Question about TWOK DE (HD) on iTunes

[Grant]

"Methinks...

You're still as charming as that private message you sent me about anal sex all those months ago.

Rock on, sister.

^^^For the last time buddy--no means no!!


Now that we know what takes are inferior and what peoples sex preferences are, any idea, for sure, if the iTunes is taken from an HD master or upscaled.

I'm pretty sure it is an upscale.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

"I am truly taken aback?"


I don't know--are you?

at any rate, yes, the additional footage needed for the DE would of course require the entire framing portion surrounding the extended footage.

But as can be seen in the Peter Preston footage---it's mostly one long uncut take---so that 50 second section would be in one piece in one place.
They had the footage in 1985 when they did the ABC cut and in 2002 when the did the DVD DE edition.

It was incompetence (as they claimed in 2009) OR it was simple greed (setting up a double dip) that prevented the DE from being on Blu.

Not the lack of footage.

I don't mind you pointing out that they are alternate takes were used for some of the additions, I just find it lame when folks throw in little comments on which version is better in a thread that isn't about that.


As I said-- every time the subject of the DEs coming to Blu-ray comes up, some folks just can't resist chiming in how the theatricals are better.

I am glad the folks who prefer the theatricals got that version on Blu-ray.

But when those of us who prefer the extended are talking about when it will come and others are trying to constantly point out that we are longing for something that is inferior, that is --- well, lame.

But if you weren't doing that--I'm glad.

I don't see greed, or incompetence for the theatrical cuts for the blus.

TWOK was put through a restoration process, rather that simply doing a transfer of a lousy print.

I suspect, and it would make sense, that the theatrical cuts are on the Blu-Rays simply for consistency of presentation.

Otherwise, they might as why we have X as the DE, while Y is the theatrical cut.

 

[Jon1701]

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

I managed to make 7 posts without saying which version was "inferior ---IMO"


But in your first post you managed to throw that in. Goody for you---thanks for letting us know where you stand.

No, I stated the alternate takes are inferior. Also, I managed to totally avoid going off the deep end and use insulting language about anybody else's posts for absolutely no reason.

Oh, by the way, this is a message board primarily used for people to express their opinions on Star Trek.

The alterate takes are indeed inferior. About the only addition I quite like is the

"That young man is my son"

in the jeffries tube.

The rest don't really add much at all. I don't like the re-editing of the "rednax 5" scene, I'm not sure it needs all the stuff with Scotty's nephew and I hate the way that bones says "admiral, what about the rest of the inspection" in this version. It loses all the humour IMHO.

Oh, and I think Grant totally overeacted IMHO.

IMHO of course

 

[Grant]

"I am truly taken aback?"


I don't know--are you?

at any rate, yes, the additional footage needed for the DE would of course require the entire framing portion surrounding the extended footage.

But as can be seen in the Peter Preston footage---it's mostly one long uncut take---so that 50 second section would be in one piece in one place.
They had the footage in 1985 when they did the ABC cut and in 2002 when the did the DVD DE edition.

It was incompetence (as they claimed in 2009) OR it was simple greed (setting up a double dip) that prevented the DE from being on Blu.

Not the lack of footage.

I don't mind you pointing out that they are alternate takes were used for some of the additions, I just find it lame when folks throw in little comments on which version is better in a thread that isn't about that.


As I said-- every time the subject of the DEs coming to Blu-ray comes up, some folks just can't resist chiming in how the theatricals are better.

I am glad the folks who prefer the theatricals got that version on Blu-ray.

But when those of us who prefer the extended are talking about when it will come and others are trying to constantly point out that we are longing for something that is inferior, that is --- well, lame.

But if you weren't doing that--I'm glad.

I don't see greed, or incompetence for the theatrical cuts for the blus.

TWOK was put through a restoration process, rather that simply doing a transfer of a lousy print.

I suspect, and it would make sense, that the theatrical cuts are on the Blu-Rays simply for consistency of presentation.

Otherwise, they might as why we have X as the DE, while Y is the theatrical cut.

A Paramount Home Video spokesman told Bill Hunt from DIGITALBITS that they were unaware that the DEs were not ready to go for the Blu-ray until it was too late to include both/all versions of the movies..........

That is incompetence.

If they were lying about that and we eventually get the DEs on Blu-ray again....

that is a double-dip.

