TMP Re-Edit & Restoration Project - Ideas, Feedback, Advise

[Synnöve]

You don't understand dramatic setup.

The transporter malfunction serves to set up that there are potentially real and life-threatening consequences to rushing this ship out. We can be told this film is about "show, not tell." That we've seen one deadly malfunction before raises the stakes and the tension amongst the characters, and creates additional anticipation when they turn on the warp drive. In a film criticized for lacking in dramatic moments your decision to excise one is, frankly, baffling.

But doesn't the wormhole sequence show this as well? Not only that, but the wormhole scene has McCoy directly saying that Kirk is pushing, almost gets the whole ship destroyed due to Kirk's lack of patience/familiarity with the situation, and results in Decker showing him up. (This is all aside that the wormhole scene would be very hard to cut while keeping essential character scenes for Kirk, Decker, and McCoy).

It doesn't create anymore stakes though: it's fixed with barely a mention and is never referenced again, the depressing of Kirk and somber atmosphere it develops is quickly brushed aside. Scotty's word (a word that viewers had come to trust over the years given his miracle worker status) should be enough. I realize that in cinema it's preferable to show and not tell, but it's also important to be economical with your story telling, and we do not need multiple scenes trying to tell us the same thing, especially one that is so isolated. The same problem applies to the V'Ger exploration scenes... in the words of SF Debris, they mostly say the same thing: this is a big ship.

Because I'm verbose, I'll make one final argument:

Wormhole was setup by Scotty before launch, after the first captain's log, by McCoy, and pays off with arrival of Spock, dressing down of Kirk by Decker and McCoy, and a happy moment where the ship goes to warp. It has functions to further the story, characters, and atmosphere.

The transporter accident was setup (partially) by the SF scene and one line during the pod ride. It's payoff is the end of the scene where Kirk looks upset, and has Decker pull double duty (which makes D more upset). That's it! As I mentioned, this scene could be entirely removed (along with the original conversation at SF) and one would miss nothing that has not been conveyed already or conveyed after: Kirk is being bullish, Decker is mad, the ship needs fixing.


"

First, Kirk's picking Sonak and then his reaction to the accident ("I'd still like a Vulcan there if possible") makes it clear he wants Spock. That's telling the viewer about where his character is and what he needs. It's tied to the whole theme of the movie: of characters desperately searching for the thing(s) that will complete them.

...

Third. Continuity We've seen people beam from transporter to transporter before ("Tribbles") and since (ST3, ST6, etc., etc.), so it's not like it's out of left field.

"

Your first point is valid, however I think this could be conveyed with some clever editing and re dubbing of the SF sequence. I'm currently looking for suggestions on how this could be done.

I agree, it's not unusual, however we are never told that the transporter is fixed; the fact that engis are shown working on it while it's in use makes no sense when you consider they could have just as easily not used the pad and avoided any unsafe situations. The transporter is probably one of the most reliable technologies we are shown in the course of Trek, which makes this situation seem even more odd when thought about: either what we were shown wasn't true, or the Enterprise personal are incompetent (though this counters what we know to be true as well).

 

[drt]

The transporter is probably one of the most reliable technologies we are shown in the course of Trek, which makes this situation seem even more odd when thought about: either what we were shown wasn't true, or the Enterprise personal are incompetent (though this counters what we know to be true as well).

I think we can agree that some original series concepts were reset somewhat by the TMP producers, with the look of the Klingons being one of the concepts changing the most. I'd say it's arguable that the use of the transporters was made out to be something that was now more complicated and difficult than it was in the original series, to the point that the operator is now behind protective glass. And perhaps, not used nearly as much, since Enterprise is now festooned with docking ports, and folks are using shuttles and travelpods with higher frequency (for instance, in the original series, when the long-range shuttle Surak arrived, they would have just beamed the courier over).

 

[Maurice]

I agree, it's not unusual, however we are never told that the transporter is fixed...

Have you watched the movie?

Uhura reports the "transporter system fully repaired and operational" when Kirk first arrives on the bridge after the Rec Deck scene.

 

[Synnöve]

I agree, it's not unusual, however we are never told that the transporter is fixed...

Have you watched the movie?

