TMP on Blu-Ray

[MakeshiftPython]

The solution of seamless branching is too feasible and too logical and too justified to get anybody's attention---except it's just easier to argue about what cut is better. Seamless branching is a winner for all camps but a lot of folks only want their camp to win.

Grant, for me, it genuinely isn't a case of "wanting my camp to win". I prefer the theatrical, and simply offer my opinion on what I view as an opinion based Star Trek message board. Nothing more, nothing less.

Reference a seamless branching disc, you're absolutely right. In fact, as a collector, I'd love to have all three versions of the film in that format.

The poster boy for this is the superlative BD release of Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, which contains the theatrical, special edition and Director's cut via SB.

Same thing with the BD release of Blade Runner having all four versions in one package (five if you count the workprint). I always held that and the Close Encounters releases as the standard for which other releases should follow, at least for films that have multiple versions. Lucas not following that standard for his blu-ray release of Star Wars pretty much killed any interest I had in that set. I believe the DE version of TMP is just as important as the theatrical release, and that whatever future release of the film MUST include both versions, maybe even that long VHS cut too since that seems to have its fans. I actually grew up with the theatrical cut, one of those widescreen releases.

 

[Grant]

The solution of seamless branching is too feasible and too logical and too justified to get anybody's attention---except it's just easier to argue about what cut is better. Seamless branching is a winner for all camps but a lot of folks only want their camp to win.

Grant, for me, it genuinely isn't a case of "wanting my camp to win". I prefer the theatrical, and simply offer my opinion on what I view as an opinion based Star Trek message board. Nothing more, nothing less.

Reference a seamless branching disc, you're absolutely right. In fact, as a collector, I'd love to have all three versions of the film in that format.

The poster boy for this is the superlative BD release of Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, which contains the theatrical, special edition and Director's cut via SB.

I wasn't thinking of you.

I've been on this site and many others where fans are almost gleeful and gloating with joy that their preferred version was on Blu-ray---as if they had their belief validated by it.

And the argument that if "only one is going to be released it ought to be...." is total BS.

The only reason why there ever would be only one version on Blu-ray is the studio being, oblivious, unprepared (the excuse they gave the Digitalbits website) or just wanting to have a future release or potential future release out there for the future.

It's like saying if your air conditioner only has one setting it should be 'High cool' ?????

Just design it right the first time and don't have people argue about it.

"Well I always have my A/C on max so it's okay by me."
WTF?

Nobody 'won' by having only one version on Blu-ray we all lost because they lost sales and that doesn't help the franchise or future releases because they have no exact knowledge of what they lost. Bsides no matter which you prefer they are a great reference to have to compare. I much prefer the DC, but I watch the theatricals occasionally for various reasons.

 

[Leto_II]

I'm glad CBS is doing all the remasterings now. Paramounts needs to jump in a lake.

CBS is only doing the remastering work for the various Trek television series; Paramount Home Video has the rights to the feature films and their remastering (or, in this case, their lack thereof).

Certainly I feel the theatrical cut of any movie should always be the canon text. Whatever misgivings a director might have had about it, the mentality of going 'back in time' (as Bob Wise himself put it in 2002) is unhelpful, in that one's opinions change over time. The Bob Wise who worked on the DE is a different Bob Wise to the man who directed it, no doubt he came at it with ideas that his 1970s self may not have presented (putting aside additions made to the DE by people other than Wise himself). Another appropriate (if somewhat obvious) example: the George Lucas who recut the Star Wars trilogy in the mid-1990s was not the same man who birthed them in the 1970s. Many of his decisions overstepped the mark from being restorations of an original 'vision', to being something he intended to replace the originals with.

That's the mentality which disturbs me the most. This gut reaction people have to instantly accept the additions to the DE as being somehow a more 'pure' version of the movie, when to my mind they're the exact opposite of that.

To be sure, in far too many cases to name, the initial theatrical release-cut of a given film has often represented a flawed, compromised version of a given director's intent and vision for that film; a version either rushed out to theaters in order to meet a studio deadline, and/or edited in a substantially different manner than the director intended.

In many of these instances, the theatrical version is properly neither more nor less "pure" than a later version that may eventually see the light of day.

This is why the whole theory of "theatrical-release-version-as-canon-text" doesn't really hold up in most cases, because of these circumstances; indeed, some films (Amadeus, RoboCop, The Abyss) have had director's cuts submitted to the studio, trimmed down substantially, and then restored a few years later, but only with the studio-mandated cuts having occurred under duress, rather than having been done at the director's own initiative.

