What Is the Definitive Version of TMP?

[Joanna McCoy-Kirk]

Is it the Director’s Edition (DVD) or the theatrical version (BD)? The brilliant Trek novel Ex Machina was based on the Director’s Edition, but with the advent of Blu-ray and the release of the theatrical edition in that format, which version is now considered the "true" version? [I own both.]

Thanks,

JL

 

[Mr Silver]

It really depends on your personal preference. Sure, Wise decided to retcon the 82AU's to 2AU's for obvious reasons, but apart from that, a few extra scenes and updated CGI its really the same movie and thus the definitive version would be whichever one you prefer.

 

[Uhura's Panties]

Maybe all of the above…? Personally I’d go with the Director’s Cut…I always admired TMP…but the Director’s Cut made me actually like the film. It’s a shame the BluRay release didn’t include it……

 

[BillJ]

I'm waiting for the Special Longer Version to come out on Blu-ray.

 

[Uhura's Panties]

I'm waiting for the Special Longer Version to come out on Blu-ray.

 

[Christopher]

Well, first off, let's be clear on what the word "definitive" means:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definitive

–adjective
1. most reliable or complete, as of a text, author, criticism, study, or the like: the definitive biography of Andrew Jackson.

2. serving to define, fix, or specify definitely: to clarify with a definitive statement.

3. having its fixed and final form; providing a solution or final answer; satisfying all criteria: the definitive treatment for an infection; a definitive answer to a dilemma.

So really it has nothing to do with personal preference at all. Whether a version is your favorite and whether it's definitive are two separate questions.

The theatrical edition is literally an unfinished film. They didn't meet the rigid deadline for release and were thus forced to send out what was essentially a workprint, a rough edit that hadn't yet been trimmed for pacing, was still missing some of its effects shots, and had only a crude temporary sound mix. Wise hoped to be allowed to finish the film and have the rough print replaced a few weeks on by the proper, finished version, but he was never given the go-ahead to do this. So the theatrical edition is not the most complete or reliable version, nor is it the fixed and final form.

And the ABC "Special Longer Version" is just the unfinished theatrical release with a bunch of deleted footage shoved back in, including material from the aborted "Memory Wall" sequence that has Kirk and Spock in the wrong spacesuits and includes unfinished FX shots like one where you can literally see the wooden scaffolding holding up the outer-hull mockup. Again, not complete, reliable, or final.

So that pretty much makes the DE the definitive version by elimination. The only definition that would even potentially allow either of the other versions to be called "definitive" is number 2. The version that most people think of when they think of the film could be considered the definitive one, the one that defines TMP in their minds. That would most likely be the "Special Longer Version," since it's the one that was just about exclusively shown on television and released on video for a good two decades, and is thus probably the most widely seen version, at least prior to the DVD releases of the DE and theatrical cut. Still, I resist the notion that the highly flawed TV cut deserves the sobriquet "definitive."

 

[Joanna McCoy-Kirk]

I wish the Director's Edition were available on Blu-ray. As it stands, the Blu-ray of the theatrical version has much better picture quality IMHO than the DVD of the Director's Edition. Regarding content, however, the DE is probably the definitive version.

 

[Maurice]

It really depends on your personal preference. Sure, Wise decided to retcon the 82AU's to 2AU's for obvious reasons, but apart from that, a few extra scenes and updated CGI its really the same movie and thus the definitive version would be whichever one you prefer.

I think the guys working on the film talked Wise into that change. Of all the tweaks you fail to put into a movie, they choose that as one of the things to muck with?

 

[Christopher]

^Well, it's a logical change. Given the Enterprise's travel time through the cloud, a diameter of 2 AU is far more reasonable.

Then again, maybe they would've made the change anyway just for pacing. Film editing is often a matter of shaving off every expendable second. It makes absolutely no meaningful difference to the story whether the number is 2 or 82, and "two" takes less time to say. Heck, it's nowhere near as awkward as that edit in Generations where Picard addresses Lursa and B'Etor on the viewscreen and it's cut down to "Lurs-or." Now, that was a truly pointless edit, and a glaring one. But it goes to show just how meticulous film editing can be, how much it can come down to a difference of syllables.

 

[RyanKCR]

I'm waiting for the Special Longer Version to come out on Blu-ray.

That is the version I would want. Although I would want two FX shots taken from the DE.

 

[Maurice]

^Well, it's a logical change. Given the Enterprise's travel time through the cloud, a diameter of 2 AU is far more reasonable.

Perhaps, but, again, we see the Enterprise blasting by stars as if they were roadside markers. If the Enterprise could get to Vulcan in four days, and Vulcan were 10.5 ly, that means the it'd take the Enterprise a mere 21 seconds to cross 41 AUs (the radius of an 82AU cloud) at "take Spock home" velocity. If they're overtaking it from behind and it's moving at something close to the ship's velocity, then clearly it takes a lot longer. But I don't think you can equate time seen on screen to real time in a sequence like that.

Then again, maybe they would've made the change anyway just for pacing. Film editing is often a matter of shaving off every expendable second.

What film editor's going to want to cut "eighty two" down to "two" when describing a threat, especially when using it in reference to nomenclature that means nothing to 99.9% of the audience? The former number is more impressive sounding. Imagine if I say "the Death Star is two miles in diameter" as opposed to "the Death Star is eighty-two miles in diameter". And no one cutting the DE is cared about those kind of minor dialog edits for pacing, especially given how much "air" remains in the edit throughout the film.

