Star Trek: TMP Director's Cut (1 Viewer)

[trevanian]

A couple of good articles.
Review of the return to tomorrow book:

http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/06/review-return-to-tomorrow-filming-tmp/

Pictures of the tmp press book:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=617

Here's a review I did of the book:

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/b4a2bd2f?utm_content=buffer5236b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#/b4a2bd2f/72


I really don't like the so-called director's version at all, though it is very nice to have the tear scene. I don't think that 2001 dvd represents Wise's ORIGINAL intention at all, as it hardly jives with his comments post-release. I think the new sound mix is horrible, especially during the wormhole, and the new FX are a mixed batch that hardly improve matters. I'm actually more satisfied with the blu-ray than I imagined possible, though maybe that is because my screen is only 50" or so.

 

[Osato]

Hoping the directors cut is released on blu Ray next year during the 50th anniversary trek year. Both cuts should be available on blu Ray.

 

[Nelson Au]

Kevin, you are certainly in the minority concerning the validity and merits of the Directors Cut of Star Trek TMP. I know Robert Wise was involved based on the public information available and made editorial adjustments to the film. It may have been a dream project that David C. Fein and Michael Matessino had initiated and got Wise involved, but I truly believe it's the film he had hoped to have been able to finish back in 1979. The edits he did in 2001 may have been compromised from so many years in the public domain, he may not have made as many changes as he wanted. So i imagine he might have wanted to cut down the Enterprise fly-by, but that is such a loved segment, I doubt he would have been able to do anything there. Who knows, he may have wanted to use all that footage at the time, maybe Roddenberry wanted that too as the Enterprise was such an important character it had to have its moment.

I think the new CGi for Vulcan is great, much better then the matte painting original done. And it follows all the original concept art, if that's truly what the original artwork was of Vulcan. And I recall seeing that artwork. And the inclusion of the overall view of V'Ger and the extra space bridge shot when the landing party walks towards V'Ger really help flesh out those sequences in my view.

It will be great to have a remastered HD version of the Robert Wise cut in addition to the theatrical cut from 1979. Gotta have both! Agreed Osato!

 

[Carabimero]

There was an audio commentary for the TMP Director's cut with the producer of the cut, the visual effects supervisor of the cut, and the restoration supervisor. It was a download from many years back at one of the ST sites. If you can find it, the commentary is not only great for info on the cut, but the comments on the movie, thematically, increased my appreciation for the original version and the new cut exponentially. It was one of the best audio commentaries I've ever heard, and I've heard a ton of them. Highly recommended.

 

[Nelson Au]

Alan, I've had that audio commentary on my iPod and listened to it a few times. It is very good. It vanished from the web after Startrek.com was taken down and came back after restructuring. In case I don't have it anymore, I found it here on trekcore:

http://trekcore.com/blog/2014/02/star-treks-lost-audio-commentaries-judgment-north-star-and-star-trek-the-motion-picture/

 

[davidmatychuk]

I kept all the 2 disc DVD's of the Star Trek movies. None of the Blu-Rays had the text commentary feature for each film, and that is an outstanding commentary on "Star Trek The Motion Picture". Just so you know who you're dealing with here, I also kept the widescreen laserdisc of the first movie, which has the theatrical version, because...I forget why. I like the movie, I guess.

 

[trevanian]

Kevin, you are certainly in the minority concerning the validity and merits of the Directors Cut of Star Trek TMP. I know Robert Wise was involved based on the public information available and made editorial adjustments to the film. It may have been a dream project that David C. Fein and Michael Matessino had initiated and got Wise involved, but I truly believe it's the film he had hoped to have been able to finish back in 1979. The edits he did in 2001 may have been compromised from so many years in the public domain, he may not have made as many changes as he wanted. So i imagine he might have wanted to cut down the Enterprise fly-by, but that is such a loved segment, I doubt he would have been able to do anything there. Who knows, he may have wanted to use all that footage at the time, maybe Roddenberry wanted that too as the Enterprise was such an important character it had to have its moment.

I think the new CGi for Vulcan is great, much better then the matte painting original done. And it follows all the original concept art, if that's truly what the original artwork was of Vulcan. And I recall seeing that artwork. And the inclusion of the overall view of V'Ger and the extra space bridge shot when the landing party walks towards V'Ger really help flesh out those sequences in my view.

It will be great to have a remastered HD version of the Robert Wise cut in addition to the theatrical cut from 1979. Gotta have both! Agreed Osato!

