• 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!

TMP Edit Project

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.
Well, if you only tightened shot by shot, you'd still be left with the "wholesale scene trims" that I did, except you might have them still in the film. Although some of them were done due to personal preference, most of the trims were a necessity in order to make the pacing consistant. If you had normally-paced character scenes, and then suddenly you still have longer effects shots, it's not consistant and doesn't quite feel right.

But I encourage everyone who is able to try it out on their own - I'd love to see what they come up with! :techman:
 
But I encourage everyone who is able to try it out on their own - I'd love to see what they come up with! :techman:

Should we all try our hand at editing the Beatles' White Ablum to make it fit with today's musical standards? Should we renovate the Roman Colosseum to be more like the Superdome? Why not leave something as the product of its time that it is? I'm happy to leave it alone, and I don't have the hubris to chop up what a very talented director and editor like Robert Wise has created.
 
The difference is that, unlike George Lucas' attitude towards the original SW trilogy, fan edits like this aren't trying to replace or eliminate the original version, just offer an alternative along side it...a "what if" version, if you will. When you really think about it, the "Special Longer Version" that came out on video all those years ago was essentially a fan edit, just one sanctioned by the studio. Ditto the Director's Edition DVD, just done by Wise himself.

Go browse around FanEdit.org's forums for a bit. There's more going on there than people just hacking up films willy-nilly.
 
Well, if you only tightened shot by shot, you'd still be left with the "wholesale scene trims" that I did, except you might have them still in the film. Although some of them were done due to personal preference, most of the trims were a necessity in order to make the pacing consistant. If you had normally-paced character scenes, and then suddenly you still have longer effects shots, it's not consistant and doesn't quite feel right.
First off, let me congratulate you for the product. It obviously took alot of time, effort and planning, and you executed what you wanted to do very well. So regardless of whether those of us here agree or disagree with your editing choices, I think you should be proud of the effort.

Having said that, I personally have a major area of disagreement with the way you have chosen to edit the film.

It seems to me that you are not trying to edit the film the way it would have been edited in 1979 had they had the time to do it right, rather than being rushed into the theaters with it half finished. Rather, it seems you are trying to edit the film the way a film would be edited in 2009. You seem to be taking the attitude that everything needs to be faster and quicker. And that's very much a 2009 mindset.

Scenes can be slow and thoughtful and still not be boring or out of place. This particular film is not designed to be done with the pace of a 2009 sci-fi film. It is designed to be done much closer to the style of a classic sci-fi film like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Trying to make it move fast, to make cuts quicker, to trim dialogue scenes to remove pauses and silence does not work with TMP. It feels wrong and out of place.

Certainly, no one can argue that TMP needed tighter editing. The filmmakers have admitted, for example, that they had no time to trim and adjust the visual effects shots, but simply had to insert them as soon as they came in from Trumbull and Dykstra. But trimming shots that were overly long due to insufficient editing time is very different from, say, trimming character interactions that were designed, on purpose, to be slow and thoughtful.

In my opinion -- and that's all it is, my opinion -- TMP is no more suited to a fast pace, quick cuts, and TOS music than 2001 is. They are different animals and should be treated as such.
 
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.
Well, if you only tightened shot by shot, you'd still be left with the "wholesale scene trims" that I did, except you might have them still in the film. Although some of them were done due to personal preference, most of the trims were a necessity in order to make the pacing consistant.
I don't see that at all. Your edit, to my eye, and this may be purely subjective, is inconsistently paced and choppy. There's no rhythm.

As I said in another thread, I have played with editing TMP as an exercise. The first time I did it was in the early 90s. I recently did some cuts on scenes of the film as practice. For example, the first thing I attacked was the drydock sequence, which Wise himself (in 1980) said was too long, and was something he wanted to cut by over a minute.

Below is how I approached it. I'm not saying it's the right way, or the proper way, but the way I'd approach editing the film were someone to hire me to tighten it up and yet try to maintain the character of the piece.