 

[Christopher]

Perhaps, but, again, we see the Enterprise blasting by stars as if they were roadside markers. If the Enterprise could get to Vulcan in four days, and Vulcan were 10.5 ly, that means the it'd take the Enterprise a mere 21 seconds to cross 41 AUs (the radius of an 82AU cloud) at "take Spock home" velocity. If they're overtaking it from behind and it's moving at something close to the ship's velocity, then clearly it takes a lot longer. But I don't think you can equate time seen on screen to real time in a sequence like that.

They were inside V'Ger's cloud, which presumably means inside its warp field, since the cloud came with it. The idea of travelling at warp inside another ship's warp field is rather implausible, if you ask me.

Of course, at sublight, a radius of 1 AU would take at least 8 minutes, 19 seconds to traverse, but we saw that the cloud was narrower at the equator, where the Enterprise entered.

What film editor's going to want to cut "eighty two" down to "two" when describing a threat, especially when using it in reference to nomenclature that means nothing to 99.9% of the audience? The former number is more impressive sounding.

What film editor would cut "Lursa, B'Etor" to sound like "Lurs-or?" It's strange to ask it as though it were something that couldn't possibly happen when it did happen.

Perhaps the DE makers figured that the amazement in Commander Branch's voice and the shocked reactions of the Enterprise crew conveyed a sufficient sense of magnitude that it wasn't necessary to use the bigger, more "impressive" number. The spoken word is just one part of a performance, after all.

 

[Captrek]

When I first saw the DE and the special feature with Wise, I decided that, as far as I was concerned, the DE was the definitive version of the film, essentially for the reasons expounded by Christopher.

However, since I got the Theatrical edition on BluRay, that’s the one I always watch. It looks much better on my setup than the DVD of the DE.

I wish the Director's Edition were available on Blu-ray.

I have a theory about that. I think that, if and when they update the DE for BluRay, they’re going to create a 3D version. Right now, the 3D market is small and 2D-to-3D conversion technology is in its infancy. About 5-8 years from now, 3DTV will be much more ubiquitous, and the technology for 3D conversion will be much better. That’s when the DE will finally be upgraded.

 

[Christopher]

I thought the reason was that the digital effects or the transfer or something was only done at DVD resolution, making an upgrade difficult.

I certainly hope they don't have plans to force the film to conform to the 3D fad. The purpose of the Director's Edition was to make the film look as close as possible to the way it would've looked had it been completed in 1979. It was treated as a film restoration project, not an upgrade. So it would be a betrayal of the intent of the DE if they changed it into 3D, something the original film was never meant to be.

 

[number6]

All of them.

 

[Captrek]

I thought the reason was that the digital effects or the transfer or something was only done at DVD resolution, making an upgrade difficult.

My understanding is that it can be done. It would require re-rendering a lot of the new effects. It would not be prohibitively expensive, but it would not be trivial either. If they're ever going to do 3D, it's probably more efficient to wait and do them at the same time.

I certainly hope they don't have plans to force the film to conform to the 3D fad. The purpose of the Director's Edition was to make the film look as close as possible to the way it would've looked had it been completed in 1979. It was treated as a film restoration project, not an upgrade. So it would be a betrayal of the intent of the DE if they changed it into 3D, something the original film was never meant to be.

I presume if they go this way, it will contain both a 2D version and a 3D version, like the TOS BD's with the original and Remastered versions. Watch the 2D version if you want to see the film as it was originally meant to be. Watch the 3D version if you want to see the "upgrade."

ETA: Whatever you may think of the artistic merit of the idea, it makes sense commercially. Assuming 3D isn't just a passing fad, there are going to be an awful lot of people out there who spent an awful lot of money on their 3DTVs and want to take advantage of it. It's like how back when color TV was a big deal, a lot of black-and-white movies were colorized to take advantage of the new technology. Nobody does that anymore, but in its time the technique made a lot of money.

 

[Maurice]

What film editor would cut "Lursa, B'Etor" to sound like "Lurs-or?" It's strange to ask it as though it were something that couldn't possibly happen when it did happen.

That's not done for dramatic reasons. That sounds like a mistake.

 

[Pauln6]

I'm waiting for the Special Longer Version to come out on Blu-ray.

That is the version I would want. Although I would want two FX shots taken from the DE.

Yup - the longer version with updated effects for me. I will admit that I could probably live with shorter or fewer reaction shots in the later part of the film but I like all the dialogue.

 

[RyanKCR]

That is the version I would want. Although I would want two FX shots taken from the DE.

Yup - the longer version with updated effects for me. I will admit that I could probably live with shorter or fewer reaction shots in the later part of the film but I like all the dialogue.

I actually did that once, a long time ago. I rought edited it by keeping everything excpet the scenes of the crew reacting with no dialage in that cut.

 

[Pauln6]

That is the version I would want. Although I would want two FX shots taken from the DE.

Yup - the longer version with updated effects for me. I will admit that I could probably live with shorter or fewer reaction shots in the later part of the film but I like all the dialogue.

I actually did that once, a long time ago. I rought edited it by keeping everything excpet the scenes of the crew reacting with no dialage in that cut.

Cool! And did you think it was better overall (rough edit aside)?