I don't have the link anymore, but the Wise interview from around 1981 or so by a pair of writers named L'officier or something like that indicated he thought the drydock needed to be cut by a minute or more and the cloud passage/vger flyover by a couple minutes. I'm not inclined to rehash the cut-by-cut differences here as that has been done to death on trekbbs and elsewhere, but just to address a few points: there was a TON of concept art for San Francisco and more than a bit for Vulcan as well, so while there is some support for the changes, there is even more data to suggest that a truer vision for these worlds would be found in the completed but discarded first Yuricich painting of Vulcan and the completed but discarded 2nd shot of San Fran, which has a side view of the tram as it approaches the station. Stylistically the new San Fran just has a Babylon5/videogame cut scene look, and a higher rez rendering wouldn't help with the flawed redesign. If they wanted to 'fix' San Fran, taking the coloring back to the original warmer hues would have gone a long way toward giving it the life and credility it lost during the original color timing.


Also, given that there is very little perspective change on the new CG Enterprise shots, it seems to me that those could have been accomplished on an animation stand at high res by using photo cutouts and shooting them directly on film. Not a 'trendy' solution to be sure, but when dollars are at a premium (see below) while we're looking at posterity ...


Some of the comments made by the folks working on the 'restoration' call the scholarship of the effort into question (not questioning dedication though), like stating categorically that animation was ALWAYS done on twos in the 70s and explaining the CG 'dots into hexagons' animation in the director's version was done by emulating that. I know that came up in the STAR TREK THE MAGAZINE coverage of the release, possibly elsewhere as well. TMP was NOT Saturday morning TV and it was clearly evident that 'on twos' was not the animation style, a fact borne out by the decades-late release of RETURN TO TOMORROW, which actually addresses this with interviews done back in 1979 and 1980, making it clear that was not the approach on the animation effort.


Given the attempts at scientific veracity, I certainly haven't ever seen any indication that a fireball in space effect was ever intended for anything in the film, which kind of puts the new finale of the wormhole in a dubious state as well, as that looks like it came from a CD-ROM for stock pyro. Certainly the glimpses of Apogee's original explosion, which is on the longer trailer on disk 2, is more in keeping with the film's style than the SW-look in the Wise cut.


I think all the work on the 2001 dvd of TMP was done for half-a-mil (though that IS third party information), which was a paltry amount to start with, and so the decision to do a half-ass job or none at all -- at that point in time anyway -- is probably what separates my perspective from those of other folks. I don't think the band-aided version was worth that effort, not when we still had somewhat high-rez versions of the extended TV (with tear) and theatrical widescreen laserdiscs.

 

[andySu]

Enough STAR TREK for warp factor 10 on the THX sound system.

 

[Nelson Au]

Hey Kevin, I stand corrected given any new information that the originally intended cut of TMP would have been vastly different from the 2001 cut. I have the Return to Tomorrow book but haven't had the time to read it. And I would be really curious to find the interview with Wise from 1981. The Forgotten Trek website might have some info too, though maybe not what you refer to.

The 2001 cut is all we have of something that is closer to the original intent. I do acknowledge that the film had already been in the public for 22 years at that time and that dry dock sequence was already ingrained, so cutting it back wouldn't have been a good idea, I think Wise acknowledges that. If the 2001 cut doesn't match the style originally intended for some of the SFX shots due to use of CGI over more traditional techniques, that's new to me. I thought the effort was made to match the original artwork for shots and designs, but not aware of techniques. I'll be curious to learn more about that.

I don't recall seeing the original Yuricich painting of Vulcan. I might have, but I'll be looking for it now. [emoji3]

So many books to read in so little time! I hope to get to Return to Tomorrow soon! In the end, the script and story of the movie is the same in both versions. I still like the 2001 cut and hope it sees the light of day in high def.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

I don't have the link anymore, but the Wise interview from around 1981 or so by a pair of writers named L'officier or something like that indicated he thought the drydock needed to be cut by a minute or more and the cloud passage/vger flyover by a couple minutes. I'm not inclined to rehash the cut-by-cut differences here as that has been done to death on trekbbs and elsewhere, but just to address a few points: there was a TON of concept art for San Francisco and more than a bit for Vulcan as well, so while there is some support for the changes, there is even more data to suggest that a truer vision for these worlds would be found in the completed but discarded first Yuricich painting of Vulcan and the completed but discarded 2nd shot of San Fran, which has a side view of the tram as it approaches the station. Stylistically the new San Fran just has a Babylon5/videogame cut scene look, and a higher rez rendering wouldn't help with the flawed redesign. If they wanted to 'fix' San Fran, taking the coloring back to the original warmer hues would have gone a long way toward giving it the life and credility it lost during the original color timing.