Uhura reports the "transporter system fully repaired and operational" when Kirk first arrives on the bridge after the Rec Deck scene.

Nope I've not watched the film: this is all a sham designed to annoy fans of a science fiction franchise!

All poor sense of humor aside, and as I mentioned in my intro post, I've seen it an immeasurable amount of times. But I certainly do not remember that line well given that it's not near the sort of payoff two deaths should warrant. Once more compare to the wormhole sequence: a resolution that moves the plot along, offers character development and an emotional crescendo vs. a resolution in a throw away line that adds nothing to the afore mentioned aside making it safe for a main character to board the ship.

I really have nothing against the idea of the scene, and I'd prefer it was in the film idealistically, but there is not enough tonal nor emotional framework to support the precious minutes it uses in an already over stuffed film, in my humble opinion of course.

 

[Albertese]

You'll also have to deal with lines about Illia being a replacement also, as the other person to die in the transporter was the navigator.

Personally, I think the transporter accident is pretty important to setting up the absence and then presence of Spock. I always did think it seemed a bit too much of coincidence that the official Vulcan science officer just happens to die right in time for Spock to want to come back to investigate the V-Ger deal... but still... I'm not sure I'd cut it entirely. I think the DE handled it well by simply shortening the horrific screams segment.

That said, If you can indeed cut it out and make it all seem smooth, I'd love to watch it and critique that version rather than the imaginary version in my head based on your description. I guess I'm just saying that right now, cutting this entirely seems unnecessary.

I think that the bulk of the reason why the film seems overly stuffed is that it tends to linger on things more than it has to. I would just trim down every segment. There are lots of moments where it's just the camera slowly gliding around the ship and lots of reaction shots of people that we don't need. Or at least, that we need less of.

I'm looking forward to watching this project unfold!

--Alex

 

[Pauln6]

So! I want to kill the transporter accident as it doesn't add a whole lot to the story, not to mention how it only increases the problem of lacking continuity with how the transporter is established to work in previous Trek.

Nooooooo! It's Janice's big scene!

In terms of the tech, it isn't inaccurate compared to previous Trek. If your quantum links get scrambled, what turns up isn't what first transported.

If anything, the transporter in TMP is what it should always have been. Safe technology but not without risks. You should not really be able to be beamed up unless you have a localised quantum scanner - either your own transporter pad or a communicator or belt monitor to act as a relay. It doesn't really make sense that the ship can quantum scan you from thousands of miles away

Interference with the signal has always been dangerous e.g. the Tholian Web.

It's always been my dream to pick my favourite Trek episodes and edit Grace Lee Whitney's head onto the blonde background redskirts, so I applaud your efforts here!

 

[Maurice]

The trouble with fan edits is that they often go after the wrong things. The most important thing any editor could do to TMP is "let the air out" and just tighten the cut. No scenes need to go, and very little dialog. Just the tempo is bad. The DE went about 20% of the way to fixing this, but wasn't bold enough. Ideally, they should have been able to cut the film's running time by "six minutes, at least!" as Wise himself said in 1980. At that time Wise himself said he wanted to trim the Enterprise drydock reveal, but when they did the DE they caved in to the fact that some fans love every second of it and left it alone when they really should have tightened it, as per Wise's original impulse,

 

[BeatleJWOL]

At that time Wise himself said he wanted to trim the Enterprise drydock reveal, but when they did the DE they caved in to the fact that some fans love every second of it and left it alone when they really should have tightened it, as per Wise's original impulse,

Visually, some of the very loooooooong coming around initially needs to go...but from an audio standpoint, that music is just too good to cut, especially if the better visual cuts don't match the best music cuts.

 

[Synnöve]

The trouble with fan edits is that they often go after the wrong things. The most important thing any editor could do to TMP is "let the air out" and just tighten the cut. No scenes need to go, and very little dialog. Just the tempo is bad. The DE went about 20% of the way to fixing this, but wasn't bold enough. Ideally, they should have been able to cut the film's running time by "six minutes, at least!" as Wise himself said in 1980. At that time Wise himself said he wanted to trim the Enterprise drydock reveal, but when they did the DE they caved in to the fact that some fans love every second of it and left it alone when they really should have tightened it, as per Wise's original impulse,

Isn't goals a matter of perspective though? In my mind, going with out the transporter accident gets the film moving faster, and with a more consistent tone, and takes nothing away in terms of thematics. Yes I'm going to make small trims here and there in the way you're describing, but I guess Ifeel more ccouldbe done .

