how big an improvement is the star trek motion picture director cut?

[tmosler]

Hi I have never seen star trek the motion picture but heard that it was really slow and bad. But resently I heard that the director edition is so much better because it has better special effects more scenes and it also doesnt have some of the bad scenes from the movie. So I was just wondering if the directors edition of star trek motion picture is a big improvement?

[RyanKCR]

I didn't like the DE. It made a nice serious Sci-Fi movie into camp. Except for some effects shots the Special Longer Version is the version I think is the best.

[DonIago]

Honestly, this is probably one of those questions where you'll get different answers depending on who you ask. I think -generally- people think the DE is the better version of the film, but there's still plenty of disagreement on that.

I haven't seen it in quite awhile myself, but it's safe to say that for everything I liked about the DE there's probably something I didn't care for.

Put more crudely and probably unfairly...you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

[gottacook]

I saw the original version in the theater (the long-gone big-screen Fox, in Philadelphia across the street from City Hall) and own the Director's Edition DVD, purchased used, mainly so that I could have the music in a form other than my old soundtrack album 8-track cartridge - yes, I have a working player.

Even though various technical problems that resulted from the rush to get prints into theaters by 7 December 1979 were addressed, and even though the DE tries to move things along a bit with some judicious edits (all of these excised bits are preserved elsewhere on the disk), the difficulty remains that Robert Wise was not a good choice for director in the first place.

I don't see how the DE can be construed as "camp" whereas the original was "serious," though.

[Harvey]

The difference between the two versions is that the Director's Edition is a mild improvement over the rushed theatrical release and a major improvement over the hastily-assembled television edit that was later sold on home video as the "special longer version." None of the versions make for a great movie, though, but that's a problem with the script and Wise's direction, and not something that re-editing the film will fix.

I sure wish there was a version that reflected Wise's more judicious suggestions for a shorter version that he made a few months after the film was released, though it is unlikely such a thing will ever be produced.

[Borjis]

I don't believe it's entirely Wise's fault. They started shooting the movie with an unfinished script. That would be difficult for anyone.

He did a damn fine job directing The Day the Earth Stood Still.

[Harvey]

I don't think anyone would completely fault Wise for the film's failure. Certainly, the never-quite-finished script and the visual effects fiasco were major contributors to the film's production and post-production problems. But, at times, Wise's direction is clumsy, and I loathe his choice of a color palette and excessive use of split-diopter shots.

[Maurice]

RyanKCR wrote:

---

I didn't like the DE. It made a nice serious Sci-Fi movie into camp. Except for some effects shots the Special Longer Version is the version I think is the best.

Ah yes, this must be some strange usage of the word "camp" I wasn't previously aware of.

And the SLV is a boring mess with zero pacing.

[J.T.B.]

Harvey wrote:

---

I don't think anyone would completely fault Wise for the film's failure. Certainly, the never-quite-finished script and the visual effects fiasco were major contributors to the film's production and post-production problems. But, at times, Wise's direction is clumsy, and I loathe his choice of a color palette and excessive use of split-diopter shots.

I agree with a lot of criticism of Wise's direction, but the diopter thing wasn't as much a choice as it was dictated by lighting conditions on the bridge set. The palette still seems futuristic to me, even though I don't find it that attractive.

Justin

[Greg Cox]

Borjis wrote:

---

I don't believe it's entirely Wise's fault. They started shooting the movie with an unfinished script. That would be difficult for anyone.

He did a damn fine job directing The Day the Earth Stood Still.

And The Andromeda Strain and Curse of the Cat People . . ..

[Grant]

Harvey wrote:

---

The difference between the two versions is that the Director's Edition is a mild improvement over the rushed theatrical release and a major improvement over the hastily-assembled television edit that was later sold on home video as the "special longer version." None of the versions make for a great movie, though, but that's a problem with the script and Wise's direction, and not something that re-editing the film will fix.

I sure wish there was a version that reflected Wise's more judicious suggestions for a shorter version that he made a few months after the film was released, though it is unlikely such a thing will ever be produced.

I agree with this 100%

The SLV is a mess of a cut--too slow, too padded, with lots of useless bits. There was a time I thought, "Wow a cut with every little bit included, great!"

That is something I moved away from.

The Theatrical is okay and nostalgic for me, but

a cut with nearly every chartacter bit removed. from a series that was all about character interaction???

The DE is the best cut, but is clearly not what Wise or Roddenberry would have come up with if they had 3 more months to edit the movie.

The best cut of this movie is still out there but will never happen officially.

Problem is that fans of the Theatrical and the SLV are in love with parts of those two versins and no future cut that doesn't include their fav bits, will always be inferior to them.

Worst part is that this movie could be cut to 120 easy-WITHOUT cutting any of the dialogue from the DE AND even adding a several lines cut out of the DE "command fitness!" "We all create god.."

I have done so from a laserdisc (a format which had no copy protection) to VHS tape.

It was obviously crude, but it retained almost all the dialogue and shortened many shots inbetween dialogue--longs silent pans and characterswalking about and staring.

I know nothing about editing, but I know a great editor could have given us a decent cut with almost all the character stuff that wouldn't have us falling asleep or looking at our watches.

[J.T.B.]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

And The Andromeda Strain and Curse of the Cat People . . ..

And The Sand Pebbles, his Goldsmith collaboration before TMP. I never get tired of that movie.

Justin

[Grant]

Maurice wrote:

---

Ah yes, this must be some strange usage of the word "camp" I wasn't previously aware of.

And the SLV is a boring mess with zero pacing.

Yes, It is.

And that guy has been stubbornly using the word 'camp' to describe the DE, FOR YEARS. I guess he is waiting for one reasonable person to second that idea.

Any takers?

The De is 'camp'

[BillJ]

I prefer the theatrical version to the DE and the SLV to both of those.

[Grant]

BillJ wrote:

---

I prefer the theatrical version to the DE and the SLV to both of those.

They each have their plusses. The SLV to me, is kind of a 'rough cut' version--which is always cool to see.

The theatrical is neat as a kind of alternative super-serious 'sci-fi' experience without Spock's revaltion about logic at the end and Kirk not setting the self-destruct indicating he always has another plan to save the day.

For me, the DE is closest to the spirit of the series as far as the characters go, but as somebody said it's a poor Star Trek script--maybe not a bad sci-fi script--but a bad Star Trek script.

After 10 years the most fans wanted to see the characters in good form again--not a movie trying to duel with 2001.