ST:TMP on Blu-Ray - a second look

[The Castellan]

the theatrical version works well for me as well even with its flaws.

That's pretty much the way I feel about it as well. Though it does indeed have its flaws, after waiting for so many years for a Star Trek movie to materialize in the late 70s, I felt it was what Trek should have always looked like. Or if you like, it was the best realization of Roddenberry's vision of Trek.

And I still think that Trumbull's FX are superb, even by 2011 standards.

FRIEND!

This was always my fav Trek film, and wish modern Trek would be as good. This is the most Trekkian of the films, and the visuals are excellent today. And always good not to see yet another battle and explosion fest.

 

[gottacook]

I wonder how many people really thought it was so slow at the time it was released...

Seriously? This has been a relatively frequent topic of discussion here. I saw TMP in the theater (twice) during its initial release, and slowness was certainly a problem for me - in particular the seemingly endless tour inside V'ger, intercut with reaction shots of the bridge crew, and the Enterprise in drydock, intercut with too many reaction shots of Kirk in the pod Scotty was piloting him in. Surprising, perhaps, given Wise's background as a film editor. I'm glad that the DE addressed this somewhat.

I don't expect to get a Blu-Ray player; regular DVDs are fine with me, and if I did invest in the player and disks they'd be obsolete faster than you can say "8-track stereo tape" (which I still have dozens of, plus a working player given to me in 1973 - the Weltron 2001, worth a look to sf fans by searching Google Images).

 

[Procutus]

FRIEND!

This was always my fav Trek film, and wish modern Trek would be as good. This is the most Trekkian of the films, and the visuals are excellent today. And always good not to see yet another battle and explosion fest.

Thank-you! Always nice to find someone else whose thoughts on TMP mirror my own. It was thought-provoking, something that's been missing from Trek films for a long time.

Therin, thanks for the clarification on the VHS issue. Not realizing that there was a theatrical videotape originally, my third option the poll refers to the later release.

Again, it's amazing the number of formats and versions of this movie that exist.

 

[The Castellan]

FRIEND!

This was always my fav Trek film, and wish modern Trek would be as good. This is the most Trekkian of the films, and the visuals are excellent today. And always good not to see yet another battle and explosion fest.

Thank-you! Always nice to find someone else whose thoughts on TMP mirror my own. It was thought-provoking, something that's been missing from Trek films for a long time.

Therin, thanks for the clarification on the VHS issue. Not realizing that there was a theatrical videotape originally, my third option the poll refers to the later release.

Again, it's amazing the number of formats and versions of this movie that exist.

I have several as well on video. Want to get some on DVD as well. Yes, thought provoking what we need, not just action films, plus this was before TWoK militarized everything, TMP felt more like a scientific, exploratory journey, as Trek should be, and not just another "hero fighting villain" thing. Plus the later films totally wrecked that superb paint job the Enterprise had. I'm still imagining the would be memory wall bit, I might maybe try to make that in 3D for my own comic I plan to do, for another story, of course.

And cute ava.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I wonder how many people really thought it was so slow at the time it was released...

Seriously? This has been a relatively frequent topic of discussion here. I saw TMP in the theater (twice) during its initial release, and slowness was certainly a problem for me - in particular the seemingly endless tour inside V'ger, intercut with reaction shots of the bridge crew, and the Enterprise in drydock, intercut with too many reaction shots of Kirk in the pod Scotty was piloting him in. Surprising, perhaps, given Wise's background as a film editor. I'm glad that the DE addressed this somewhat.

I don't expect to get a Blu-Ray player; regular DVDs are fine with me, and if I did invest in the player and disks they'd be obsolete faster than you can say "8-track stereo tape" (which I still have dozens of, plus a working player given to me in 1973 - the Weltron 2001, worth a look to sf fans by searching Google Images).

Totally serious. As a 12 year old, who had really only seen Star Wars as far as Sci-Fi movies go, it didn't seem so bad to me.

Not the action of SW, obviously, but still cool to see new Trek (as opposed to nuTrek ).

But yeah, compared to what came after, it does feel slow.

I can still sit through it once in a while though.

 

[Jeyl]

I voted for the Director's Edition for these reasons.

1. No awful computer voice.
2. Better pacing.
3. Great V'Ger vessel reveal shot.
4. 2 AUs is better than 82 AUs.
5. Better continuity with TOS (Take that blue sky Vulcan from Trek09!)
6. Fewer dumb scenes/lines ("Our previous transmission mode was too primitive to be received.", "OH MY GOD." *violent shrug* "BONES!")
7. Way better sound design.

