Generations deleted scenes

[Grant]

Who is 'we' ?

The we is all the people who know that story is B.S.

Let's see how many Trek fans on this Trek website say, "Yes, I remember that shot!"

Please hold your breath while waiting for ANYBODY to back up that ridiculous claim.

Virtually everybody of a certain age on this website saw Generations in the theater--not one will back up that nonsense-- and you know it.

And your reply is that we buy a 20 year old magazine from the UK to back up your claim!?! And a magazine article about something is not proof that the shot appered in any theatrical cut in any case--that's common sense.

When someone makes a ridiculous claim it's up to them to make others believe not for people who know better to waste their time on a wild goose chase.

[Joker]

Okay, you obviously have some personal investment in this that's beyond creepy.

If the existence of this footage upsets you, and the idea that it was screened somewhere rocks your world, that's unfortunate. You can have another single tear just for that.

If I cared more, I'd go onto eBay and buy a few magazines to try and source the snippet of text. But... and here's the problem... I don't really give a flying fuck about it. Or you.

Since I saw it, and others did too (causing at least one of them to write into the magazine, and the magazine's writers to agree), it's really not worth my time or money just to score an internet victory over a slightly weird deleted scene fetishist.

Regardless... I wish you all the best in your angry rantings. May you one day become a real boy.

Love,
Me

[Grant]

Hey wait.

You say you had forgotten the shot until reading the article reminded you.

So your bringing up the shot should jog other people's memory, right?

You folks remember--the shot that shows the bridge crew being vaporized!

C'mon, people it can't be just one print in one theater where the Joker saw it!

Somebody else must have seen that shot.

You know what would be cool, a forum or place where there are tons of Star Trek fans who are almost obsessed with everything Trek and there we might find someone who saw the scene in question. Too bad that doesn't exist.

I'd rather be 'deleted scene fetishist' than imaginary scene inventor.

Can you reply to any post without use curse words?

"single tear on my butt', 'fuck', 'shitting myself'
name-calling?

What's the big deal? I don't believe you saw what you say you saw--that's it. Going hysterical won't make anybody else believe you.

And this 'single tear rolling down my butt'--

do you have any idea how pretentous it is to keep posting that? You are anonymous internet poster using ridiculous catch phrases. To what end? To impress people or sound cool?

I'm not the least bit angry--just got annoyed at yet another claim of someone seeing some alternate version of these movies. The first person claims tons of added deleted scenes, with finished effects being shown in theaters and then others claiming a line or shot here and there that are a lot harder to refute--except everyone here almost has seen these movies in the theater and never noticed any of this stuff.

I just think it would be great to have a discussion with people who aren't trying to one-up or pose as Joe Cool, catch phrases and all.

[Therin of Andor]

Peach Wookiee wrote:

---

There are times I can picture scenes from the novel "Q-in-Law" as vividly as if it were an episode in season 3.

Even moreso if you've heard Majel and John, in character, narrating the Simon & Schuster Audiowork's version!

[Maurice]

People who are needlessly rude and offensive to someone who's been neither don't merit being read, and I encourage everyone here to use the ignore feature with impunity.

[Rarewolf]

Grant wrote:

---

And your reply is that we buy a 20 year old magazine from the UK to back up your claim!?! And a magazine article about something is not proof that the shot appered in any theatrical cut in any case--that's common sense.

Well I've got every issue of Star Trek Monthly until Enterprise started, I could check if there was such a letter, but they aren't that accessable.

[Trek Survivor]

While Grant certainly wasn't restrained or subtle in his comments, I have to admit I don't believe the OP or the later poster about the Bridge crew being vaporised. I also own all the UK Trek magazines and can't seem to locate any reference to it during the ones from that period...?

I'll be generous and assume it's just bad memory/mixed up memories, rather than a deliberate attempt to garner some sort of odd "fame" by being the only person ever to remember this stuff....but coming so soon after the "Nemesis" thread...

[DonIago]

I'm inclined to agree. The OP's posting history is...troublesome to me.

[BillJ]

I just chalk it up to bad memory. I went for years convinced there was an episode where the Enterprise was Lazarus' ship from The Alternative Factor, even though I had seen all the episodes and knew it wasn't true. But the memory was so vivid.

[CaptainStoner]

Grant wrote:

---

And I gotta say I don't like attacking people, I don't get off on it and it upsets my stomach.

bullshit. It wasnt necessary to attack the OP to disagree with him, which puts into question your motivation and/or YOUR drug use. Maybe a bit less caffeine, champ. Recollecting something wrong doesnt make someone a liar.

Formy own 2 cents on the topic, in Indiana Jones temple of doom, there was an overhead shot of the table when the monkey brains were served, maybeone second of film, that wasnt in later releases...as with many things in life, one truth doesnt negate others. So there may be small tweaks to films, AND people remembering falsely.

[Grant]

CaptainStoner wrote:

---

bullshit. It wasnt necessary to attack the OP to disagree with him, which puts into question your motivation and/or YOUR drug use. Maybe a bit less caffeine, champ. Recollecting something wrong doesnt make someone a liar.

