What Is the Definitive Version of TMP?

[RyanKCR]

Yup - the longer version with updated effects for me. I will admit that I could probably live with shorter or fewer reaction shots in the later part of the film but I like all the dialogue.

I actually did that once, a long time ago. I rought edited it by keeping everything excpet the scenes of the crew reacting with no dialage in that cut.

Cool! And did you think it was better overall (rough edit aside)?

I liked it but what was really interesting is that I did it while I was in college. One of my advisers was a big fan of Star Trek and had the same feeling as most Trek fans about TMP. So I loaned him my tape I made and he said it was a completely different movie and he loved it. And I had taken very little out.

 

[Christopher]

Assuming 3D isn't just a passing fad...

It's been a passing fad the first couple of times, the '50s and the '70s, so why should this time be any different? All I hear are complaints about the inferior image quality, the higher price, etc.

It's like how back when color TV was a big deal, a lot of black-and-white movies were colorized to take advantage of the new technology.

Uhh, no, those happened nearly a generation apart. Color TV caught on in the mid-1960s, and digital "colorization" didn't become a fad until the mid-'80s.

What film editor would cut "Lursa, B'Etor" to sound like "Lurs-or?" It's strange to ask it as though it were something that couldn't possibly happen when it did happen.

That's not done for dramatic reasons. That sounds like a mistake.

It was done for exactly the reason I already mentioned: because motion picture editors feel it necessary to trim every possible second. Hollywood today has an obsession with pacing, a determination to keep a film from slowing down even for a moment, and every expendable frame is subject to removal. (Have you ever seen the West Wing episode where Bruno Gianelli makes his analogy about yacht racing? It's like that. Trim every bit of excess drag, no matter how inconsequential it seems.)

Evidently the editors of GEN felt that Patrick Stewart's accent made "-or" sound enough like "-a" that it would sound as if he were just saying "Lursa." Maybe they made the cut because B'etor had not previously been named in dialogue at any point in the film, and they thought it would be confusing to give her name for the first time in a scene where the audience's attention needed to be elsewhere. As for why they cut it in the middle of the name, maybe it was the closest they could come to getting the inflection right with the audio they had and they didn't have time to loop it. So yeah, it was a sloppy cut, but the reason why they made it isn't that hard to deduce if you understand the logic of film editing.

 

[Maurice]

What film editor would cut "Lursa, B'Etor" to sound like "Lurs-or?" It's strange to ask it as though it were something that couldn't possibly happen when it did happen.

That's not done for dramatic reasons. That sounds like a mistake.

It was done for exactly the reason I already mentioned: because motion picture editors feel it necessary to trim every possible second.

And you were standing at the editors shoulder when this decision was made? Or was this discussed in an interview somewhere? If not, it's just supposition, logical or otherwise ergo you cannot factually state it was done for "exactly the reason" you mentioned.

You're also, as usual, ducking the main point of my argument, which is that cutting eighty" from "eighty-two A.U.s" for pacing is a specious argument given how little they touched the rest of the movie's dialog. It's also anti-dramatic, for reasons I pointed out earlier.

MY best guess as to the deletion of "eighty" from "eighty-two A.U.s" is likewise supposition, but logical--I feel--because it's consistent with other changes made by Sharpline which were not to improve the film but to add stuff only a hardcore Trekkie would care about, e.g. the pointless stardate chiron to the opening San Francisco scene, altering the SFHQ tram station just because they could (ignoring the original intent of the design), etc.

 

[Christopher]

^Neither of us is a professional editor, so all either of us can do is armchair quarterbacking, and it would thus be pretty silly to keep arguing about it. But I've always been interested in the filmmaking process and I've read a lot about it, and that includes discussions of how editors work, how the difference between a well-paced scene and a poorly-paced scene can come down to a few frames of film in the right place. And as a professional writer myself, I have firsthand experience with the process of editing a creative work, and I know how important even tiny changes can be to getting it just right. So it stands to reason that that was the rationale behind both of the subtle edits we're discussing.