I would add that while the transfer certainly looks ok for High Definition, it's still way too soft in some areas where detail is unfortunately lost. I'm no big fan of film grain, but I'm not a fan of eliminating it to the point where the loss in detail is noticable. I think voting for the theatrical cut simply on the grounds that the BluRay looks good is disengenious. Even with the BluRay, I would still watch the Director's Edition in standard definition.

 

[J.T.B.]

Totally serious. As a 12 year old, who had really only seen Star Wars as far as Sci-Fi movies go, it didn't seem so bad to me.

My experience as a 10-year old was similar, and all my friends, even non-SF nuts, enjoyed the movie and made repeat viewings. As I've said before, my totally un-scientific anecdotal feeling is that TMP's reputation as "slow" was not cemented until the ABC Sunday Night Movie in 1983, when commercials broke the pacing into an evening-long interminable mess. Especially in comparison with the new space-shoot-em-up TWOK.

[...]
3. Great V'Ger vessel reveal shot.

I hated that. Whether it was intended or not, I've always thought it was much more effective to show V'Ger's as so immense you could see big pieces of it but couldn't take in the whole thing at once. Seeing it as a "ship" undercut its vast alien incomprehensibility.

I also like the "Emergency alert! Negative control at helm!" voice, reminds me of something like an airliner's Ground Proximity Warning.



Justin

 

[Jeyl]

I hated that. Whether it was intended or not, I've always thought it was much more effective to show V'Ger's as so immense you could see big pieces of it but couldn't take in the whole thing at once. Seeing it as a "ship" undercut its vast alien incomprehensibility.

At least even by today's standards it's a ship that is probably the most unique looking ship in all of Star Trek. Not only by it's size, but the way it's shaped.

It also helped me put the pieces together on where the Enterprise was when it was traversing over teh ship earlier on. I always thought the Enterprise kept moving forward even when it entered the maw. I had no idea that when Kirk said "Hold relative position here" that the Enterprise had in fact reached the front of the ship and turned 180 degrees to face it.

At least they didn't show it from the beginning and kept the reveal till the very end.

I also like the "Emergency alert! Negative control at helm!" voice, reminds me of something like an airliner's Ground Proximity Warning.

I wouldn't have minded it to if it wasn't so out of touch with Star Trek. It's a feature that hasn't been used before or since, and it's a bloody annoying feature at that. At least when the ground proximity warning goes off on an airplane, it's telling the pilot it's about to crash when the pilot can't determine how close he is. In here, it's really not necessary because the characters state what's going on, making the warnings redundant. I mean, god. The computer shouts outloud "Emergency Alert! Negative Control at Helm!" five whole times before the crew tell us the exact same thing. It's not necessary.

 

[Procutus]

I'm still imagining the would be memory wall bit, I might maybe try to make that in 3D for my own comic I plan to do, for another story, of course.

And cute ava.

I'd like to see that, if you get around to it. It's one of those lost gems of that earlier era, when Trek was just the first series and one movie, not yet a franchise. Definitely would like to see what you come up with.

And not to repeat what you said, but TMP really did feel like a real science-fiction movie and not just a space-action film, as the later installments became. It wasn't quite in the same league as 2001, but it certainly paid homage to it in many ways.

Thanks for the compliment. I just love that particular shot of her.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I also like the "Emergency alert! Negative control at helm!" voice, reminds me of something like an airliner's Ground Proximity Warning.

I wouldn't have minded it to if it wasn't so out of touch with Star Trek. It's a feature that hasn't been used before or since, and it's a bloody annoying feature at that. At least when the ground proximity warning goes off on an airplane, it's telling the pilot it's about to crash when the pilot can't determine how close he is. In here, it's really not necessary because the characters state what's going on, making the warnings redundant. I mean, god. The computer shouts outloud "Emergency Alert! Negative Control at Helm!" five whole times before the crew tell us the exact same thing. It's not necessary.

Isn't that computer voice done by the same actor who plays Cleary the engineer?

 

[Captrek]

I would add that while the transfer certainly looks ok for High Definition, it's still way too soft in some areas where detail is unfortunately lost. I'm no big fan of film grain, but I'm not a fan of eliminating it to the point where the loss in detail is noticable. I think voting for the theatrical cut simply on the grounds that the BluRay looks good is disengenious. Even with the BluRay, I would still watch the Director's Edition in standard definition.

“Disingenuous”? That’s uncalled for.

My home theater setup may not be like yours. I have a 65” screen and a seating distance of about 8’. I’ve watched both the Director’s Edition DVD and theatrical edition BD. The BD looks much better.

