Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection (1979-1991)

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by calmblueocean81

Thats why I was wondering about these "remastered" edition DVDs that came out after the 2-disc collectors editions. Are they are massive improvement?

The later DVDs are just downscales of the masters used for the Blu-rays, so Wrath of Khan might look a little better than the 2-disc SE since it was a new transfer at the time. On the others, I guess the DNR wouldn't be quite as noticeable in standard def, but otherwise I don't imagine there's much difference (aside from TMP, WOK, and TUC being the theatrical versions instead of the directors' cuts).

To be honest, my current go-to versions for Star Treks 1 and 3-6 are the ones on iTunes. They're from the same masters used for the Blu-rays, but the DNR doesn't seem as heavy. Still not great, but not quite as waxy as the discs. Also, they also have the original "burned-in" subtitles instead of the BD's player-generated ones, for those who care about such things.

[calmblueocean81]

Originally Posted by BNex99

The later DVDs are just downscales of the masters used for the Blu-rays, so Wrath of Khan might look a little better than the 2-disc SE since it was a new transfer at the time. On the others, I guess the DNR wouldn't be quite as noticeable in standard def, but otherwise I don't imagine there's much difference (aside from TMP, WOK, and TUC being the theatrical versions instead of the directors' cuts).

To be honest, my current go-to versions for Star Treks 1 and 3-6 are the ones on iTunes. They're from the same masters used for the Blu-rays, but the DNR doesn't seem as heavy. Still not great, but not quite as waxy as the discs. Also, they also have the original "burned-in" subtitles instead of the BD's player-generated ones, for those who care about such things.

Ah yes, downscales of the blus, I should have thought of that!
I actually have them all on blu and on iTunes as well. I think iTunes has the directors cuts as bonus features (not sure about the motion picture, might just be 2 and 6).
I'll have to do a little comparison between the blus and iTunes and see myself. Thanks for your thoughts!

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by calmblueocean81

Ah yes, downscales of the blus, I should have thought of that!
I actually have them all on blu and on iTunes as well. I think iTunes has the directors cuts as bonus features (not sure about the motion picture, might just be 2 and 6).
I'll have to do a little comparison between the blus and iTunes and see myself. Thanks for your thoughts!

iTunes does have the director's cut of TMP in the extras, but just in standard def, of course.

I'm not a DNR expert, so I don't know exactly how much is or isn't there (a lot of HD masters use it sparingly, which is actually a plus sometimes). But the digital versions just look a little less plasticky to me than the discs.

[kngtmat]

If I had the money at the time. I could have gotten the complete set of the 2 disc releases in the long slip box for $20 at the Salvation Army store. Unfortunately I only had around $10 which I got the two Blu-Ray sets of the original Star Wars & prequels. Along with the whole Austin Powers set without the slip box.

It wasn't there the next time I went unfortunately.

[JohnCarpenterLives]

Originally Posted by Neon Rabbit

I never owned the initial barebones releases either but I have all of the 2 disc collector's editions and I have never been able to bring myself to part with them because of how sub par the current Blu-rays are. The last time I watched The Voyage Home on Blu-ray I couldn't get over how much of a wax fest it was while my digital copy one VUDU looked basically like the DVD but in HD.

Originally Posted by BNex99

The later DVDs are just downscales of the masters used for the Blu-rays, so Wrath of Khan might look a little better than the 2-disc SE since it was a new transfer at the time. On the others, I guess the DNR wouldn't be quite as noticeable in standard def, but otherwise I don't imagine there's much difference (aside from TMP, WOK, and TUC being the theatrical versions instead of the directors' cuts).

To be honest, my current go-to versions for Star Treks 1 and 3-6 are the ones on iTunes. They're from the same masters used for the Blu-rays, but the DNR doesn't seem as heavy. Still not great, but not quite as waxy as the discs. Also, they also have the original "burned-in" subtitles instead of the BD's player-generated ones, for those who care about such things.

Do you happen to know if the iTunes versions are used anywhere else? Like Google Play? I'd prefer not to download them through other sites of I don't have to.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Comicfan

I love the Kirk/Spock/Bones stuff in Star Trek V.

Agree. As an epic sci fi story, it isn't a great film. But there are still some great character moments and enough fun sequences to make it worth watching.

Star Trek V reminds me of Freddy's Dead, or Halloween Resurrection - movies that are very popular to crap on, that definitely have their issues and were mis-steps in their own ways - but they also aren't nearly as God-awful as they are made out to be, and are enjoyable to watch for the things they did do well.