Either way both versions of TWOk and all 3 versions of TUC and TMP SLV version could have been put on the same discs as the theatricals.

If they were somehow caught unaware that they had a major motion picture coming out and needed to get their act together for a proper timed release--that's imcompetence.

If they were aware and decided NOT to have multiple cuts ready for the release--that's planning for a double dip.

Also don't forget ST 11 was rerady to go for the Nov 2008 release, but they delayed it to be a summer tent-pole.

That 6 month delay would have been ample time to make sure they had the material they needed for doing seamless branching for the releases.

Re-reading your post makes it seem that you are unaware that through seamless braching we could/should have got multiple version in that 2009 release.

This was not a situation where they were deciding to only release the theatricals. I'm for all the versions being available and TMP & TWOk could have had two and TUC could have had all 3. If the fact that TMP DE wasn't ready to go in 1080p format--that seems like a foolish reason to delay the others by what is it now?--- 4+ years.

 

[Grant]

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

I managed to make 7 posts without saying which version was "inferior ---IMO"


But in your first post you managed to throw that in. Goody for you---thanks for letting us know where you stand.

No, I stated the alternate takes are inferior. Also, I managed to totally avoid going off the deep end and use insulting language about anybody else's posts for absolutely no reason.

Oh, by the way, this is a message board primarily used for people to express their opinions on Star Trek.

The alterate takes are indeed inferior. About the only addition I quite like is the

"That young man is my son"

in the jeffries tube.

The rest don't really add much at all. I don't like the re-editing of the "rednax 5" scene, I'm not sure it needs all the stuff with Scotty's nephew and I hate the way that bones says "admiral, what about the rest of the inspection" in this version. It loses all the humour IMHO.

Oh, and I think Grant totally overeacted IMHO.

IMHO of course

Thanks for proving my point--any help is always appreciated!
I love it when people state opinion as fact. That really makes other people change their mind.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

"I am truly taken aback?"


I don't know--are you?

at any rate, yes, the additional footage needed for the DE would of course require the entire framing portion surrounding the extended footage.

But as can be seen in the Peter Preston footage---it's mostly one long uncut take---so that 50 second section would be in one piece in one place.
They had the footage in 1985 when they did the ABC cut and in 2002 when the did the DVD DE edition.

It was incompetence (as they claimed in 2009) OR it was simple greed (setting up a double dip) that prevented the DE from being on Blu.

Not the lack of footage.

I don't mind you pointing out that they are alternate takes were used for some of the additions, I just find it lame when folks throw in little comments on which version is better in a thread that isn't about that.


As I said-- every time the subject of the DEs coming to Blu-ray comes up, some folks just can't resist chiming in how the theatricals are better.

I am glad the folks who prefer the theatricals got that version on Blu-ray.

But when those of us who prefer the extended are talking about when it will come and others are trying to constantly point out that we are longing for something that is inferior, that is --- well, lame.

But if you weren't doing that--I'm glad.

I don't see greed, or incompetence for the theatrical cuts for the blus.

TWOK was put through a restoration process, rather that simply doing a transfer of a lousy print.

I suspect, and it would make sense, that the theatrical cuts are on the Blu-Rays simply for consistency of presentation.

Otherwise, they might as why we have X as the DE, while Y is the theatrical cut.

A Paramount Home Video spokesman told Bill Hunt from DIGITALBITS that they were unaware that the DEs were not ready to go for the Blu-ray until it was too late to include both/all versions of the movies..........

That is incompetence.

If they were lying about that and we eventually get the DEs on Blu-ray again....

that is a double-dip.

Either way both versions of TWOk and all 3 versions of TUC and TMP SLV version could have been put on the same discs as the theatricals.

If they were somehow caught unaware that they had a major motion picture coming out and needed to get their act together for a proper timed release--that's imcompetence.

If they were aware and decided NOT to have multiple cuts ready for the release--that's planning for a double dip.

Also don't forget ST 11 was rerady to go for the Nov 2008 release, but they delayed it to be a summer tent-pole.

That 6 month delay would have been ample time to make sure they had the material they needed for doing seamless branching for the releases.

Re-reading your post makes it seem that you are unaware that through seamless braching we could/should have got multiple version in that 2009 release.

This was not a situation where they were deciding to only release the theatricals. I'm for all the versions being available and TMP & TWOk could have had two and TUC could have had all 3. If the fact that TMP DE wasn't ready to go in 1080p format--that seems like a foolish reason to delay the others by what is it now?--- 4+ years.

