• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

TCM Genre movies schedule...

It's odd to see Star Wars and Star Trek on TCM. I'm not aware of either being on before, but it's possible I missed them.

Overall, a great month for genre works, the 9th especially.
 
I tried searching this thread for the phrases "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" and didn't seem to get any hits in actual schedule posts before this one.
 
RJDiogenes said:
It's odd to see Star Wars and Star Trek on TCM. I'm not aware of either being on before, but it's possible I missed them.
Click to expand...

It is odd since Star Wars will be a revised version. I would prefer that TCM take a stand for cinematic preservation and hold out for the '77 version, but I know that's not going to happen.
 
J.T.B. said:
It is odd since Star Wars will be a revised version. I would prefer that TCM take a stand for cinematic preservation and hold out for the '77 version, but I know that's not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Which non-revised version would you prefer? The first original version that NEVER had "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening scroll (which is how I first saw it 3 days after it opened in 1977 in the L.A. area); or the version where Lucas removed the Storm trroper line of "Close the Blast Doors..." - just leaving in the "open the Blast Doors", etc.

My poijnt? LUcas ha been tweaking the original "Star Wars" film so much, I don't think yhou could lay a claim for the true 'original' version (which I agree is sad.)

That said, agree with yoiu that I DO wish TCM would not show the 'Remastered' 1997 version in any form; and go with one of the various tweaked 1977 theatrical release versions. :)
 
Noname Given said:
Which non-revised version would you prefer? The first original version that NEVER had "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening scroll (which is how I first saw it 3 days after it opened in 1977 in the L.A. area); or the version where Lucas removed the Storm trroper line of "Close the Blast Doors..." - just leaving in the "open the Blast Doors", etc.

My poijnt? LUcas ha been tweaking the original "Star Wars" film so much, I don't think yhou could lay a claim for the true 'original' version (which I agree is sad.)
Click to expand...

Any version that could have been seen in the '77 theatrical run would be reasonable. "Episode IV" was added in a pre-ESB re-release. Variations in different audio mixes are trivial.

Noname Given said:
That said, agree with yoiu that I DO wish TCM would not show the 'Remastered' 1997 version in any form; and go with one of the various tweaked 1977 theatrical release versions. :)
Click to expand...

Agreement agreed.
 
I think even most purists would be OK even with the Episode IV title. I don't even think most people would care if they had cleaned up the matte lines and straightened a couple things up like the bare metal pole seen sometimes during the lightsaber duel. When you start adding Jabba into ANH, change the music numbers, have Han shoot first and so on is when I want to throw up my arms. I've still stubbornly refused to buy it on home video but I watch them on occasion when they air.
 
When they've shown other movies that have multiple versions, do they usually go with the original?
I watched Metropolis last night, and I really enjoyed. It was pretty amazing to think they were actually able to do all of the stuff we see in that all they way back in 1927. Even nearly a century later, the scale of it is pretty damn impressive.
 
J.T.B. said:
It is odd since Star Wars will be a revised version. I would prefer that TCM take a stand for cinematic preservation and hold out for the '77 version, but I know that's not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Do they usually show original versions or director's cuts when available? Most of the stuff I watch doesn't have director's cuts, so I'm not sure.
 
I just noticed that TMC is doing sci-fi on Tuesdays. I was searching "most recent" movies for TMC on Xfinity Stream, as I often do. In the intro it mentioned that Tuesdays would be sci-fi specific. The first thing that came to my mind was this thread. I hope that this thread, on this site, played some part in their scheduling decision.
 
As cool as that would be, I doubt Trek BBS is high profile enough for the people at TCM to even know it exists.
 
OK, so I can understand not having access to the theatrical release but to not even show Star Wars in full CinemaScope(or -ish) widescreen is really disappointing.
 
