Newbie Fan Questions About Diferent Movie Versions Movies I-VI

[br4zil]

Hey everyone, new treekie here! As i journey through the remaining episodes of TOS and TAS that i started to watch a few months ago with my dad, i am approaching the moment where i will start watching the movies.

My OCD with watching the version with most content continues from TOS (where i asked here in the forums for the rare unedited brazilian VHS of "The Cage" pilot.

Without further ado, heres my questions for the veteran fans, hopefully you guys can help me:

Star Trek The Motion Picture. The version i have is seemly a DVD Director's Cut with bonus material that include, i quote from the box, 5 scenes from the Theatrical Versions and 8 deleted scenes from the TV version.
-Are these all the missing scenes? I know theres the "Longer Special Edition" and the "Theatrical" Versions, this DVD leads me to belive everything is here.
-Which of the 3 versions you guys recommend me? My father has the Theatrical version and i belive i can "find" the Special Longer Edition on the net, but are they worth it? Specially so if i already have all the missing content in the DVD version i mentioned

Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan:
-From what i gathered, theres also 3 versions, Theatrical, Director's Cut and TV, which one would be the most favored one with most content? The TV version seems to be a rarity, so if that is the most complete version, i might need help *finding it* :P

Star Trek III to V:
-These 3 films seem to only have one version (besides cut down TV releases), so i imagine the default DVD/VHS releases should have the most content, is that true?

Star Trek VI:
-Seems to have 2 versions, Theatrical and DVD/Director's Cut. From what i read the Blu-Ray re-release is the Theatrical ver, not the Director's Cut, is that true?

Thanks in advance for any and all help!

 

[Bad Robot]

Easiest thing would be to get the 2021 Blu-Rays of movies 1-4 for now, then get the remaining movies as they become available. I think ultimately it would be worth it.

Star Trek The Motion Picture, I recommend the director's cut for new fans just because it improves the movie's pacing. We're getting an HD-rebuilt version of it next year, so I would just sit tight. The Blu-Ray/4k that came out last month is the theatrical version, and I would pick that up too.

**The bonus scenes on the 2001 DVD and current Blu-Ray/4k are because there's no plan to ever again release TV cut (Special Longer Version). You would need an old laserdisc for that version. EDIT -- I believe all the extra scenes from that version are included as bonus material.

Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan, I personally prefer the theatrical version, again for pacing reasons. The 2021 Blu-Ray/4k though has both versions.

EDIT -- Star Treks III-V have never been re-cut. I would go ahead and pick up III-IV on Blu-Ray/4k now, and V when it comes out with VI.

Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country, I would wait until we hopefully get it on Blu-Ray/4k next year since it presumably would have both versions. I prefer the director's cut because I like Rene Auberjonois.

This movie has a variable aspect ratio, so it *might* be worth picking up a copy of the over-scrubbed 2009 Blu-Ray (which is theatrical cut only) as more details become available. But for now I would wait. Enjoy the First Four movies.

 

[Kor]

...
Star Trek VI:
-Seems to have 2 versions, Theatrical and DVD/Director's Cut. From what i read the Blu-Ray re-release is the Theatrical ver, not the Director's Cut, is that true?

...

There are actually three versions of ST VI:TUC available.

The home video version on VHS (and I think LaserDisc), and later on the very first DVD edition from 1999, had a couple scenes that were not in the theatrical version:
* That "Operation Retrieve" briefing with Colonel West, Admirals Cartwright and "Bill," the Federation president, and Ambassador Sarek. And also, inexplicably and nonsensically, Romulan Ambassador Nanclus.
* The thing with Spock, Scotty, Valeris, and the torpedoes, including Valeris rattling the flimsy set when she slides down the firefighter's pole and hits the wall.
* The infamous "Scooby-Doo ending."

The 2004 DVD version was actually called the "Special Collector's Edition" instead of "Director's Cut/Edition."
It also included the above stuff, and the editing in the Valeris questioning scene was different, using different takes for certain shots and also inserting visual glimpses of the characters being mentioned during the mind meld.

