Star Trek VI - The best looking film?

[Firebird]

Technical details. Star Trek VI was indeed shot on a higher quality film called Super 35. It's designed to be matted to a 2.35:1 aspect ratio for cinemas, and completely opened up for home video release. Films shot on Super 35 have slightly less detail in the cinema presentation compared to traditionally shot Star Trek movies, but it is made up for with it's inherent sharpness, and much higher depth of focus.

This isn't quite accurate - Panavision and Super 35 use the same basic 35mm film, but generate the image differently. Anamorphic widescreen processes such as Panavision utilize the full frame (1.37:1) of 35mm film, with the anamorphic lens squeezing the 2.35:1 image to fit the 1.37:1 frame. As you pointed out, Super 35 hard mattes the same basic cell down, rather than using the anamorphic lens to stretch the image out. In the latter process, you're using less film area for the image, which automatically limits the resolution, no matter what kind of lenses you're using.

The reason Super 35 was created was never for home video, though it ended up being repurposed for it during the pan-and-scan days. Super 35 was created as a way to make a widescreen image cheaper, without needing the expensive anamorphic lenses, which could take up additional space in tight spaces. Tony Scott used this space-saving bonus to his advantage when he was shooting the cockpit scenes in Top Gun.

 

[Maurice]

Wow, I definitely feel the opposite. The SFS Excelsior bridge [...] The computer graphics are all obviously early 80s graphics that somebody dashed off on an Amiga or something instead of something that looks believably futuristic.

FWIW the Amiga wasn't out in 1984. I know the color palettes of most of the home computers of that era, and having both vivid orange and red was something most of those around in 83-84 weren't capable of doing simultaneously. This leads me to suspect it wasn't a "home computer", but since the color reproduction on film might not be 100% accurate I can't say definitively.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

FWIW the Amiga wasn't out in 1984. I know the color palettes of most of the home computers of that era, and having both vivid orange and red was something most of those around in 83-84 weren't capable of doing simultaneously. This leads me to suspect it wasn't a "home computer", but since the color reproduction on film might not be 100% accurate I can't say definitively.

I wasn't speaking literally.

 

[Maurice]

I wasn't speaking literally.

I know that, hence my "FWIW".

 

[MakeshiftPython]

One thing for certain is that this along with the other non-TWOK films need a new home video transfer, especially VI. That DNR scrub just breaks my heart.

 

[Kor]

I would say that the conspicuous reuse of the TNG engine room set, as well as the flimsy wall panels during the investigation scenes, not to mention the cheap-o vinyl Klingon uniforms, detract from the overall look of this movie.

Kor

 

[Vger23]

I think the cinematography is very nice in TUC. Maybe the best since TMP.

But, from an overall "looks" perspective, I think it looks pretty cheap. Too many re-used sets (the engine room, dining room and President's office yank me out of the story worse than staging falling down in a play would) and a cheap / rushed feel don't do the film any favors.

 

[Smellmet]

I would say that the conspicuous reuse of the TNG engine room set, as well as the flimsy wall panels during the investigation scenes, not to mention the cheap-o vinyl Klingon uniforms, detract from the overall look of this movie.

Kor

I liked the klingon uniforms I thought they were very eye catching and one of the best aspects of the production.

 

[plynch]

I never noticed these things. Hm.

What's DNR?

 

[Kor]

I never noticed these things. Hm.

What's DNR?

Digital noise reduction. One of the effects of too much DNR is that it makes people's skin look waxy. This can be seen in the blu-ray release of the Lord of the Rings theatrical versions.

Kor

 

[urbandefault]

Aspect ratio appeared to be all over the place in every new version of the movie I'd seen. The sets looked liked sets something I got from another Meyer film TWOK in particular in the Regula scenes. Particular scenes like the Kitamer conference, Rura Pentha penal colony just wasn't thought through, I didn't like how obvious TNG sets were, I mean there's an earlier scene where Kirk is dishing out his Captain's Log in his cabin and the access door is open to see TNG corridor present as he walks to his closet. I disagree the cast looked their best in their final outing, IMO I thought the crew looked their best in TMP and TWOK, 1. the outfits in TMP appeared comfortable for the actors--ALL OF THEM, and 2. in TWOK although the cast were quite fit in the film and could bare those impractical outfits I thought they looked decent, but as the series progressed and the actors' waist lines increased the outfits appeared cumbersome.

I get this is a fan-loved thread of VI, but it can only be best looking when the person lacks knowledge of superior filmmaking, or what examples of superior cinematography and camera work looks like. Robert Wise may have made a snore of a movie but no way is that movie not superior than whatever Nicholas Meyer could execute as a director or a visionary in camera work and execution. No! Sorry. TMP just needed more editing to keep it's pace a lot better. Look at TSFS and I can see the flaws of a director who was working the bugs on his craft, and then came TVH and Leonard Nimoy not only mastered his craft in all aspects of movie making but orchestrated a masterpiece which is timeless. From sound, cinematography and execution, what a drastic improvement- - what my man would call "A drop the mic" moment.