1. Try to figure out what I thought the scene was trying to accomplish.
Decided it was was a character's grand entrance. It was designed to tease the audience about the ship, then reveal it and show Kirk's obsession, and give the audience (through Kirk) a look at what's new.
2. Make decisions about the footage as edited to see where it might fail to do that.
Tease: you see too much of the ship, and spend too long peeking through the drydock, so the big reveal isn't as big as it should be.
Reveal: Just fine. It's Kirk's love-eyes that tell us he's obsessed with this ship more-so than McCoy's words to that effect later. To cut it is antithetical to "show not tell".
Flyover: Too long. Unnecessary angles on drydock superstructure, lights, etc.​

3. Make editorial decisions how to fix it.
a. Shorten the tease by focusing on the shots of Kirk looking through the dock, but make the images of the ship defocused reflections on the pod windshield, thus keeping the tease aspect and tying it to Kirk trying to peek into the dressing room, so to speak.
b. Leave the big reveal moment alone. It's just about perfect.
c. For the flyover, junk the shots of the dock and lights and use the reflection trick to shorten the duration of the shots of the Enterprise while still maintaining the geography of the fly-around. For instance, I took a few moments off the beginning of the shot of the spacesuited figure "falling" past the hangar, flipped it, and made it a reflection on Kirk looking that direction, which then stitches Kirk's look to that shot when I cut to it.​

I'm doing this in Final Cut Pro, which lets me do stuff like make the reflections in the glass and do relatively complicated audio edits. I could post it right now, but without the audio ironed out I don't think the effect would be quite right. As I said to Middyseafort (and I'm trying to recall who first said it), sound colors picture. I'll try to find time to iron out the audio edit so I can post it as another approach on how someone might've edited TMP.
 
Remove the smiley and the above statement's tone, from its syntax and diction, becomes quite snarky and a tad bit arrogant.
Well, that's exactly why I put the smiley there - to convey that which I couldn't convey by the tone of my voice (which is hard to carry through typed words).

middyseafort said:
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.

That can be helped by coming across someone who disagrees with your choices; it forces you to reevaluate and reconsider.
Well, I posted it so I COULD get intellegent feedback, and I appreciate the feedback that I've gotten, both positive and negative, whether I agree with it or not. I just hope that people watch the entire thing before giving feedback, so I know that their feedback is well-informed. :)
 
Remove the smiley and the above statement's tone, from its syntax and diction, becomes quite snarky and a tad bit arrogant.
Well, that's exactly why I put the smiley there - to convey that which I couldn't convey by the tone of my voice (which is hard to carry through typed words).

Tone does carry in typed words through syntax (sentence structure) and diction (word choice). The smiley does nothing to alleviate that.

But we're splitting hairs on this now.

middyseafort said:
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.

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

Well, I posted it so I COULD get intellegent [sic] feedback, and I appreciate the feedback that I've gotten, both positive and negative, whether I agree with it or not. I just hope that people watch the entire thing before giving feedback, so I know that their feedback is well-informed. :)

So far, you have been receiving a great deal of intelligent feedback, myself included. And it has been well-informed, since the cuts you made have affected the narrative as it was and as it was intended in favor of a quicker pace. A lot of what has been said has to do with context, how a scene cut functioned in the larger texture of the film or what it furthered in terms of SHOWING vs. TELLING or what it revealed about character motivations.

Once again, the smiley does nothing to make your dismissive tone any less dismissive.

Moreover, by only quoting bits of my post, you attempt to misrepresent what I said about criticism, and, in a sleight of hand, misrepresent me. You even cut off in mid-sentence: "However, if enough people are saying the same things." This makes me appear insincere, which I was not.

TYPO CORRECTED BY ME IN BRACKETS

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 [sic] [meant worthwhile not 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.
 
Last edited:
Before i start. How long is your edit TOS Purist? I have only watch watch 1/3 and frankly there some edit that you made that i don't agree with. Personally i would want to be able to do my own version of TMP. Unfortunately i don't have the right computer plus the fact i don't know how to edit. I am not computer savvy
However this thread got me interested so i rewatched TMP:DE with a view how i would shorten it. My goal would be under 2 hours so the first think i checked was how long it was without the end credit and to my surprise. It was only 127 min and 6 sec. I started with editing out the overture(2:55min) and shorten the epsilon station scene approx 26 sec. I left the Klingon shot and Goldsmith theme intact.
Next stop is in my editing is the exterior Earth Space Station scene. That scene took almost 49 sec so this gave me opportunity to shorten it roughly by half.
The next scene is one of my favorite scene in Star Trek movie franchise. It is when Kirk and Scooty traveled in the pod to see the New Enterprise. Personally i would not want to edit a single second. But if i had to i would cut scene when the pod start approaching the Enterprise from behind or aft until it finished making the u-turn. That scene lasted 1:51 min. I did not cut the transporter accident because i think it is important. I don't edit anything until when Enterprise leaves the spacedock and leaves the solar system. It wasn't much roughly 45 sec in total.
However the biggest opportunity to edit TMP is when Enterprise started entering Vger. That scene lasted forever and i can understand why many complain about it. I managed cut 3:54 min. I didnt want to edit more then that.
My last big edit was when Spock entered into Vger in a spacesuit. I managed to cut approx 1:52 min. The rest of the movie I left alone. There is perhaps one or two cuts that lasted couple of seconds but in total i managed to edit approx 12 min. After this rough edit without the end credits my TMP edit version is aprox 115 min(119 min with end credit) I didnt see the point editing it more because it would ruined the movie completely.
 
