Star Trek 1 - 10 'Enterprise' Box Set!

[RodChester]

My set from Amazon UK finally arrived three weeks after being shipped. Longest shipping period I have experienced from over there. Got number 1283. Not 1701 like I was hoping for. I really love this set. The packaging and extras are really nice. Especially the book that houses the discs. My only minor complaint is that I wish the cover to the behind the scenes booklet was a bit thicker.

I'm really looking forward to going through this set and watching all the films. I've seen all the original cast movies here and there but don't have any definite memories of them and I have not seen any of the next generation films at all so I'll be looking forward to getting to those films.

[Gizz]

Originally Posted by RodChester

My set from Amazon UK finally arrived three weeks after being shipped. Longest shipping period I have experienced from over there. Got number 1283. Not 1701 like I was hoping for. I really love this set. The packaging and extras are really nice. Especially the book that houses the discs. My only minor complaint is that I wish the cover to the behind the scenes booklet was a bit thicker.

I'm really looking forward to going through this set and watching all the films. I've seen all the original cast movies here and there but don't have any definite memories of them and I have not seen any of the next generation films at all so I'll be looking forward to getting to those films.

You are in for a treat with some of the Next Generation films I have been rewatching the movies however I missed Star Trek: The Motion Picture out not really a fan of that film.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Gizz

I have been rewatching the movies however I missed Star Trek: The Motion Picture out not really a fan of that film.

I admit I haven't seen most of the extended versions other than for that first film. And the DC of that makes such a massive difference that I'm actually surprised they used the cinema cut for a BD transfer, VFX resolution issues notwithstanding. There seems near-universal agreement that the cinema version is well-intentioned but pretty dreary.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

There seems near-universal agreement that the cinema version is well-intentioned but pretty dreary.

It's not dubbed The Slow Motion Picture for nothing! I quite like TMP but it's like watching paint dry for all lot of the scenes. Robert Wise really went for the 2001: A Space Odyssey aesthetic. Curious considering Star Wars was the impetus for the release and that was one of the most invigorating movies in years!

Baffling why they went with SD for the new-effects, if you watch the featurette on the DVD they were pretty much given free reign to do what they wanted and could have probably talked the studio into high-definition upgrades and a theatrical re-release!

[RodChester]

Yeah I found the first film to be pretty slow as well. The flight to the Enterprise was probably about twice as long as it should have been. Same with the approach to Vger. While it looked amazing and the shots were a great technical achievement those sequences really brought things to a halt.

One thing I found interesting was how many special effects shots were reused from film to film. It's not something most people would notice when these movies were released but watching five films in a row they stand out quite a bit.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by RodChester

Yeah I found the first film to be pretty slow as well. The flight to the Enterprise was probably about twice as long as it should have been. Same with the approach to Vger. While it looked amazing and the shots were a great technical achievement those sequences really brought things to a halt.

One thing I found interesting was how many special effects shots were reused from film to film. It's not something most people would notice when these movies were released but watching five films in a row they stand out quite a bit.

There's the famous bit of the

[Show spoiler]Klingon ship's exploding

that's used in back to back films. That was pretty cheap of them as it was a major event in the story (both times)!

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by chip75

There's the famous bit of the

[Show spoiler]Klingon ship's exploding

that's used in back to back films. That was pretty cheap of them as it was a major event in the story (both times)!

For me the most obvious is the cutdown version of Kirk seeing the refitted Enterprise for the first time that turns up in Wrath of Khan.

[DaveSimonH]

Originally Posted by RodChester

Yeah I found the first film to be pretty slow as well. The flight to the Enterprise was probably about twice as long as it should have been. Same with the approach to Vger. While it looked amazing and the shots were a great technical achievement those sequences really brought things to a halt.

One thing I found interesting was how many special effects shots were reused from film to film. It's not something most people would notice when these movies were released but watching five films in a row they stand out quite a bit.

I wonder if there are any fan-edits out there? The Motion Picture has always felt to me about 30mins too long.

.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by DaveSimonH

I wonder if there are any fan-edits out there? The Motion Picture has always felt to me about 30mins too long.

.

There are many!

[Indiana Jones]

I quite like TMP and the Directors Edition is certainly my preferred version, in fact it's one of the few DVDs I still own.

[manny9]

Hi, I am fan of the new Star Trek movies, never watched the old ones. The box set is selling at 35 GBP , worth buying?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by manny9

Hi, I am fan of the new Star Trek movies, never watched the old ones. The box set is selling at 35 GBP , worth buying?

I'd suggest picking up the Trilogy when you see it cheap, then wait for the set to drop down in price if you like those movies. It's possible they'll be remastered at some point as well.