Also, given that there is very little perspective change on the new CG Enterprise shots, it seems to me that those could have been accomplished on an animation stand at high res by using photo cutouts and shooting them directly on film. Not a 'trendy' solution to be sure, but when dollars are at a premium (see below) while we're looking at posterity ...


Some of the comments made by the folks working on the 'restoration' call the scholarship of the effort into question (not questioning dedication though), like stating categorically that animation was ALWAYS done on twos in the 70s and explaining the CG 'dots into hexagons' animation in the director's version was done by emulating that. I know that came up in the STAR TREK THE MAGAZINE coverage of the release, possibly elsewhere as well. TMP was NOT Saturday morning TV and it was clearly evident that 'on twos' was not the animation style, a fact borne out by the decades-late release of RETURN TO TOMORROW, which actually addresses this with interviews done back in 1979 and 1980, making it clear that was not the approach on the animation effort.


Given the attempts at scientific veracity, I certainly haven't ever seen any indication that a fireball in space effect was ever intended for anything in the film, which kind of puts the new finale of the wormhole in a dubious state as well, as that looks like it came from a CD-ROM for stock pyro. Certainly the glimpses of Apogee's original explosion, which is on the longer trailer on disk 2, is more in keeping with the film's style than the SW-look in the Wise cut.


I think all the work on the 2001 dvd of TMP was done for half-a-mil (though that IS third party information), which was a paltry amount to start with, and so the decision to do a half-ass job or none at all -- at that point in time anyway -- is probably what separates my perspective from those of other folks. I don't think the band-aided version was worth that effort, not when we still had somewhat high-rez versions of the extended TV (with tear) and theatrical widescreen laserdiscs.

This is close to my feelings on the DE. I like it... okay, but enough about it bothers me just a little too much to really place it above the original theatrical cut. It just seems too much like a fan edit with some of the liberties taken in some scenes that, supposedly, some fans didn't like (and were posted up on TrekBBS for years before the DE came out), such as (and I may have mentioned this earlier in this thread... or the other one about the Blu-rays): Uhura's shocked pause that caused Kirk to say "Viewer OFF" twice is now cut to just one "View off" (why? - it loses the dramatic moment), and Kirk's quiet "Oh my God" after the transporter accident (supposedly eliciting laughs - but I never heard such laughs the three times I saw it in the theaters back in early January 1980).


What I bolded in the quote above was my exact thought when I heard the same discussion about how they went about doing the bridge walk scene.


Animated "in twos"?


Really?


Bullshit.


Even Disney would use single frame animation in certain important shots going back to the 30s and 40s. Doing this short scene as single frame animation in '79 would have been a cake walk with no discussion otherwise.


I'm okay with some of the added ambient sound effects, but not the changed stuff like the new alarm sound. The additional scenes are good near the end, and I am glad the Enterprise fly-around was left alone. The cloud fly-through did need trimming, unfortunately, being familiar with the soundtrack as I am, I did notice the cut in the music. I thought the new Vulcan backgrounds were well done, and given the short amount of time it actually stays on screen, I don't know what else they could do without extending the scenes and then having to loop the music which plays through the entire sequence. The V'ger reveal at the end, I can live with. And, the only positive thing I can say about the whole bridge walk sequence is that they did do a good job replacing the horrid matte paintings of the Enterprise saucer (although, the CGI characters in a few of the replaced shots are a bit sketchy).

 

[Camper]

This is why I come to the thread for Star Trek TMP Director's Cut possibly coming to Blu-ray-----to hear from people how it isn't any good and isn't really a director's cut.


The theatrical is 36 years old, the DC is 14. People have decided which one they prefer. Most people prefer the DC. The Theatrical cut is on Blu-ray (hooray), the DC isn't.


I presume everybody here wants to see the DC come to Blu-ray. How is bashing the DC help in that cause?

A thread comparing the various theatrical cuts vs. the DCs might be fun.


95% of the time I come to one of these threads supposedly discussing when we might get the DCs on Blu-ray I see people arguing over which version is better and even taking time to bash the new movies. ????


