Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
The only Blu-Rays I will refuse to buy are the upcoming LOTR releases, which will be the theatrical cuts only. Apparently Peter Jackson's holding all the extended cuts until The Hobbit makes it to BR. So until then I'll stick with the standard versions. There's just too much new material on the LOTR extended cuts to give that all up for Blu-Ray (unlike the Trek films, which don't have a whole lot in the extended cuts).
I saw two Trek Movie Blu Ray bundling the othe day. One was the the first 3 TOS movies and then the second was all six. I didn't notice on the first but the second it was all Theatrical Release.
Given they have the directors cut versions of most of the TOS trek films why go back to the theatrical release (especially in the case of TMP where the new cut has made it a much more watchable film).
^ Paramount loves to double and triple dip, especially when it comes to Trek. Remember when all ten Star Trek movies were packaged in the same box set? TMP was a special edition (because it was the first to get an SE and there was no regular edition) and the other nine were regular edition. And then as each movie got an SE double dip, they repackaged the entire thing! So there were 10 different box sets of the same 10 movies!
How else do you explain why there's a "trilogy" for just II, III and IV? Are there any Trek fans who only watch those three movies?
I thought this was going to be a thread about Warner's straight-to-DVD team and The Lost Boys 3 and 4.
Given they have the directors cut versions of most of the TOS trek films why go back to the theatrical release (especially in the case of TMP where the new cut has made it a much more watchable film).
I don't know why the director's cuts of ST II and VI weren't released on Blu-Ray, since the added material (what little of it existed) was strictly live-action and involved no effects that I could make out.
TMP, however, had new effects that were rendered at Standard Definition only - for reasons unknown. To release the TMP director's cut on Blu-Ray would require that those new effects be rerendered (but, apparently, NOT re-created from scratch - I think there is a difference) in High Definition.
Actually, as far as sets that only package a few of the movies go, that's the only one I'd stand up and make an argument for. Still, when it comes down to it, I'm sure most fans who refer to the "Genesis Trilogy" probably have every Trek film on DVD...even Star Trek Nemesis.
The reason the new effects for TMP were not rendered in HD was that it would have cost more money. And Paramount was not forward-thinking enough at the time to do it.
Actually, as far as sets that only package a few of the movies go, that's the only one I'd stand up and make an argument for. Still, when it comes down to it, I'm sure most fans who refer to the "Genesis Trilogy" probably have every Trek film on DVD...even Star Trek Nemesis.
The reason the new effects for TMP were not rendered in HD was that it would have cost more money. And Paramount was not forward-thinking enough at the time to do it.
the TMP director's cut came out what 3 years go? Computer processing power had taken a pretty big jump in that time, so if the computer models exist, how expensive would it be to re-render them for hi-def? I know that yes you'd have to re-edit the films - but again all the hard work has been done - just insert the hi-def renders in place of the standard ones.
Btw the TOS box set remasters - where the new graphics rendered to standard or hi-def?
Probably not THAT much. As I said earlier, they wouldn't really have to re-create the new effects from scratch, just re-RENDER them. Kind of like recompiling a program.
Btw the TOS box set remasters - where the new graphics rendered to standard or hi-def?
The new effects in TOS-R were, I believe, rendered in HD from the get-go. That's the whole reason they were DOING the remastering project, is for HD broadcast.
Same here. THe extended LOTR DVDs have set the standard as far as I'm concerned. They have a complete set of commentaries but also a through set of documentaries about the history of Tolkien and other about making the films. That's why I love DVDs so much - you get a great picture and sound but also plenty of extra information. Of course some are much better than others.
Gotta hate that trend. It's not worth the jump in expense for me. Blu-Ray players are still a significant factor more expensive as are the discs themselves. While a the quality of the Blu-Ray feature is still higher, it's not enough better than my upconverting player to merit that extra expense.
Probably not THAT much. As I said earlier, they wouldn't really have to re-create the new effects from scratch, just re-RENDER them. Kind of like recompiling a program.
Actually, it's likely the original digital information IS lost. One of the FX guys on Enterprise pointed out that a lot of the early FX modeling was lost when they changed studios, and that the models weren't really compatable anyways. That's why, for example, you didn't see Sabre or Norway class ships in latter Treks: the models were lost or unusable.