Formy own 2 cents on the topic, in Indiana Jones temple of doom, there was an overhead shot of the table when the monkey brains were served, maybeone second of film, that wasnt in later releases...as with many things in life, one truth doesnt negate others. So there may be small tweaks to films, AND people remembering falsely.

I didn't attack him. I said he may well be a nice guy and a decent person. I just think two so similar seemingly bogus threads--is an annoying thing. I think you and the OP were the only ones who took the 'taking drugs' as anything other than the joke it was.
Yeah, it does upset my stomach to argue with people on these forums, but I just wanted to say I thought it seemed a lot more than just mis-remebering, since one of the 'extended theatrical showings' he said he saw 'recently'. Not sure how you mis-remember something you saw so recently. Especially it was many, many, full, completed scenes and not lines or images that we have all thought we saw at one time or another.

I wouldn't mind in the least someone saying.....

"does anybody else remeber...?"
"I think I remember seeing..."


Stating with categorical certainty something that sounds so bogus makes people sound a little crazy and makes me wonder about some folks around here.

We now have 5 people here who want to claim they remember with 100% certaintly scenes or shots that nobody else remembers seeing and that have forever vanished from home video!?

I will concede there may be slights changes for whatever reason, but oddly nobody who has made any of these claims will even consider the fact that they may be mis-remembering. (Besides those who start out by saying that.)

Memories are tricky things and folks who seem to think that they couldn't possibly be making a mistake about something they saw in a theater make me wonder what's up.

Eye witnesses to events that have happened seconds earlier are very often wrong, but you couldn't possibly be wrong about what you think you saw?
Because why, because you made a mental note of it? That's not proof that will convince anybody else. PROOF is proof--not peoples conviction.

If I remember shot or heard a line in a movie and never saw it again in any home video version- I would doubt my memory somewhat and want to know if anybody else saw it.

Not puff out my chest and declare "I saw what I saw and I don't care what anybody else says!"

Usually slight alterations are made for censorship/rating reasons or even political reasons. Fantasia racism--Kate capshaws nude scene being cut from Dreamscape, etc.

I not saying you or anybody else in particular here is a boldface liar, but chances are most of you are wrong and others ARE lying.

That's not an accusation--- just the odds. Most of you are mistaken.

Asking if anybody else can confirm sonething is the best way to find out which are true. Then that makes for an interesting conversation as to why something may have been lost or cut intentionally.

It seems people are saying I can chalk it up to his bad memory or ignore the OP, but saying "I don't believe you" is forbidden!? I think that invites people to say anything and not worry that they will ever be called on it.

Wow, realized that was super long-winded, sorry.

[wahwahkits]

Grant,I've got to say that as I've followed this thread from the beginning and I've agreed with absolutely everything you've said.

The OP is either mistaken or lying.

Those scenes he claims to have seen do not exist.

[Grant]

wahwahkits wrote:

---

Grant,I've got to say that as I've followed this thread from the beginning and I've agreed with absolutely everything you've said.

The OP is either mistaken or lying.

Those scenes he claims to have seen do not exist.

Thanks for that, but don't 'stand too close' as the man once said. I knew I was wording it kind of harsh and expected a backlash.

That's why I used words like 'confabulate' and joked about being 'on drugs'--purely kidding, I didn't want to blurt out 'You're a stinking liar.'---which I don't think he is.

I think it's more like a 'fish tale' where the person is trying to get attention. You don't hate the guy telling the fish tale--especially if he tells it well.

On the other hand, don't go a U.S. veterans web site and anonymously claim to be a Medal of Honor winner and then get a whole bunchs of facts wrong about the U.S. military.

Clearly those scenes from Generations/Nemesis were never completed with FX to theatrical level and shown in theater.

Anyway, aside from getting overly annoyed at the 'single tear rolling down my butt cheek' line--I'm not mad at anybody here, but I think some people really did get mad.

The OP is not so thin-skinned he's gonna run off because I challenged this one assertion--nor was that my wish.

[Saul]

Joker wrote:

---

A single tear rolls down my butt cheek.

The scene I outlined was referenced in the UK Star Trek magazine edition from that period. I also recall seeing it during the movie.

It was real, gone in the VHS and every release since.

I too remember reading about this scene in the UK Star Trek magazine. Wasn't it a fan letter to the editors mentioning they had seen this scene at the cinema?
I saw Generations at the cinema in Ireland but I don't remember seeing this scene at all. That's not to say it wasn't there but seems like something I would have noticed when it didn't show up on VHS.

[Grant]

What I have heard is that they planned to do such an FX shot.
They plan many FX shots for all the movies (like Data knocking the soldiers off the cliff and tagging them, from Insurection--filmed but never completed or inserted into movie.)

But many FX shots are never completed for various reasons. The idea that they spent the $ to complete the shot and then inserted into Generations for a single print and then lost it--is silly.

Not 100% impossible, just very unlikely.

What's more possible? Mis-remembering.
The 'letter to the editor' triggering a false memory--also possible. Certainly more likely than being in one print and getting lost forever.

It's not 1927 Metropolis being hacked to pices and never being 100% whole again--it's a 1994 major motion picture.
Shoot the FX people would have commented, "we completed that shot but it never showed up!"

Even if it was two seconds onscreen, it would have taken a few man hours to finish.