It's frequently nice to have the original theatrical version as an historical document in a particular home video release, but too many instances over the years have demonstrated that by no means is a "canon text" designation really an all-encompassing, blanket truism as far as these things go.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

^ You misquoted me there a wee bit - as in it's not my quote at all!

 

[Maurice]

Let's talk about "director's cuts" for a moment.

Depending on the film and the director, directors may not have final cut. In fact, frequently they don't. In a great many films (perhaps even the majority) it's the producer who has the final cut. In many cases the director's cut—aka the "fine cut"—is often the first version of the film after the rough cut, as was the case with Richard Marquand's cut of Return of the Jedi.

In short, a "director's cut" can't always be seen as the definitive film, since most directors don't have final cut of their movies.

 

[Robert Comsol]

CBS is only doing the remastering work for the various Trek television series; Paramount Home Video has the rights to the feature films and their remastering (or, in this case, their lack thereof).

The films are in need of a remastering. First I thought it's okay to leave them as they are, but then I noticed this VFX screwup.

(Don't look too hard if you want the illusion to stay real, especially not at the actual footage).

Admittedly, I had never noticed it previously, but it cries to be corrected.

Bob

 

[Richard Baker]

James Cameron had to provide the studio with a version of the Abyss which had to be within a specified number of minutes- if he exceeded that the studio would take control of the film and re-edit it themselves. He ended up dumping big sections instead of trimming scene by scene- he met with ILM and apologized to the staff for cutting the big Tidal Wave scene they had worked so hard on.

A lot of compromises go into a films creation depending on how the contracts are written. I usually try and find a Directors cut of a film as I consider the Director to be the one creating it in his vision and this version reflects that more closely.

I do hope a Blu-Ray version of the DE is released- I enjoyed it. The DVD set has every deleted scene and edit if I want to see more of the original or TV version, IMO that is what the Blu-Ray should have had.

 

[Maurice]

CBS is only doing the remastering work for the various Trek television series; Paramount Home Video has the rights to the feature films and their remastering (or, in this case, their lack thereof).

The films are in need of a remastering. First I thought it's okay to leave them as they are, but then I noticed this VFX screwup.

(Don't look too hard if you want the illusion to stay real, especially not at the actual footage).

Admittedly, I had never noticed it previously, but it cries to be corrected.

Bob

First of all, people need to stop confusing remastering with revision.

Second, I assume you're referring to the black silhouette of the mounting pylon crossing the dock instead of the more gigantic issue of the whole Earth going missing the moment the ship starts to pull out.

Mistakes are part of the movie and they're not limited to the VFX scenes. There are equipment shadows, phony looking cycs, reflections of the film crew, continuity errors, extreme closeups which give away how crappy props are, seams in makeup, etc. etc. etc. etc. At some point people have to accept that films are not perfect and no amount of tinkering to "fix" issues is going to do so.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ But at the same time, mistakes that CAN be fixed, should be, when there's an opportunity to do so.

We all know that the DE must come to Blu-Ray at some point, and that the effects will have to be re-rendered anyway. So why not take that opportunity to fix obvious errors?

 

[trevanian]

Some of the errors ARE the corrections IMO. The new exterior ship shots just don't cut it for me, especially the FANTASTIC VOYAGE concept art looking one of the ship going toward vger's brain.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I assume you're referring to the black silhouette of the mounting pylon crossing the dock instead of the more gigantic issue of the whole Earth going missing the moment the ship starts to pull out.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's not what they deliberately intended, thus fixing it would be a welcome correction (same applies for the crappy transporter effect) and not a revision.

OTOH I would consider putting Earth back into the picture to be such revision. The drydock could be differently aligned with Earth, it could have been a deliberate decision not to withdraw the audience's attention from the Enterprise or else.

Bob

 

[Hober Mallow]

First of all, people need to stop confusing remastering with revision.

Exactly. One of my biggest pet peeves. Remastering has nothing whatsoever to do with adding new material or changing anything. I blame George Lucas for making people believe that. People talk about TOS remastered when they mean the new added CGI effects, when, in fact, those added FX are the only part of the show that wasn't remastered.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

First of all, people need to stop confusing remastering with revision.

Exactly. One of my biggest pet peeves. Remastering has nothing whatsoever to do with adding new material or changing anything. I blame George Lucas for making people believe that. People talk about TOS remastered when they mean the new added CGI effects, when, in fact, those added FX are the only part of the show that wasn't remastered.

