Star Trek movie collections

[richteer]

Hi all,

My apols if this has been discussed eleswhere, but I watched Star Trek the Motion Picture last night and I couldn't believe it wasn't the director's cut! Why the hell isn't it the director's cut--or better, both cuts on the same disc using seamless branching? No doubt The Wrath of Khan won't be the director's cut either.

I sense a double dip in the future. Shame on Paramount, because the sets are otherwise great!

[jk1138]

Because the directors cut (the extra stuff and special effects) are all in SD not HD.

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by jk1138

Because the directors cut (the extra stuff and special effects) are all in SD not HD.

That's correct -- because they were added in for home video (think: VHS) not theatrical exhibition. In order to do a decent Blu-ray version, they would have to go in and re-do all the added FX shots. Otherwise the film would constantly be shifting between 1080P and up-converted 480P.

[Warbler]

Well then you have to criticize the studio for lack of forward thinking. They they were making the directors cut, they had to know that at least HD-DVD, if not Blu-Ray was on the horizon. Therefore, why make the new special effects in such a way that they would not be able to be released on the coming format(s)?

Another thing, aren't some of the added scenes, scenes that were filmed when the movie was originally made? Can't those scenes be converted to HD just as easily as the rest of the film was?

[KubrickFan]

Does anyone think it'll happen eventually? I mean, we are talking about Paramount (not the greatest studio when BD is concerned) and somehow I have the feeling that those versions might never be released.

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by Warbler

Well then you have to criticize the studio for lack of forward thinking. They they were making the directors cut, they had to know that at least HD-DVD, if not Blu-Ray was on the horizon.

Not too likely -- that director's cut dates from the 80's doesn't it? They were thinking TV broadcast and VHS. Hi-def was years away.

EDIT My mistake! The director's cut was 2001.

[whbinder]

Fair question. Here's the answer.

To make an HD transfer now will take some time and money. Not an unrealistic mind-blowing amount of money, just you know.... a little more than average. It wasn't in the budget to do it for the first box set, but it will probably happen soon.

The cost to make an HD transfer in 2001 was prohibitive. Yes, the Director's Cut seems pretty new, but it's been around for nine years now - and that's when it was released, they were working on it in 2000.

And yeah, they knew that someday HD would be common, but the really tremendous cost on something that would happen some day was simply not feasible.

So actually, the cost of restoring it in the first place added to the cost of restoring it next year is considerably less than doing a full restore in 2000.

[whbinder]

Originally Posted by charlieray1

EDIT My mistake! The director's cut was 2001.

Well yes, the Director's Cut was 2001, and the extended TV cut was 1980. If you notice the extended cut was out on VHS and Laserdisc fullscreen only because the added effects weren't completed for widescreen. People were sad in the '90s to not have the extended cut in widescreen, but you can't really call that decision in '80 shortsighted because the idea of widescreen was around, but not really in practice then.

[Warbler]

Originally Posted by whbinder

Fair question. Here's the answer.

To make an HD transfer now will take some time and money. Not an unrealistic mind-blowing amount of money, just you know.... a little more than average. It wasn't in the budget to do it for the first box set, but it will probably happen soon. .

they transferred a film to HD was originally made in 1979. Most of the scenes in the director's cut were filmed just like the rest of the movie back in 1979. It should be no harder to transfer those scenes to HD than it was the rest of the movie. As for the new special effects they in 2000, I believe all it would have taken is for them to record the effects in film instead of video. If it was recorded in the film it would be not harder to transfer to HD than any other film.

as for the extended TV edition. Most of those extended scenes were filmed when the rest of the film was filmed, were intended to be part of the film and got cut. Therefore, they were originally filmed in wide screen.

[steve_dave]

Everyone seems to be confusing things...

There are three versions of Star Trek: The Motion Picture:

The 1979 theatrical cut was rushed to theaters and never completed to director Robert Wise's vision. Some visual effects were left incomplete or unfinished/.

An extended version in 1983 released on VHS and broadcast television. This added 12 minutes of footage with additional unfinished visual effects. This was pieced together without Wise's participation.

The director's edition released in 2001 was produced with Robert Wise's approval and participation. During this restoration, visual effects left incomplete or unfinished were properly done. New and redesigned visual effects were also added to the film. Some sequences were also trimmed. Over 90 visual effects were finished or redone for this release but in standard-definition.

One thing Robert Wise wanted was a DTS 6.1 ES soundtrack but Paramount vetoed this.

[Warbler]

steve_dave, what exactly do you mean by standard definition? Do you mean it was recorded on video instead of film? Until recently, nothing was in HD. Many films much older than Star Trek I have been transferred to HD and released on Blu-Ray, so is so difficult about getting this material filmed in 2000 transferred to HD and onto Blu-Ray? Casablanca, film made in 1943(at a time when they had no idea of HD) is in HD and released Blu-Ray, and yet material made in 2000 when they knew HD was coming was created in such a way that it can't be transferred to HD??? I don't get it. Forgive me for being stupid, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

[whbinder]

Originally Posted by Warbler

they transferred a film to HD was originally made in 1979. Most of the scenes in the director's cut were filmed just like the rest of the movie back in 1979. It should be no harder to transfer those scenes to HD than it was the rest of the movie. As for the new special effects they in 2000, I believe all it would have taken is for them to record the effects in film instead of video. If it was recorded in the film it would be not harder to transfer to HD than any other film.

Partially correct. The original film actually ended up on physical film. That can be used to make an HD transfer. The director's cut did not. The director's cut was edited and rendered in SD. This includes the special effects (which would have to be rerendered in HD at a small cost) and the original footage which exists in its raw version on film, but was edited and timed on SD.

