry, and the ethos of those within.

The story goes on, but the short version is that if a DVD ever comes out it'll be shorter "non-funny" or "family" oriented version.

I hope that helps explains a few things. I think a DVD of this movie unlikely. But who knows?

reply

Thanks Blueghos,

great Info - even if it´s bad news for me. :(

I havn´t seen the movie at all (sometimes living in the "old" Europe isn´t fun), so even the shortened Version would be better than nothing. But has nobody taped the HBO-Version? I really can´t believe this.

I thinkl you know what I´m hinting at. :) Mail me....


dia



reply

[deleted]

i didnt even know there was swearing! i saw this movie a long time ago on cartoon network and i loved it so much! i taped it and i still have the tape. i really hope they put it on dvd! im not sure if it would sell much but i know those who do buy it would be VERY happy!

reply

The answer is no.

You want me to send you a version of a film that's not authorized to be copied for what purpose? You want an illegal copy of a film you haven't seen?

Give, me, a-break.

reply

[deleted]

Before posting learn to communicate. Intellectual property theft is at an all time high, and animation is a prime target (though it's usually Japanese Anime).

Tell you what. Go out and make your own animated movie. Go spend a couple million dollars, but when you market your video ignore your copyright and all protection schemes. Then when the creditors come to take away your home, car and other property, because pirates have cut into your profit margin, just explain that you want everyone on the world to see your movie, and that you really don't mind people making copies of your film to sell. And on the slim chance that you've got an artistic flair, enough to earn you an award, go see how you like someone taking credit for film you made.

Go now. Your destiny awaits.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with zombiejesus-1. I mean seriously, Star Wars has probably been recorded and handed out a couple million times, but I don't see Lucas heading to the local soup kitchen for dinner, or asking for a hand out. Oh, yeah...Twice Upon a Time was also a Lucas Film. And considering they aren't releasing the version people are trying to find what money are they losing? Have you seen the edited version? I wouldn't spend a buck on it. Probably 'cause I've seen the good one and if I had a copy to send the guy I'd do it. Blueghost is so great. Wish I had a big ladder so I could talk down to all the people beneath me too.

"Your destiny awaits."

What an idiot.

reply

That doesn't make it right, much less legal, and he has the resources to police his work because of the success it has brought him.

So there.

reply

No, that's incorrect. Your logic is that because you're not selling something you made, and somebody else is, that therefore you, or whatever party is involved, isn't being harmed. Unfortunately for you when you decide to put your product back on the market there's no, or little, demand because said market's been saturated. And on top of that with an unauthorized copy of the thing you made, whatever that thing may be. I forget the legal term, but it has to do with "future earnings." And FYI; most films don't make "millions" by your implied definition; "large amounts of wealth to sustain a company over a period of time." It's part of the whole reason studios put out multiple films each year, and part of the reason smaller production companies are always scrounging for money.

If you try you argument in front of a judge not only will you get the cuffs slapped on you, but you'll also get laughed out of court if you try to recoup your legal fees, and probably fined for wasting the judge's time on top of being thrown in jail. This is in addition to any damages awarded to the party from whom you stole material and/or made pirated copies.

In short you have no concept of what you're talking about. You simply don't understand copyright law, nor how the motion picture and media industry enlarge, works.

Odds are you're just some preadolescent, and where I can appreciate some young person seeking knowledge I don't appreciate specious arguments.

It helps to know what the Hell you're talking about before commenting.

reply

Of course, all this is moot. Twice will never be put on an official dvd and I'll bet money that it never will.
blueghost, calm down buddy. I know you're presenting your point and that's cool, but c'mon...chances are Lucas probably forgot about Twice. Now I'm not here to say owning/selling unofficial copies is wrong (I know plenty of guilty people and I'm probably preaching to the choir), but let me ask you this. What about the people who tape shows off tv (be it VCR, DVD, etc). So are you saying, slap the cuffs on them? You think jail is overcrowded now! I know lawyers who have bootleg shows/movies. If you throw them in jail too...then the terrorists win! Sorry, couldn't help myself.


Sam: I feel kind of bad, beating up on a superior alien beings.
Max: So what?

reply

Blueghost:

If Daedia's request for a copy had been granted, it would have resulted in a single person owning a copy of this movie. This is not a grim scenario, and it would not have resulted in creditors seizing the producer's assets. And yes, I realize that piracy is a problem that involves more than "one" person. But I also realize that, though it has its fan base, there are not enough people who want to own Twice Upon a Time for its piracy to seriously jeopardize "future profits." If there was enough demand (by which piracy would then be an issue) the studio would have released it on DVD, in some version. In other words, the greatest threat to Twice Upon a Time's profit seems to be lack of interest and demand.

