Season TWO OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

[Mr_Homn]

so how is the extended measure of a man? does it live up to the hype? do the re-inserted scenes add anything important or interesting? Or are they largely redundant/unimportant? Is the score of the episode altered significantly by any of the new scenes? will I ask another question? tune in next week, same bat time, same bat place!

[Trekker4747]

Extended version is good and while the scenes aren't necessairily redundant I wouldn't say they're greatly important either. Some nice character moments in it, some more ass-hatery from Maddox in Data's good-bye party. Good moments but, overall, not astoundingly different.

[BrEnDoN]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Again a feature of them switching to CGI and not staying "true" to what was previously established.

Having the nacelles glowing in Flashback is a mistake. But as for Excelsior-class engines glowing in the 24th century, I just assume they got new engines, no need to go continuity nazi on it...

[Trekker4747]

BrEnDoN wrote:

---

Having the nacelles glowing in Flashback is a mistake. But as for Excelsior-class engines glowing in the 24th century, I just assume they got new engines, no need to go continuity nazi on it...

Eh... possibly but it seems odd that all of the Excelsiors we see in TNG don't have glowing engines but then as we see them in DS9 they do. So Starfleet drug their feet when it came to giving Excelsiors the new "glowing engines."

DS9 fleet shot featuring several Excelsiors (the non Ent-B variety, too) with glowing engines.

So SF took quite some time between the 2340s (when "glowing engines" started if we use the Ent-C as a guide) and the 2370s to upgrade Excelsior engines to the "glowing kind" given that all of the Excelsiors we see in TNG have dark engines and they started having glowing ones in DS9 probably around the time they went to CGI for effects.

[BrEnDoN]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

So SF took quite some time between the 2350s (when "glowing engines started if we use the Ent-C as a guide) and the 2370s to upgrade Excelsior engines to the "glowing kind" given that all of the Excelsiors we see in TNG have dark engines and they started having glowing ones in DS9 probably around the time they went to CGI for effects.

Maybe they got lazy and with the war with the Klingons and the impending war with The Dominion made Starfleet finally say "We should get off our fat asses and finish upgrading that shit..."

[jimbotron]

In the bonus features, so much emphasis is placed on the VHS tape of the original longer cut of Measure of a Man that Melinda Snodgrass just happened to still have decades later, as if without it, the reconstruction would not have been possible.

I don't understand the big deal. They have the shooting script, they have all the film elements. Surely they could have figured out what went where, and approximated the first cut pretty well.

[BrEnDoN]

jimbotron wrote:

---

I don't understand the big deal. They have the shooting script, they have all the film elements. Surely they could have figured out what went where, and approximated the first cut pretty well.

They're lazy. They need the tape for the iConform process...

[Maurice]

BrEnDoN wrote:

---

They're lazy. They need the tape for the iConform process...

It's not that simple. They probably documented the final cut of the episode, but may not have had the edit logs for the rough assembly.

[Reeborg]

Ghostface1701 wrote:

---

Or, as you seem to be the only person I've seen complain about it (relentlessly), maybe the issue is with you. Calling others liars is rather immature. Really, WHY would someone lie about this?

I've seen a graph somewhere on the web that highlights the best viewing distances, depending on the size of your screen. I can't remember, but I think 3 meters is a bit too far for a 32" screen. I'm that far from my 42".

What the heck...if people are strongly and repeatedly criticizing that in "this shot the red is not red enough" etc., I will take the time to state again, that the menu design is just ridiculous (ly stupid) by leaving most of the screen empty and making the menu text so small that a big part of (average eye sighted) viewers may have difficulties to read it. This is a basic mistake (to me) less forgivable than a (slightly) wrong mixture of colors.

[Trekker4747]

jimbotron wrote:

---

In the bonus features, so much emphasis is placed on the VHS tape of the original longer cut of Measure of a Man that Melinda Snodgrass just happened to still have decades later, as if without it, the reconstruction would not have been possible.

I don't understand the big deal. They have the shooting script, they have all the film elements. Surely they could have figured out what went where, and approximated the first cut pretty well.

A LOT happens between the script and the screen. "Approximating the first cut" is a whole lot different than getting it right. Having the shooting script is basically having a Google Maps (or worse an Apple Maps) set of directions to a location. Yeah it'll get you there.... Sort of. But it's not going to be pretty, easy, or accurate.

Having an actual, physical, set of precise directions from Point A to Point B complete with landmarks and knowledge of traffic/road conditions? Something entirely different.

[MikeS]

Reeborg wrote:

---

What the heck...if people are strongly and repeatedly criticizing that in "this shot the red is not red enough" etc., I will take the time to state again, that the menu design is just ridiculous (ly stupid) by leaving most of the screen empty and making the menu text so small that a big part of (average eye sighted) viewers may have difficulties to read it. This is a basic mistake (to me) less forgivable than a (slightly) wrong mixture of colors.

We hear you! You're not happy! You've put your point across (several times)!

People disagree with you. You're not going to change anyones opinion now so we don't need you to bleet on about it ad infinitum.

[BillJ]

MikeS wrote:

---

We hear you! You're not happy! You've put your point across (several times)!

People disagree with you. You're not going to change anyones opinion now so we don't need you to bleet on about it ad infinitum.

I really wish he'd quit speaking for all people of average eyesight. I have average eyesight (blind in one eye/average vision in the other) and have no issues reading the menus on a 32" TV at the distance he describes. My 32" is roughly the same distance from where I sit as his is

I wonder if he actually has a 32" set or if its a 22" or 26"?

[Beta-Z]

BillJ wrote:

---

I [...] have no issues reading the menus on a 32" TV at the distance he describes. My 32" is roughly the same distance from where I sit as his is

Same here.

BillJ wrote:

---

I wonder if he actually has a 32" set or if its a 22" or 26"?

Maybe he has set the BD-Output to 480p?
Or maybe the sharpness on the TV to -20

[BillJ]

Beta-Z wrote:

---

Same here.

Maybe he has set the BD-Output to 480p?
Or maybe the sharpness on the TV to -20

I've debated setting my PS3 to output at 480p to see if it creates issues with the menus.

[Reeborg]

Beta-Z wrote:

---

Same here.

Maybe he has set the BD-Output to 480p?
Or maybe the sharpness on the TV to -20

Absolutely LG is selling here TVs with 32" label but 22" real size or maybe it's 32 cm. Thanks now I know what is the problem.

If I would put it to 480p then the menus would become bigger not smaller (at a given point number/resolution of a letter).

What is "sharpness" to 20? Do you mean contrast? Does this affect size of the text?

If you really watch it on a 32" set (from 3m away) and you read the episode names and the stardate etc. below them, wouldn't you honestly say a bit bigger would be more comfortable to read it and it would fill the screen and bit better than now?

Let's laugh all we want, but in the end, making a menu like this with leaving 90% of screen just (practically) empty and the text small and lost as it is, it's just stupid.