Star Trek The Motion Picture Director's Edition 4K UHD/DLX (1979)

[starmike]

Originally Posted by WorkShed

There's a few people involved in this production and until it's on the disc, it's speculation. Until it's officially stated that there will be changes (I need more than a podcast) for the disc release, I will take it as a wish list item.

This is requiring Paramount to approve extra budget to make extra changes. If the digital negative was already finalized, this may be a thornier issue than just "make the change."

I would think that Daren would know more about it than you, but OK.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Bolty

I listened to last week's and the week before of treksperts and he didn't say any such thing in either episode

He did. Specifically. Listen again.

[chip75]

I would have thought if they were on a time crunch for the Paramount+ release they maybe still be working on it. Whether they're allowed to say as much, I'm not sure. But it would alleviate some concerns if they did.

[Jeyl]

Just for fun, I made this little video after falling in love with the added travel pod shots in the new Director's Edition. Looking at it in a certain way, it looks like the travel pod is towing the station! So I made this.

Travel Pod Nostromo - YouTube

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by chip75

I would have thought if they were on a time crunch for the Paramount+ release they maybe still be working on it. Whether they're allowed to say as much, I'm not sure. But it would alleviate some concerns if they did.

Paramount getting in a rush and compromising Star Trek? That would never happen, would it?

There's a lot I like about the new Director's Edition, but there are a few issues I'm finding particularly difficult to ignore. Sorry if I'm repeating anything that has already been mentioned, but I didn't see these mentioned in scanning this discussion back to the release date.

The first is the Fort Point Arch missing from the Golden Gate Bridge in the third shot of Kirk's arrival at San Francisco. The arch is clearly present in the first shot, but in the third shot there is only a single pylon where there should be two pylons and an arch between. The fort appears to be behind the single pylon instead of between the pylons and under the arch. In the 2001 Director's Edition DVD the arch is indistinct but not clearly missing as it is here. The Fort Point Arch is not visible in Matthew Yuricich's matte painting used in the original theatrical release due to the angle depicted.

I do like the longer sequence of shots for the arrival, and I think Jerry Goldsmith's music reveals that it was originally planned for such. I just think they should have gotten the artwork to correctly depict the Golden Gate Bridge, both architecturally and so that it doesn't create a continuity/reality error between shots in the same sequence. (The new DE has turned the Golden Gate Bridge of the late 23rd Century into somewhat of an Escher work.) Please don't fix it so good that you break something that wasn't broke before.

The other error I consider to be major is that the travel pod added to the wide shots of the orbital office complex is depicted as docked at a different module than the one Kirk and Scott depart for the Enterprise from. The interior and close up exterior shots clearly show an office module with two docking ports (5 and 6) located 90 degrees apart. The newly added travel pod in the wide shots is clearly docked at a module with a single port (on one of the complex's short wings). The office level modules with the dual ports are visible at the ends of the complex's long wings. Probert's drawings of the orbital complex make also make it very clear where the travel pod should be, and that the short wings contain dwelling modules while the long wings contain office modules. A travel pod docked at a different port doesn't help when Kirk asks Scott to "Take me over please." (The correct port goes off the right edge of the screen 12 seconds into the first orbital office complex shot, and remains off screen in the second shot.) My apologies if this is just supposed to be the addition of a random travel pod at a random port, but my understanding is that this is supposed to be a correction of the travel pod used by Kirk and Scott missing from these shots in which case the fix is a failure.

There are other issues with the DE that I'd love to have resolved before it goes to disc, but I think they fall below the distinct error level that the two above do.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Bolty

No he didn't. I'm not listening to it an hour and a half's worth of podcast again because your imagination ran Wild. Last Friday's podcast 90% was an interview with the sound designer from the original series. The week before they talked about the directors Edition and they said zero about fixing that scene. The most that was said was over at the Facebook page where he says they were looking into it.

Ok, cool, I just found the spot but believe what you want.

[starmike]

More info on the officer's lounge scene:

David C. Fein
I am looking into the situation and will update everyone when I have more info to share. Those who know us, know that our standards are far higher than this.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/Star...4525356577572/

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by starmike

More info on the officer's lounge scene:

David C. Fein
I am looking into the situation and will update everyone when I have more info to share. Those who know us, know that our standards are far higher than this.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/Star...4525356577572/

A removed post doesn’t prove anything not trying to sound like a jerk just giving you the heads up.

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by Vixen of the Night

I like TMP, minus the V'ger sequence. The introduction to the Enterprise is fine and only like 5-6 minutes of screentime and works. The V'ger sequence, not so much since it is too long, like really long. Most people have issues with that sequence for good reason, and no amount of being condescending is going to change that.

Honestly though I think the film is a lot more sucessful as a 2OO1 takeoff than it is a trek film and the V'ger entry sequence is one of the main reasons I watch it.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by batman2000

A removed post doesn’t prove anything not trying to sound like a jerk just giving you the heads up.

WTF are you talking about? Are you a member of the group? If not you won't see it.

EDIT: Here's a link to the post itself:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Star...37356526294455

[Bolty]

The quote from Facebook was quoted days ago and only says they will look into it -- that is zero confirmation anything will be changed.
At this point I expect them to whitewash the whole issue of the lounge scene and say that Paramount would not agree to spending any more money. I can't believe they didn't notice how bad it was when they showed it at Paramount on a huge screen on April 4.

[KulasDevorn]

Keep the childish arguing off the thread. Thanx.

[lionel74]

Does the new Director’s Edition contain the full 3 minute overture as was added to the previous Directors’s Edition or is it the shorter version?

[lionel74]

Thanks. If they throw some virgins in with the disc release, I’ll definitely snap it up

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bolty

It contains a third virgin which is about 2 virgin witches about 2 minutes and 48 seconds. They have stated that this is what they always intended for the Overture but were unable to included in the original theatrical release. They have stated the three-minute version was never intended for the Overture but was wrongly used in 2001.

How many more virgins do we need around here????

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by Bolty

It contains a third virgin which is about 2 virgin witches about 2 minutes and 48 seconds. They have stated that this is what they always intended for the Overture but were unable to included in the original theatrical release. They have stated the three-minute version was never intended for the Overture but was wrongly used in 2001.

Your a Star Trek fan using the virgin insult when someone was just asking a question you didn’t have to be a jerk when he was just asking a question.

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by starmike

WTF are you talking about? Are you a member of the group? If not you won't see it.

EDIT: Here's a link to the post itself:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Star...37356526294455

Still not proof when it says broken link.

[WorkShed]

Originally Posted by batman2000

Still not proof when it says broken link.

You have to be in the Facebook group to see it. I just checked and this isn't a broken link.

That said, "We're looking into it" isn't proof of anything being approved from Paramount to be changed. There were a lot of things that they wanted to change even in 2001 that didn't get approved from Paramount.

Do I think it could get changed by September? Absolutely! I hope so, even. However, I'm not Paramount and I don't have final say (and neither do the producers).

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Are you joking or are you demented?

I thought you were being sincere in the beginning but either way you didn’t have to make that joke on a question like that because honestly that joke wasn’t that funny it was kinda lame.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Are you joking or are you demented?

Awesome autocorrect error though dude, worthy of dvdmike himself.