And really, why this bee in your bonnet about the missing "eighty?" Are two syllables really worth that many paragraphs of complaining? Isn't this a disproportionate response? Even if I agreed with you that it was the wrong choice, it's just such a tiny change that I can't imagine being so preoccupied with it.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

There are people who are precocupied about how many decks the Enterprise had in TFF. If they care about something that piddling, I don't find the 2 AUs vs. 82 AUs whining that unusual.

 

[Warped9]

For me the DE represents the film we should have gotten in 1979. I have yet to see TMP on Blu-Ray (for curiosity's sake, but for me the DE is it.

 

[BillJ]

For me the DE represents the film we should have gotten in 1979. I have yet to see TMP on Blu-Ray (for curiosity's sake, but for me the DE is it.

The Blu-ray kicks the Director's Editions ass!

 

[Indysolo]

The Blu-ray kicks the Director's Editions ass!

I disagree. The Director's Edition has a much better sound mix. Why is there so much reverb whenever anyone speaks over the intercom on the Blu-ray? And while the Blu-ray may have a punchier picture, I'm not convinced it's as accurate as the image on The Director's Edition transfer.

 

[RyanKCR]

The Blu-ray kicks the Director's Editions ass!

I disagree. The Director's Edition has a much better sound mix. Why is there so much reverb whenever anyone speaks over the intercom on the Blu-ray? And while the Blu-ray may have a punchier picture, I'm not convinced it's as accurate as the image on The Director's Edition transfer.

The DE sound effects and sound mix is horrid. Then new mix makes a serious sci-fi movie into a campy sci-fi. Why does every freaking' button have to chirp? Why does the Klaxon sound like a happy door chime? Why use the old bridge sound cycle? Wouldn't it have been better to use the one in TWOK? It fits better then the old sounds. And the V'Ger whiplash bolt lost its low rumbling sound and became a high pitched screech and it doing that it lost its menacing feel.

 

[Maurice]

And really, why this bee in your bonnet about the missing "eighty?" Are two syllables really worth that many paragraphs of complaining? Isn't this a disproportionate response? Even if I agreed with you that it was the wrong choice, it's just such a tiny change that I can't imagine being so preoccupied with it.

As they teach you in debate, when you turn the subject to the debater instead of their arguments, you've lost the argument. There's a difference between reasoned arguments and "complaining", and no one needs a "bee in [the] bonnet" to stand by a point they happen to disagree on. Must you resort to trying to make someone else seem unreasonable in order to end an argument? It's easier to say, "I think we'll have to disagree on this point."

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^Neither of us is a professional editor, so all either of us can do is armchair quarterbacking, and it would thus be pretty silly to keep arguing about it. But I've always been interested in the filmmaking process and I've read a lot about it, and that includes discussions of how editors work, how the difference between a well-paced scene and a poorly-paced scene can come down to a few frames of film in the right place. And as a professional writer myself, I have firsthand experience with the process of editing a creative work, and I know how important even tiny changes can be to getting it just right. So it stands to reason that that was the rationale behind both of the subtle edits we're discussing.

"If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose." — The Art of War, Sun Tzu

For someone that exalts adequate research, you've obviously done none on the person you are debating the finer points of film editing — someone who has done editing first hand for his own projects and others. Someone who even has a thread about filmmaking for amateurs.

You may have an interest in filmmaking process, but your opponent actually has firsthand experience with the process of editing a creative work on film.

And really, why this bee in your bonnet about the missing "eighty?" Are two syllables really worth that many paragraphs of complaining? Isn't this a disproportionate response? Even if I agreed with you that it was the wrong choice, it's just such a tiny change that I can't imagine being so preoccupied with it.

But yet you've spent the same amount of breadth defending your position as well. One could argue in the same vain that you have a "bee in your bonnet" on being right on the finer points of film editing as you've managed to deduce from second-hand knowledge about the process.

Besides, as a professional writer myself, the bigger number always impresses more than the smaller number.

But that's been said already:

What film editor's going to want to cut "eighty two" down to "two" when describing a threat, especially when using it in reference to nomenclature that means nothing to 99.9% of the audience? The former number is more impressive sounding. Imagine if I say "the Death Star is two miles in diameter" as opposed to "the Death Star is eighty-two miles in diameter". And no one cutting the DE is cared about those kind of minor dialog edits for pacing, especially given how much "air" remains in the edit throughout the film.

