OK so I checked, I HAVE the STII DE but it's a DVD. The bluray version is called "remastered" in several locations so I assumed it was the DE. I own NO original movies on bluray, only the JJ movies.
RAMA
TMP on Blu-Ray
- Thread starter Flake
- Start date
OK so I checked, I HAVE the STII DE but it's a DVD. The bluray version is called "remastered" in several locations so I assumed it was the DE. I own NO original movies on bluray, only the JJ movies.
RAMA
Just a side note, but there is some controversy reference the altered colour timing on the TWOK Blu-ray - which is noticeably different to all previous home video editions. While it's fair to say many took umbrage with the results, I must admit, I actually quite like it!
Who's to say what's right or wrong, but I do suspect the original theatrical presentation was probably more akin to the standard definition releases on the market.
But, since I was 13 last time I saw the movie on the silver screen in '82, I can't say that with absolute assurance!
Who's to say what's right or wrong, but I do suspect the original theatrical presentation was probably more akin to the standard definition releases on the market.
But, since I was 13 last time I saw the movie on the silver screen in '82, I can't say that with absolute assurance!
The thing about Director's Editions is, where does it stop? Which version is the 'right' one? Does a theatrical cut trump a Director's Edition because it is what was originally theatrically distributed? Or does a Director's Edition trump a theatrical cut, because it is nominally "closer to a film-maker's original vision"? What about cases where scenes were cut out of the theatrical cut of something for a very good reason, and their inclusion in a subsequent Director's Edition actually arguably makes things worse?
Sure, some Director's Cuts, including the TMP and TWOK ones, are broadly the same movie but just with alternative takes inserted here and there. They aren't 'canon busting' Director's Cuts. But then you've got DE's that have alternate endings and other major storyline changes, which confuse things somewhat. I've never been sure what's the official ending of Blade Runner. I've never been sure what's the true ending of Army Of Darkness. The Director's Cuts muddy the water to the extent that you can't necessarily say one way or the other which is the 'right' one, and to me that feels wrong somehow y'know?
I tend to err on the side of the theatrical cuts because I think for better or worse they are the originals as released to the public and the Director's Editions can only ever be intriguing alternatives, but then you'll go online and many people will hold the opposite view, that the Director's Edition ending is somehow the more pure and untainted one.
(Actually, TWOK does make one major change: in one cut of the movie Peter Preston is seemingly just another eager young cadet, while in the Director's Cut he's identified as Scotty's nephew. A small change, but a significant one in canon terms. Which one is correct? )
If they did a Director's Edition of "Generations" which reinstated Kirk being shot in the back instead of a bridge falling on him, which death becomes canon? If they did a Director's Edition of "Nemesis" with the original ending of Picard getting a new Number One, Crusher going off to Starfleet medical, etc, which obviously invalidates a great number of the original novels that have been written since (which all tend to use the theatrical edition ending as a jumping off point), then do we accept the Director's Edition as the new 'true' ending of the movie? Or do we just go "Hey, it's kind of cool to see it, but it isn't canon"?
Sorry for the length of this one, but it's a topic which I've always struggled with.
Sure, some Director's Cuts, including the TMP and TWOK ones, are broadly the same movie but just with alternative takes inserted here and there. They aren't 'canon busting' Director's Cuts. But then you've got DE's that have alternate endings and other major storyline changes, which confuse things somewhat. I've never been sure what's the official ending of Blade Runner. I've never been sure what's the true ending of Army Of Darkness. The Director's Cuts muddy the water to the extent that you can't necessarily say one way or the other which is the 'right' one, and to me that feels wrong somehow y'know?
I tend to err on the side of the theatrical cuts because I think for better or worse they are the originals as released to the public and the Director's Editions can only ever be intriguing alternatives, but then you'll go online and many people will hold the opposite view, that the Director's Edition ending is somehow the more pure and untainted one. (Actually, TWOK does make one major change: in one cut of the movie Peter Preston is seemingly just another eager young cadet, while in the Director's Cut he's identified as Scotty's nephew. A small change, but a significant one in canon terms. Which one is correct?