VI doesn't remotely covers the qualities described from the host, it doesn't and I like this movie. When looking at TWOK, Meyer appeared to be an up and coming director, but contrasting it to TUC there appeared to be a decline in visual storytelling and execution. It felt more like a play than a motion picture and it's saving grace was having a lot coverage for the editor, the real hero of this mess, to make it barely work. SFX shouldn't be the end all to save a picture, it should compliment it but what would VI be if it had the guys who did V SFX???

I know it's just an opinion and beauty is in the eye of the beholder but these samples just proves you like bad looking movies.

I read the post three times, and still have no idea what it means.

 

[Lance]

It's been brought up before but I don't really get the 'reuse of TNG sets makes the movie look cheap' thing. Yes, I grant you that engineering is particularly noticable, but then engineering is hardly even in the movie and those scenes could've (should've?) been cut and it wouldn't make a difference to the movie. The rest of the "reused" sets are suitably disguised. Sickbay and the obs lounge are lit differently to on TNG, darker. Ten Forward as the President's office was distracting but not wholly idiotic. All of the Enterprise corridors have had those flats planted on the walls to disguise them. I always thought ST5 was more egregious in using the TNG modified corridor sets with almost no changes, right down to the carpet. ST6 at least makes an effort to disguise them.

 

[Lord Garth]

I like the way VI looks. A lot. When I saw it in the theater, my first thought right from the beginning was, "This is a Star Trek movie for the '90s!" But I also like the '80s look of III, IV, and V.

I think TWOK looks more like a '70s film than an '80s film. It's the Earth-tones, the heavy use of brown and red, the wide collars when the landing party beams down the Regula I, the overall look of the inside of Regula I, and the stock footage from TMP. Khan and his followers look like a Rock Band, but that "band" could just as easily pass for late-'70s as it can for early-'80s. The hair and civilian clothing on everyone else also look on the '70s/'80s cusp. It makes sense to me. Going by old photos from when I was a baby and everything I've seen from back then in general, 1980 looks more like "nineteen seventy-ten" while 1981 (when TWOK was actually filmed) looks half '70s, half '80s.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Ten Forward as the President's office was distracting but not wholly idiotic.

I had no idea that the President's office was a redressed Ten-Forward when I first saw the film.

I think TWOK looks more like a '70s film than an '80s film.

1982 still had a fair amount of 70s in it.

The hair and civilian clothing on everyone else also look on the '70s/'80s cusp.

That stands to reason, since a lot of the civilian clothes were recycled from TMP. (You can see some of them again in TSFS when the Enterprise returns to Spacedock.)

 

[Khan 2.0]

It's been brought up before but I don't really get the 'reuse of TNG sets makes the movie look cheap' thing. Yes, I grant you that engineering is particularly noticable, but then engineering is hardly even in the movie and those scenes could've (should've?) been cut and it wouldn't make a difference to the movie. The rest of the "reused" sets are suitably disguised. Sickbay and the obs lounge are lit differently to on TNG, darker. Ten Forward as the President's office was distracting but not wholly idiotic. All of the Enterprise corridors have had those flats planted on the walls to disguise them. I always thought ST5 was more egregious in using the TNG modified corridor sets with almost no changes, right down to the carpet. ST6 at least makes an effort to disguise them.

Don't think I realised they were the TNG sets at the time but when did just thought of it like another foreshadowing of TNG theme of the movie (albeit one forced due to budget)

 

[Workbee]

The reuse of sets in TFF and TUC really used to bother me. But I started thinking.. the notion that the directors of TFF and TUC should have used the limited funds they had for production to refurbish the sets to their “TOS Movie” look is kind of unfair. These were originally movie assets (ok technically they were originally Phase II). TNG basically got carte blanche to ransack and gut all the sets for their show for “free” with no obligation to restore them back to their previous condition. But if you take TNG out of the equation, they did have a pretty good look. Why should the film directors waste precious money fixing up their own steps. So the way I reconcile it is when I watch TFF and TUC, I just pretend that TNG doesn’t exist. And once I do that, the sets look fine the way they are.

It makes me better understand the decisions what to and not to refurbish in those films. The TNG look for corridors work fine with the aesthetic for TFF. For TUC, Meyer’s more nautical “Run Silent, Run Deep” vision necessities a more cramped, utilitarian look. The similarities with TNG were probably not a leading concern to the producers and they should not have been.

