The Warriors Movie Site Forum

A trailer I recently unearthed from my "archives," which I made nearly 20 years ago. This was edited the old-fashioned way on a 3/4" video decks with footage I sourced from my Paramount laserdisc and a television copy of the film (for the edited "lose these clowns" line). The sorry voiceover is my own. Sorry.

http://knifeinthehead.blogspot.com/2012 ... night.html

nicely done.
any extra footage on the laser disc btw?

Thanks a lot, ILLER. Glad to hear someone watched it.

The laserdisc is full-frame, open matte and completely barebones. No extra footage. It was issued on the format only once by Paramount, in 1981. That is an indicator of the film's overall lack of recognition / popularity throughout a good chunk of the pre-Internet age.

While another Walter Hill - Paramount title, 48 HRS.--a big box-office hit in '83 and perennial cable and video favorite in the '80s and '90s thanks in large part to the popularity of its star Eddie Murphy--was re-issued in widescreen on laserdisc in the early '90s, THE WARRIORS, in contrast, didn't get remastered and reissued in widescreen until the 2001 DVD. It has since been reissued in a Director's Cut / Special Edition on DVD and Blu-ray (in the early days of the format), not to mention a best-selling video game based on its narrative.

Meanwhile, 48 HRS. had 1 barebones DVD release and has only recently received a Blu-ray release (also barebones), about 5 years into the format. Nowadays, film programmer friends of mine cannot even find a 35mm print of 48 HRS. (because the studio no longer has one available) to show in their recent Walter Hill retrospectives; THE WARRIORS, on the other hand, plays on 35mm quite regularly.

Interesting how things change, with THE WARRIORS becoming a cult classic with subsequent generations who weren't alive in 1979 or 1989, for that matter (this is a very hard thing for many films to achieve), thanks in large part to sites like this one, as well as the film's iconography being picked up by hip hop culture and fashion in general, and an overall revival in '70s pop culture items in the last 15 years or so...love him or hate him, Tarantino certainly has had a little something to do with this.

its safe to say you're a big walter hill fan not just the warriors, yeah?
are you excited to see his return to directing?
http://www.slashfilm.com/warner-bros-ba ... llet-head/

Yes, I'm a big Walter Hill fan, not just WARRIORS.

I am, or was, very excited to see the new Hill film, but it's been tempered by the fact that the film was pushed back from its original release date (April 13) and reportedly been taken from Hill to be re-edited by star Stallone (something the man has been doing to directors for years now).

ILLER... wrote:its safe to say you're a big walter hill fan not just the warriors, yeah?
are you excited to see his return to directing?
http://www.slashfilm.com/warner-bros-ba ... llet-head/

I went to a Walter Hill triple bill at the cinema around 12 years ago. They could only aquire the prints to the Warriors and Driver. The 3rd film was John Woo's the Killer. We were puzzled why the included it, but was told it was for the big announcement that Walter Aquired the rights for a remake. Somewhere down the line, its looking more like a remake of Bullet in the head, but goes to show how long directors can sit on a project before it sees the light of day.

Ninth Delegate wrote:I went to a Walter Hill triple bill at the cinema around 12 years ago. They could only aquire the prints to the Warriors and Driver. The 3rd film was John Woo's the Killer. We were puzzled why the included it, but was told it was for the big announcement that Walter Aquired the rights for a remake. Somewhere down the line, its looking more like a remake of Bullet in the head, but goes to show how long directors can sit on a project before it sees the light of day.

The new film is BULLET TO THE HEAD. It's an original story idea and has no relation to Woo's BULLET IN THE HEAD or THE KILLER. Hill wrote a script for a KILLER remake, but nothing ever came of it, unfortunately.