Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (Director's Cut)

[worldchmps]

So the extended version is or is not the directors cut?

Which version is the best?

[WilsonBros]

Originally Posted by worldchmps

So the extended version is or is not the directors cut?

Which version is the best?

The extended version IS the Director's Cut. If pushed, I prefer the longer cut. It adds more than it takes away.

[ditcin]

There's another scene that's not mentioned, nor has ever been seen. It's a shot of a baby, crawling in the transporter room belonging to Khan's people. It crawls near where Genesis is as it turns on. I guess they cut it out completely since it suggest there are families aboard with Kahn and destroying the Reliant completely has more of sour note.
I have a slide showing the child near Genesis.

[Member-222782]

I'll be picking this up despite my disappointment that the rest of the series is not being given the same treatment. The film is arguably the best in the Trek series but that's not enough of a reason to double dip IMO - the fact that there's going to be a Director's Cut is the motivating factor. Any time a beloved film is presented in a version not seen before is reason to celebrate. Now, to decide if I want to keep the pointless steelbook or sell it.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by WilsonBros

The extended version IS the Director's Cut. If pushed, I prefer the longer cut. It adds more than it takes away.

As with the so-called TV version of Halloween, I'd argue that the extended/director's cut is markedly inferior to the theatrical version. I know that the conventional wisdom in these parts tends to be "more is more"...but the editing feels far tighter and less slipshod in the shorter version, and honestly, even the added scenes that don't actively hurt the pacing aren't particularly memorable.

Scottie's got a nephew? Hey, that's great, I'll send him a cigar. But the way this is shoehorned into the extended cut is like bad TV exposition. And really,

[Show spoiler]when the poor lad gets his, it's almost more touching to see Scottie choke up if the kid is just another young member of the crew.

Just a thought. I am glad that fans of this version are going to get a chance to own it on blu.

[WilsonBros]

Originally Posted by ditcin

There's another scene that's not mentioned, nor has ever been seen. It's a shot of a baby, crawling in the transporter room belonging to Khan's people. It crawls near where Genesis is as it turns on. I guess they cut it out completely since it suggest there are families aboard with Kahn and destroying the Reliant completely has more of sour note.
I have a slide showing the child near Genesis.

It's said in the movie that all those in the cargo carrier of the Botany Bay were all that remained of Khan's people, and there were no kids among them. Chances are that this was the baby of a crew member, and they let it wander around the set for some amusement, and whoever published the photo assumed it was Nick Meyer directing a scene when it was just him playing with the kid.

There is footage of a baby wandering around the bone-room of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but this was confirmed as being a set-visitor. The only way to confirm the Khan sprog would be to ask Meyer.

khanbaby1__span.jpg

[greenguy]

Originally Posted by WilsonBros

It's said in the movie that all those in the cargo carrier of the Botany Bay were all that remained of Khan's people, and there were no kids among them. Chances are that this was the baby of a crew member, and they let it wander around the set for some amusement, and whoever published the photo assumed it was Nick Meyer directing a scene when it was just him playing with the kid.

There is footage of a baby wandering around the bone-room of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but this was confirmed as being a set-visitor. The only way to confirm the Khan sprog would be to ask Meyer.

Attachment 138787

The baby was intended to be part of the movie. There's another photo showing the kid catching Chekov's eye (I think the kid is looking through a window of some sort) in the scene right before Khan and his people arrive. The movie went through so many changes, the baby was just eventually dropped from the story.

[WilsonBros]

Did anyone else see those "Ad-mail" commercials for useless products on TV, and get thrown because it sounded like Ricardo Montalban saying "Admiral"?

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by WilsonBros

It's said in the movie that all those in the cargo carrier of the Botany Bay were all that remained of Khan's people, and there were no kids among them. Chances are that this was the baby of a crew member, and they let it wander around the set for some amusement, and whoever published the photo assumed it was Nick Meyer directing a scene when it was just him playing with the kid.

There is footage of a baby wandering around the bone-room of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but this was confirmed as being a set-visitor. The only way to confirm the Khan sprog would be to ask Meyer.

Attachment 138787

I don't know if that true. In color the kid is definitely wearing a futuristic costume.

[Frank@Chicago]

Seems odd that Paramount is doing a second 4K transfer of Khan.

Wasn't Khan already the best looking (original crew) ST movie?

I have the original crew movie BD set and as I recall Khan makes the other movies look like garbage.

I guess Khan is the only old ST movie that matters.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I own the current blu-ray of Wrath of Khan and almost regret buying it. The color timing is poor throughout and has a strong blue tint. When I do watch this now my preferred version is an HDTV cap because the color timing is far more natural. I saw the film when it was released, and though it was a long time ago and I don't claim to have a photographic memory, I can say that the film was never blue before it hit blu-ray.

Except I've seen recent revival screenings and it is more of a blue-gray.


It is NOT red tinted like the previous versions. Natural? Hardly.

[rickah88]

That is amazing! I've never heard of that baby scene before! Now I want it included!!
Either way it sounds like we a re getting a pretty nice release here.

[RickDee]

The film that needed it least...smh.

[Bolty]

The other 15 minutes of deleted scenes will most certainly not be added in.
Meyer as was pretty clear that the 3 & a half minutes extra were what he had wanted in all along and the other cut material he agreed did not belong.
But I am hoping they went into the vault and got the deleted footage for us to finally see.
It would sweeten the double dip if they could boast "15 minutes of deleted scenes", IMO.

[Eusthenopteron]

Am wondering if this will be released the UK?

[Croweyes1121]

Hoping they'll use the Bob Peak artwork on this.

[BENNIE QUINCY SHAFT]

Since I wouldn't ever buy at Best Buy were they the only merchant in the world and since I love to buy at Amazon.com, why isn't the latter selling the Star Trek II regular Blu-ray Disc being released on 7 June 2016? The disc will be off a new 4K scan, but all I see is that BB is carrying it. I don't understand this.

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by BENNIE QUINCY SHAFT

Since I wouldn't ever buy at Best Buy were they the only merchant in the world and since I love to buy at Amazon.com, why isn't the latter selling the Star Trek II regular Blu-ray Disc being released on 7 June 2016? The disc will be off a new 4K scan, but all I see is that BB is carrying it. I don't understand this.

I gather you have some "BB done me wrong" story your dying to share with us? please do, I'm curious!

[Pondosinatra]

[stvn1974]