The various widescreen home video releases up to this point used a more open aspect ratio of 2.00:1 (reportedly Meyer's preferred AR), though the framing on the 1999 DVD was somewhat odd, aimed at making room for subtitles at the bottom, or something like that.

The 2009 blu-ray (and the DVD released at that time) is the theatrical cut, and in the theatrical 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

If your aim is to get more content, both in terms of extra scenes as well as what is visible on the screen, then the 2004 "Special Collector's Edition" DVD is probably your best bet, as it has those non-theatrical scenes, and also the more open aspect ratio (I think it is framed better in this release than the 1999 DVD; hopefully somebody else remembers better). And unlike the first DVD from 1999, the 2004 release is anamorphic. So it will look much better on a modern widescreen TV.

Kor

 

[Vger23]

I came in here looking to show everyone how smart and educated I am on the differences between the films. At this point....all I can say is "listen to what @Kor said."



In terms of "recommendations"...I'd recommend the following:

1. The TMP Director's Edition DVD is probably my favorite version of the film, and the theatrical cut is my least favorite. That said, the theatrical version is going to look and sound way better, because the DE isn't yet available in upgraded resolution yet (theatrical is available in 4K and remastered 1080p). The Special Longer Version is really cool, but it drags a bit and is only in 4x3 aspect ratio and certainly not available in high def. Ultimately I think the DE strikes a nice balance of content and pace. Honestly, I like them all for different reasons.
2. I definitely prefer the Director's Cut of TWOK to the theatrical cut. There are small, subtle changes that are mostly just character moments and "extra lines..." but the help flesh the movie out a little more. There's nothing (at all) wrong with the theatrical cut...but the recently available 4K Director Cut is my favorite.
3. The only versions of TSFS and TVH I am aware of are the "Edited for Television" versions and the theatrical cuts. I obviously recommend the theatrical cuts in 4K or BR disk. The TV version of TSFS was woefully chopped up, which is a shame given that the film is already pretty brisk at 104 min.
4. I personally prefer the 2009 Blu-ray release of TUC. The home video version and the "Special Collectors Edition" DVD's have additional content (and even an added, but very inconsequential sub plot), but I think it is clunky and superfluous and only serves to bog down/detract from an already choppily-edited film.

 

[Kor]

...
4. I personally prefer the 2009 Blu-ray release of TUC. The home video version and the "Special Collectors Edition" DVD's have additional content (and even an added, but very inconsequential sub plot), but I think it is clunky and superfluous and only serves to bog down/detract from an already choppily-edited film.

I definitely think the theatrical version of TUC is a better film than the other versions. "More story" (additional scenes) doesn't necessarily make for a better story.

Similarly, with films shot on Super 35 but framed and exhibited in wider aspect ratio, using a more open aspect ratio on home video is not necessarily better just because we see "more." Director and cinematographer have specific intent with the visual composition, and extra visual "stuff" added to the top and bottom can throw that out of whack.

Kor

 

[gottacook]

Peripherally related to version questions:

The original original theatrical version - the one shown in theaters in summer 1982, that is - was missing the "II" in its title. Apparently, seeing that is an experience never to be repeated for those of us who were there in the theater. Even the original (pre-release) advertising had no "II":

I think there must have been a continuing disagreement within Paramount, because upon release of the film, the advertising suddenly grew "II"s. Of course the home video versions did as well. (The original edition of the novelization, however, never was given a "II".) I prefer it without the II, if this wasn't already obvious.

 

[Bad Robot]

Peripherally related to version questions:

The original original theatrical version - the one shown in theaters in summer 1982, that is - was missing the "II" in its title. Apparently, seeing that is an experience never to be repeated for those of us who were there in the theater. Even the original (pre-release) advertising had no "II":

I think there must have been a continuing disagreement within Paramount, because upon release of the film, the advertising suddenly grew "II"s. Of course the home video versions did as well. (The original edition of the novelization, however, never was given a "II".) I prefer it without the II, if this wasn't already obvious.

