TGT, why do you hate the TMP Director's cut?

[David cgc]

Why did they redo V'Ger launching the green energy at Earth? The original was fine.

That's why they kept it. Sure, they added an additional angle so they wouldn't be using the same shot three times in a row, and turned it upside down to match the original storyboard, but its still the original shot.

4) The wing walk. With today's technology, that pathetic stuttery-ass dull grey light-blob mess was all they could manage? They weren't smoothly moving or anything, it looked fucking awful.

That was deliberately done, because of a gross misunderstanding of how traditional animation of the period was made. They were actually trying to make it like it would've been in the '70s.

Why not give us that huge image of V'Ger towering over Earth and casting a shadow across the entire planet?

Probably the gross distortion of scale.

 

[Shatmandu]

Three posibilities:

1: His shoes are too tight.
2: His head isn't screwed on quite right.
3: His heart is two sizes too small.

Joe, not more than two

Best possibility:

he has a brain, decent taste and a pair of eyes (probably ears as well, considering the mix.)

Could be.

Personally, I think TMP in all forms is like watching a wedding video.

Shatner is so wooden, I expect a squirrel to pop out of his ass and run up his torso. Nimoy's looped dialogue drains his performance of anything solid. De Kelly seems like the only human actor in the whole thing, and just barely.

And Takei could have been a reworked Balok Puppet. How hard could it have been for him to remember his part: it must have simply read "Sulu gawps" in every bridge scene.

Horrific music, terrible costuming, terrible set design.

Feh.

Joe, who

 

[FalTorPan]

I finally got a chance to see this movie, and I think it did great! It certainly made the film watchable, and the new FX shots don't overpower the rest of the movie, which is great.

While I liked that they actually showed V'Ger at the end, that CGI model needed a heck of a lot more detail to look the size it was supposed to be.

So why do you not like it?

You didn't really describe why you liked it, other than to say that it's "watchable."

The only elements I strongly prefer in the DE are (1) the exterior shot of the plasma energy ball disappearing just before it would impact the Enterprise, (2) the revelation of V'Ger in its entirety, and (3) the new wing walk shot, although I agree with others in this thread that simluating "shooting for twos" looks stupid. The original background painting looked far worse, in my opinion.

 

[Indysolo]

Horrific music...

Ummmmmmmmmm, no.

Neil

 

[trevanian]

they just circulated a single print in L.A at year's end, and then dribbled a single 70mm and single 35mm print around the country with the notion that constituted a theatrical reissue)

Were people being turned away from "House Full" cinemas, or was supply and demand satisfied?

Not the issue. Warner had a contractual obligation to do a legitimate reissue, so I see that as possibly testing the waters for further exploiting the Kubrick estate.Though as far as attendance goes, based on the admittedly goodlooking 35mm print I saw up here a few times, the crowds were pretty damn solid for the whole week.

The film's pace is said to make it less accessable, not the still utterly stellar quality of the vfx.

on the TMP part of your post:
Since I don't recognize the grainy argument for TOS vs tos-r (why exchange SOME grain and SOME mattelines in favor lack of photorealistic credibility of the object in question for most so-called improvements?), I'll ignore it.

And I categorically reject that the DE is in any substantial way pushing the film toward Wise's vision. His comments shortly after the film's release certainly don't reflect that (such as saying the ent intro should be cut by a minute or more), and there are plenty of boards and art indicating LOTS of approaches to the various shots reworked, showing as many that kept the film looking more like what it was than the way the DE reworked things. Going back to Yuricich's discarded Vulcan that was never seen in the film would be one, and I've never seen any art indicating the asymmetric view out the lounge with that lame nacelle, whereas we have nice Probert stuff indicating a symmetrical view. That whole 'animating on twos' notion is a pretty good indicator that the folks ordering stuff up on the DE didn't know enough about the past to trust their own eyes. Somebody ought to try rendering out the moire deckerilia meld transformation at the end on twos to see how jerky it would look.

As far as fans getting to see the 'director's vision' in the DE, I just don't buy it. I also think that since folks who came along after the theatrical release have only seen it on VHS (except for the rare laserdisc folks), they probably haven't had a chance to see it as a side by side compare to realize that there isn't even the reported 500 grand put into it visible in the DE.