 

[milo bloom]

One thing about the Special Longer Version is that it's only ever been available in pan and scan versions. If you bought the widescreen TOS movie collections, you got the theatrical cut, but if you bought the pan and scan box, you often got the SLV. One of the reasons it's only available in the 4x3 format is that some of the scenes included in this longer cut used footage that included unfinished sets. In the 4x3 versions, the unfinished parts of the sets can be cropped out. If a longer version were ever prepared for DVD/Bluray, one of the decisions they'll have to make will be whether to spend the money to CGI over these unfinished parts, or simply present it as is with a disclaimer at the beginning of the film (which would be fine with me).

I have all the 2 disc DVD sets of the movies, but I also picked up the re-released box set with the theatrical cuts of TMP, TWOK and TUC. If they were to release a Bluray set with the all versions of TMP, I would be there day one.

 

[Captrek]

One thing about the Special Longer Version is that it's only ever been available in pan and scan versions. If you bought the widescreen TOS movie collections, you got the theatrical cut, but if you bought the pan and scan box, you often got the SLV. One of the reasons it's only available in the 4x3 format is that some of the scenes included in this longer cut used footage that included unfinished sets. In the 4x3 versions, the unfinished parts of the sets can be cropped out. If a longer version were ever prepared for DVD/Bluray, one of the decisions they'll have to make will be whether to spend the money to CGI over these unfinished parts, or simply present it as is with a disclaimer at the beginning of the film (which would be fine with me).

Or they could simply present it in 4:3, which is the only aspect ratio in which it has ever existed. It was made for TV broadcast.

 

[Harvey]

I'd like to see that, if you get around to it. It's one of those lost gems of that earlier era, when Trek was just the first series and one movie, not yet a franchise.

Don't forget two seasons of the animated series, fifty Star Trek books (at the time of release), and countless other companies producing Trek-related merchandise. The series was already being treated as a franchise in 1979 (remember that TMP was assembled from pieces of a proposed spin-off series for television), although at that point most of it was still centered around the original characters.

 

[milo bloom]

One thing about the Special Longer Version is that it's only ever been available in pan and scan versions. If you bought the widescreen TOS movie collections, you got the theatrical cut, but if you bought the pan and scan box, you often got the SLV. One of the reasons it's only available in the 4x3 format is that some of the scenes included in this longer cut used footage that included unfinished sets. In the 4x3 versions, the unfinished parts of the sets can be cropped out. If a longer version were ever prepared for DVD/Bluray, one of the decisions they'll have to make will be whether to spend the money to CGI over these unfinished parts, or simply present it as is with a disclaimer at the beginning of the film (which would be fine with me).

Or they could simply present it in 4:3, which is the only aspect ratio in which it has ever existed. It was made for TV broadcast.

In this day and age, I don't think even Paramount would cheap out that bad. And I have to argue, the base components were made for theatrical showing, the SLV may be unique to TV, but there's enough of a theatrical pedigree that I'd rather see the unfinished sets in a few scenes, than having 40% of the movie cropped the whole way through.

 

[Maurice]

Here's a question: What special features are there on the Blu-Ray disc? And does Andy Probert appear in any of them?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Isn't that computer voice done by the same actor who plays Cleary the engineer?

The computer voice was Doug Hale. Cleary was played by Michael Rougas.

Ooooh, deja vu:
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3251375&postcount=37

 

[Chris_Johnston]

I wonder how many people really thought it was so slow at the time it was released, without all the following films & TV shows to compare it to.

That's a good point. By 1979 standards, when I first saw it, I felt that it felt 'right', in terms of the pace and the type of story it was trying to tell. Yeah, the subsequent movies and TV series raised the bar on action and pace, but TMP is the only one that for me at least, evoked a sense of wonder and awe about the universe and felt like an epic film.

This.
I saw it opening day at Grauman's Chinese, and I sat with my mouth hanging open a lot of the time, especially during the "slow" bits everybody makes fun of (the Drydock Tour & V'Ger Fly-over). This was what a trek through the stars should feel like. Of course, in most cases, what other people call "slow" pacing, I call "realistic".

As for which version I prefer, well, I don't own a Blu-Ray player, but the Director's Edition DVD is the only Trek film I own.
I trust the BD got a cleaned-up image, though. I was kinda shocked at all the dust & scratches on the DE, even more so when I found out that they actually added that to the new effects, so that they would blend better with the original footage.
Why the hell didn't they just CLEAN UP the original footage?!

 

[Maurice]

^^^They didn't add dust and scratches to the new shots, they tried to replicate the look of the film grain, without which the new effects would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Why the hell didn't they just CLEAN UP the original footage?!

I assume that would have blown their very tight budget.