There were two versions of Paddy Chayefsky’s Marty released about two years apart, one for TV in 1953 (starring Rod Steiger) and one for film in 1955 (starring Ernest Borgnine). Each version has its partisans, but I have to go with the Borgnine.
I keep hearing this, but I’m not familiar with any other examples of a film being shot over with a different cast by Universal for export. Your mention of Laurel and Hardy in this respect is new to me. Can you name titles?
I’ve heard of European examples of such multiple language shooting –
l’Atlantide
Die Herrin von Atlantis
and
Mystery of Atlantis
are three differemnt language versions of the same story, all starring Brigette Helm
Another example is Kurt Siodmak’s
F.P.I. Antwortet Nicht
F.P.I.
and
I.F. 1 ne Repond Plus
All with different casts
It depends on your definition of “released”. Other TV dramas have been turned into movies as well, including Nigel Kneale’s Quatermass serials (although Quatermass and the Pit had a gap of almost ten years between serial and film) and Rod Serling’s Requiem for a Heavymweight
They weren’t released simultaneously. Schrader’s version was shelved at first as the producers were so disappointed with it. They then hired Harlin to shoot basically the same script but with more special effects. That version was released to the cinemas. Later the producers released Schrader’s version to DVD, although it did have a limited showing at festivals, etc, it was not given a general cinema release.
Then there was CB4 and the much better, though less popular Fear of a black hat.
Is that supposed to be Dante’s Peak, the one with Pierce Brosnan and Linda Hamilton?
Yep. Damn that degree in English!
Does this count? In 1929 Raoul Walsh filmed The Big Trail with a new 70mm process called Fox Grandeur. And since theaters that weren’t specifically outfitted for the new film stock would not be able to play it, each scene was filmed twice: once for 70mm and once for 35mm. As far as I can tell from the material accompanying the recent DVD release, these were released simultaneously. (There were also, according to Wikipedia, at least four foreign-language versions filmed as well, although I’m pretty sure those were in 35mm.)
Braveheart and Rob Roy came out in pretty close succession (April and May 1995), and both were period movies about Scottish heroes.
The same thing happened with some of the exotic wide-screen formats in the 1950s, like Todd-AO and Cinerama.
Another multi-language release was the 1933 Don Quixote, filmed in English, French, and German, with the same script (translated, obviously), and all starring Fyodor Chaliapin (the great Russian bass) as the Don.
I think Tombstone and Wyatt Earp were released pretty close together. Possibly Wyatt Earp was released first, but certainly by the time the movie was over Tombstone had been out for a while.
Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar came out at the same time, the height of the Jesus Rock Movement.
Not at the same exact time, but 1492: Conquest of Paradise came out just over a month after Christopher Columbus: the Discovery
I don’t think either did all that well, much less to have two movies about the same basic thing.
A couple more multilingual pictures:
The 1979 remake of Nosferatu, starring Klaus Kinski as Dracula. I have heard that the cast filmed each scene twice, once in German and once in English. The imdb listing shows a French version as well. Maybe they did each scene three times.
The Leopard, starring Burt Lancaster. When they filmed it, Burt Lancaster spoke all of his lines in English. Alain Delon and Claudia Cardinale did their lines in French. The rest of the cast did their lines in Italian.
The English version uses Lancaster’s voice, with the rest of the cast dubbed.
The French version uses Delon’s and Cardinale’s voices, with the rest dubbed.
In the Italian version, Lancaster, Delon, and Cardinale are dubbed, the rest have their natural voices.
Frylock, you’ve just given me an idea for an art project.
I can’t think of a single example of an early color film (I assume you’re talking about three-strip Technicolor) being a shot-for-shot remake of an older black-and-white film. Can you name a few that were shot-for-shot remakes?
As for the idea of a studio having an older version still playing while its new version was released: never. In fact, the studios went to great lengths to prevent older versions from competing with their remakes.
Walloon, I was thinking of the 1937 version of The Prisoner of Zenda (black and white, starring Ronald Coleman), and the 1952 version (Technicolor, starring Stewart Granger).
I will admit, the shots were slightly different, but the scripts were almost word-for-word identical. (Both were based on the stage play.)
Are you telling me that when Hammer was raking in the bucks from Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, Universal did not try to get more mileage out of their Lugosi and Karloff franchises? That astonishes me.
There were no more theatrical releases of Universal’s horror films from the 1930s and ‘40s after they were licensed for Screen Gems’ “Shock!” package in 1957. So, yes, I am telling you that “the studio did not have the older version playing the ‘grindhouse’ circuit.” Not to mention that none of the Hammer horrors of the late 1950s were at all like the 1930s Universal movies, much less scene-for-scene remakes.
Not quite shot for shot, but Easy to Wed is a remarkably faithful remake of Libeled Lady: I’d estimate that at least 80% of the script remained intact between versions.