Star trek final frontier directors cut finished
- Thread starter tmosler
- Start date
Where Prime-universe content is concerned, CBS Studios has the sole copyright on tie-in material. But Abramsverse tie-ins (the comics, the young-adult novels, and the games) are copyrighted both by CBS and Paramount.
For instance, here's a shot of the copyright page to Countdown to Darkness #2 from IDW. You can see at the bottom (though it's hard to read) that it says,"(R) and (C) 2013 CBS Studios Inc. STAR TREK and related marks and trademarks [sic] of CBS Studios Inc. (C) 2013 Paramount Pictures Corporation. All Rights Reserved." (I think that middle part is supposed to say "...and related marks and logos are trademarks of...". That's what it says on the back of the first movie's novelization.)
Yes Christopher your right, the distinction is between Bad Robot's (JJs) universe created with Paramount (Viacom) vs. the inherited prime universe that CBS owns (after the 2006 split). That makes perfect sense. I thought you had also been referring to prime universe property, that is why I questioned it.
Back on topic, as far as this version of TFF goes. CBS needs to figure if this version would be worth it to package, market and sell it. IMO, it stands a better chance of selling than some of the repackaging of the same Star Trek films that they are always doing ( "the all new blue package of ST:TFF complete with a Sybok refrigerator magnet!"..yawn..lol)
Back on topic, as far as this version of TFF goes. CBS needs to figure if this version would be worth it to package, market and sell it. IMO, it stands a better chance of selling than some of the repackaging of the same Star Trek films that they are always doing ( "the all new blue package of ST:TFF complete with a Sybok refrigerator magnet!"..yawn..lol)
Last edited:
Dead wrong.
Nicholas Meyer hand picked the footage that went into the ABC-TV cut in 1985. I remember reading an article at the time where he commented that he "got to revisit some of the battles he had lost with the studio"
He even picked the alternate turbo-lift Kirk/Saavik version because he thought it played better in the 4x3 format.
Here is an article from trekweb where he mentions putting together the TV cut......
http://trekweb.com/articles/2011/04...t-Saaviks-HalfRomulan-Heritage-Revealed.shtml
Not a canonical retcon, but it went against the memoed intentions of Roddenberry and Fontana for the character they'd shepherded through two pilots and three seasons: that Spock was - deliberately - an only child.
Okay, but I was sure I read an old "Starlog" of the day where it was said he was uninvolved.
The article you linked to says his quote was in "Cinefantastique" in 1992.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
You guys are talking at cross purposes. Meyer in CFQ was discussing what he did for the ABC cut, which is what decades later was repurposed into the alleged director's cut dvd. Neither the ABC nor DVD are the DC, which hasn't been seen since before TWOK debuted in June 82.
"Cheeky" is a nice way of putting it. I've always thought it was childish, bitchy and unprofessional.
^Actually Fontana's line doesn't technically contradict the movie at all, since Sarek had disowned Sybok and thus he was no longer legally considered a son of Sarek. Although, granted, Amanda might have felt differently about it.
Finally someone is getting the picture why this cut was made.
In 1982 Meyer turned in his cut.
It was about 119 minutes.
It included the alternate version of the the Kirk/David fight and a few scenes after that, that were follow-ups to that.
The studio hated that version of the fight/father-son revelation and made him reshoot it to what we we have now.
He then turned in a 115/116 cut
The studio then asked him to trim a few more minutes.
He then reluctantly cut the 3 1/2 minutes we now have seen in the 'Director's cut' 2-disc DVD.
They previewed the movie in Kansas city in early May 1982 and Bennett reports the audience loved the movie until Spock's death.
Then without Meyer's involvement they shot the coffin on Genesis scene.
When ABC went to do their TV premiere in 1985 they somehow got hooked up with Meyer and in the interview i read, in a genre magazine at the time, the ABC guy noted how Meyer all the bits they needed ready to go and was surprised at that.
Meyer had simply set aside the 3 minutes of so from his 116 minute cut and re-inserted them. Voila--his 'director's cut'---which was his preferred cut AFTER they made him reshoot the Kirk/David fight and BEFORE they added the Spock coffin on Genesis.
That's what Meyer is referring to in the '1992' article/interview (actually the December 1991 issue of Cinafantastique.)
He was commenting on after all the debate about the exact cut in 1982---nobody cared in 1985 what he added back in.
There NEVER was a '16 minute longer' original director's cut that an earlier poster referred to.
In reality, the movie was incredibly time crunched--principal photagraphy was finishing in early Feb 1982 for a June 4 wide release!!
Meyer wanted James Horner to score the movie but had no real cut to show him.
He then gave Horner a 127 minute 'rough assembly' of the movie to use as a reference.
That included virtually everything that they had shot-- strung together with no taking into account of pace or continuity or flow.
It was simply a reference for Horner to see to get ideas for all the major themes/beats of the film.
That may be the '127 (or 129) minute cut that some people think was out there. It was never intended as a real cut of any sort.
Last summer at the UCLA film school I watched a B/W 'workprint' of the movie that was fairly close to that 127 minute cut.
It begins at the simulator scene and ends at the point where spock leaves his chair to repair the main engines. It ends there presumably because back in 1982 they didn't want whoever was getting the workprint to know the ending. It contains virtually every thing in the script of the movie that I have owned since the mid 80s and that is available to read on the internet at many sites.