As an analogy. Let's say I have a DVD of a movie. Last year, I made my own "cut" of the movie and saved it to a low res AVI and uploaded it to YouTube. This year YouTube allows for higher resolution videos. I can upload the original DVD to YouTube (copyright aside) without doing anything. If I want to upload my "cut" I can't just use the low res .AVI I created. I'd have to open my video editing software, and create a new AVI in HD. Impossible? No. Difficult? Not really. Requiring a small amount of time and effort? Yes.

Originally Posted by Warbler

as for the extended TV edition. Most of those extended scenes were filmed when the rest of the film was filmed, were intended to be part of the film and got cut. Therefore, they were originally filmed in wide screen.

Absoultely true. However, no special were done once the scenes were excised. All special effects in the added footage was only done in the 4:3 frame, thus no widescreen Laserdisc of the extended edition.

[davidlg1971]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

The director's edition released in 2001 was produced with Robert Wise's approval and participation. During this restoration, visual effects left incomplete or unfinished were properly done. New and redesigned visual effects were also added to the film. Some sequences were also trimmed. Over 90 visual effects were finished or redone for this release but in standard-definition.

Exactly. Since the Director's Edition effects were rendered in standard definition, it seems Paramount just needs to have Daren Dochterman's original CGI models re-rendered at higher resolution, and edited back in.

Though they might need to redo a couple of shots. I remember him saying in the special features that "CGI Spock" was a very low-resolution model, but that it was passable since no one would ever be able to see the detail on such a small model. That's definitely changed.

Also, as an FYI Dochterman has since revealed that at the time (2000) he urged Paramount to pay for hi-def effect shots; apparently Paramount was wary of losing money on the project, and went for standard-def effects to minimize their risk.

[whbinder]

Originally Posted by Warbler

steve_dave, what exactly do you mean by standard definition?

Hey, no one thinks you're stupid, it's a totally valid question.

Sort of like my previous post (and sorry if I'm being redundant), Casablanca was shot on film, edited on film and shown in movie theatres, a print exists to make a HD transfer.

TMP was likewise shot and edited on film in 1979, a film print exists.

TMP The Director's cut was never shown in theatres. Therefore no film print of it exists, only a video file that was used to create the DVD. This video file is no where near the quality of film.

In other words, after several months of editing in 2000, they had the choice to dump out a file on film to show in movie theatres, or a lower quality output for DVDs. They chose the latter. (The wisdom of that decision is yours to contemplate).

That's why there is currently no source material to create a HD print, but since all the raw footage still exits, such a source could be made.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Warbler

steve_dave, what exactly do you mean by standard definition?

Meaning that instead of completing the visual effects on film, they completed them in 480i video.

There were plans to release this Director's Edition to theaters like Apocalypse Now Redux and surely if they followed through with this plan, the VFX would have been completed on film.

[Warbler]

thankyou all for your very informative info. Its nice to be treated with patience instead of getting yelled at for asking dumb questions(as has happened to me on other forums).

Originally Posted by whbinder

In other words, after several months of editing in 2000, they had the choice to dump out a file on film to show in movie theatres, or a lower quality output for DVDs. They chose the latter. (The wisdom of that decision is yours to contemplate).

So, I guess my next question would be, knowing that HD was on the horizon, would it really have cost too much to dump the thing to film(not show in theaters but for the ease of transfer to HD)?

[nametag]

Originally Posted by Warbler

thankyou all for your very informative info. Its nice to be treated with patience instead of getting yelled at for asking dumb questions(as has happened to me on other forums).


So, I guess my next question would be, knowing that HD was on the horizon, would it really have cost too much to dump the thing to film(not show in theaters but for the ease of transfer to HD)?

I don't know, I guess the HD horizon wasn't close enough for them to deem it worth the effort? DVD was relatively new back in 2000...in the sense that, having the first star trek film come out on DVD was enough of an 'event' that doing it good enough for that medium I guess is all that made sense. All just guesswork, even if they SHOULD have done it, evidently they didn't and the situation is that they'd have to put in more time and effort to put the director's cut out on BD

This is all close to the reason why TNG, DS9 and VOY may not get BD releases (at least for a while) - all the effects shots were edited on video for TV broadcast. They'd have to find the original physical film of the non-effects bits and convert that to HD, THEN re do all of the effects shots from scratch and put THEM in HD, taking a hell of a lot of time and effort considering just how many episodes that is. This is one reason why I think the DVD versions of things (mainly TV shows, to be fair) which are very hard to put into HD will end up being the 'definitive' transfers of them, at least for the forseeable future. It makes the DVD-BD conversion quite different from VHS-DVD conversion, and thank god for the backwards-conversion feature of BD players!

[JBL4645]

Also the sound effects editing on “Star Trek The motion picture” directors cut is quite literally awful. There are in some parts missing sound effects and the director gives his BS commentary about the re-mix, what a stinker it is.

I prefer the original theatrical release, got um on blu! wow doesn’t that sound naff! I mean I have them on bluray, thank you.

“Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan” I rather liked the directors cut the sound effects editing was spot on with new footage. I’ve got them on DVD region 2, thank you.

[jceperley]

It's a real shame they didn't put the three (or however many number of versions there are) for the BD. The Director's Edition was originally supposed to be a theatrical release, so why aren't the new effects in HD. Plus it was done in 2001, so they should easily have known HD was coming.

But I just don't like the fact that II and VI are also missing their director's cuts, since II only added a few (but important) lines of dialog here and there. And as for VI, I had only seen the director's cut (since it was the only one released on home video), and added a few scenes and subplots that I liked.