I'll give it some more thought. If it's tobe left in, then I'd want to mitigate someof the atonality oof the scene compared to what follows

 

[drt]

At that time Wise himself said he wanted to trim the Enterprise drydock reveal, but when they did the DE they caved in to the fact that some fans love every second of it and left it alone when they really should have tightened it, as per Wise's original impulse,

Visually, some of the very loooooooong coming around initially needs to go...but from an audio standpoint, that music is just too good to cut, especially if the better visual cuts don't match the best music cuts.

I actually like the overlong cuts of TMP, even the parts others find boring, such as when they're flying through the cloud, just because Goldsmith's music is so great (I also love the trippy visuals - probably because of too much LDS in my misspent youth).

 

[Avro Arrow]

You'll also have to deal with lines about Illia being a replacement also, as the other person to die in the transporter was the navigator.

I don't think that's correct, is it? I don't recall ever hearing that in the movie. AFAIK, the other person was never identified by name nor position in the film itself. (One of the novels identified her as Vice Admiral Lori Ciana, but I forget if that was The Lost Years by J.M. Dillard or the TMP novelization itself.)

 

[Maurice]

Isn't goals a matter of perspective though? In my mind, going with out the transporter accident gets the film moving faster, and with a more consistent tone, and takes nothing away in terms of thematics. Yes I'm going to make small trims here and there in the way you're describing, but I guess I feel more could be done .

I happen to think you're Absolutely Wrong™ about the transporter accident for reasons I listed previously, but to re-summarize, it illustrates the real danger the untested ship represents, it adds to the tension of the warp drive jumps, the events around it illustrate Kirk's incompleteness re Sonak and having to replace him, and finally it adds to the tension between him and Decker because Kirk personifies the dangerous rush and risks they're taking.

I have a question: have you ever edited a film before? I ask not to be dismissive but to understand from what level of experience your are operating.

I actually like the overlong cuts of TMP, even the parts others find boring, such as when they're flying through the cloud, just because Goldsmith's music is so great (I also love the trippy visuals - probably because of too much LDS in my misspent youth).

Let's remember that Goldsmith composed the music with repeating loops and motifs expecting it would be cut and making it easy to do so.

 

[trevanian]

You'll also have to deal with lines about Illia being a replacement also, as the other person to die in the transporter was the navigator.

I don't think that's correct, is it? I don't recall ever hearing that in the movie. AFAIK, the other person was never identified by name nor position in the film itself. (One of the novels identified her as Vice Admiral Lori Ciana, but I forget if that was The Lost Years by J.M. Dillard or the TMP novelization itself.)

Lori Ciana was absolutely in the novelization (conversation with Kirk well prior to transporter accident), and a character quite like her was in earlier script drafts (I'm thinking her name was Alexandria in IN THY IMAGE, not sure.)

 

[Synnöve]

I happen to think you're Absolutely Wrong™ about the transporter accident for reasons I listed previously, but to re-summarize...

While I agree with some of your points, I simply do not feel the scene is integrated well in to the film for the reasons I stated.

I have a question: have you ever edited a film before? I ask not to be dismissive but to understand from what level of experience your are operating.

I've not had the pleasure of editing a film professionally thus far in my life. Forgive my attitude but I it is my impression that your tone in this conversation has been somewhat dismissive; your criticisms are food for thought which is what I need to make this edit a success (as a one track mind isn't healthy in situations like these), but your presentation leaves much to be desired in terms of respect.

I'll probably have to leave the transporter scene in if I want to keep the SF scene as I'm having trouble getting ideas of how I'd edit the dialog in such a way to preserve the positive aspects of the transporter accident subplot.


