Maestro 147 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 I've heard/read so many times about the unused scene with Harrison Ford as Elliot's principal in E.T.Does anyone know if the scene exists on film somewhere, or did it never even make it to that point? It has never showed up as a bonus on DVD or anything, to my knowledge, which makes me skeptical about its existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 I could have sworn I've seen it somewhere. But it may be a fabricated memory.He asks him about pills and stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Ford's scenes can be viewed on the laserdisc boxed set. As with most of the adults in the film you don't see Ford, only his arms, legs etc. He plays the principal at Elliot's school and his scene is after Elliot gets drunk, his mom is also featured in the scene. It takes place in the principal's office. During the scene E.T. causes Elliot's chair to elevate when Ford has his back turned to him.I haven't viwed my DVD box set in quite awhile so I don't know if it made it into the material there. I think ford asked his scene to be cut or was happy it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg1138 3 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 It's on the Region 2 3-DVD set - though as Mark says you haven't missed much.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 It's on the DVD. Disc 2 of the R2 release, which would be disc 3 in the US, I believe. Ford is never recognizably in frame, though.I don't think it's on there as a standalone feature, but it's discussed in the Evolution and Creation of E.T. featurette.It was going to follow Elliot setting loose the frogs and was going to be intercut with E.T. wrapping his parts for the communication device in a blanket and levitating them up the stairs. Because of their connection, Elliot also found himself floating in the air, chair and all, over the principal's head whose back is turned to him at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Vincent 234 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 I don't think it's on there as a standalone feature, but it's discussed in the Evolution and Creation of E.T. featurette.The scene is not a standalone feature indeed, but part of the mentioned featurette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maglorfin 196 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Ford is never recognizably in frame, though.Then what was the point of using him? Because of the voice maybe ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest macrea Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Does anyone know if the scene exists on film somewhere, or did it never even make it to that point? It has never showed up as a bonus on DVD or anything, to my knowledge, which makes me skeptical about its existence.There was evidence of the scene since 1982 when shots from it were used in the storybook and trading cards. And the Laserdisc release that showed it came out 12 years ago, so for almost half the age of the movie that scene has been commonly known to exist. Amazing that you missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Not the bes of quality, but see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Lewis 6 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 You can read the scene in Melissa Mathison's shooting script, although even the final draft has little resemblance to the final movie.Ford is never recognizably in frame, though.Then what was the point of using him? Because of the voice maybe ...One year after shooting Raiders of the Lost Ark with friendly Spielberg, and being the film's writer's husband? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 For some reason though, I used to think this was Harrison Ford, even before I heard he actually had a scene that was cut from the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maglorfin 196 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 You can read the scene in Melissa Mathison's shooting script, although even the final draft has little resemblance to the final movie.Ford is never recognizably in frame, though.Then what was the point of using him? Because of the voice maybe ...One year after shooting Raiders of the Lost Ark with friendly Spielberg, and being the film's writer's husband?OK, I understand all that, but to use him and then never actually show him ... OK, I'll take it it was an in-joke of some kind or whatever. Forget my stupidity. However, I've never heard of this scene before. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 I think Ford was originally considered for the roll of Keys (Peter Coyote) but declined because he had already done Raiders and had ROTJ coming up. Too many blockbusters, although I'm not a 100% sure on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitch 57 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Ah yes...the ole pumping-the-screenwriter-because-she's-my-wife trick to get into the movies. Been there, done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jigawatts121 0 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Melissa Mathison married Harrison Ford after ET and ROTJ came out. She wrote the screenplay for ET. That's Harrison as the principal but he's doing a nerdy voice. Pretty funny I think although I can see why the scene was cut. The was the first time I saw the nurses part and alternate ending though - thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitch 57 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Wasn't he a bit young to play a school principal??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Yes your affair with Lehman is one of the worst-kept secrets in Hollywood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitch 57 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 I thought it was my cross-dressing antics with Bing Crosby that was the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 I've always wondered about that- did he really make you dress like Bob Hope and go camel riding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitch 57 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 We had to abort the Road to Baghdad movie as a result Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrScratch 294 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 It's a bad scene, I'm glad it didn't end up in the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Not the bes of quality, but see it I'm glad it wasn't included in the final film (alternate ending as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 155 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Not the bes of quality, but see it Wow, Ford's voice was unrecognizable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odnurega1 0 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Not the bes of quality, but see it Wow, Ford's voice was unrecognizable.I've seen this before, and just rewatched it, and I have to say that I am glad that it did not make the final cut. It takes away from the film, and in my opinion, is a bit cheesy. But, I could be weird. After all, I did not like the fact that Spielberg removed the guns in the new cut of the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 But, I could be weird. After all, I did not like the fact that Spielberg removed the guns in the new cut of the film.Feeling that way is definitely not weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 After all, I did not like the fact that Spielberg removed the guns in the new cut of the film.I don't think anyone did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I really dont care.Anyways if i was a police man, i would not point a shotgun to a 8 year old kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 If he was carrying E.T. in his bike basket, you would! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I care more about changing the dialogue than the guns. I only watched the new version once...and I don't recall- did they change anything other than 'Terrorist' to 'Hippie'? I remember hearing about them removing the 'Penis-Breath' line, but I don't recall if they actually did (if so, THAT'S a crime. Great moment in the movie). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Penis-breath is still there. Not sure about anything to do with terrorists and hippies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I really dont care.Anyways if i was a police man, i would not point a shotgun to a 8 year old kid.Still,it's one of the elements in the film that made it seem Elliot and ET were in real danger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest macrea Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Anyways if i was a police man, i would not point a shotgun to a 8 year old kid.No shotgun was pointed at anybody in the original film. It's simply be brandished and in the shot where the bikes take off the guns are pointed upward. The agents with the pistols also point them upward when they approach the van. The kids on the bikes also were all in their teens except for Elliott, who was 10.Ford was not considered for Keys. It was the other way around. Coyote tested for Indiana Jones. There's also a shot somewhere of Ford and Mathison on location during E.T. when they were shooting the Halloween scene and as Melissa Mathison was associate producer as well as screenwriter it made sense that Ford would come around. I get the sense that using him as the principal was something of a whim. Mathison was one of the nurses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 The removal of the guns also "necessitated" a jarring edit in the music. Pretty big change for Spielberg, after editing the film to match the music the first time around. The CGI E.T. is actually the element of the 2002 version that bothers me most. It takes away a lot of the realism and empathy created by the tangible puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Same thing happened with Yoda in the prequels. I did not feel his wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest macrea Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Had they done E.T. entirely CGI they never could have gotten the performances out of the kids that they got. The CG changes in the 2002 edition were awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 At least the original cut was on the DVD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest macrea Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Yeah. Good thing the 20th anniversary reissue tanked, 'cause that's probably why we got it. Makes me wonder if we'd have the original Star Wars in high quality if the '97 reissue bombed. If so, I wish it had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I would think it has more to do with Spielberg doing the right thing for the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest macrea Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Nice thought, but if the 2002 version became the hit of the year like Star Wars I think he would have gotten behind his gunless CG'd version. Remember all the backpedaling that went on when the DVD came out where it seemed like the inclusion of the original version was a last minute decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro 147 Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 I don't like the CG E.T., but man did I ever love hearing John's incredible score in a theater! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Anyways if i was a police man, i would not point a shotgun to a 8 year old kid.No shotgun was pointed at anybody in the original film. It's simply be brandished and in the shot where the bikes take off the guns are pointed upward. The agents with the pistols also point them upward when they approach the van. The kids on the bikes also were all in their teens except for Elliott, who was 10.Yeah ok, like in the new US version Indy Trailer.I think that even the sound of reloading the shotgun is heard.In the old movie, those guns are not for show, but for use.Elliott's mother is really scared and complains about it. It may loose a little sense in the new version, though...About the CGI ET:Kudos to Spielberg, who disliked ET's forest run very much, and changed it from a realistically CGI version.Other CGI things are debatable, specially new scenes. I like the new eyes and facial expression anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 The running E.T. in the opening does look better than the original one that just glided around. But that's about all that was improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest macrea Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I actually disagree about that. The execution was a bit mechanical in the original version but I thought it indicated E.T.'s defiance of gravity as opposed to the 'boink-boink' CG version, which also reveals too much of the creature's shape too early on (to say nothing of the bath tub scene which blows it). Again, nobody had a problem with it in '82. They fixed something that wasn't really broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I actually disagree about that. The execution was a bit mechanical in the original version but I thought it indicated E.T.'s defiance of gravity as opposed to the 'boink-boink' CG version, which also reveals too much of the creature's shape too early on (to say nothing of the bath tub scene which blows it). Again, nobody had a problem with it in '82. They fixed something that wasn't really broken.Spielberg says in the docs (i think) he was really dissapointed by the 82' run on the forest. And that loved the new version.And since it is Spielberg and not Lucas, he is not wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now