All true, but I guess "TOS-R" has now become a convenient catch-all in reference to the revised Star Trek and/or HD project.

 

[Maurice]

^ But at the same time, mistakes that CAN be fixed, should be, when there's an opportunity to do so.

Why?

Some of the errors ARE the corrections IMO. The new exterior ship shots just don't cut it for me, especially the FANTASTIC VOYAGE concept art looking one of the ship going toward vger's brain.

Yep. I immediately noticed that this shot (hard to see as it is here) mixes elements from the abandoned RA&A concepts with the Syd Mead design, which is flat out revisionism.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's not what they deliberately intended, thus fixing it would be a welcome correction (same applies for the crappy transporter effect) and not a revision.

OTOH I would consider putting Earth back into the picture to be such revision. The drydock could be differently aligned with Earth, it could have been a deliberate decision not to withdraw the audience's attention from the Enterprise or else.

You're okay the Earth disappearing because it's possibly a deliberate decision.

You're for replacing the transporter effect, which was a deliberate decision, just because you don't like it.

That's a self-contradictory position.

Whose vision for the film should be followed? The people who made it (whose minds we can't read), or fans who think they know what's right and wrong?

 

[Admiral Bear]

I have a simple wish. I don't particularly care about having the DE version on Blu-ray, although it's a tighter film. I just want the theatrical cut, currently on Blu-ray, to be cleaned up and reissued. The print Paramount used for the BR was appalling.

 

[Grant]

I have a simple wish. I don't particularly care about having the DE version on Blu-ray, although it's a tighter film. I just want the theatrical cut, currently on Blu-ray, to be cleaned up and reissued. The print Paramount used for the BR was appalling.

Yes, let's have a better version of the only 1 of 3 versions currently on Blu-ray. That would be the perfect solution.

 

[BillJ]

I have a simple wish. I don't particularly care about having the DE version on Blu-ray, although it's a tighter film. I just want the theatrical cut, currently on Blu-ray, to be cleaned up and reissued. The print Paramount used for the BR was appalling.

Yes, let's have a better version of the only 1 of 3 versions currently on Blu-ray. That would be the perfect solution.

While I'd love to have a three-film, seamless branching uber-edition, I don't see it ever, ever happening. TMP is just too much of a niche film now. Paramount would never make back the money they spent to produce it.

So I'm happy enough having the theatrical cut on Blu-ray and the Director's Edition on DVD.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's not what they deliberately intended, thus fixing it would be a welcome correction (same applies for the crappy transporter effect) and not a revision.

OTOH I would consider putting Earth back into the picture to be such revision. The drydock could be differently aligned with Earth, it could have been a deliberate decision not to withdraw the audience's attention from the Enterprise or else.

You're okay the Earth disappearing because it's possibly a deliberate decision.

Earth doesn't "disappear", it's just not visible during this shot of Enterprise's departure.
Unless we hear otherwise, yes, it's probably a deliberate decision.

If you want to select a shot where Earth would have to be visible but isn't in the film, I suggest you try this one: http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd0370.jpg

You're for replacing the transporter effect, which was a deliberate decision, just because you don't like it.

That's a self-contradictory position.

No, it's a thing called common sense.

Obviously both the VFX screwup in the departure scene and the misaligned transporter effect were results of not having enough time or tools in post-production to get it right.

Bob

 

[Grant]

I have a simple wish. I don't particularly care about having the DE version on Blu-ray, although it's a tighter film. I just want the theatrical cut, currently on Blu-ray, to be cleaned up and reissued. The print Paramount used for the BR was appalling.

Yes, let's have a better version of the only 1 of 3 versions currently on Blu-ray. That would be the perfect solution.

While I'd love to have a three-film, seamless branching uber-edition, I don't see it ever, ever happening. TMP is just too much of a niche film now. Paramount would never make back the money they spent to produce it.

So I'm happy enough having the theatrical cut on Blu-ray and the Director's Edition on DVD.

I agree. We have one slight chance to get the other versions on Blu-ray-----2016, if it doesn't happen then we just all better be happy with what we already have.

 

[Indysolo]

CBS is only doing the remastering work for the various Trek television series; Paramount Home Video has the rights to the feature films and their remastering (or, in this case, their lack thereof).

The films are in need of a remastering. First I thought it's okay to leave them as they are, but then I noticed this VFX screwup.

(Don't look too hard if you want the illusion to stay real, especially not at the actual footage).

Admittedly, I had never noticed it previously, but it cries to be corrected.

Bob

The support arm is removed in "The Director's Edition".