All I was trying to do were these things:

1). Make it feel more like TOS instead of a lame ripoff of "2001: A Space Odyssey,"
2). Make it flow better, like an actual movie, instead of painfully dragging in a pretentious effort to be "epic" and contrary to the spirit of Star Trek.

Obviously some people liked the movie exactly the way it was (for some reason), and they're entitled to their opinions. However, that means that this edit really isn't for them because it's not something they wanted - sort of like how Abrams' film wasn't really for me because I wasn't interested in some lame "alternate reality" bullshit.
 
^ I understand what you're saying. And I don't want you to feel discouraged because we've had some comments critical of the choices you've made.

Regarding your first goal, I agree with you "in spirit." The problem, I think, is that you can't create what's not there. You're limited by the source material. And the fact is that TMP was shot with the specific purpose of being more like 2001 than a TOS episode. You can cut it, trim it, and spice up the music all you want, but it's never going to feel like a TOS episode. I think the filmmakers SHOULD have tried to make it more like TOS, but they didn't. That's not a problem of editing, though. It's a problem of writing, production design, and direction. And I just don't think you can change it through the editing.

On your second point, I think this is just an area of "creative difference" where people can legitimately have different opinions. I agree with your goal of making TMP flow better, and there are certainly numerous opportunities to do so. Trimming some of the long, drawn out visual effects sequences, particularly the cloud sequences, is a good example. But you've made editorial choices in your edit that I just don't personally feel make it flow better. Removing the transporter accident, for example, or trimming some of the character interaction between Kirk and Decker in Kirk's quarters. I think those actually make the film more choppy, not less. But, again, that's just an opinion, no more or less valid than yours.

Once again, the idea here is not to beat you down for your attempt. I am amazed at how well done your edit is. It really does come across as a professional edit and I can tell from watching it that your heart is in the right place. And there are some edits you made that I think do improve the film. I, unlike some others here, was impressed with how well the TOS "suspense" music worked with the wormhole sequence, for example.

But, having said that, I think you have to expect that when you post something online -- and particularly when you present it to a group of rabid Trek fans -- that you're going to have to expect criticism. But I think most, if not all, of the criticism you've received here is meant to be constructive and positive. And I hope it hasn't discouraged you too much.
 
2). Make it flow better, like an actual movie...
You've used this term several times, but you never define it. What is an "actual movie"?

Obviously some people liked the movie exactly the way it was (for some reason), and they're entitled to their opinions.
EDIT: Realize I read this comment and missed the context, so I'm removing the statement which does not apply. My mistake.

You claim to be open to critique, but virtually every post you've made in response to critiques has been to explain your way around them or to outright dismiss them.
 
Last edited:
^ I understand what you're saying. And I don't want you to feel discouraged because we've had some comments critical of the choices you've made.
Thank you, I really appreciate some positive feedback for a change. I mean, I expected some negative viewpoints and even some bashing, but still...it's always nice to hear positive things. :)

CoveTom said:
You can cut it, trim it, and spice up the music all you want, but it's never going to feel like a TOS episode.

That's true, and I knew that I couldn't make it feel 100% like a TOS episode, but I tried my best to at least get it SOMEWHAT closer to a TOS episode. Even 5% closer would have been an improvement, even if it's small. And frankly, I didn't really want to make it TOTALLY feel like a TOS episode; it should retain a "movie" feel, since a lot of the TNG movies made the mistake of feeling too much like just a long episode instead of a movie. I tried to make it feel like TOS while still keeping some of the "movie" feel to it. But I'm really, REALLY happy that you enjoyed most of what I edited. That's very nice to know, so thanks! All I really wanted was for people to have fun watching it and get a kick out of the TOS-ified spirit.