The Paramount Home Video Spokesperson is not the producer, he's marketing. (S)he's probably dealing with 20 titles at any one time, so not knowing some details says nothing.

The PRODUCERS, and management on that side of things, may have considered things like the DE, but discovered the issue with the VFX being in Standard Def.

If they can't put out the DE, they then decide to go with the theatrical prints.

From there, it would be a pretty quick decision to go with the theatrical release.

That is NOT incompetence, it is a product decision likely based on keeping it all consistent for the package which would be less confusing.

The only incompetence I see evidence for, tenuous at best, is communication within Paramount and CBS (who are producing the disks under license for Paramount, as always), and possibly between marketing and techs. You know, something that happens in any large organisation (that I can absolutely speak to, being in tech support).

Double-dipping? Maybe, if they release extended/directors versions of the movies on Blu-Ray.

And yes, I have read/heard about the encoding issues (excessive DNR and edge enhancement to compensate), which I will judge for myself once I see the set.

Ideally, it would have been nice to include both theatrical and extended versions in the same box set, but they only have so much time and resources, and have to make a return on their investment. Including only the theatrical versions means less manufacturing costs, less authoring work, less encoding work and costs, less lead time from authoring to marketing and release, and a lower dollar amount when buying the product.

And product consistency is very important to a property like Star Trek.

Please, get off your high horse, and stop judging these sets for not being what they were never promised to be.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

RE: Seamless Branching. No, I am well aware of that. Used to great effect on the superb Alien Anthonlogy DVDs and Blu-Rays.

 

[Jon1701]

I'm not sure releasing another version over 4 years later would constitute a "double dip".

They keep re-releasing films all the time, lest they become deleted.

Lets not forget that bringing out a DE was a marketing ploy in itself.

 

[Grant]

I'm not sure releasing another version over 4 years later would constitute a "double dip".

They keep re-releasing films all the time, lest they become deleted.

Lets not forget that bringing out a DE was a marketing ploy in itself.

So there is a time limit on double dip? Perhaps, but Blu-ray being a fairly expensive and fairly new (in 2009) format--I think they figured at some point they would release the Director's editions with the very little (3 & 1/2 min on TWOK TUC) and get a re-sale from the diehards.

If we someday get a new set with restored prints for the other 5 and new features such as deleted scenes, etc.---I will grant that's not a double dip. If we get the same exact (or close) set with the extra few minutes for II and VI--I would call that a double dip.

As for incompetence.......

Bill Hunt says he was talking to people involved with the production of the disc (not marketers), who claimed at the time they just figured the extended versions were ready to go.

Personally, I call that incompetence---not being aware till too late that the alternate versions of two of the 6 movies were not ready for remaster in HD.

They didn't even tell Nick Meyer that they were using the theatrical cut for the newly (2009) recorded commentary!!

Listen to his new commentary and at one point he realizes that it's not the Director's cut and he interupts himself and says, "Oh, I wonder why they're using this version?"

...or words very nearly like that.


At any rate we have waited 4 years and will have to wait who knows how much longer (2016 50th anniversary?) for the Director's editions?

If they NEVER release them on Blu-ray--I will happily take back my double-dip claim, but I will be leaning a lot more toward incompetence theory.

There are VERY FEW movies on Blu-ray here in 2013 that don't have multiple versions of movies available, either in the same disc/set or as separate purchases. Too bad Trek is one of the few.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I'll have to see if I can find the original interview to gain a far better context on a) who Bill Hunt spoke to, and b) the context of that statement, and where they were in the process.

Nick Meyer now knowing ahead of time is a funny oops, but it's a communications mistake, not incompetence in planning or authoring.

The teams working on the products happen to be human, and thus can, and do, make mistakes, just like you or I.

So crying "incompetence" due to a communication error, and the result of having only the theatrical versions on the disc, frankly doesn't hold water.

There are some what I consider minor issues, based on what I've read, around DNR and edge enhancement, and the newer special features are reported to be disappointing for some, so that to me suggests the project may have been rushed a bit.

However, the product "as designed" appears to me to have been to present the theatrical editions of the movies, and to save the DEs for a future date, possibly due to the TMP DE being prohibitively expensive to recreate in HD for a library title.

