TMP Edit Project

[Joker]

Epsilon 9, OTOH, consists of pretty flat performances by actors delivering exposition. After E9 there's not much in this edit that picks up the pace at all from the original.

Harlan Ellison mentioned in his review at the time that he couldn't believe that the audience's first exposure to a human being was that girl on Epsilon 9.

He did some research, and as it turned out, she was related to someone with some influence in the film.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Epsilon 9, OTOH, consists of pretty flat performances by actors delivering exposition. After E9 there's not much in this edit that picks up the pace at all from the original.

Harlan Ellison mentioned in his review at the time that he couldn't believe that the audience's first exposure to a human being was that girl on Epsilon 9.

He did some research, and as it turned out, she was related to someone with some influence in the film.

IIRC, she was Harold Livingston's secretary and later became Jon Povill's wife.

 

[Bones2]

AND
"The transporter scene was unnecessarily gruesome and horrific."

You are aware the version of the movie you are making this from is RATED 'G' Not even PG. But plain G????? Right??

I've never been able to understand how that scene didn't warrant a higher rating. To me, it's the single nastiest thing in the whole of Trek. I have a difficult time watching it, and I don't think I'm that soft.

Arrgh, and I'd love to read that Harlan Ellison review. Anyone got any links to it at all?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

AND
"The transporter scene was unnecessarily gruesome and horrific."

You are aware the version of the movie you are making this from is RATED 'G' Not even PG. But plain G????? Right??

I've never been able to understand how that scene didn't warrant a higher rating. To me, it's the single nastiest thing in the whole of Trek. I have a difficult time watching it, and I don't think I'm that soft.

Arrgh, and I'd love to read that Harlan Ellison review. Anyone got any links to it at all?

IIRC, the review is in his essay book Watching, which was recently reprinted.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd like to see someone approach editing some of the sequences in this movie just by cutting in later and getting out of shots faster, as well as dropping some effects shots. I'll bet the movie would pick up pace enormously. There are far too many moments where the camera settles on the face of one of the actors and lingers for a moment before he or she declaims - if the attempt was to give the performer an opportunity to project thoughtfulness or at least rumination of some kind on the character's part it was a failure in most cases...other, perhaps, than Nimoy/Spock.

 

[Candlelight]

I've just put Final Cut Studio on my laptop so I may do a fan edit, although there are plenty of other movies I'd like to attempt before then, like Alien.

 

[Chrisisall]

the transporter deaths give us a sense that anyone of our characters could die. It's supposed to be "gruesome and horrific" because it conveys to the audience the danger of this mission.

IMO the transporter deaths were just for a "Jaws-in-space" scene to freak us- absolutely unnecessary to the plot except to get rid of Sonak, a character that was, himself, unnecessary.

 

[Shaw]

I didn't watch the whole thing, but the first few segments left me puzzled. In some cases it looked like throwing out the baby and keeping the bath water.

But lets look at one thread of scenes... the death of Cmdr. Sonak in the transporter accident was cut. This left a major hole. Was the transporter accident really needed? Not really. But when it was pulled, so should have been the scene with Decker and Kirk in the corridor and everything in San Francisco. Kirk's first appearance could have been beaming up to the office complex and most of the information we needed we got from the conversation with him and Scott.

Should the fly around of the Enterprise have been cut? I don't think so. In this movie Kirk's passion is the Enterprise, and that was one of the moments that made his passion (obsession) for her clear.

People have already pointed out the title sequence and the Klingon sequence, so I won't rehash them.

So that is about as far in as I got before turning to watch "Who Mourns for Adonais?"

 

[Data Holmes]

the transporter deaths give us a sense that anyone of our characters could die. It's supposed to be "gruesome and horrific" because it conveys to the audience the danger of this mission.

IMO the transporter deaths were just for a "Jaws-in-space" scene to freak us- absolutely unnecessary to the plot except to get rid of Sonak, a character that was, himself, unnecessary.

It was way more than that... It was to show just how much Kirk was loosing his humanity just to "get the center seat back."

This scene, the "viewer off... Viewer Off! Pre-launch countdown begins in 15 min..." moment, the "I need warp power now" "Jim, you're pushing..." they were all building up to the Kirk/McCoy exchange in Kirk's quarters after his blowup at Decker.

These are important narrative moments with regard to the "kirk story".

TMP has two subtle bits about humanity. Kirk lost his to a desk job and an obsession of getting command back at any cost. Spock lost his humanity in his search for Logic. Both reclaimed their humanity because of V'ger, and both were helped along by McCoy's clever little quips pointing it out to them.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Should the fly around of the Enterprise have been cut? I don't think so. In this movie Kirk's passion is the Enterprise, and that was one of the moments that made his passion (obsession) for her clear.

It's a beautiful sequence and it certainly helps to convey Kirk's obsession, but I feel it certainly could've been trimmed just a tad.

Moreover, I like the idea that Andy Probert put out when he first did his dockyard sketches -- that the Enterprise be fully revealed when the dock opens up and she takes flight.

 

[TOS Purist]

[...]being snarky with a smile isn't the way to go about it.

I wasn't being snarky, I was being genuinely friendly. I know that the concept of "friendliness" is apparently alien to the majority of you people here, but believe it or not I actually try to practice it on a fairly regular basis.

Hey, I'll give your edit a look. I'm curious. Is it only available on youtube? Or have you posted a torrent? How about info at fanedit.org?