[...]but virtually every post you've made in response to critiques has been to explain your way around them.
That's how a discussion works, and that's also the expected response to critique - at least I thought it was. Maybe I'm wrong. How would you have expected me to respond to critique?

In a proper discussion, opinions are being asked for and other opinions are given in response. When someone offers their opinion, and one responds to it, they should first appreciate the opinion - after all, they DID ask for it. Then they acknowledge the opinion, show that they understand the other person's viewpoint, and give an intellegent answer as to why they personally might not agree with the criticism. That's what I've tried to do during this thread, and I DO appreciate the feedback and critique I've gotten, even though I personally feel that some of it was a little over the top and viscious. But that's to be expected, and I DID publicly post my edit for a reason. Well, two of them, really...
1). That I could get feedback and informed opinions from people who know the source material,
2). That people who may not have been able to enjoy TMP before can have fun watching it. :)

Now I'm sure you're going to think I'm being "snarky" or something instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt that I'm just a TOS fan having some fun with a movie and NOT a complete asshole.
 
That's how a discussion works, and that's also the expected response to critique - at least I thought it was. Maybe I'm wrong. How would you have expected me to respond to critique?
Most serious creative people I know who ask for an honest critique will approach it all ears. They take in what's being said, and don't debate it. They're open to genuinely considering if the comments, good and bad, have merit, and they usually turn around and ask questions of the people who are critical. "So, what about that excites you?" or "I was trying for this Why don't you think it works?" Doesn't mean they always agree in the end, but they're open to the possibility that they haven't done everything the right way or the best way.

It's clear you're passionate about your opinions, but you come across as dismissive of those who do not agree with you, referring to the "proper" way to edit something, or making the the film and "actual" movie. That's probably not what you intend, but, as Middyseafort rightly said, it's word choice that matters, not the smileys plopped on as punctuation.
 
TOS Purist, I've watched as far as the wormhole, so far.

Most interesting, the trimmed Enterprise flyby didn't bother me as when it emerges from the dock, there are some very nice shots there. Not sure about the cuts to the Klingon sequence, though it is an interesting different take on the opening.

I'd read already that you had removed the transporter accident scene, so I was a bit surprised to see you had left the San Francisco scene in. This makes the bit where Kirk and Decker discuss a new science officer a bit puzzling, as the audience doesn't know what happened - did Sonak just fail to turn up? Maybe you could cut straight from Scotty (just before the now removed "Red light on the transporter") to the rec room scene and also remove San Francisco completly so Sonak isn't an issue?
 
Thanks for the feedback, Tiger!

I've gotten so many comments lamenting the loss of the Klingon opening scene that I've decided to try to edit that part too, just to see if I can make it more exciting. Beyond pressing "fast forward" I don't really see what can be done to improve it, although the very fact that it needs improvement is just my opinion rather than the opinions of others.

The reason I cut to Epsilon 9 is because it's a Federation location. Opening on the Klingons is a confusing narrative choice because it conveys that the Klingons are the main characters...when they aren't. They're basically just there to give us overly-long shots of the super-detailed K'Tinga models that the production crew was obviously overly proud of. It also makes the Epsilon 9 scene redundant, because they see the same stuff we already saw when the Klingons first opened the film. However, rather than keeping the Klingons and cutting Epsilon 9, I wanted to keep Epsilon 9 in order to keep the "oomph" of the payoff scene later on when it gets destroyed in the same manner that it witnessed the Klingon ships getting destroyed.

I also felt that opening on the Epsilon 9 scene gave the set up more mystery - just a regular day at Epsilon 9, they get a message from the Klingons, who are under attack...by who? Then it cuts to OMG THE V'GER CLOUD which proceeds to utterly destroy the Klingon battle cruisers. It's not something that Epsilon 9 expected, and it's not something that the audience expects.

The Sonak issue is a complicated one...I like your ideas and I'll certainly consider them. Personally I didn't realize that Sonak was one of the people who was killed in the transporter accident until the 27th time I watched the film, so I always did assume that he just didn't show up or something! :lol:
 
The assertion that opening on the Klingons conveys that they are the main characters is disproven by countless other films, including a pair of box-office champs contemporary to TMP:

  • Close Encounters opens on Lacombe and his men in the desert and then cuts to the air traffic controllers
  • Jaws opens with a girl who get munched
Who you open on isn't who the film is about. That's yet another in a series of statements written to sound factual but aren't.
 