)If they did a Director's Edition of "Generations" which reinstated Kirk being shot in the back instead of a bridge falling on him, which death becomes canon? If they did a Director's Edition of "Nemesis" with the original ending of Picard getting a new Number One, Crusher going off to Starfleet medical, etc, which obviously invalidates a great number of the original novels that have been written since (which all tend to use the theatrical edition ending as a jumping off point), then do we accept the Director's Edition as the new 'true' ending of the movie? Or do we just go "Hey, it's kind of cool to see it, but it isn't canon"?
Sorry for the length of this one, but it's a topic which I've always struggled with.
What does it matter? If it conflicts with what a later writer/director/producer wants to do, it'll just be ignored.
It's a fair question.The thing about Director's Editions is, where does it stop? Which version is the 'right' one? Does a theatrical cut trump a Director's Edition because it is what was originally theatrically distributed? Or does a Director's Edition trump a theatrical cut, because it is nominally "closer to a film-maker's original vision"? What about cases where scenes were cut out of the theatrical cut of something for a very good reason, and their inclusion in a subsequent Director's Edition actually arguably makes things worse?
Sure, some Director's Cuts, including the TMP and TWOK ones, are broadly the same movie but just with alternative takes inserted here and there. They aren't 'canon busting' Director's Cuts. But then you've got DE's that have alternate endings and other major storyline changes, which confuse things somewhat. I've never been sure what's the official ending of Blade Runner. I've never been sure what's the true ending of Army Of Darkness. The Director's Cuts muddy the water to the extent that you can't necessarily say one way or the other which is the 'right' one, and to me that feels wrong somehow y'know?
(Actually, TWOK does make one major change: in one cut of the movie Peter Preston is seemingly just another eager young cadet, while in the Director's Cut he's identified as Scotty's nephew. A small change, but a significant one in canon terms. Which one is correct?
If they did a Director's Edition of "Generations" which reinstated Kirk being shot in the back instead of a bridge falling on him, which death becomes canon? If they did a Director's Edition of "Nemesis" with the original ending of Picard getting a new Number One, Crusher going off to Starfleet medical, etc, which obviously invalidates a great number of the original novels that have been written since (which all tend to use the theatrical edition ending as a jumping off point), then do we accept the Director's Edition as the new 'true' ending of the movie? Or do we just go "Hey, it's kind of cool to see it, but it isn't canon"?
Sorry for the length of this one, but it's a topic which I've always struggled with.
I can only say that I tend to lean toward the version that works best for me overall.
- I think the ST: TMP DE is much more watchable than the theatrical or TV Special Extended Version.
- I think the Daredevil DE is light years better than the theatrical version.
- I prefer the extended version of Peter Jackson's King Kong. I think it's better edited even with some additional footage put back in.
Actually, TWOK does make one major change: in one cut of the movie Peter Preston is seemingly just another eager young cadet, while in the Director's Cut he's identified as Scotty's nephew. A small change, but a significant one in canon terms. Which one is correct?
I don't see a problem there, since the two versions don't contradict each other at all.
It's not as if in the theatrical cut they said that Peter Preston was NOT Sotty's nephew. They just don't specifically mention that he is. But the fact that his death had such a huge impact on Scotty implied some kind of relationship between the two of them. The DE only confirmed what we suspected by adding a little background information.
I think this is a key point. If a Director's Edition or Director's Cut doesn't really contradict the theatrical version, but merely adds content or re-edits (yes, it can be subjective) the overall film then it's not an inconsistency. It's somewhat akin to reading a novelization of a film that contains content not seen in the filmed version of the story. Sometimes a novelization can clarify things that are perhaps ambivalent or vague in the film. Of course on the hand some novelizations had reams of things with little real relevance to the film. I'm thinking of the novelizations like that for TSFS (as well as other Trek films) that fleshed out things barely (if at all) suggested in the film.
The thing about Director's Editions is, where does it stop? Which version is the 'right' one? Does a theatrical cut trump a Director's Edition because it is what was originally theatrically distributed? Or does a Director's Edition trump a theatrical cut, because it is nominally "closer to a film-maker's original vision"? What about cases where scenes were cut out of the theatrical cut of something for a very good reason, and their inclusion in a subsequent Director's Edition actually arguably makes things worse?