[milojthatch]

Originally Posted by Comicfan

I love the Kirk/Spock/Bones stuff in Star Trek V.

I personally feel of the six TOS films, The Final Frontier was the most TOS of all of them. A big part of that was the Kirk/Spock/McCoy character moments. I've given up on ever seeing this, but I wish we could see Shatner's director's cut, just to see if it improved the film at all. For everything wrong about the film, there was also a lot that went right. I suspect that had it not gone up against Batman, Indiana Jones 3 and the rest of the packed summer of 1989 films, it might have done better at the box office than it did.

[Brandon K]

Originally Posted by BNex99

they also have the original "burned-in" subtitles instead of the BD's player-generated ones, for those who care about such things.

I haven’t watched these movies (and the TNG movies) for years due to how bad the waxy DNR is, which is really sad because I’m a huge fan. I think I’ll have to rewatch the DVDs. When I know there’s nothing better available, I generally find DVDs to still be very watchable.

And Star Trek is still doing this with burned-in subs for Klingon in Discovery, right? I don’t get why it’s so hard. Subtitles on Blu-ray are a picture-based format. They could actually have both the normal text as well as the stylized text as different subtitle tracks, with neither burned-in. I do find burned-in text on DVDs regrettable though, as it the aspect of the picture that fares the worst from player upscaling with a blurry or obviously pixelated appearance.

Anyway, I always like to see what’s happening in Star Trek threads. I’m glad I popped in, it has reminded me that I want to watch these again.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterLives

Do you happen to know if the iTunes versions are used anywhere else? Like Google Play? I'd prefer not to download them through other sites of I don't have to.

Not sure, but I imagine the same versions are on most digital platforms, though they may be different encodes.

Originally Posted by Brandon K

And Star Trek is still doing this with burned-in subs for Klingon in Discovery, right? I don’t get why it’s so hard. Subtitles on Blu-ray are a picture-based format. They could actually have both the normal text as well as the stylized text as different subtitle tracks, with neither burned-in. I do find burned-in text on DVDs regrettable though, as it the aspect of the picture that fares the worst from player upscaling with a blurry or obviously pixelated appearance.

Yeah, it's not so much the "burned-in" aspect; it's the change in font that bugs me. And as you said, there's no reason the discs couldn't retain the original font while still being player-generated (Paramount even did this on the Godfather films).

On Star Treks 3, 5, & 6, it's not as big a deal to me, since the original font was pretty generic to start with. But The Motion Picture (and Discovery, too) used a more distinctive font that I wish the BD retained.

Another recent example of this was Black Panther. The language subtitle translations used a font that meshed with the other on-screen text in the film, while the BD and UHD use the standard player-generated font (which is strange, because Disney has used player-generated original-font subtitles on other Marvel films).

[calmblueocean81]

I finally got around to watching the Motion Picture there at the weekend for the first time in forever, as part of my re-watch of all 10 original movies (the last of which I only ever saw in the cinema).

Movie-wise, it had its pros and cons.

On the pro side, the music is still glorious (one of my all-time favourite scores) and the effects, for the most part, still hold up incredibly well. I was also surprised to discover that the dialogue and character interactions in the movie weren't as stuffy and stilted as I remembered. For some reason, I thought there would be none of the friendly or warm banter from the show/later movies, but there were indeed some moments where the characters felt like their usual selves.

The major con (for me at least) was the dreadfully slow pace of the movie, and the thin plot, which felt stretched over the runtime. I had completely forgotten how much of the movie was just watching the crew, who in turn were sat agape at the viewscreen. At times it almost felt more like a mood piece than a movie, with long stretches of nothing but vfx sequences and accompanying score.
The other thing I was slightly disappointed about (having seen images elsewhere) was how undefined Vger was. In the movie it was hard to appreciate the incredible overall design of the model, so much of it was in darkness and shadow, although maybe this was intentional.

Originally Posted by BNex99

iTunes does have the director's cut of TMP in the extras, but just in standard def, of course.

I'm not a DNR expert, so I don't know exactly how much is or isn't there (a lot of HD masters use it sparingly, which is actually a plus sometimes). But the digital versions just look a little less plasticky to me than the discs.

At the start, I kept flicking back and forth between the blu-ray and the iTunes digital version. For the life of me, on my 55 inch OLED, I couldn't see a noticeable difference between either. In the end, I stuck with the blu-ray, as I felt like the music had a bit more life to it and I knew (at least subconsciously) that the blu-ray would have a better bitrate picture-quality wise at least.