Assuming they do, that does not guarantee that they can be used. They were written for specific software, and moreover for a specific VERSION of that software. That was what, 8 years ago? It's not like you can just take any datafile, plop it into shelf-standard Lightwave (or whatever) and hit "render"...
Actually, as far as sets that only package a few of the movies go, that's the only one I'd stand up and make an argument for. Still, when it comes down to it, I'm sure most fans who refer to the "Genesis Trilogy" probably have every Trek film on DVD...even Star Trek Nemesis.
The reason the new effects for TMP were not rendered in HD was that it would have cost more money. And Paramount was not forward-thinking enough at the time to do it.
the TMP director's cut came out what 3 years go? Computer processing power had taken a pretty big jump in that time, so if the computer models exist, how expensive would it be to re-render them for hi-def? I know that yes you'd have to re-edit the films - but again all the hard work has been done - just insert the hi-def renders in place of the standard ones.
Btw the TOS box set remasters - where the new graphics rendered to standard or hi-def?
Assuming they do, that does not guarantee that they can be used. They were written for specific software, and moreover for a specific VERSION of that software. That was what, 8 years ago? It's not like you can just take any datafile, plop it into shelf-standard Lightwave (or whatever) and hit "render"...
LightWave is backwards-compatible to at least version 6.0; they're currently on version 9.6 for Windows. (I know, as I have files that go back that far). The major problem would probably be making sure all the resource forks were still intact; having to reapply a bunch of textures that the system can''t find is no fun.
It's a obvious hint "go to Blu-ray!" If anything, it's all the more reason for me to resist even more. Especially since it's been pointed out they added an entire 3 minutes to the cut. Did they give the franchise it's balls back? No. They throw in a topless scene and say it's unrated or rated R as if that made a difference.
I hope it's not a continuing trend to do extras and commentary tracks for blu-ray only. I really don't see the need to convert. I already have a ton of DVDs and I don't need to be bothered with blu-ray.
Same here. And I don't buy that Blue ray is necessary for a bigger screen. Some months back I traded in my old Panasonic 20 inch TV I had since 1994 for a Vizio 32 inch TV, and the ONLY difference is that my widescreen DVD TV series (Babylon 5, Smallville, Sarah Connor, New Galactica , ENETERPRISE, and others) are now full screen. The picture resolution is no different, just bigger.
I hope it's not a continuing trend to do extras and commentary tracks for blu-ray only. I really don't see the need to convert. I already have a ton of DVDs and I don't need to be bothered with blu-ray.
Same here. And I don't buy that Blue ray is necessary for a bigger screen. Some months back I traded in my old Panasonic 20 inch TV I had since 1994 for a Vizio 32 inch TV, and the ONLY difference is that my widescreen DVD TV series (Babylon 5, Smallville, Sarah Connor, New Galactica , ENETERPRISE, and others) are now full screen. The picture resolution is no different, just bigger.
I hope it's not a continuing trend to do extras and commentary tracks for blu-ray only. I really don't see the need to convert. I already have a ton of DVDs and I don't need to be bothered with blu-ray.
Same here. And I don't buy that Blue ray is necessary for a bigger screen. Some months back I traded in my old Panasonic 20 inch TV I had since 1994 for a Vizio 32 inch TV, and the ONLY difference is that my widescreen DVD TV series (Babylon 5, Smallville, Sarah Connor, New Galactica , ENETERPRISE, and others) are now full screen. The picture resolution is no different, just bigger.
The native resolution will be the same. But the upscaler is supposed to improve the colorspace, and display the image in the higher resolution of your TV. Basically you should see a pretty obvious improvement. If you don't have an upscaling DVD player, then it's up to your TV to do it, and Vizio sucks at it.
I lucked out since my Dad is a big electronics guy and he bought an HDTV and a Blu-Ray player, so he managed to help me out in that regard as well. For instance, he just bought me Star Trek on Blu-Ray, which looked absolutely gorgeous, so I don't really need to worry about converting or anything like that.
I was under the impression that some of the new FX for the Director's Edition of The Motion Picture wouldn't hold up under HD scrutiny anyway. Particularly the tiny CG models of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Ilia, & Decker walking across the Enterprise saucer section to get to the pathway to V'Ger's core.
The extended director's cut DVD of Terminator Salvation is a Target Stores exclusive. It is $22.00 and supplies are limited.