Maybe when deciding on what to put on the discs, the person Bill Hunt talked to was at an early stage and assumed the DEs were ready to go then, not knowing about the issues with the TMP DE (Effects and editing in 480i)?

 

[Grant]

^^^All possible.

But the fact we have now 4 years later is that there is no announcement of the DEs for the release of the new movie in May, probably it won't be in the fall because I think they'd want the new movie to be the only Trek movie on sale at that time to maximize sales of that title.
Also none of the 'insiders' have heard anything about rerendering the Fx for the DE of TMP--which would be a fairly long process. So where does that put us? They are hoping for the next new movie for the 50th anniversary in 2016. Is that really the best we can hope for? 7 years after the previous release---if ever.

As I said, very few movies that have multiple versions DON'T have multiple versions available on Blu-ray. It's sad that Trek is one and they haven't been able to fix that in 4 years--or the near future to come.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

On this we agree, Grant.

I would LOVE to see the DEs of the movies given their due, and there have been no indications that they will.

 

[Jon1701]

At any rate we have waited 4 years and will have to wait who knows how much longer (2016 50th anniversary?) for the Director's editions?

If they NEVER release them on Blu-ray--I will happily take back my double-dip claim, but I will be leaning a lot more toward incompetence theory.

I can't see them doing a proper re-release for a while (other than just repackaging them). You might be right about the 50th Anniversary. I'm guessing it will come down to numbers - don't forget, a lot of Star Trek fans will be dipping into their back pockets again over the next few years for the TNG, ENTERPRISE & INTER DARKNESS Blu rays.

They would really have to crunch the numbers to work out how many they would sell of the Directors Edition of TWOK. I bought it last time, but I wouldn't buy it again.

Well, never say never (a fool and his money are soon parted) but it would have to be further down the road and be a lot cheaper.

If I were a betting man I don't think we will see the DE on bluray any time soon. If ever.

However, the product "as designed" appears to me to have been to present the theatrical editions of the movies, and to save the DEs for a future date, possibly due to the TMP DE being prohibitively expensive to recreate in HD for a library title.

This.

I do tend to agree the project was rushed a bit, but they took the time to change the colour of the deflector dish of the E in THE MOTION PICTURE (in one of the shots inside V'ger) so they can't have been that short on time...

 

[Oso Blanco]

they took the time to change the colour of the deflector dish of the E in THE MOTION PICTURE (in one of the shots inside V'ger)

I've heard about this, but I could never find the shot in the movie. Can you describe where exactly it appears?

 

[Maurice]

It happens throughout the movie. Whenever the ship is at impulse power the deflector glows amber, but when the warp engines are on it goes bright blue.

Amber:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd0737.jpg

Blue:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmpmissing/tmphd1159.jpg

 

[Oso Blanco]

If you are referring to the color corrections mentioned in the audio commentary of the BD, that was a mistake because they were watching a color corrected transfer that in the end wasn't used for the BD.

See here:
http://blog.darendoc.com/?p=580

 

[Jon1701]

If you are referring to the color corrections mentioned in the audio commentary of the BD, that was a mistake because they were watching a color corrected transfer that in the end wasn't used for the BD.

See here:
http://blog.darendoc.com/?p=580

Weird.

My mind must be playing tricks.

It would seem you are right

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp/themotionpicture1037.jpg

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd1970.jpg

I could have sworn that that bit in the commentary was referring to the shots as Spock leaves the Enterprise, which I could have sworn was blue originally too.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd2103.jpg

It too looks like it might have an effect on it, albeit it more subtle. I threw my VHS copies away years ago so I can't check.

Probably my mind.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

All these screencaps ... My favorite starship ...

I wonder if those color corrections were done initially for the DE, before the editing and new effects were added?

Could it be possible that print was rejected because the color timing was designed with NTSC color restrictions in mind, and would not have been suitable for the Blu-Ray?

Speculation on my part. Well, the Blu is almost certainly the original theatrical release, unmodified.

If they simply played back a working DVD or projected the movie for the commentary, and then the blu-ray encoding was done later or in parallel, it stands to reason this would happen.

 

[Oso Blanco]

I wonder if those color corrections were done initially for the DE, before the editing and new effects were added?

That's exactly what happened, see the link I posted above. The color corrections were done under Wise's control for the DE. This is the HD transfer that they were watching for the commentary.