I've been a fan since 1970 and have seen all the different versions and I am desperate to see the DCs with hopefully better quality picture and deleted scenes etc.

I KNOW which version I prefer and checking in here when I see the thread has been bumped up and then find it's simply yet another ongoing debate on the merits of each version is frustrating.


I pray that anybody at Paramount doesn't ever read these threads and get the general idea that half the "fans" don't care about the DC and prefer the version that has already been released.


I'm not saying that this should be a "rah-rah" thread for the DC, but to come here and see the DC taken apart in minute detail is disappointing.


If the DC was available on Blu-ray and the theatrical was not----I wouldn't come here and tell the folks anxiously awaiting the Theatrical release how inferior that version is.

I would come here and say how much I hope they get their wish to have that version preserved in HD.

 

[Jason_V]

This is why I come to the thread for Star Trek TMP Director's Cut possibly coming to Blu-ray-----to hear from people how it isn't any good and isn't really a director's cut.


The theatrical is 36 years old, the DC is 14. People have decided which one they prefer. Most people prefer the DC. The Theatrical cut is on Blu-ray (hooray), the DC isn't.


I presume everybody here wants to see the DC come to Blu-ray. How is bashing the DC help in that cause?

A thread comparing the various theatrical cuts vs. the DCs might be fun.


95% of the time I come to one of these threads supposedly discussing when we might get the DCs on Blu-ray I see people arguing over which version is better and even taking time to bash the new movies. ????


I've been a fan since 1970 and have seen all the different versions and I am desperate to see the DCs with hopefully better quality picture and deleted scenes etc.

I KNOW which version I prefer and checking in here when I see the thread has been bumped up and then find it's simply yet another ongoing debate on the merits of each version is frustrating.


I pray that anybody at Paramount doesn't ever read these threads and get the general idea that half the "fans" don't care about the DC and prefer the version that has already been released.


I'm not saying that this should be a "rah-rah" thread for the DC, but to come here and see the DC taken apart in minute detail is disappointing.


If the DC was available on Blu-ray and the theatrical was not----I wouldn't come here and tell the folks anxiously awaiting the Theatrical release how inferior that version is.

I would come here and say how much I hope they get their wish to have that version preserved in HD.

Apologies, but this is a bunch of bunk. This is a discussion forum and the thread title is the Director's Cut. That means talking about all things DC related: positive, negative and anywhere in between.


The idea that Paramount is going to come into this one thread and see conversations from the last week to determine is a 14 year old cut of the movie is goign to be released is preposterous. If anything, the conversation about the DC should show them there is interest, warts and all.

 

[andySu]

Directors cut sounds dire.


Some missing sound effects such as Foley footsteps and some Kirk knocking on the table would even have Spock, puzzled as to where is the sound?


New sound effects sound so dire the whole film makes me fall asleep.


Jerry Goldsmith score sounds dire.


Theatrical original WINS. Thank the high gods of Vulcan, I never sold the letterbox Laserdisc edition otherwise I'd be kicking myself.


The directors cut should be put inside a wormhole to die in.


The badly edited re-cuts on the directors cut maybe why its called a directors dire cut. Sorry I have my phaser locked to extreme lethal kill.


Got turn off the DVD R2 chapter 19, the surrounds of V'ger on the bridge of the Enterprise is sheerly beyond dire in Dolby remix. It's like Robert Wise, doing a George Lucas on us.

 

[Camper]

I didn't say anybody from paramount was coming to this forum--that's silly. I said I pray that they didn't because they'd see that people are more interested in debating the merits of the two versions than they are in seeing the DC on Blu-ray.


You are right this is a discussion thread, but the notion that debating every detail to folks who have made up their minds is dubious.


What's bunk is going back in history books and memos and conversations from 1979 and 2001 to prove what would have been done or should have been done or how each change and difference is legit or not.


3 versions exist, 1 version is on Blu-ray, this is contrary to the entire point of blu-ray which features seamless branching and should have at least included the SLV since it had been released on laserdisc and therefore was a legit, albeit flawed, version.


In 2009 paramount made some lame excuses on why they didn't offer the other versions. It's going on 6 and 1/2 years later and I see more passion for debating the merits of the versions than to actually see the other versions come to Blu-ray.


Maybe arguing the movie is more fun for some folks than seeing the movie.


Hopefully when, if the movies ever come back to Blu-ray, we can get a thread dedicated to the actual content and quality rather than a renewed debate and which version is better.