Now, let me italicize this for emphasis: I agree, on principle, with everything you said. But if fans--or a potential fan, in Daedia's case--are forced to procure a pirated copy of this movie because rivalry, pettiness, and corporate ineptitude have prevented them from owning a studio-released version, then crying foul seems very cheap. Not to mention being a good example of overstating the case.


"Thinking causes wrinkles!" --Malibu Stacy

reply

If I were the film makers in this case I would have no problem with fans distributing my film to each other, and exposing it to new viewers. If a quality official release of my film was caught up in some lame dispute by petty small minded individuals who care nothing about the actual film I would want people to see it however they could. As an artist myself I want any money made off of my art to go to me, but if a bad situation over money kept my art from even being seen at all I would freely support people getting it however they could, as long as it was for the sake of enjoying the art.

That said I totally agree about real piracy. I have hundreds of DVDs and would never get a pirated DVD of a film that is actually available to me as an official release. That said, if the owners of the film, as in this case, have no interest in making it available what choice do the films fans have but to see it in the few ways possible? As much as I despise real piracy for stealing from artists, I do not consider this kind of distribution amongst fans anything but piracy in a purely technical sense. This is not copying a film in order to get it free, or cheap, or to make money from someone elses hard work. It is copying this film in order to support the films continued existance, and keep it alive within our culture itself. Copyright law is a great thing when it is used as it was originally intended, to make sure that the artists responsible for something get the financial benefits from their work (but really how often is that actually the case now), but in many cases today it is used (even unintentionally as in this case) as a way to put a stranglehold on our collective cultural heritage. Do you know how many films will be completely lost because of the changes to copyright law that are enacted to help large corporations (mainly Disney) maintain control over their properties longer than they actually legally should be allowed to?

In 1998 the length of time that a copyright lasts after the original owners death was increased from 50 to 70 years (which was mainly influenced by the fact that Disney was looking at the upcoming inevitable loss of the copyright to Mickey Mouse). But this increase in copyright time also "protects" many hundreds of other films that should be entering the public domain. Films that people still care about, and are part of our cultural artistic heritage, but are owned by people who are either unaware of their ownership, Too greedy to care about the films future, or are unable to be found at all. So these films which should become available to the public to be restored, and preserved for the future are going to rot, and decay into nothingness. They will be lost forever because the licensing costs, or threat of being sued for copyright infringement will stop prospective film restorers from attempting to preserver them. And it's all so that Disney can take in another 20 years of profits on Mickey Mouse. And so what then? In 20 years will they just extend the copyright time another 20 years? Is that what copyright law is supposed to be about?

My point is not that any of this makes it okay to pirate films. It is only that copyright law is not 100% black and white. It is not a matter of every person who technically violates copyright law is a bad person, or even a pirate (if that were the case then anyone who has ever used a VCR or Tivo is a criminal). It is not a matter of every technical violation of copyright law actually even hurting anyone at all. It is not a matter of Copyright law even being a good thing in every case. At some point preserving art for the sake of the art and our culture is more important than who deserves the money that could be generated by that art, which is why copyright limits were enacted to begin with.

Personally I have Twice Upon a Time on VHS, taped off of the Cartoon Network years back (I haven't yet purchased the VHS because I've been hoping for any DVD). Technically this is also a pirated copy. Technically you can not own this film legally unless it is the official edited version on the official VHS (or laserdisc). The unedited version taped from HBO is a pirated copy as well. If you, Blueghost, own this film on a tape made from a broadcast version like HBO's then you are a pirate and own a pirated copy. If someone lucky enough to have the HBO version taped puts it on a DVD it is a pirated DVD. But if the owners wanted make money from this film on DVD they would release it on DVD. They don't care about this film though. In this case the people who are the so called "pirates" are the only people who care about this film. And I can tell you that they are the first ones who would rush out and purchase an official release of the film. They would be happy to give the films copyright owner their money. But in this case the copyright owner isn't interested in taking that money. Yes if this ever went to a court it would not hold up as a defense, but that does not make the person a bad person or a "pirate" for enjoying a film that the owners of said film haven't made available in a reasonable form. Buying a $2.00 bootleg copy of the hottest DVD release instead of going and buying the $20 official release is wrong legally, and moraly. Getting a fan made copy of a film that is unavailable in an official form may be technically wrong in a legal viewpoint, but is it really morally wrong on the same level?