Mr. Adventure said:
OK, so I can understand not having access to the theatrical release but to not even show Star Wars in full CinemaScope(or -ish) widescreen is really disappointing.
Click to expand...
Absolutely 100% agreed. For a channel that prides itself on showing older films in their original format, to start with the opening scene in Widescreen and then as soon as it shifts to an interior shot, go to a 16X9 crop/pan&scan -- wow.
(Not to mention that they still list it as "1977" when what they are showing is the 1997 'Remastered' version. And of course none of this in at all mentioned by their second string 'Host' prior to the start of the film.)

Very bad form for TCM (IMO)
 
I agree wholeheartedly with everyone on here. I personally love TCM as a channel it is honest, true and straight to the point, even after 25 years, unlike the crap that is MTV; or the dregs of humanity that became the Sci Fi channel, not that stupid excuse for a poor spelling because they dont what to use or pay for the copyrighted term for 60 plus years in branding for the SCI FI channel. Its cheaper to put Syfy on everything under the sun and a cop out since the corporation now owes this goofy term period. Sci Fi was a force to be reckoned with as a channel in the 1990's.

I dont mean to sound or be a snob. But I truly,believe this is ACTUAL problem with the original version of the Star Wars Trilogy from 1977-1983:

It's simply this: George Lucas and Lucasfilm ALMOST got destroyed by Marcia Lucas and the divorce in the 1980's. Marcia Lucas was probably awarded half of the Lucas fortune and half or the profits of all the business assets. Sure George Lucas kept the assets, the businesses, and the technology created. But, he had to pay dearly for an infidelity and a divorce. So in turn Lucas had to take time and projects to rebuild everything again.

So in turn as ridiculous as it sounds, the original trilogy as it was theatrical or otherwise will PROBABLY never be released again HD or otherwise, because Disney and Lucas alone have to pay out Marcia Lucas again. Disney bought the rights from George Lucas but not his wife. Its a mess that no on wants to engage or be a part of. Sure Lucas released the Original Trilogy in the worse possible from the last time in 2005 on DVD, but that is only because he has to renegotiate and pay to Marcia Lucas or pay royalties to her for the original 1980s VHS, LASERDISCS in the 1990s, and lastly the 1995 remastered THX and then the 2005 bonus DVDs which are horrible laserdisc transfers from 1993. Seriously Lucas with all his technology to release 12 year old non HD versions in those sets? He would be laughed at for the quality.

Sadly the same thing is PROBABLY LOOSELY true for the prequels. The good excuse for the public was that Lucas needed to raise a family, he's burned out on Star Wars, the tech and the cost were too high etc, etc. But honestly secretly George Lucas was burned by his wife, to the point he could just say to the world, "No, I wont give her another dime again."

Its sad, but I bet George Lucas didnt want the world to know something so private and so damning as to have people judge him again in the world for a bad and failed marriage. Marcia Lucas made choices that George Lucas had to bear the responsibility for. So he waits 16 years to make the prequels, and alter some if not most of his original concepts so Marcia Lucas doesnt have a new and additional claim or suit for. See in the 1990's after Indy's last movie, the resurgence in Star Wars licensing. Marcia Lucas wouldnt DARE challenge Lucas and Lucasfilm in court for a claim.

Sorry for the long post everyone. Did Marcia Lucas deserve money for what she helped created? Sure. But still Im sure GL asked when does it end? When does Marcia stop getting money? So he alters the 1997 special editions so that George doesnt have to pay at all, to Marcia altered enough for new copyright and new dates. Disavows the existence of original versions of the films. Says in 1994 too much degradation in the original negatives, then its no sorry the original print negatives were permanently altered to create the special editions. Then Lucas its an unfinished film.

The long and short is this. Marcia Lucas would have to be paid HEAVILY for the original versions to be released again, broadcast, HD disc or digital. George Lucas doesnt want that, and nor does Disney. It was a bad messy divorce, and unfortunately it would be nasty and messy for Disney as a family company to get in the middle of. Who knows, it could be contractually forbidden to negotiate with Marcia Lucas for original theatrical versions again as per George Lucas's 2011 sale to Disney.

In my mind it seems the only time Disney hasnt ever released or broadcast the original version of the films. Also another reason anyone can obtain the originals in their form on disc, and no ending it for copyright violations. At least there is that.