 

[Lance]

Given that engineering, in particular, appears only twice and both times in what are basically quick pick up shots, and it isn't in any way relevant to the story for there to be scenes in engineering anyway, ultimately it would be wasteful to change it. Same with sickbay. The three sets that do get extensively recycled -- the corridors, the obs lounge, and the transporter room -- are considerably disguised. The corridors had new 'plants' added to make them even more claustrophobic and less easily identified. The transporter room is altered back to something closer to its Motion Picture state, with the addition of a 'shield' for the transporter operators. And the obs lounge, somewhat famously, didn't get altered back in subsequent seasons of Next Generation, only truly being restored for the "past" scenes in All Good Things three years later. Yes, the sets being redressed TNG sets is distracting. But it isn't as obvious IMO as ST5, where the goddamn corridor sets are all in TNG biege with the TNG carpets. At least Meyer tries to hide their origins a little.

When I saw it in the theater, my first thought right from the beginning was, "This is a Star Trek movie for the '90s!"

Agreed. It feels distinctly like it belongs in the new decade. Somewhat unlike the corresponding season of The Next Generation, in some ways, which aesthetically kind of retained a late 1980s aesthetic to the end.

I think TWOK looks more like a '70s film than an '80s film. It's the Earth-tones, the heavy use of brown and red, the wide collars when the landing party beams down the Regula I, the overall look of the inside of Regula I, and the stock footage from TMP. Khan and his followers look like a Rock Band, but that "band" could just as easily pass for late-'70s as it can for early-'80s. The hair and civilian clothing on everyone else also look on the '70s/'80s cusp. It makes sense to me. Going by old photos from when I was a baby and everything I've seen from back then in general, 1980 looks more like "nineteen seventy-ten" while 1981 (when TWOK was actually filmed) looks half '70s, half '80s.

It's not oft acknowledged how much of a truism this is in general, that maybe the first couple years of a decade feel in a fashion sense among others tied closer to the decade before. The 1970s certainly stuck around as far as 1982. The 1980s could still be felt in 1990 pop culture, fashion and music. And late 1990s fashion trends still dominated post-millennium for a while. I'm not wholly sure if the same was true of the 2010s, as I feel fashions have become far less distinct this decade and far more inclined to borrow from past decades in general. Is there a distinct 2010s 'style'? Certainly in cinematic terms it's evident in desaturated colours and fast editing. But as 2020 knocks on our door, I'm far less able to identify 2010s fashion trends as opposed to the more obvious 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s...

 

[Lord Garth]

It's not oft acknowledged how much of a truism this is in general, that maybe the first couple years of a decade feel in a fashion sense among others tied closer to the decade before. The 1970s certainly stuck around as far as 1982. The 1980s could still be felt in 1990 pop culture, fashion and music. And late 1990s fashion trends still dominated post-millennium for a while. I'm not wholly sure if the same was true of the 2010s, as I feel fashions have become far less distinct this decade and far more inclined to borrow from past decades in general. Is there a distinct 2010s 'style'? Certainly in cinematic terms it's evident in desaturated colours and fast editing. But as 2020 knocks on our door, I'm far less able to identify 2010s fashion trends as opposed to the more obvious 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s...

I think the '10s started early. Musically, stylistically, politically, and technologically, most of what I associate with this decade was already in place by 2009. If I had to break down the 2010s into what I think of it is at its most broad I'd say: slimmer clothes, neater-looking hair, more electronic-sounding music, permanent political gridlock, HDTV, binging, streaming, and entrenched social media. Beards become big in the second half (in some cases literally). That's the decade in a nutshell. Movies? I don't pay attention to mainstream film much anymore but ever since Transformers, I've noticed a lot of it all looks very teal and orange. This even extends to the NuTrek movies.

I have no idea what the 2020s will bring, but given that it's the 100th Anniversary of the Roaring '20s, I keep thinking fashion will swing to a modernized version of that (pun intended). And maybe the music, through different genres, will begin to sound more jazzy. So maybe you'll have techno jazz, neo-flappers, and a more futuristic-looking version of 1920s clothes. I could be totally wrong. But that's my wild guess. One thing I don't think I'll be wrong about is that next year you'll hear a lot of 20/20 jokes. Like "Hindsight is always 20/20." "2020: A Perfect Vision", etc.

 

[B. L.]

IMO Star Trek VI is the best original series' film. Star Trek II is without question good, but VI is my favorite.

 

[B. L.]

I can't seem to find out how to edit my post, but i left out:

I LOVE the way they changed the aesthetics of the interior design of the starships. Both the Enterprise A and the Excelsior interiors look AMAZING, compared to the plush interior design of the A in STV and prior.

Absolutely the best interior design feature of any ST, barring Enterprise which was pretty similar.