I have another idea to broach that will probably be somewhat divisive with the more purist inclined folks here: I was watching the beginning of the Spock walk scene several months ago (where he exits the E and starts his log), and tried to consider his ethos, how it's driving him desperately to seek resolution. These thoughts I was having linked with a later viewing of Spock on Vulcan, and the words of the elder character: "He must search elsewhere for his answer. He shall not find it here." The walk was the fulfillment of this, and thought it might be effective to flashback very briefly to these words (or maybe some edited words that are a bit more elaborate) while he is eying V'Ger's inner opening after beginning his log.

Doing this would require cutting Spock's "calculating thruster to coincide with the opening", and extracting a small amount of the talk on Vulcan to be repositioned (or it could be a straight flash back and the shots could be in the Vulcan scene and the walk scene). I'm hypothesizing this'd have the effect on the viewer of providing a little more mysterious intrigue to his motivations; we'd of course still understand his motivations, but in that moment realize how important a need it is to him by presenting what is going through his mind vis-a-vis the flash back. When I created a test edit of this idea, I found it to build his journey's importance.

Thoughts?

 

[Maurice]

re editing: I wasn't asking about professionally, merely if you've done editing before. I wanted to understand your experience level in order to avoid either stating the obvious or talking completely over your head.

I've been nothing but polite in my responses. I didn't just say "that's dumb" and walk off. I've disagreed with you, yes, but I've supported my disagreements by citing story structure reasons so you could understand why it might be an issue and make an informed choice.

Is that disrespect? No.

But if you're not open to that kind of disagreement I'll bow out right here.

 

[Synnöve]

I've been nothing but polite in my responses. I didn't just say "that's dumb" and walk off. I've disagreed with you, yes, but I've supported my disagreements by citing story structure reasons so you could understand why it might be an issue and make an informed choice.

Is that disrespect? No.

But if you're not open to that kind of disagreement I'll bow out right here.

I've made it clear I appreciate critical input, and yours is certainly valuable it seems as you do in fact support your arguments well.

I wasn't speaking about what you said, but rather about how you said it. In any case, while I'm not a professional in the film world, I'm steeped with film criticism, and the basic concepts of cinema are within my grasp in my humble opinion; nothing you've said thus far has been above my head I believe.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I've been nothing but polite in my responses. I didn't just say "that's dumb" and walk off. I've disagreed with you, yes, but I've supported my disagreements by citing story structure reasons so you could understand why it might be an issue and make an informed choice.

Is that disrespect? No.

But if you're not open to that kind of disagreement I'll bow out right here.

I've made it clear I appreciate critical input, and yours is certainly valuable it seems as you do in fact support your arguments well.

I wasn't speaking about what you said, but rather about how you said it. In any case, while I'm not a professional in the film world, I'm steeped with film criticism, and the basic concepts of cinema are within my grasp in my humble opinion; nothing you've said thus far has been above my head I believe.

Don't think it's been implied at all that someone has to be professional film editor. But having some practice at a craft carries weight. Being steeped in film criticism and understand the basic concepts of cinema isn't the same as cutting a frame of film. Folks can talk theory all they want, but all that changes when your actually physically doing it. And having experience give more credence to opinions than someone who is a beginner.

For example, I hold an MFA in Creative Writing. Before that I studied the art of the novel, read books, but that didn't prepare me for the actual work of writing a novel. One of the hardest things I've done in my writing career, theory was one thing, practice another. Same with my journalism career. School taught me one thing. Doing it taught me another. And my nearly 20 years as a professional writer, most of it as a journalist, carries a bit more weight when I give an opinion on writing. Now that's not to say everyone should listen to me, but it does make me somewhat an expert on the subject. Though I try not to invoke an appeal to authority when I debate on these boards and elsewhere.

When I started, I thought I knew it all that my opinion on the subject of writing was just as valid as Harlan Ellison's. Now, even with my years of practice, I don't think my opinion on writing carries any weight in comparison to Ellison's or other writers I admire.

 

[Synnöve]

Don't think it's been implied at all that someone has to be professional film editor. But having some practice at a craft carries weight. Being steeped in film criticism and understand the basic concepts of cinema isn't the same as cutting a frame of film. Folks can talk theory all they want, but all that changes when your actually physically doing it. And having experience give more credence to opinions than someone who is a beginner.