It's my impression that the 70mm prints didn't have it. That when they mastered for the 35mm prints, they updated accordingly.

This and the paperback release (but not the hardcover, strangely enough), along with more recent comments made by composer James Horner, paint the picture that Paramount was temporarily conflicted over how they felt about The Motion Picture at the time they were restarting the film franchise... yet not even necessarily consistent with how conflicted they were.

 

[Grant]

Correct -- the 35 mm. prints had the "II" from day 1.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It's my impression that the 70mm prints didn't have it. That when they mastered for the 35mm prints, they updated accordingly.

The US cinemas usually had 70mm copies for the premieres and opening weeks. There was no "II" in the title on those copies.

As the movie began having premieres around the world, 35mm versions (with a "II") replaced the US versions and the original 70mm reels went on tour. We had no "II" in Australia for the Saturday morning sneak preview (August 7) and gala Sydney premiere (August 12) but, a few weeks later, the 35mm prints (with the "II") had arrived.

 

[Vger23]

It's an interesting little piece of trivia in Trek movie history (the "II" in the title)...but I'm never quite sure why some fans are so interested in it. I wonder if people think it was a different cut/version of the film altogether...which I'm quite sure it was not.

 

[Grant]

I'm not sure how many hundreds or thousands of theaters Star Trek 2 premiered in but why would anybody assume most of them were 70 mm.?
It wasn't a limited release followed by a wide release it was a wide release from day one. It was the era of the multiplex it wasn't the era of the Movie Palace. Most multiplexes showed 35 mm prints. I envy those people who saw the 70 m m from opening day and they can all proudly Proclaim there was no "II" in the title!

 

[Therin of Andor]

It's an interesting little piece of trivia in Trek movie history (the "II" in the title)...but I'm never quite sure why some fans are so interested in it. I wonder if people think it was a different cut/version of the film altogether...which I'm quite sure it was not.

Most people worry their memories of premiere night are suffering from Mandela Effect. I remember the session we went to - about our fifth viewing in full costume - and we all exclaimed, "Hey! There's a 'II'!"

Speaking of the Mandela Effect. We got "ST III: The Search for Spock" after a six-month(!) delay Down Under. A Sydney-based friend happened to be on vacation in Perth when it finally premiered. She swears she saw the scene with little Vulcan girl (Katherine Blum, credited in the movie) greeting Spock's body as it was carried to the temple. The scene is in the novelization and the comic, IIRC, and we had read them months before, but we could never ascertain if my friend Mandela Effected herself that night in Perth! Unless she managed to see an accidental review print? But no Perth fans have ever mentioned seeing the scene on opening night. (My other Trek friend from Perth had actually flown to Sydney to see the premiere with us.)
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Katherine_Blum

I'm not sure how many hundreds or thousands of theaters Star Trek 2 premiered in but why would anybody assume most of them were 70 mm.?

IIRC, it wasn't multiplexes getting the 70mm if there was a large standalone theatre associated with Paramount films. "Selected" theatres, probably one per capital(?), got the 70mm.

In Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, in Australia, ST II was in one theatre only each for its premiere, and later other places, such as suburban cinemas, multiplexes and country towns, got the 35mm.

 

[Kor]

Another wrinkle... I see some sources online which indicate that the 70mm TWOK was in 2.20:1 aspect ratio (achieved by blowing up to fill the frame), which would make sense because that is standard for that format.

Kor

 

[SithHappens]

It could be my bad memory, but i am sure that the 'cut' Geordi having his heart stopped scene was in the theatrical version of Generations that i saw (I am in the UK).

 

[br4zil]

Thanks for all information everyone! Nice detail and trivia about the "II" on the second movie. i just finished TOS and TAS today and i am about to embark on the last bits of the Kirk/Spock Era with the 6 movies. Dad here couldnt contain himself and spoiled me a few vague themes the movies will be about, but not only i am not that concerned with spoilers, but he didint told me much specific info, so its all good!