Better that they coasted awhile and put some real money into doing it a lot more right and at a magnitude better resolution, so they could repurpose it for each new tech generation. But then again, this is Paramount, who seems to run the same regardless of ownership.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I also think that since folks who came along after the theatrical release have only seen it on VHS (except for the rare laserdisc folks), they probably haven't had a chance to see it as a side by side compare

Who cares who else has or hasn't compared them by now. If they haven't done so already, they don't feel a need to. As I said, it's on iTunes anyway, and the theatrical version is also the one being released in the next movie boxed set.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re "2001"

Not the issue. Warner had a contractual obligation to do a legitimate reissue

Then the Kubrick family should sue. Not our problem.

If people weren't being turned away, then the company re-released the film to the satisfaction of the available audience. Imagine the media having a field day if the film was force-released nationwide to empty, angry cinemas.

I had the chance to see the film in Brisbane when Dullea and Lockwood were here for a convention a few years ago, but we were forced to see the film about four times in a week when I was in high school in the 70s, and to write a film report on it, and I haven't felt the burning need to watch it again. The convention was good, though.

 

[Maurice]

Re "2001"

Not the issue. Warner had a contractual obligation to do a legitimate reissue

Then the Kubrick family should sue. Not our problem.

Which misses or ignores entirely the point he was making.

Here's my weigh-in on the DE.

It's not the film as Robert Wise intended it in 1979. It couldn't be. Terry Gilliam brilliantly summarized why when discussing Brazil many years after making it, saying he that wasn't the same man he was when he made that film, and in a big way, he's right. The person you were 20 years ago wouldn't make the same choices you would today. In that sense, when you revisit old work, you are like another person tampering with someone else's work. Wise in 1999 wasn't the same man as Wise in 1979, and I'll bet any recut Wise would've done in 1980 wouldn't be what the DE is.

So, unless Wise had a pile of specific notes from the era that specified how he'd have recut it (a la Welles and Touch of Evil), the DE isn't his original vision. It's his vision filtered through 20 years of life experience, reflection, and decisions made with people who weren't part of the original production team.

Anyway, I can't speak to what a 1980 DE would have been, but the DE we got ain't it.

 

[GalaxyX]

Well, the Original TMP suffers from a lot of what you guys have mentioned already.

For me the primary things are:

1. The length of the effects. Usually special FX are a good thing, but in this case it's just more of the same. It literally feels like 30mins of just staring at some screensaver.

2. The costumes are horrible. Bland, looks like pyjamas, and I really didn't see to see Dekker's package throughout the entire movie.

3. The "shaking" of the crew inside the ship is so fake.

4. I don't remember V'Ger being visible at all at the end in the original film.

At lest the DE fixes some of these issue. It's still not a perfect film, but the only way it could be fixed is to redo the whole thing again lol

 

[Therin of Andor]

Which misses or ignores entirely the point he was making.

No it doesn't. Supposedly, contractually, they had to re-release the film in 2001. I doubt if the contract specified exactly how the film should be re-released. You can't blame a studio for number crunching. Perhaps they made a payment to the Estate in lieu of not doing a huge campaign? We wouldn't be told that, although if the Estate was suing, or bitching in public on behalf of Kubrick, we'd at least hear that some action was occurring.

Imagine you're a cinema owner in 2001 and some studio forces you to run a movie made in the 60s tnat may well play to empty seats for several weeks. There may have been firm agreements between cinemas and studios way back in the 60s, but a lot has changed since then.

 

[Anticitizen]

I think the best thing about the DE is the overworked shots of Vulcan.

 

[trevanian]

Which misses or ignores entirely the point he was making.

No it doesn't. Supposedly, contractually, they had to re-release the film in 2001. I doubt if the contract specified exactly how the film should be re-released. You can't blame a studio for number crunching. Perhaps they made a payment to the Estate in lieu of not doing a huge campaign? We wouldn't be told that, although if the Estate was suing, or bitching in public on behalf of Kubrick, we'd at least hear that some action was occurring.

Imagine you're a cinema owner in 2001 and some studio forces you to run a movie made in the 60s tnat may well play to empty seats for several weeks. There may have been firm agreements between cinemas and studios way back in the 60s, but a lot has changed since then.

If you can find a theater that would let a studio direct its programming in that fashion in this day and age, they'd probably deserve that fate. It don't work that way. Plus there'd be plenty of theaters that would COVET getting 2001 for a few weeks, at least in the major markets. Geez, everytime I caught a 2001 theatrical reissue between 75 and 90 in the San Jose area, it was doing business (and that's well after it hit home video.)