Sadly George Lucas has been put down and shamed enough by fans and others. But, truly Lucas took all the negativity to shield everyone from this awful embarrassing truth. I highly doubt it will ever change with the theatrical versions being released.

Im a Star Wars fan and Sci fi fan through and through, I take the good, the bad and the ugly of it all, and cherish this great Saga wholly, that was given to us at great personal cost all around by George Lucas himself, and his family.

I honestly believe this the truth everyone. Sorry for the long long post.
All the best,
-Koric
 
Last edited:
Koric said:
not that stupid excuse for a poor spelling because they dont what to use or pay for the copyrighted term for 60 plus years in branding for the SCI FI channel.
Click to expand...

Huh???? First off, "copyright" is for a whole work; titles or logos are trademarked. Second, the term "sci-fi" is not trademarkable, because it's too generic. That's why they changed it to Syfy -- so that they could trademark their own name. So you have this completely backward.

As for your other copyright theories, I find them deeply unlikely. Whatever changes Lucas made in the films were fairly minor, not remotely enough for them to be counted as separate works. They're still under the same titles and immediately recognizable as the same stories, so no judge on the planet would buy the argument that they were independent creations. Anyone who had rights to the original version would still have rights to the revised versions.

Lucas changed the films for the same reason that other directors put out revised directors' cuts of their films, and the same reason that novelists often rewrite their older novels on re-release: because no artist is ever perfectly satisfied with their finished work. Creativity is a process of constant revision and refinement, and it ends when you run out of time to revise it further before release, so creators almost always continue to think of more ways they could've improved a work after its release. In the case of filmmaking, additionally, the process is subject to many real-world limitations of budget, resources, technology, and so forth, so filmmakers have to make a lot of compromises that keep their films from perfectly fitting their visions. In Lucas's case, those compromises were largely budgetary and technological -- there were a lot of visuals he wanted to include, but he didn't have the means to achieve them the first time around. So once he was rich and powerful enough to do anything he wanted, he went back and put them in. Just about any creator would do the same, given the same opportunity.
 
Noname Given said:
Absolutely 100% agreed. For a channel that prides itself on showing older films in their original format, to start with the opening scene in Widescreen and then as soon as it shifts to an interior shot, go to a 16X9 crop/pan&scan -- wow.
(Not to mention that they still list it as "1977" when what they are showing is the 1997 'Remastered' version. And of course none of this in at all mentioned by their second string 'Host' prior to the start of the film.)

Very bad form for TCM (IMO)
Click to expand...

Who was the Host? I was a bit annoyed they had Ron Perlman show up to host one night and it was Jaws 3. What a waste.
 
BTW, Star Trek II looked great.

I've never bought that Marcia Lucas theory for a number of reasons. I checked the credits and she is still listed under Film Editors so I don't see how she would be cut out of royalties. I suspect if it were that easy to get out of paying monies ALL movies would be remastered.

Anwar said:
Who was the Host? I was a bit annoyed they had Ron Perlman show up to host one night and it was Jaws 3. What a waste.
Click to expand...
It was some woman with a British(?) accent but I didn't recognize her. I didn't get the sense that she was supposed to be famous.
 
Mr. Adventure said:
I suspect if it were that easy to get out of paying monies ALL movies would be remastered.
Click to expand...

Remastering is routinely done to new releases of old productions, but that word does not mean what people have come to think it means. Remastering means going back to the original master print of a film or audio in order to create the best-quality reproduction of it that you can. So it means recreating the original as perfectly as possible. Altering the original or creating new footage for it is the opposite of remastering, because you're creating a version that's different from the original master print.

The problem is that when Star Trek was digitally remastered to allow an HD-quality release, they no longer had the original film elements of the FX shots to allow them to remaster those in HD, so they decided to replace them with newly created CGI shots instead of remastering the original shots. So the new FX footage was the only part of Star Trek Remastered that was not remastered, but because it was the part that got the most attention, people started thinking that "remastered" meant "changed."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top