Wrath of Khan Blu Ray - Kobayashi Maru Klingons
- Thread starter Tallguy
- Start date
Ok, so we've established that some prints didn't have the II.
Unfortunately, when we ran the 35mm films during the marathon, I didn't record the intro like I should have.
The VHS release predated the ABC airing (and as I recall, ABC had the extra footage when they showed it at that time).
The "II" first showed as a part of the film on the VHS release, then ABC. It was always one of those anomalies on theatrical release, in that the promotional material had the roman numeral, the film didn't.
I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I've never seen a 35mm print without the "II", which means at some point they made a new animated credit and a new negative. And it wasn't for the ABC version.
And I'd like to "thank" @Tallguy for making a "joke" and dragging me into this conversation for no reason.
Neil
And I'd like to "thank" @Tallguy for making a "joke" and dragging me into this conversation for no reason.
Neil
Yeah. As I mentioned up thread my brother and I noticed that the ads, posters and everything had the II. I'm pretty sure my copy of the novel had the II. (My copy now does.) The record does. And the newspaper ad did. (I really need to raid my mom's keepsake boxes that have a bunch of my movie stuff from the 80's.)
All of that drew attention to the fact that the movie did not have the II. I have no idea if I saw it in 35mm or not. I saw it at least twice that summer. I suspect I saw it more.
@Indysolo: Sorry!
THAT'S the other place I didn't see the "II": the novel! My copy didn't have it! Later printings did, but the one I have does not!
I'm pretty sure when I saw it in 1982 and 1994 those were 35mm (unless they had the small screen and used a lens to scope the 70mm down), and they did not have the "II". The one in 1991 was 70mm.
And in 1994 someone was there who brought the prints (in case the first few movies had trouble with breaking) and he said that they were all original prints, nothing new was struck.
I do remember in 1991 the print of TSFS broke about half way through the movie! Paramount just sent original prints to theatres for the marathons without striking new prints.
Yeah. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Wrath_of_Khan_(novel) No II on the cover.
EDIT: Beat me by THAT much!
Because wages haven't grown at the same rate as inflation since the 1980's.
Want another strange visual change on the Director's Cut BluRay that I only just now noticed? When Kirk arrives on the bridge just before the Mutara Nebula battle, he orders 'Battle Stations'. We than cut to a display showing all decks light up red. This shot of the display has been altered by having it's brightness level gradually go down to match the lighting change of the bridge going into red alert. Sadly the effect was kind of done on the cheap because the lighted readout of the enterprise is also toned down as well. Unless these displays have a brightness setting to match the lighting environment around it, this shouldn't happen.
Here's the 2006 BluRay: Link
And the 2016 BluRay: Link
Here's the 2006 BluRay: Link
And the 2016 BluRay: Link
Not so sure on that, only because there's no light blooming on the font in the director's edition. The 2006 edition has "PHASER CHARGING" and "PHOTON TORPEDOS" with a fair amount of blooming.
The reds of the hexagon motifs too look blown out and are glowing fishy pink hues.
The director's cut also has a truer gray if not slightly a tad imbalanced with too much red in the grays(?)). Either way IMHO, it's still an improvement. The 2006 release is definitely given artificial enhancement, as the grays almost have an ice blue casting to them... And since even the "red alert" with the ship silhouette looks orange in the 2006 edition, I'm just going to blurt it out: Back then everything was given preferential enhancement in the oranges and blues - even the 2006 Superman releases on blu-ray were rightly mocked as "the man of teal". Most films then, and even now, have a prominence toward those two colors. Many movie posters seem to as well... If blue and orange is forevermore as the sole palette, why not just film in black and white or sepia tone instead? Even superhero costume colors are no longer bright (which represents optimism) in favor of drab puke shades of the same colors once given appropriate and originally-intended bolder brighter hues. May as well call the new franchised "Stuporman" and "Blahwoman" and the one about the batty guy with his birdbrain sidekick...
Hmm. I think I'm failing to convey my point. Let me try again.
I am not referring to the graphic that's on the display itself. I'm talking about the entirety of the picture you are seeing.
Here is the scene as it's shown in the Director's Edition DVD that doesn't contain the dim effect. The shot in question occurs at 1:30.
Note the area around the display and how the lighting remains consistent throughout the whole shot. When you watch that same shot on the Director's Cut Blu-Ray, the brightness of the picture actually dims.
I saw TWoK in three different theaters during the first 4-5 weeks of its 1982 run, and there was no "II" in any of those prints. Someone at another thread a few years ago even posted a still image from an original print to confirm. From 1990 until its final edition a few years ago, Leonard Maltin's annual movie guide included, quite correctly, the sentence "Originally released without the 'II' in its title."
I don't think it's a fault in the transfer. I think it was deliberately changed so that it matches the lighting change when the bridge goes to Red Alert. Personally I would have isolated the areas where the displays are lit because those shouldn't change when the ambient light changes. Would have been easy too.
Right up until the theatrical release date, TWoK was advertised with no II. I've just located online the four-page ad seen in magazines in mid-May 1982; I saw this ad myself at the time, in People. The first image is pages 1 and 4; the other is the center spread, pages 2-3.
Similar threads