Warner has done very well out of Kubrick, but I seriously doubt they'd've gotten away with anything less than 30-40 major markets for a month if Kubrick had been alive. They still don't know what a resource they have ... either that or they are just content to repurpose the digital projection version (the only way it plays up here now is in digital cinemas, and the reviews I heard of 2001 in our town's 'living room cinema' place were so abyssmal in quality that I didn't bother going (which is saying a lot considering I've seen it over 20 times theatrically. I'm not at the Tom Hanks level yet, but close. )

 

[trevanian]

I also think that since folks who came along after the theatrical release have only seen it on VHS (except for the rare laserdisc folks), they probably haven't had a chance to see it as a side by side compare

Who cares who else has or hasn't compared them by now. If they haven't done so already, they don't feel a need to.

If they haven't had an opportunity, then the first decent chance they have to see it is the DE ... if they like it, then they think it is because of the improvements, not because it is just a matter of seeing it in dvd rez, which is a helluva step up from vhs. The film isn't paced any better, christ, it is LONGER now than in any version other than the tv extended. Plus it has those uglyass titles that look as out of place as chromakeyed tv LOGAN'S RUN video laserblasts would be in a TOS ep.

 

[Therin of Andor]

If you can find a theater that would let a studio direct its programming in that fashion in this day and age, they'd probably deserve that fate. It don't work that way.

That's what I said.

Plus there'd be plenty of theaters that would COVET getting 2001 for a few weeks, at least in the major markets. Geez, everytime I caught a 2001 theatrical reissue between 75 and 90 in the San Jose area, it was doing business (and that's well after it hit home video.)

So you're saying if cinema owners approached the studio to do a screening they'd be denied access to a print?

 

[Therin of Andor]

If they haven't had an opportunity, then the first decent chance they have to see it is the DE.

If they're an iTunes junkie, the only version they've seen is the theatrical.

 

[DeafPoet]

I think the VFX on the DE are an improvement by and large. But, the relative merits of those effects aside, it's the editing that makes the DE a superior film.

I'm not nearly enough of a TMP historian to list all the changes and what specifically I liked and disliked. But, having seen the theatrical cut a week ago for the first time in like six years, I couldn't believe it's the same film I've been watching on DVD since 2001.

I never used to like TMP and now I know why. Lethargic would be a gross understatement of the film's pace. Some folks claim that TMP is the most true to TOS of the first six movies but the theatrical cut puts the lie to that claim. Sure, thematically it resembles TOS (it's basically "The Changeling" after all) but the vast majority of TOS "popped." A TOS episode clips along at a pretty good pace. Never feels like 50 minutes of TV when you're watching it. A viewing of the theatrical cut of TMP is lucky if it feels like less than four hours.

The DE, by comparison, is a marked improvement. While it's not cut at what I would call a breakneck pace by any stretch, it definitely moves in a way the theatrical cut doesn't. Rarely in the DE do you find yourself wondering what's coming up next instead of getting on with it already.

The DE's improvements were certainly greater in some areas than others, but the point is I think that even the things that were less successful were still better than what premiered in '79. Which, in the interest of full disclosure was five years before I was born. So, I wouldn't say I have any emotional attachment to that cut like some might.

 

[trevanian]

If they haven't had an opportunity, then the first decent chance they have to see it is the DE.

If they're an iTunes junkie, the only version they've seen is the theatrical.

if i'm not mistaken, itunes is a fairly recent development, POST de.

 

[trevanian]

If you can find a theater that would let a studio direct its programming in that fashion in this day and age, they'd probably deserve that fate. It don't work that way.

That's what I said.

Plus there'd be plenty of theaters that would COVET getting 2001 for a few weeks, at least in the major markets. Geez, everytime I caught a 2001 theatrical reissue between 75 and 90 in the San Jose area, it was doing business (and that's well after it hit home video.)

So you're saying if cinema owners approached the studio to do a screening they'd be denied access to a print?

I'm saying that small single cinema owners I have spoken to in northern cal, socal, and oregon have all REQUESTED the chance to screen 2001 and had those requests go unheeded.

 

[Therin of Andor]

if i'm not mistaken, itunes is a fairly recent development, POST de.

Yes. Weren't we talking about current audiences and their opinions on TMP?

 

[Indysolo]

I'm saying that small single cinema owners I have spoken to in northern cal, socal, and oregon have all REQUESTED the chance to screen 2001 and had those requests go unheeded.

This year in the Los Angeles area, 2001: a space odyssey has played at five different theaters (The Cinerama Dome, The Egyptian, The Aero, The Samuel Goldwyn and The Royal). Each of those screenings was in 70mm and the two that I went to (The Cinerama Dome and The Samuel Goldwyn) were sold out. The Egyptian, if I'm not mistaken, played the film for a week.

Neil