reply

AMEN BROTHER,
If the "Man" wants his credit and his money, then why keep it from those who are willing to give it. I seen the HBO version as a wee lad, and have wanted it ever since. I just seen this site, and thought, "what the heck?" Low and behold, my favorite movie, being dragged over the coals. I would buy the first copy that came my way, be it official or other wise. It's like an artist painting a fabulous work of art, then hiding it in his basement for all of time, never to be enjoyed by his fans,...what's the freakin' point. Give the fans what they what, or I guarantee you someone is going to break into the basement sooner or later to get a glimse or just outright snatch the thing. I want the damn thing and I think the "Man" should supply it. He's going to make a hell of alot more money by relasing it to me and my like-minded friends, than just letting it sit around and collect dust in his basement. Someone needs to find this dork, and shake some sense into him. That's all I have to say about that. P.S. to BLUEGHOST: I'd like to see your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my lawyers butt.

reply

I am SO GLAD that I finally found this film in the IMDB. For years, I've been searching for it under "nightmares" and finally gave up, guessing that it was never posted to the DB. Then last night, I looked for "fairy godmother" and there it was! I knew the year to be 1983-85, so I honed in on "Twice Upon a Time" and found others who are fans of this mind-boggling gem of an animated film. I loved it the moment after I picked my jaw up off the floor and couldn't stop laughing.

Who is offering up an uncensored copy? I really, really want this film in my library. Now.

reply

You've brought a tear to my eye Smeg. I only wish I had the ability to write as well as you did. This is a movie I remember fondly that can no longer be found and bought legally. Is this a good thing? Not at all. Should it die with a whimper? No. But there it is. All I really wanted to do was see it again.

reply

That was the most elegant argument I have ever seen for conscientious piracy. Yes, it is illegal. Yes, it is bad, according to the letter of the law. Bu there has to be a line somewhere.

I first saw this movie on HBO (unedited) in 1984, when I was 13 years old. It has affected me in a way no other movie has since. The visuals were appealing, the story was great, and the characters were engaging.

And I can never share the joys of that move with my kids. I can show them Rocky Horror, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, anything by Monty Python, and the Godfather series. If I wanted to, and I DON'T, I could show them Howard the Duck. But I can's show them possibly the greatest, funniest animation movie of all time.

So what do I do? I keep making offers to those who have an unedited copy, and I have NO problem paying through the nose to get it. Let's take another tack. How would anyone feel if his or her favorite movie was unavailable due to a decision NOT to release it? How about those movies that can be deemed grossly offensive by large parts of the population? Such as:
Schindler's List (torture and degredation)
Passion of the Christ (corrupted religious text)
Saving Private Ryan (gore and language)
Fantasia (cartoon depiction of the devil)

Well?

reply

i think there is no higher calling than keeping an ilicit copy of an out of circulation film out of the hands of someone who might become a fan.

reply

i think there is no higher calling than keeping an ilicit copy of an out of circulation film out of the hands of someone who might become a fan.

Why?

THAT MAN'S NUTS! GRAB'UM (ouch!)

reply

Got the HBO version on DVD, but the quality has obviously skipped a generation or so. Still, it is viewable. Got in online, have to see where. Anyway, I personally love both versions, but no DVD will come from it because A) Not in big demand as say Baby Geniuses or Braceface(Oh God why this and not Voltron or Real GB) Sorry, rant for another topic. B) Warner is run by guys with thumbs up their asses. If it doesn't appeal to today's youth in their thinking, it won't be issued. That's a shame because I think that target audience would appreciate it as well. My 15yr old brother loves it, as does our 18yr old sister. Personally, I saw it on HBO when I was 5, being 26 now. C) The clean version would be the one chosen, but I like to think the naughty bits would be included as extras. That's not really a reason, but well...I don't care.

reply

[deleted]

I got a copy of this film on laserdisc a few years ago. It's the "family" version, but I love it nonetheless. I've been thinking about transferring it to digital DVD to preserve it.

reply

They have a version for rent here in Seattle

http://www.scarecrow.com/rental/item_rental.asp?Number=11

Notice it was the =eleventh= video they ever cataloged :)

Much mention is made of the"G" rated version, is PG the good one? (these guys ain't cheap to rent from - a hundred dollar deposit in some cases)

hate to waste 5 bucks on a chop job

reply

I will save an administrator the trouble of deleting this post, by not saying what I was going to say. Come to think of it, I also won't say the other thing I was going to say. There, that makes for a nice safe, unbalanced debate, doesn't it.

reply

Maybe this will shut at least a few of you quibbling geeks up.

HEY DAEDIA: buy a copy off of ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/Twice-Upon-A-Time-George-Lucas-New-VHS_W0QQitemZ9111213863QQcategoryZ309QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

reply

[deleted]

This is from an animators perspective, a milestone perhaps in the evolution of different styles.

reply

I was going to comment that it used to be on YouTube, but doesn't seem to be there any more. Of course, then 2003 you would say "What's YouTube?" and this would get awkward.

reply

And I just watched it on TCM yesterday! June 2015.
Odd, odd, movie!

"AT LAST SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER"

reply

I loved the art style but didn't like the movie myself

reply