I admit that the title of the thread led me to believe that this was a thread about folks who liked the DC and wanted to see it come to HD, but it is clearly generic enough that folks can come and delegitimize it as a phony version.


STTMP isn't like Star Wars where the original version is missing and folks gripe about its loss.


Once again, if my preferred version was available I can't see myself taking a lot of time nitpicking the other version. But have at it if it if you enjoy it.


Peace.

 

[Jason_V]

You are right this is a discussion thread, but the notion that debating every detail to folks who have made up their minds is dubious.

Not really. It happens in every single thread in every single message board in the history of the internet. Why are people still dissecting 2001 or All About Eve or...heck...episodes of The Love Boat? Because they're passionate about those things. And, really, any publicity is good publicity.


What else is there to say about TDC on BD? You want it and Paramount is terrible for not releasing it? That conversation is boring. The others - like the edits and the way people see them - at least teaches us all something if you're interested in someone else's opinion.

 

[Camper]

I want it and paramount is terrible for not releasing it!!


Thanks, I was groping for those words!


Yeah, at this point, I come here to find if there is any glimmer of hope for the other versions and when the threads get bumped--it gets my hopes up a bit, and of course, I'm always disappointed.


I love the changes and spotting them and I agree with most and am disappointed with others, but I'm liking or disliking based on my reactions as a viewer--I don't really care if it's was what would have been in 1979.


I see an edit or an effect and I like it or not based on how it affects me as a viewer not on whether it might have been included or should have been included in 1979.


There are 3 versions--there likely will be no more


Most folks are going to like the version based on how it appeals to them and not on whether it is a legitimate change that was possible at the time of the original release.


The original release was a rushed, deadline driven movie that didn't even have any test screenings. It exists and some folks prefer it. I like that they made an attempt to "finish' it, despite the lack of money to do a first rate job.


I've seen some people who hate it so much it angers them that it even exists. "First world" problems as they say.

 

[Jason_V]

On a related note: I'm listening to Trek.fm's The Ready Room podcast from September 26. The show is supposed to be Mike Sussman and Voyager, but they're spending a good amount of time at the beginning of the show (at least a half hour) on TMP.

 

[andySu]

Best sounding warp drive out of STAR TREK The Motion Picture (theatrical) vs STAR TREK The Motion Picture (directors cut)... is STAR TREK The Motion Picture (1979 theatrical).
The re-mix for home Dolby 5.1 is dire sounding and sounds amateurish.
Theatrical 1979 has polished Dolby Stereo quality

^ The Laserdisc Dolby Stereo is smoother on the ears. Low end is also better on theatical gives the U.S.S. Enterprise some guts to the warp power.

^ Directors dire cut sounds like it been dragged though a bush with raspy toppy, bent my ears.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The SLV should never see the light of day on Blu-ray, because the effects are incomplete to the point of showing portions of the set that would have been obscured by SFX. This was acceptable on the P/S version, because those portions were cut out of the frame. Now, it just looks bad (see the deleted scenes on the Director's Edition DVD).


Personally, I liked the Director's Edition. I am aware of the criticisms re: revisionism and the fact that the SFX would have to be re-rendered in HD for a BD release, but I find its pacing to be less dragging than the Theatrical cut, and the objectives of the mission to be more clear. My personal opinion is that the effects should be re-rendered and that a release be done with both the Theatrical Cut and the Director's cut, either via seamless branching or on separate discs. I would not include the SLV for reasons stated above, as well as because it unnecessarily bloats an already deliberately paced movie. It was fine for its initial purpose (TV airing), where commercial breaks would break it into bite-sized chunks and the incomplete footage didn't look so incomplete.


Ideally, we could have a situation like the Director's cut of Touch of Evil, where a skilled editor could use Wise's editing notes from 1979 (if they exist) to construct a cut that conforms to Wise's vision in 1979, not 22 years later as was the case with the DE DVD. I believe that some of the cutting decisions that were made at the time were largely based on what shots had been completed by the time they started the editing process (go with what you have rather than what you wanted) as they were locked into an unchangeable release date. I can dream, can't I?

 

[Camper]

well the SLV HAS seen the light of day.


The set being seen is an easy fix with a digital matte, the real problem is the space suit he is wearing is different. That would be a major fix.


But, the SLV could be featured without that one problematic scene as extra--certainly not as a definitive version.


How many cuts of blade runner are there? Which "do not deserve" to see the light of day?