[DaveSimonH]

Originally Posted by manny9

Hi, I am fan of the new Star Trek movies, never watched the old ones. The box set is selling at 35 GBP , worth buying?

Most of the transfers are at best average picture quality, with only a couple of standout titles (2 & 10), but for £35 its hard to argue with 10 films and a wealth of extras.
In general it's hard to know whether people will enjoy them, especially if their only association with Star Trek is the JJ Abrams "reboot" films. Personally I grew up in a household where if my dad wasn't watching Dr Who, it was likely one of the Star Trek series. So I have a fondness the characters tied in with nostalgia, so can forgive some of the weaker films, where someone coming in and viewing them in isolation wouldn't. In particular, there's a huge gulf in quality between the first film "The Motion Picture" and the 2nd "The Wrath of Khan", a film that usually tops fans lists of their favourite Star Trek films. So try not to be too perturbed by your purchase of the set based on first film alone.

I definitely think they are worth a try though, and if you end up enjoying them, you could even try a few TV seasons of the Original series or The Next Generation. If you don't, it could make a good gift or you could make most of your money back trading into CeX.

[MacEachaidh]

I bought the set recently myself, after hanging off for a long time. There had been occasional but persistent flurries of rumour and speculation that an updated set would be released, including the missing supplemental material from the deluxe DVD releases (which I don't have) and, in particular, a remastered transfer of the extended cut of the first film. I like Trek well enough to buy it, but not enough to set myself up for an expensive double-dip. But there's no current sign of that expanded set happening, as far as I'm aware -- could the new Star Trek TV series re-awaken the discussion, though? -- so I went ahead, and (so far!) I haven't regretted it.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the delay on an HD transfer of the EE or DC or whatever of the first film is that the additional effects sequences weren't rendered at a high enough resolution for an HD transfer not to require an upscale, unless the money is put into completely re-rendering them. That confuses me, because I would have thought if they were done for cinema projection that would have been beyond 1080p for sure. What am I not understanding? Anyway, apparently it means an HD version of the extended film is in the same unlikely-to-arrive basket as an HD set of Babylon 5.

[dvdmike]

The directors cut stiff was done for home video and was all done at 480p

[MacEachaidh]

Really? I was sure I'd seen it in a cinema release ... Or was it a dream ... ?

Thanks for the clarification. So, no BD transfer in the foreseeable, then.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

That confuses me, because I would have thought if they were done for cinema projection that would have been beyond 1080p for sure.

I don't think The Motion Picture got a wide re-release when they made the director's cut, it was designed for home video and rendered in standard-definition. Odd as you say, they pretty much had free reign on the project.

A similar thing happened with the Final Cut of SG-1's Children of the Gods, they rendered in SD, when it would have been ideal to go to high-definition and release a BD or broadcast in HD.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by chip75

I don't think The Motion Picture got a wide re-release when they made the director's cut, it was designed for home video and rendered in standard-definition. Odd as you say, they pretty much had free reign on the project.

No, fair enough, though I'm sure I saw it on the big screen (at a revivalist cinema, I believe, not a first-run commercial-plex), so that must mean that at least some projection prints were made. What I do remember is that it was after midnight that it started, and I came away impressed, because I was deathly tired, and it still managed to hold my attention in the longer cut. What I didn't remember was the low-res graphics, but ... hey, I did say it was after midnight!

A similar thing happened with the Final Cut of SG-1's Children of the Gods, they rendered in SD, when it would have been ideal to go to high-definition and release a BD or broadcast in HD.

I only saw it on DVD, so I had no idea about the resolution. And I think it was before I knew anything at all about HD or BD or IUD ... (No, that's not right, is it?) Anyway. The big pity for me about that was that I recall the producers saying it was kind of a test case, that if it proved successful they would remaster and expand more episodes in the series, particular those around the Goa'uld. It wasn't, and they didn't, but maybe that's a good thing, at least in the sense that the extra work presumably would only have been in SD anyway. Bad, in the sense that there's probably all this additional footage we could have seen that got junked somewhere. (Yeah, I'm an SG-1 fan.)

[Gizz]

Originally Posted by manny9

Hi, I am fan of the new Star Trek movies, never watched the old ones. The box set is selling at 35 GBP , worth buying?

At that price yes it is worth going for. As a fan of both the old and new Star Trek films it's a great set. Once you get through the first film the films really kick in to gear with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

How I would rate the 10 classic films.

1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
2. Star Trek: First Contact
3. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
4. Star Trek: Nemesis
5. Star Trek v: The Final Frontier
6. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
7. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
8. Star Trek: Generations
9. Star Trek: Insurrection
10. Star Trek: The Motion Picture

[Gold Ranger]

There isn't anything wrong with the first film.
It plays out like a bigger budgeted TOS episode.
It also flows really well after watching all of the TOS episodes