While I love the connie refit, she never looked as good as she did in TMP. Think they deliberately tried to dull her paint scheme from then on, so she never quite had the luster of that original pearlised paint job in TMP.
Thanks for all the details! Very interesting and informative.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.
The SFX were shot on Vistavision cameras, which is even higher quality.
The director's edition of Star Trek VI is in a 2:1 aspect ratio, providing more image area than the theatrical version, but still less than the VHS.
Other films shot on Super 35:
First two Harry Potter films
Terminator 2
Titanic
All three Austin Powers
I hate that Captain Clean type scene.Interesting points everyone, and well made.
On the subject of Kirk's look in particular, I'll make this observation: I like that for the first time since... probably the original series... we get to see Kirk looking really gritty and worn down at times. People mock the trope about Shatner always getting his shirt ripped in TOS, but like Han Solo or Indiana Jones, it suggests a character who gets caught in the rough and tumble sometimes and comes out with scratches and bruises. That makes James T. Kirk more relatable, more human. When Kirk arrives back on the Enterprise after his stay on Rura Penthe, and he stands there on the bridge, his uniform is dirty, his hair messed up and matted, and he's got a noticeable beard starting to grow through. He looks like he's actually been through hell for months, and that sense of reality is much better than Captain Clean walking through beige sets looking pristine. It makes him more human.
all good points. however, the plot hole of valeris going on about it being impossible to fire a phaser unnoticed aboard a starship when in the galley and then rushing in sickbay with one (also, was there no doctors or nurses present?) to presumably kill burke and samno sours the movie for me.Rewatching Star Trek VI, I have to say I noticed a few things:
-The color grading and lighting were perfect, and sadly, none of the other films of the original cast match up to it. It could easily be a modern film.
-Special effects were perfect as well as sets.
-The costumes were on point, and their color seemed to be toned down from the 'lobster red' of the earlier films.
-The appearance of all the actors was perfect. Kirk, for the first time since The Motion Picture, actually looked what an older Kirk would look like: Perfect weight, face not any hint of flab (He looked kinda puffy in IV), no silly TJ hooker perm; McCoy looked great; Spock looked like Spock; no crazy afro on Uhura or her gheri curl like in the 80s films; Even Chekhov and Sulu looked dignified and classy, whereas in say, II, Chekhov was a still goofy but older version of himself.
It feels like every element clicked together in this film, and it makes me sad since this was the last with the original cast. It's like they fixed every aesthetic error which plagued the 80s films...but too late.
Also, going back to the color tones and image: I'm not an expert on color grading, but VI seems to have a perfect balance of colors to create a vibrant but not overly colorful image. The film stock seems to have been of higher quality too, giving a more crisp image.
Each film seems to have had its own unique color palette:
-The Motion Picture, being made in the 70s, has a very brown/Earth tone color set
-II seems to be very harsh, red and browns and harsh colors.
-III and IV seem to be very blue in terms of the color grading, especially IV, I suppose going with the ocean theme of the film
-V is all over the place
If someone who is more of an expert on color grading/timing could weigh in and explain what I said better, I'd appreciate that.
But does anyone else agree that not only does the cast look the best in VI out of the films, but that the other aspects I mentioned were finally "just right"?
![]()
![]()
Kirk literally looks just like an older, dignified version of the guy we saw back in 1966 here.
Same for Uhura and Chekhov
![]()
![]()
Grumpy old Bones is Grumpy old Bones - perfect
![]()
![]()
![]()
Compare say to themselves and the look of IV:
![]()
![]()
![]()
Or II
![]()
![]()
![]()
Or I:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
They explained that in the movie, though. Phasers on stun at close range don't set off the alarms.all good points. however, the plot hole of valeris going on about it being impossible to fire a phaser unnoticed aboard a starship when in the galley and then rushing in sickbay with one (also, was there no doctors or nurses present?) to presumably kill burke and samno sours the movie for me.
Or at least that fashion goes in cycles.I really liked the look of ST II and III, like the 23rd century was just the year 1984 continued unabated for nearly three hundred years.
Or at least that fashion goes in cycles.
Not just the fashion, but things like the low-resolution CRT-based computer displays.
They convey information more succinctly than the busy translucent panels in Discovery.
They convey information more succinctly than the busy translucent panels in Discovery.
Cool that the guy saved it even though he wasn't a Trek fanhttps://torontolife.com/city/life/g...AYvvRTJxPA22wRUEn0z1q9tTrFiF6___CYr5N3MoLJxK4
Toronto Home has replica USS Enterprise for sale
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.