It's a good point. There are certainly casual fans who will like it, and there are probably backers who wanted a "love letter", something more kind and full of praise than WWLB was.^ Sometimes I forget that, for non-backers, it technically hasn't been released yet. That's how long this release is taking!
I'm gonna go out on a limb and speak for most of the backers on this board. We certainly did not want a love letter, quite the opposite.It's a good point. There are certainly casual fans who will like it, and there are probably backers who wanted a "love letter", something more kind and full of praise than WWLB was.


And I wasn't speaking for anyone on this board.I'm gonna go out on a limb and speak for most of the backers on this board. We certainly did not want a love letter, quite the opposite.![]()
The crash in Timeless has been rendered in HD. I can't recall if any live action footage was HD in the end.Do we get any new HD shots like in the DS9 one?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and speak for most of the backers on this board. We certainly did not want a love letter, quite the opposite.![]()
ISTR Martha Hackett was in it. Maybe Scarlett Pomers?Man, it's been so long since I saw it...did they have any actors who played recurring guest roles make an appearance?
They uprezzed SD footage, and it looks like shit. Paramount apparently quoted too high of a fee for the doc to scan anything this time.Do we get any new HD shots like in the DS9 one?
Where does that info come from, if I may ask? According to a podcast interview with David Zappone (referenced earlier in the thread) the reason they weren't able to go back to film was because CBS had gotten rid of their telecine machines.Paramount apparently quoted too high of a fee for the doc to scan anything this time.
Boy, is that ever the truth! I think I'd have preferred the footage as it is on the DVDs instead of the awful conversion they did. And some of the Ai upscaled photos they used were atrocious.They uprezzed SD footage, and it looks like shit.
I seem to remember it from an interview Zappone did, but I may have gotten my wires crossed.Where does that info come from, if I may ask? According to a podcast interview with David Zappone (referenced earlier in the thread) the reason they weren't able to go back to film was because CBS had gotten rid of their telecine machines.
Nor would it surprise me in the slightest if he gave conflicting answers.I seem to remember it from an interview Zappone did, but I may have gotten my wires crossed.

I kind of thought they might go down the "pay extra for a second disc of bonus content" route. That may be an option they are considering.
Like with so much of this project, this new extra bonus disc suffers from a lack of focus.I'm surprised that the surcharge would apparently apply whether or not the bonus features were made available digitally. It sounds like it'd be promoted as a separate, 60th Anniversary retrospective that's just inexplicably Voyager-heavy.
I do not like how this whole thing has been communicated, so you asking for more money is something I find kind of insulting. It was originally not the plan to release this for the 60th anniversary and when the Documentary was first announced it was the 55th Anniversary of Star Trek. I think as an olive branch to those who waited for 5 years, you should give that exclusive feature to your consumers as a digital download. You don't have to create discs or anything like that, but as a download I can watch on either my Google TV or Apple TV device. In fact, I would take it all digital and not get any physical copy at this point. My whole thing is I have already paid for this documentary and what you are proposing feels like revisionist history. Deliver what you said you were going to deliver, and as an olive branch, include the extra three hours.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.