Condition of Movie source materials (negatives, etc...)

[Trekfan21]

I am curious as to why only TWOK received a restoration in preparation of the Blu-Ray releases.

In watching the standard dvd releases of the movie, I was struck by how dirty some scenes of TMP appeared. Particularly the VFX sequences.

There hasn't really been anything said about what was done to prepare the other movies for a high-def release.

Anyone have additional information to add?

 

[Joker]

$$$.

 

[Jeyl]

I think TWOK is getting the super treatment only because of it's widely regarded status. I for one am a little surprised that Paramount didn't follow MGM in what they did to the James Bond ultimate edition collection that had all 20 Bond movies restored and cleaned up frame by frame. This is only six movies yet MGM got Loury to do all 20 Bond films that go back WAY before 1979.

And if you think the visual effects shots are bad looking in TMP, notice how much dirt and scratches are on the Vulcan sequence with the female Vulcan? OUCH!

 

[JDF]

I can't add anything definite, but reading between the lines, it sounds like TWOK had some actual negative deterioration - like the dreaded yellow layer fade that some film stocks tend to get with age. Maybe they had to go to another source. Maybe they had separation masters made to recreate the yellow layer. I don't know for sure, but whatever it was, it was more than just a cleanup of dirt.

Dirt removal, while not an inexpensive job by any means, is not the same as a full restoration. It's quite likely that the rest of the films are just in much better physical shape.

 

[trevanian]

TMP was in lousy shape, but I'm not sure what all you can do to clean it up, given that the BLADE RUNNER treatment isn't possible, since the effects elements got thrown away.

TWOK was very faded to red when I saw it projected in Portland a few years ago ... maybe they were thinking of fixing it even back then.

 

[Kirk1980]

Not to diverge from the point but....

You got to see it rerun in theaters for the 25th anniversary?

Maaaaaaaaan, my theater's lame! I was hoping to get the chance to see it for myself as I was all of 2 when it was first in the theater!

 

[GodThingFormerly]

And if you think the visual effects shots are bad looking in TMP, notice how much dirt and scratches are on the Vulcan sequence with the female Vulcan? OUCH!

I would assume that is because Apogee comped its dreadful matte paintings for that sequence with an optical printer, as opposed to employing the technique developed(?) by Matthew Yuricich of photographing the matte painting and animation onto the actual camera negative containing the live-action plate.

TGT

 

[trevanian]

Not to diverge from the point but....

You got to see it rerun in theaters for the 25th anniversary?

Maaaaaaaaan, my theater's lame! I was hoping to get the chance to see it for myself as I was all of 2 when it was first in the theater!

Naww, this was maybe 5 years ago. The print was awful. Plus for the 20min preceding the film, the theater's audience system kept playing Sinatra's 'IN OLD MONTERREY over and over ... it was like being trapped on the E during NAKED TIME with Riley and 'kathleen' -- but not anywhere near as fun.

 

[Kirk1980]

Not to diverge from the point but....

You got to see it rerun in theaters for the 25th anniversary?

Maaaaaaaaan, my theater's lame! I was hoping to get the chance to see it for myself as I was all of 2 when it was first in the theater!

Naww, this was maybe 5 years ago. The print was awful. Plus for the 20min preceding the film, the theater's audience system kept playing Sinatra's 'IN OLD MONTERREY over and over ... it was like being trapped on the E during NAKED TIME with Riley and 'kathleen' -- but not anywhere near as fun.

Oh man!

But...the point is, you got to see it in the theater! I wish I could have...even with a bad print!

 

[Jeyl]

I would assume that is because Apogee comped its dreadful matte paintings for that sequence with an optical printer, as opposed to employing the technique developed(?) by Matthew Yuricich of photographing the matte painting and animation onto the actual camera negative containing the live-action plate.

Actually, I think it's because it's old footage they had to dig up because in the Director's Edition they changed they needed the raw footage to put in new subtitles, since the old subtitles matched the character's mouth movements too perfectly.

But yes, Matte processing is an ugly business.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I think TWOK is getting the super treatment only because of it's widely regarded status.

If that were the case, I would imagine Star Trek 4 would get the treatment first (or in addition to TWOK), since it is the most highly regarded and profitable of the films.

 

[QuasarVM]

One place in TMP where I've ALWAYS (going back to the first screenings) noticed dirt and scratches is one of the travel pod shots where the camera is behind Kirk and Scotty and you can see the Enterprise through the window.

I've always hated that shot because all the dirt and scratches in the Enteprise footage (either rear projected or blue-screened into the shot) was so bad that it killed the intended effect.

It may have been cleaned up a little for the Director's Cut, but I still didn't think it looked good.

 

[JDF]

I've always hated that shot because all the dirt and scratches in the Enteprise footage (either rear projected or blue-screened into the shot) was so bad that it killed the intended effect.

I do recall a comment from Wise about not wanting to do those kinds of shots for that very reason. The shot you mention was a composited bluescreen shot. Besides the bridge viewscreen shots, there are very few other similar shots throughout the whole movie.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

I noticed a slight warping on the saucer section.

 

[alchemist]

I can't add anything definite, but reading between the lines, it sounds like TWOK had some actual negative deterioration - like the dreaded yellow layer fade that some film stocks tend to get with age...

I don't think it's likely that these negatives have faded. I've examined both the original camera negatives and the original internegatives for some of the epsisodes of the original series - obviously filmed long before TWOK - and that stock has not faded very much at all. I suspect the same must be true for the relatively newer TWOK stock. Damage I can believe, or poor quality due to matting, but not significant fading.

 

[trevanian]

I can't add anything definite, but reading between the lines, it sounds like TWOK had some actual negative deterioration - like the dreaded yellow layer fade that some film stocks tend to get with age...

I don't think it's likely that these negatives have faded. I've examined both the original camera negatives and the original internegatives for some of the epsisodes of the original series - obviously filmed long before TWOK - and that stock has not faded very much at all. I suspect the same must be true for the relatively newer TWOK stock. Damage I can believe, or poor quality due to matting, but not significant fading.

TGT has gone on at length at the DP's choice of film stock (AGFA, I think) as being a less than ideal one on TWOK. I don't remember that kind of stuff anymore, but there should probably be a breakdown of stock breakdowns online somewhere, indicating how AGFA stuff rates over time.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

^ Fujicolor, actually. IIRC it was ASA 400 televison stock, which wasn't designed for anamorphic photography.

TGT

 

[alchemist]

^ Fujicolor, actually. IIRC it was ASA 400 televison stock, which wasn't designed for anamorphic photography.

TGT

Interesting. I'm not as familar with the Fuji film, although I thought it had decent dark stability. Was it too grainy for anamorphic?

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Interesting. I'm not as familar with the Fuji film, although I thought it had decent dark stability. Was it too grainy for anamorphic?

Apparently so. I got rid of all my ST:TWOK-related magazines last year, but from what I remember DP Gayne Rescher had essentially no experience with anamorphic lenses and their particular filmstock/lighting requirements - he was hired when the film was still a TV movie - so when TWOK became a theatrical feature he kept the same comparatively high-speed stock he originally ordered for the spherical lenses. Of course, I must stress that my knowledge (such as it is) of cinematography comes from being a former subscriber to American Cinematographer and not from any actual practical experience.

TGT

 

[Shatmandu]

And if you think the visual effects shots are bad looking in TMP, notice how much dirt and scratches are on the Vulcan sequence with the female Vulcan? OUCH!

I think that's from me as a child, trying to claw my way out of that boring goddamned movie.

Joe, anti-TMP