As my editor always says, put the bigger number in the lede.

 

[Jose Tyler]

I've always wanted to know if the refit Enterprise really has a male or female computer voice. I've always been partial to the male voice (Main Stage Flux Chiller...On)

 

[Birdog]

I've always wanted to know if the refit Enterprise really has a male or female computer voice. I've always been partial to the male voice (Main Stage Flux Chiller...On)

I always thought that was a crewmen going over the departure checklist with another person. A challenge and response system like airliners use.

 

[RyanKCR]

I've always wanted to know if the refit Enterprise really has a male or female computer voice. I've always been partial to the male voice (Main Stage Flux Chiller...On)

I always thought that was a crewmen going over the departure checklist with another person. A challenge and response system like airliners use.

It was a crewman and it sounded like Cleary. But there was a male computer voice that repeated alerts. I can see how that got annoying but I miss it. With all the sound changes the movie feels "off" to me.

 

[Christopher]

The '79 audio mix was a temp track, rough and incomplete. It was never the way the movie was actually meant to sound. The DE audio mix is largely based on audio tracks that the '79 sound editor compiled but never got the chance to put together in a final mix. It has a few updates like the addition of TOS-style bridge ambience, but it's mostly pretty close to the way TMP would've sounded in '79 had it been finished.

I think the DE audio mix works much better. I never liked the strident male computer voice. And I like having the TOS bridge ambience. It helps provide a much-needed throughline from the TOS technology to the TMP technology which is otherwise almost completely different.

 

[BillJ]

The '79 audio mix was a temp track, rough and incomplete. It was never the way the movie was actually meant to sound. The DE audio mix is largely based on audio tracks that the '79 sound editor compiled but never got the chance to put together in a final mix. It has a few updates like the addition of TOS-style bridge ambience, but it's mostly pretty close to the way TMP would've sounded in '79 had it been finished.

I think the DE audio mix works much better. I never liked the strident male computer voice. And I like having the TOS bridge ambience. It helps provide a much-needed throughline from the TOS technology to the TMP technology which is otherwise almost completely different.

I've seen both the Director's Edition (DVD) and the original theatrical release on Blu-ray, in 5.1 surround sound. The quality of the temporary audio track sounds miles better than the Director's Edition.

 

[RyanKCR]

The '79 audio mix was a temp track, rough and incomplete. It was never the way the movie was actually meant to sound. The DE audio mix is largely based on audio tracks that the '79 sound editor compiled but never got the chance to put together in a final mix. It has a few updates like the addition of TOS-style bridge ambience, but it's mostly pretty close to the way TMP would've sounded in '79 had it been finished.

I think the DE audio mix works much better. I never liked the strident male computer voice. And I like having the TOS bridge ambience. It helps provide a much-needed throughline from the TOS technology to the TMP technology which is otherwise almost completely different.

But it doesn't feel right or like a serious Sci-Fi movie that way.

 

[Indysolo]

I've seen both the Director's Edition (DVD) and the original theatrical release on Blu-ray, in 5.1 surround sound. The quality of the temporary audio track sounds miles better than the Director's Edition.

Funny, I watched the Blu-ray recently and noticed again just how quiet the bridge is. There's nothing going on there. Perhaps that's more realistic, but it's boring in a movie.

 

[arch101]

I've been a big fan of this film since I saw it first-run in '79. I consider the DE the FINAL version of the film (for now), and it's the only version I own.

As to the poster who thought that Ex Machina was based on the DE.....Christopher! Please help us here. I always thought that your excellent novel was more a sequel to The Great Bird's TMP novel than any one version of the film. Yea or Nay?

 

[Joanna McCoy-Kirk]

I've been a big fan of this film since I saw it first-run in '79. I consider the DE the FINAL version of the film (for now), and it's the only version I own.

As to the poster who thought that Ex Machina was based on the DE.....Christopher! Please help us here. I always thought that your excellent novel was more a sequel to The Great Bird's TMP novel than any one version of the film. Yea or Nay?

I didn't "think" Ex Machina was based on the DE; it's right there on Christopher's annotations page for the novel.