When folks here speak of "excessive DNR" being applied to these movies, what exactly would they usually be referring to? I have read mention of "wax works" throughout this thread. Also some mention of "frozen grain".
The only thing I noticed here (admittedly, only having watched The Motion Picture so far) is better clarity overall, with brighter scenes and stronger colours throughout. I flicked back and forth to the "Directors Edition" (dvd quality I think) and it was more like a hazy mush in comparison. I can't imagine going back to that, having seen the blu-ray version.

The one thing that did stick out was how heavily make-upped everyone was, but I took that to be something truthful that the sharper format was revealing, as opposed to the application of DNR.

[hasslein]

I've had these for years, and have yet to watch them,(other than remastered TWOK) I shut them off when I saw the dnr. I forget which one, but one of them opens with the Paramount logo with no DNR applied, looks beautiful, then mid logo the switch is flipped and all the grain goes away. Heartbreaking.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by calmblueocean81

At the start, I kept flicking back and forth between the blu-ray and the iTunes digital version. For the life of me, on my 55 inch OLED, I couldn't see a noticeable difference between either. In the end, I stuck with the blu-ray, as I felt like the music had a bit more life to it and I knew (at least subconsciously) that the blu-ray would have a better bitrate picture-quality wise at least.

There's actually not much of a difference on TMP. It's more on 3-6 (particularly 4 & 6) that the digital versions seems a little less waxy to me.

[calmblueocean81]

Originally Posted by BNex99

There's actually not much of a difference on TMP. It's more on 3-6 (particularly 4 & 6) that the digital versions seems a little less waxy to me.

Ach, two of my faves! I'll keep an eye out for that when I get to them anyways. Appreciate the tip

[Jeyl]

Originally Posted by Comicfan

I love the Kirk/Spock/Bones stuff in Star Trek V.

Not at the expense of the other characters.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by calmblueocean81

Ach, two of my faves! I'll keep an eye out for that when I get to them anyways. Appreciate the tip

I hope I'm not overselling; it's not a night and day difference. These are still very old HD transfers. It just seems like they turned the DNR knob higher on the Blu-rays.

[TM2-Megatron]

Originally Posted by Jeyl

Not at the expense of the other characters.

That's basically TOS in a nutshell.

Star Trek V also has the best score out of perhaps any Trek film, to date. I'm guessing a lot of the film's budget went into Jerry Goldsmith's bank account.

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by calmblueocean81

When folks here speak of "excessive DNR" being applied to these movies, what exactly would they usually be referring to? I have read mention of "wax works" throughout this thread. Also some mention of "frozen grain".

Be glad if you're not noticing it. I didn't notice it on the TMP Blu for a long time. There is fine detail and grain that has been scrubbed away from the Blu that is just visible on the DVD. Still the Blu looks tremendously better than the DVD. The other thing I've noticed that might relate to "frozen grain" although that's not what I'd call it, is that some of the blue light/haze when the Ilia probe points out V'ger and during the meld jumps back and forth between smeared blue and very grainy blue. I have doubts about that accurately depicting what's on the film elements that were scanned.

[Geoff D]

Ah, the old chestnut of “it’s the makeup!” that makes them look like that. It’s a powerful type of makeup that also removes grain from film though…

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ah, the old chestnut of “it’s the makeup!” that makes them look like that. It’s a powerful type of makeup that also removes grain from film though…

It's not that - just the DNR on top of the makeup makes the crew look even more waxy than they should.

[calmblueocean81]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ah, the old chestnut of “it’s the makeup!” that makes them look like that. It’s a powerful type of makeup that also removes grain from film though…

Oh I wasn't saying "its not DNR, its just heavy make-up", I was saying that the make-up looked scarily heavy, which I took it as being something that the clarity of blu-ray was revealing to me for the first time. I wasn't sure if this is what people had been referring to when they described everyone as wax-works in older posts. I had expected everyone to be completely scrubbed of any lines or details in their faces. Perhaps its something I'll see more clearly in subsequent Trek movies.

I did notice the lack of grain though, and even though this may have me hanged on this forum, that didn't really bother me at all.
Last week I watched the entire Back to the Future trilogy (iTunes 4k Dolby Vision) and I must confess that the excessive grain in some of the scenes in the first movie was extremely distracting, although it wasn't as noticeable in the other two movies. Or maybe I just got more used to it and stopped noticing as they went on.......