For example, I hold an MFA in Creative Writing. Before that I studied the art of the novel, read books, but that didn't prepare me for the actual work of writing a novel. One of the hardest things I've done in my writing career, theory was one thing, practice another. Same with my journalism career. School taught me one thing. Doing it taught me another. And my nearly 20 years as a professional writer, most of it as a journalist, carries a bit more weight when I give an opinion on writing. Now that's not to say everyone should listen to me, but it does make me somewhat an expert on the subject. Though I try not to invoke an appeal to authority when I debate on these boards and elsewhere.

When I started, I thought I knew it all that my opinion on the subject of writing was just as valid as Harlan Ellison's. Now, even with my years of practice, I don't think my opinion on writing carries any weight in comparison to Ellison's or other writers I admire.

True words and an important perspective! I'm not an expert and am somewhat a beginner who is well versed in study and theory, but not practice. Hence why I'm here (and at a few other forums) soliciting opinion concerning my ideas. This'll be a learning experience as much as any other life experience, and I'm relying on my perfectionism, and community input to guide me to a final piece that is aesthetically pleasing and effective.

 

[Maurice]

I'm sorry if you read my tone as dismissive. It certainly wasn't intended to be so, but at the same time I don't wear kid gloves when asked to critique ideas, otherwise there's no point.

You may be aware of it, but in the Fan Productions forum there a years-long ongoing threads called the "Fan Filmmaker's Primer" and "Fan Film Writer's Primer" which cover all kinds of aspects of moviemaking and screen story writing. I've been told that some of what I and others have posted there have helped people in the editing of their films—even when the topic wasn't editing—because, for instance, knowing some cinematography rules helps you understand why things were shot the way they were, and sometimes why they're cut the way they are. If you don't know those rules you might make an edit which out of ignorance, violates a basic rule and creates abigger problem than it was intended to fix (this happened in Star Trek Remastered where the remastering team "fixed" a shot which was intentionally flopped and fixed a continuity mistake at the expense of breaking the directional continuity).

Back to your most recent idea, I have to say the idea of the "flashback" during Spock's spacewalk is something I'd advise against. Here's why:

Unless scripted for a reason, such flashbacks (and voiceovers) are invariably cheats. Spock's conflict is efficiently and dramatically introduced (his "inciting incident") in Act One and there's no reason to revisit it later in the story, especially because no one is confused as to why he's doing it. Trying to invoke the connection you suggest is what we call "hanging a lantern on it".

 

[Synnöve]

I'm sorry if you read my tone as dismissive. It certainly wasn't intended to be so, but at the same time I don't wear kid gloves when asked to critique ideas, otherwise there's no point.

You may be aware of it, but in the Fan Productions forum there a years-long ongoing threads called the "Fan Filmmaker's Primer" and "Fan Film Writer's Primer" which cover all kinds of aspects of moviemaking and screen story writing. I've been told that some of what I and others have posted there have helped people in the editing of their films—even when the topic wasn't editing—because, for instance, knowing some cinematography rules helps you understand why things were shot the way they were, and sometimes why they're cut the way they are. If you don't know those rules you might make an edit which out of ignorance, violates a basic rule and creates abigger problem than it was intended to fix (this happened in Star Trek Remastered where the remastering team "fixed" a shot which was intentionally flopped and fixed a continuity mistake at the expense of breaking the directional continuity).

I actually didn't know of those documents, and I'm currently reading them as I type this. Thank you!

Back to your most recent idea, I have to say the idea of the "flashback" during Spock's spacewalk is something I'd advise against. Here's why:

Unless scripted for a reason, such flashbacks (and voiceovers) are invariably cheats. Spock's conflict is efficiently and dramatically introduced (his "inciting incident") in Act One and there's no reason to revisit it later in the story, especially because no one is confused as to why he's doing it. Trying to invoke the connection you suggest is what we call "hanging a lantern on it".

It is true, that is always the risk with such devices (being overly obvious, telling the audience what to feel, what to think). I guess I'm searching for ways to introduce some emotion in to the story... not that it doesn't have any, but it feels rather disconnected as though the emotions are the undercurrent to the story and not what propels it (most likely part of the "reacting not acting" problem this film has as well).

These are just shot gun ideas as most of the actual work I'm doing now is separating every shot of the film in to an individual clip I can work with and individually color correct... lord knows this tedious.