It has the Saavik romulan heritage mention in the corridor, an even longer scene concerning the glasses, Chekov's original log entry as 'duty officer', CHEKOV SEEING THE CHILD IN THE WINDOW OF THE CARGO CARRIER EXACTLY AS SCRIPTED!!!, Terrell finding the baby inside the cargo carrier, Khan mentioning Marla by name in his tirade, Kyle and Beach about to launch a rescue until Terrell (controlled) tricks them into beaming 'guests' aboard, SULU's promotion, the first version of the Kirk/David fight and all the follow up references and dozens of other bits.
Let me say this version is not a proper version of the movie, it has plenty of needless stuff and the flow is very slow even for a 1982 movie. Meyer would never have wanted the movie released ion that way.
Of course there are several small bits i wish they had left in, but overall most of the cuts were well-chosen.
So in closing to this over-long post...........
Meyer's true 'director's cut' would in reality have been with the original version of the Kirk/David fight/revelation and without the Spock coffin on genesis.
The director's cut on DVD is the closest we'll likely ever get to his preferred version.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
129 minutes is the number that was bandied about rather often post-release, as was the fact of Bennett cutting that version down after the Kansas test.
It's entirely possible that was a typo that got repeated, and that it was in fact 119 minutes, or that it WOULD have been 129 if you added the credits and the epilog -- those numbers certainly jive better with the relatively little extra material that has surfaced, all of which you reference above.
As near as I can tell, except for the new epilog, ILM's work was finished in April (it had to be, since they had to start printing reels WAY early in order to have 70mm prints done in time for June), so the runtime shouldn't have changed with respect to VFX shots, since the timings for the 'scene missing' cards would have matched to the projected VFX.
My understanding was that the reshoots did not take place long after the end of principal; if this is not correct (and your post certainly makes this inference), can you enhance on that end of things? Since he cut at night during shooting, the rough cut should have emerged within a couple weeks after the end of principal photography. And when you say the studio, are you referring to Bennett or somebody higher up?
The cut stuff to me sounds as it always has, like a mix of stuff that would have dragged with other stuff that would have helped and improved the film (and yeah, a longer version of a movie CAN feel shorter - apparently GODFATHER 2 tested with 45min cut and had walkouts galore from boredom.) I'd definitely want to see this cut for myself before commenting further.
It's entirely possible that was a typo that got repeated, and that it was in fact 119 minutes, or that it WOULD have been 129 if you added the credits and the epilog -- those numbers certainly jive better with the relatively little extra material that has surfaced, all of which you reference above.
As near as I can tell, except for the new epilog, ILM's work was finished in April (it had to be, since they had to start printing reels WAY early in order to have 70mm prints done in time for June), so the runtime shouldn't have changed with respect to VFX shots, since the timings for the 'scene missing' cards would have matched to the projected VFX.
My understanding was that the reshoots did not take place long after the end of principal; if this is not correct (and your post certainly makes this inference), can you enhance on that end of things? Since he cut at night during shooting, the rough cut should have emerged within a couple weeks after the end of principal photography. And when you say the studio, are you referring to Bennett or somebody higher up?
The cut stuff to me sounds as it always has, like a mix of stuff that would have dragged with other stuff that would have helped and improved the film (and yeah, a longer version of a movie CAN feel shorter - apparently GODFATHER 2 tested with 45min cut and had walkouts galore from boredom.) I'd definitely want to see this cut for myself before commenting further.
Well, Diane Carey has always found ways to take shots at anyone or anything that contradicts her view of the Trek universe. Probably why she hasn't written anything of consequence in years. No one will deal with her BS.
--Sran
Well, the UCLA film and television archive has it. I'm not sure what their policy is for non-students -- you may have to pay -- but it can certainly be viewed in their instructional media lab on campus.
From looking at the Meyer papers, I have a couple of (seemingly contradictory) documents related to the reshoots.
The first is a shooting schedule for days 54-57 of principal photography (scenes marked as either ADDED or RETAKES), set for January 26-29, 1982. I'm not 100% sure what these scenes are, since the descriptions (i.e. "Saavik lets hair down. Attacks, rapes David.") are nothing but misdirection.
The second is a pair of script pages titled 'STAR TREK II -- RETAKES 3/23/82.' These include several scenes, including the revised Kirk/David fistfight.
From looking at the Meyer papers, I have a couple of (seemingly contradictory) documents related to the reshoots.
The first is a shooting schedule for days 54-57 of principal photography (scenes marked as either ADDED or RETAKES), set for January 26-29, 1982. I'm not 100% sure what these scenes are, since the descriptions (i.e. "Saavik lets hair down. Attacks, rapes David.") are nothing but misdirection.
The second is a pair of script pages titled 'STAR TREK II -- RETAKES 3/23/82.' These include several scenes, including the revised Kirk/David fistfight.
Off-topic. When Therin mentioned "DC," he meant D. C. Fontana, author of the novel Vulcan's Glory, not Diane Carey. Fontana is the one who inserted the line about Spock being the only son of Sarek in order to protest TFF.
^Thanks!
--Sran
--Sran
Same here. Isn't TMP the only "true" director's edition as Robert Wise was involved with the changes from release version to his original vision from the beginning?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Well, 'involved' is relative. He signed off on it, and there are a few bits in there that he really did always want to change, but there are a few of us who think this is much more the cut of his collaborators than Wise himself. You can probably find very lengthy discussions on this over the past several years here.
Similar threads
- Poll