One thing I know about trekbbs, you can expect some harsh responses. Don't let it trouble you. If you've done good work and you're proud of it, look for affirmation and supporting ideas and suggestions.

Thanks for checking out the edit and giving it a fair chance. I appreciate the kind words for once; one of the members in another thread said that I was "among friends here," but it doesn't really look that way on this forum. People are way too vindictive! Sheesh...

As of right now, my edit is only available on YouTube. I might try to post it elsewhere - when I figure out how!

 

[Maurice]

It's fine that TOS Purist did this experiment as an exercise. I've done similar things myself.

That said, I don't like his choices, as I think he's missing sight of the bigger picture in his zeal to make something much tighter and more TOS-like, and has thrown the baby out with the bath water. Many other posters have adequately covered the very issues I would have raised in a critique, so I'm not going to repeat them.

Suffice to say that if I had my druthers I'd like to see a general tightening shot by shot to "let the air out" and not wholesale scene trims as TOS Purist has done.

 

[Pauln6]

Suffice to say that if I had my druthers I'd like to see a general tightening shot by shot to "let the air out" and not wholesale scene trims as TOS Purist has done.

If I had the skill I think that would be my first draft to see how much time could be saved and pacing could be improved. I don't think I'd remove any character scenes involving characters other than the big 3. That is what the movie lacks.

 

[SonicRanger]

... I know that the concept of "friendliness" is apparently alien to the majority of you people here... I appreciate the kind words for once; one of the members in another thread said that I was "among friends here," but it doesn't really look that way on this forum. People are way too vindictive! Sheesh...

We're not being "vindictive." Do you even know what that word means? Revengeful. Spiteful.

But we're not "yes men (and women)" either.

You're getting constructive criticism here, not spite. If you don't like hearing criticism and are going to ascribe vengeful motives to it, film might not be the career for you.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

[...]being snarky with a smile isn't the way to go about it.

I wasn't being snarky, I was being genuinely friendly. I know that the concept of "friendliness" is apparently alien to the majority of you people here, but believe it or not I actually try to practice it on a fairly regular basis.

That may not have been your intent but that's not how it came across.

For example:

SMILEY REMOVED BY ME

Here's a thought - how about you watch ALL the edits, the completed work, before you make your final judgement? Just an idea.

Remove the smiley and the above statement's tone, from its syntax and diction, becomes quite snarky and a tad bit arrogant. Putting the smiley at the end can be read as putting an "F-U" to some one who took the time to watch and critique, not bash, your edit.

Thanks for checking out the edit and giving it a fair chance. I appreciate the kind words for once; one of the members in another thread said that I was "among friends here," but it doesn't really look that way on this forum. People are way too vindictive! Sheesh...

All work put out for public consumption is subject to criticism along with praise.

My intention in spending the time I did writing up my critique was not to be "vindictive". Nor has anyone else been vindictive. If we were, then we'd have said straight out... "IT SUCKS!" And no one has done that, including myself.

I watched the bits (and have watched more since) and took the time to write up my comments and my reasoning behind them.

Having been through workshops, leading them and participating in them, I've always found a reasoned argument for why something doesn't work to be more valuable than praise.

If you don't know what isn't working and why it isn't, then how can you grow as a writer, film editor, or director?

And, in the end, the product is still yours to do with. Keep that in mind when reading others' opinions. However, if enough people are saying the same things, then it may be worth well to go back and review for yourself.

Sometimes you need distance and perspective to see things. As a friend of mine used to say, "It's hard to see the picture when you are in the picture."

That can be helped by coming across someone who disagrees with your choices; it forces you to reevaluate and reconsider.

What you are doing is a worthy exercise that will no doubt improve your skills as a film editor.

 

[Grant]

I think what Wise didn't have the time to do in 1979 (and couldn't do in 2000) was tighten every scene before deciding the large cuts.

That's how they usually cut down movies....

Cut out only the 'bad' scenes that totally don't work
then tighten every scene so that it is sharp and focused and gets the point accross with the least fat

and then finally if the movie still is too long--sacrifice scenes that are good but aren't 100% needed.

That's the way meyer cut down Trek 2 & 6.....

tightened all the scenes---then when the studio wanted it cut down more--he cut out the preston subplot and the sickbay heart to heart between Kirk & McCoy.
In Trek 6 the whole Operation: Retrieve subplot gone in one fell swoop---along with Col West.

But in TMP, Wise didn't tighten every scene---he was forced to cut out large chunks due to time constraints---because that clearly takes less time than reworking 25 different scenes.
Then in 2000, because the score was already in place he still couldn't tighten every scene. Most of the trims he made in 2000 were of scenes that had no underlying score.

 

[Shatmandu]

I don't think that this film could ever be cut into something entertaining, even with a new score added to newly-trimmed scenes.

If someone has four broken limbs, you don't treat him with a circumcision.

The problem with TMP is the story, the acting, the lack of heart, and the horrific color palette. Can't do anything about those by tightening up the editing.

Joe, cut

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The main failure is the script. If the story and the script had been at least adequate much else would have followed - certainly the performances.

The color palette, maybe not so much.

 

[Ward Fowler]

God help me, I actually enjoy the 70's "futuristic" aesthetic. Actually, the look is reminiscent of "The Andromeda Strain", another (and better) Robert Wise film from the same decade.

 

[Shatmandu]

The only way the iniform colors could have been worse is if they put them in plaid.

Joe, verticle