Thanks for the feedback, Tiger!

I've gotten so many comments lamenting the loss of the Klingon opening scene that I've decided to try to edit that part too, just to see if I can make it more exciting. Beyond pressing "fast forward" I don't really see what can be done to improve it, although the very fact that it needs improvement is just my opinion rather than the opinions of others.

The reason I cut to Epsilon 9 is because it's a Federation location. Opening on the Klingons is a confusing narrative choice because it conveys that the Klingons are the main characters...when they aren't. They're basically just there to give us overly-long shots of the super-detailed K'Tinga models that the production crew was obviously overly proud of. It also makes the Epsilon 9 scene redundant, because they see the same stuff we already saw when the Klingons first opened the film. However, rather than keeping the Klingons and cutting Epsilon 9, I wanted to keep Epsilon 9 in order to keep the "oomph" of the payoff scene later on when it gets destroyed in the same manner that it witnessed the Klingon ships getting destroyed.

I also felt that opening on the Epsilon 9 scene gave the set up more mystery - just a regular day at Epsilon 9, they get a message from the Klingons, who are under attack...by who? Then it cuts to OMG THE V'GER CLOUD which proceeds to utterly destroy the Klingon battle cruisers. It's not something that Epsilon 9 expected, and it's not something that the audience expects.

The Sonak issue is a complicated one...I like your ideas and I'll certainly consider them. Personally I didn't realize that Sonak was one of the people who was killed in the transporter accident until the 27th time I watched the film, so I always did assume that he just didn't show up or something! :lol:

The Epsilon Nine gang aren't the main characters either. Which kinda blows your own reasoning out of the water.
 
Thanks for the feedback, Tiger!

I've gotten so many comments lamenting the loss of the Klingon opening scene that I've decided to try to edit that part too, just to see if I can make it more exciting. Beyond pressing "fast forward" I don't really see what can be done to improve it, although the very fact that it needs improvement is just my opinion rather than the opinions of others.

The reason I cut to Epsilon 9 is because it's a Federation location. Opening on the Klingons is a confusing narrative choice because it conveys that the Klingons are the main characters...when they aren't. They're basically just there to give us overly-long shots of the super-detailed K'Tinga models that the production crew was obviously overly proud of. It also makes the Epsilon 9 scene redundant, because they see the same stuff we already saw when the Klingons first opened the film. However, rather than keeping the Klingons and cutting Epsilon 9, I wanted to keep Epsilon 9 in order to keep the "oomph" of the payoff scene later on when it gets destroyed in the same manner that it witnessed the Klingon ships getting destroyed.

I also felt that opening on the Epsilon 9 scene gave the set up more mystery - just a regular day at Epsilon 9, they get a message from the Klingons, who are under attack...by who? Then it cuts to OMG THE V'GER CLOUD which proceeds to utterly destroy the Klingon battle cruisers. It's not something that Epsilon 9 expected, and it's not something that the audience expects.

The Sonak issue is a complicated one...I like your ideas and I'll certainly consider them. Personally I didn't realize that Sonak was one of the people who was killed in the transporter accident until the 27th time I watched the film, so I always did assume that he just didn't show up or something! :lol:

TOS Purist,

You and I are friends, so PLEASE try to take what I'm saying well...

The problem with your approach to this, is that you hate TMP... you have said as much, because you like only TOS, which is fine for you. But...

You are trying to edit TMP, and you are asking for feedback from people who LIKE TMP... when you say that the only improvement to the Klingon scene is to fast-forward through it, not only does that sound downright stupid, but it insults the very people who DO happen to like the movie... the very same people who you are asking for feedback from.

The people giving you feedback are correct in every way... there's really no way to strike a happy balance between TOS and TMP, in very large part, because of the moods of the two works. The campy circus music of TOS will never fit into the epic scale of TMP, and vice-versa. But you can only do as much as you can do.

That being said... as an editor, you MUST respect the source material. You have to... there's no way around it. Otherwise, you basically just make something that showcases your hatred and disdain for TMP, which only serves to inflame tempers. You may not LIKE the source material of TMP... but you absolutely must respect it, and not step on it, or ignore it. You just can't do that.

Again, I'm not trying to anger you, or take shots at you... I'm just telling you how I see things. Take it for what it is.

-BolianAdmiral
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top