Remastered Star Trek films anytime soon? (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

Just because a video master has too much EE, it doesn't mean it needs an extensive digital restoration. It needs a proper remaster. Most likely, it was added during the conversion from 1080p to NTSC. The first Pirates of the Caribbean film has a huge amount of EE on the standard DVD. Does this mean it needs a full LDI restoration? Of course not. The BluRay version looks fantastic, yet it's from the same source as the DVD (the 2K digital intermediate).

MGM really didn't have to hand over any of the post-1995 films to LDI since they just needed routine HD remasters. There's a big difference between a 1962 film that has been in mediocre care for 40 years and relatively new film like Generations.

 

[Lord Dalek]

This is a brilliant commentary. Rarely do we get the "cinematic mutilators" explaining their actions and putting them into context (like Thau giving a pretty damn good reason for the turning back the Earth ending in SIIDC that the fanboys don't seem to pay attention to) so that they can be approached in ways other than "those bastards ruined my favorite movie! KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"

Also reiterates my belief that Glenn Erickson REEEALLY missed the point when he reviewed TMP at DVDTalk.

 

[JediFonger]

you're missing my point and also not comparing apples to apples.

the point is paramount doesn't care about its most valuable property. companies like disney DO.

POTC series came out very recently. even if they slept through the telecine transfer it'll still look good. that's why nemesis, insurrection and FC all look decent. generations was 1994 and looks just butt ugly. the trek film that requires the most restoration is wrath of kahn that definitely needs LDI.

 

[Ric Easton]

Well... couldn't find the commentary on the linked page and my Star Trek podcast still has the Charlie X preview. So I went to the main page, saw a link... which led to another. Finally clicked on "download MP3 file" and it plays in Quicktime instead of downloading into my computer.

I give up!

 

[Lord Dalek]

Try right clicking and saving directly to your computer.

 

[Dave Mack]

They will have to re-render the new FX in HD though as they were onely done at 480P as confirmed by Darren Dochterman...

 

[Ric Easton]

Got it! Went with the M4a enhanced link. It wasiPod friendly and let me download it to my computer.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

What, specifically, are you looking for LDI to do to Wrath of Khan that is something that would not be gained from a high definition transfer? You seem quite certain that they and only they need to be working on the film -- so what proprietary techniques and technologies are you speaking of?

Other than the downright awful menus, what's wrong with this transfer? LDI won't go back and re-shoot the film, so you can't expect changes in the lighting schemes to something more elaborate and less TV-like.

On my projector, running about 120" wide, it looks like a nice, accurate transfer of a mid-budget film shot in the early 1980s. It certainly looks better than any film print I've seen of the film. What do you see?

 

[Lord Dalek]

Maybe he's referring to the older disc. The only problems from where I see are grain issues (which LDI doesn't fix anymore)

 

[JediFonger]

i'm referring to BOTH discs. the newer disc is a bit better, but not by a huge margin.

there's a lot of spex and dust. it just looks WORSE than wizard of oz/gone w/wind transfer from the 30's!!!! how can a film in the 80's look worse than 30's film?

when i get home i'll grab some screencaps to show what i mean.

 

[Doug Otte]

Agreed. This film was made on a small budget with, I believe, lower quality film stock. The graininess probably can't be removed without removing detail and introducing smearing (e.g. Aliens).

I think the newer 2-disc edition looks pretty decent; and similar to how it looked in the theater in 1982.

Doug

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Wizard of Oz and Gone With The Wind were both shot on three-strip Technicolor, a far more expensive process for moviemaking -- so much so that even though it yields clearly superior results in many ways, it is no longer used at all. If Star Trek II had been made in the Oz/Wind era, it would have been black and white for budgetary reasons.

Few films made today look as good as Lawrence of Arabia -- not because they need the restoration that Lawrence had, but because they're shot more cheaply. Has there been a 70mm film since Branagh's Hamlet?

 

[Lord Dalek]

Yeah, it was made on a tv budget which is why the film is largely what TOS producer Fred Freiberger used to call a "bottle show", set entirely on the Enterprise with stock sets and a very small cast.

Also Meyer has always wanted his Star Trek to look rougher than others. Hence the use of Super 35 on VI.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

Then he should have shot on 16mm.

 

[Jeff Robertson]

I just finished listening to the commentary. I agree with the poster who referred to it as brilliant. It really is. Any fan of the first trek flick should have a listen. I have a whole new appreciation for it, even though I already considered it my favorite of all the trek films.

Since the move to HD was mentioned, I did get the sense that they will be prepared to do so with the existing CGI effects shots. I also agree with the idea of having Lowry do dirt and debris scrub on it. That would give it just the right polish without cleaning it up too much.

 

[Brett Foote]

I just picked up the 10-movie box set a couple of weeks ago and noticed all but TFF and GEN have the new plain silver disc prints that Paramount's now doing to their new issues and re-issues.

Does anyone have either TFF or GEN with the new disc printing? I find it odd that these two don't have it like the others.

 

[Frank@N]

Are you talking about disc art?

As far as TFF and GEN go, I could easily imagine these not selling well.

Which is why they may still be shipping in the old format (?).

I remember lusting after the 10 CE box (in theory) until someone actually posted pics of the drab POS.

I'm still pissed they stopped putting inserts in the CEs halfway though...

 

[Brett Foote]

Yeah. It seems that they've haven't re-issued either GEN or TFF for some reason. I've seen new issues of TVH, TUC, and FC in plenty stock at my local Best Buy.

 

[Douglas Monce]

There is no such thing as a "low quality film stock" for motion pictures. In 1981 when Wrath of Kahn was filmed they would have had the choice of about 4 film stocks from Kodak, none of them would be considered "cheap" but were for different applications.

Interestingly both Star Trek: TMP and WOK would have had basically the same film stock available to them. In 1983 a host of new film stocks were introduced by Kodak and the stocks that were used from about 77 to 82 were discontinued.

Everyone would have been using these film stocks from feature films to television shows.

Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn was photographed by Gayne Rescher, a highly respected cinematographer who has among his credits: Cinerama Holiday and The Miracle of Todd-AO, two early large format films. He has also won 2 awards from the American Society of Cinematographers and two Emmy awards.

Inspite of having a low budget when compared to TMP, its production budget was $11.2 million. This was not a "low" budget by any stretch in 1982, of course they weren't just throwing money at it like they were on TMP. E.T. and Poltergeist were both made the same year and have budgets around $10 million each. The year before Raiders of the Lost Ark was made for $18 million and was a considerably bigger movie probably among the highest budgeted movies of 81.

Doug

 

[Joseph Goodman]

I seem to recall reading that WoK was filmed on Fuji 8518, a high speed (250asa tungsten) stock introduced in 1980. Fuji was awarded a technical Oscar for this film stock in 1982.