Only three minutes of footage are added to the film. The first is the attack by the T-1 while the Resistance attacks the Skynet VLA. The second is Moon Bloodgood's topless scene is restored.
Yeah. I was bloody surprised & bloody happy to see that Director's Cut DVD on the shelf at Target. How fortunate that I got a $10 Target gift card for my birthday.
In the end, I wish I had saved some money by someone else telling you what I'm about to tell you: It's not worth it. The added scenes are crap and the documentaries don't really tell us anything interesting.
Even Moon Bloodgood's bloody good moons are a disappointment. While she is topless, she keeps her hands over them most of the time. You never get a good look at them. And there's still a very awkward jump cut to the next scene when it has suddenly stopped raining, she's fully dressed, and she's being menaced by some crazy rednecks. The transition isn't quite as bad as it was in the theatrical cut but it's still bad.
I don't know why Nolan hasn't recorded any recent commentary tracks, come to think of it. There's a commentary track on Memento and Insomnia, and I believe Following has one, too.
Maybe he has since become one of those directors that doesn't like to overly explain his movies. It's a shame, because I would have loved a commentary track on The Prestige.
Actually here's something to irritate you even more: the total time of the film that has been cut is confirmed as being over 45 minutes. Included in the filmed cuts were:
- The entire Hybrid subplot (Skynet is really a collection of human/machine hybrids similar to Marcus).
- John Connor confronts the Resistance about the T-800s and Ashdown taunting him about Kyle Reese. (part of his is restored on the Director's Cut and has the scenes of Ashdown holding the gun to Connor's head telling him he could pull the trigger and change history and there was nothing that could be done about it).
- An expanded Connor Vs. The Terminator (cut due to CGI concerns).
- Marcus' death (done so that they could bring Sam Worthington back in a future film).
While I think a lot of these plot points sound terrible, I think it would have at least been interesting to see them as deleted scenes.
The hybrid storyline sounds like crap and tries too hard to give Skynet a deeper motivation. Skynet doesn't need a deeper motivation. That's the beauty of it. A defensive, killer computer program. It's so simple yet it has been sufficient motivation for the last 25 years of the franchise.
I suspect John Connor giving Kyle Reese the photo of Sarah Connor is now being saved for a later movie.
For the Connor/Terminator fight, at that point was he fighting a T-800 endoskeleton or Roland Kickinger with Schwarzenegger's face added on?
What about the ending? What did they do with Marcus' death that allowed him to come back in the future?
And did they ever shoot that alternate ending where John Connor dies and his face is grafted onto Marcus Wright's body?
Paramount loves to double and triple dip, especially when it comes to Trek. Remember when all ten Star Trek movies were packaged in the same box set? TMP was a special edition (because it was the first to get an SE and there was no regular edition) and the other nine were regular edition. And then as each movie got an SE double dip, they repackaged the entire thing! So there were 10 different box sets of the same 10 movies!
Same here. And I don't buy that Blue ray is necessary for a bigger screen. Some months back I traded in my old Panasonic 20 inch TV I had since 1994 for a Vizio 32 inch TV, and the ONLY difference is that my widescreen DVD TV series (Babylon 5, Smallville, Sarah Connor, New Galactica , ENETERPRISE, and others) are now full screen. The picture resolution is no different, just bigger.
The native resolution will be the same. But the upscaler is supposed to improve the colorspace, and display the image in the higher resolution of your TV. Basically you should see a pretty obvious improvement. If you don't have an upscaling DVD player, then it's up to your TV to do it, and Vizio sucks at it.
The native resolution will be the same. But the upscaler is supposed to improve the colorspace, and display the image in the higher resolution of your TV. Basically you should see a pretty obvious improvement. If you don't have an upscaling DVD player, then it's up to your TV to do it, and Vizio sucks at it.
Vizio is fine. But it's no top of the line TV, thats' why it's good to have other component that do the job for it. (For example, a good upscaling DVD player) How is the DVD player connected? Upscaling only works via HDMI.
Apparently Peter Jackson's holding all the extended cuts until The Hobbit makes it to BR. So until then I'll stick with the standard versions. There's just too much new material on the LOTR extended cuts to give that all up for Blu-Ray (unlike the Trek films, which don't have a whole lot in the extended cuts).