Sure, some Director's Cuts, including the TMP and TWOK ones, are broadly the same movie but just with alternative takes inserted here and there. They aren't 'canon busting' Director's Cuts. But then you've got DE's that have alternate endings and other major storyline changes, which confuse things somewhat. I've never been sure what's the official ending of Blade Runner. I've never been sure what's the true ending of Army Of Darkness. The Director's Cuts muddy the water to the extent that you can't necessarily say one way or the other which is the 'right' one, and to me that feels wrong somehow y'know?
(Actually, TWOK does make one major change: in one cut of the movie Peter Preston is seemingly just another eager young cadet, while in the Director's Cut he's identified as Scotty's nephew. A small change, but a significant one in canon terms. Which one is correct?
If they did a Director's Edition of "Generations" which reinstated Kirk being shot in the back instead of a bridge falling on him, which death becomes canon? If they did a Director's Edition of "Nemesis" with the original ending of Picard getting a new Number One, Crusher going off to Starfleet medical, etc, which obviously invalidates a great number of the original novels that have been written since (which all tend to use the theatrical edition ending as a jumping off point), then do we accept the Director's Edition as the new 'true' ending of the movie? Or do we just go "Hey, it's kind of cool to see it, but it isn't canon"?
Sorry for the length of this one, but it's a topic which I've always struggled with.
Well don't wait for someone to tell you which one is "official", they're ALL official, just pick the one you like best.
RAMA
^ But what's the point of that? Things like the size of V'Ger, for example. It obviously can't be both 82 AU's and 2 AU's in diameter. When future Trek material picks one or the other, that becomes official, and it's pointless to argue otherwise.
What was the reason for the AUs thing? It doesn't bother me that they changed to from 82 to 2, because either way it's still ridiculously big. I'm curious to know why that alteration was done.
Slight problem with that argument. The movies and television series are being run by two different studios. Paramount is in charge of the movies, while CBS is in charge of the television series. And despite Trek09 being a fantastic BluRay, the Star Trek Into Darkness BluRay is no where near as good. Bonus features were split up as retailer exclusives and immersive features like the visual commentary and the Imax aspect ratio being iTunes exclusives (and not even in 1080p).
So in retrospect, CBS is the one pouring a lot of money and resources into presenting Star Trek in the best possible way while Paramount is still sticking with the work they did on the movies in 2009 and nothing beyond that.
And no, there is no BluRay of the Director's Edition of The Wrath of Khan. Also, the film is now starch blue.
Paramount produced brand new versions of blurays and remastered at least several for the release, so that's STILL supporting the movies franchise(s).
STID's bluray was a marketing scheme and in no way make the release or desire to acquire it different to the majority of consumers, who do not watch most of the special features anyway.
RAMA
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that only Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan was remastered. Also, Paramount only remastered the theatrical version (which even comes to a surprise to Nicholas Meyer on the new audio commentary!) and changed much of the color-timing of that film to a more blueish tint for no particular reason.
The rest of the Blu-Rays have old, heavily DNR'd transfers on them. There are some new bonus features, but many of these are pointless (i.e. the fan round tables and the commentaries by people who didn't work on the films).
The Blu-Rays certainly could be worse, but they're not great.
The rest of the Blu-Rays have old, heavily DNR'd transfers on them. There are some new bonus features, but many of these are pointless (i.e. the fan round tables and the commentaries by people who didn't work on the films).
The Blu-Rays certainly could be worse, but they're not great.
You're right.
I think they have all been remastered, but only TWOK has been given the restoration treatment because the negatives were in such a bad shape.
I mean, they had to be remastered for the BD release ... otherwise they would have been SD upscales, right?
I'm pretty sure the films were scanned at 1080i and then downrezzed to 480i for the DVD's. Those masters were then used for the Blu-ray's except for TWOK.
Can't remember where I read that though? So take the above with a grain of salt.
Similar threads
