UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ Star Trek - 4-Movie Collection -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Blimpoy06]

So why would anyone want to sink their funds back into The Theatrical Version; especially now that it's been revealed that the Robert Wise Cut is undergoing a major redo to upgrade the 2001 CGI into a 4K match, that will take 6-8 months?

Because I don't care for "The Robert Wise" cut or whatever Paramount wants to call it. I'm happy that I can enjoy my preferred version of the film in 4K. I don't want to stop the alternate version from being released because there are thousands of people who enjoy it. Star Trek fans should rejoice that original edits of films are not lost to home media release like so many other major franchise films.

 

[Doug Otte]

The 2019 Fathom presentation was from the same underlying master used to create the original Blu-ray. The only difference between the disc for home viewing and the DCP for theaters is that the BD had a lot of DNR added to the master, while the DCP did not.

Josh, thanks for correcting my misinformation. It looked so good on the big screen, I assumed it was a new master.

 

[JoshZ]

When STAR TREK: The Motion Picture Director's Edition was saved for last, (& the first of the 2 Disc Editions that was soon followed by Wrath Of Khan); it was universally heralded to be much improved over a still very flawed film and considered to be THE Definitive Version.

So why would anyone want to sink their funds back into The Theatrical Version; especially now that it's been revealed that the Robert Wise Cut is undergoing a major redo to upgrade the 2001 CGI into a 4K match, that will take 6-8 months?

As often happens with movies notorious for being bombs (though Star Trek: TMP actually made quite a lot of money) or widely considered disappointments, the later availability of a "Director's Cut" gives viewers an excuse to re-evaluate the film with fresh eyes and release some of the baggage from its reputation.

Look at Blade Runner. Huge flop in 1982, scathingly reviewed by countless major publications. The movie was re-released in 1992 with minimal changes (removing the voiceover and the epilogue scene), and has been widely hailed as a masterpiece ever since.

Same with Star Trek: TMP. Trek fans long wailed and moaned about how tedious and terrible they thought that movie was. Then Robert Wise tightened a few scenes (overly, in my opinion) and added some really crummy CGI (which will thankfully be redone), and everyone acted like it was a totally different and vastly better movie than that horrible thing they couldn't stand before.

 

[Worth]

As often happens with movies notorious for being bombs (though Star Trek: TMP actually made quite a lot of money) or widely considered disappointments, the later availability of a "Director's Cut" allows viewers to re-evaluate the film with fresh eyes and release some of the baggage from its reputation.

Look at Blade Runner. Huge flop in 1982, scathingly reviewed by countless major publications. The movie was re-released in 1992 with minimal changes (removing the voiceover and the epilogue scene), and has been widely hailed as a masterpiece ever since.

Same with The Thing, which opened on the same day as Blade Runner to poor reviews and box office, but which has since come to be regarded as a classic.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Same with The Thing, which opened on the same day as Blade Runner to poor reviews and box office, but which has since come to be regarded as a classic.

I wonder why the theater was empty when I first saw The Thing with my brother. I think there were five other people there.

 

[JoshZ]

Same with The Thing, which opened on the same day as Blade Runner to poor reviews and box office, but which has since come to be regarded as a classic.

Yes, but no changes were made to The Thing.

Blade Runner and Star Trek: TMP were always good movies. The Director's Cuts did not fundamentally change either film, merely tweaked and refined a few things. Yet that was somehow enough to rehabilitate the reputations of both.

Theatrical Cut: "Absolute garbage! Worst movie I've ever seen!!"
Change three frames: "Soooooooo much better! A totally different movie! Why didn't they release it this way before?"

 

[JoshZ]

I wonder why the theater was empty when I first saw The Thing with my brother. I think there were five other people there.

All the sci-fi fans were going to see Star Trek II or E.T. again, and the horror fans were at Poltergeist. All these movies were released the same month.

 

[Robert Crawford]

All the sci-fi fans were going to see Star Trek II or E.T. again, and the horror fans were at Poltergeist. All these movies were released the same month.

I watched all of those movies in a movie theater back then, but don't remember much about the crowds. I do vividly remember The Thing audience because of the movie. It was one of those "you got to be s****** me movie theater moments". My brother and I were astonished with this movie and had a similar experience watching Terminator 2. Those were two of the best movie theater experiences I had in my lifetime and will never forget them.

 

[JoshZ]

It's a shame so many great movies all vying for the same audience were crammed into the same small release window in 1982. If any of them could have been pushed back a few months to a year, 1983 had much less competition in that space. Just Return of the Jedi, Superman III, and maybe Octopussy. With some smart scheduling to stay clear of those, and (to keep us on topic here) to get away from big '82 hits like Star Trek II, movies like Blade Runner, The Thing, or Tron might have been more successful.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

As often happens with movies notorious for being bombs (though Star Trek: TMP actually made quite a lot of money) or widely considered disappointments, the later availability of a "Director's Cut" gives viewers an excuse to re-evaluate the film with fresh eyes and release some of the baggage from its reputation.

Look at Blade Runner. Huge flop in 1982, scathingly reviewed by countless major publications. The movie was re-released in 1992 with minimal changes (removing the voiceover and the epilogue scene), and has been widely hailed as a masterpiece ever since.

Same with Star Trek: TMP. Trek fans long wailed and moaned about how tedious and terrible they thought that movie was. Then Robert Wise tightened a few scenes (overly, in my opinion) and added some really crummy CGI (which will thankfully be redone), and everyone acted like it was a totally different and vastly better movie than that horrible thing they couldn't stand before.

The reappraisal of "Blade Runner" happened waaaaaay before the various reworkings of it later.

It was already seen as a classic well before 1992.

I feel like it started on that path as early as 1983 when it came out on video.

Criterion put it out on LD in 1987, so long before the 1992 update.

 

[JoshZ]

The reappraisal of "Blade Runner" happened waaaaaay before the various reworkings of it later.

It was already seen as a classic well before 1992.

I feel like it started on that path as early as 1983 when it came out on video.

Criterion put it out on LD in 1987, so long before the 1992 update.

Only among a very small niche of cultists. The Director's Cut made it a beloved mainstream success.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Removing the awful voice over from Blade Runner is a little more than "changing three frames" IMHO.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Removing the voice over from Blade Runner made me dislike the movie.

 

[Lord Dalek]

It's a shame so many great movies all vying for the same audience were crammed into the same small release window in 1982. If any of them could have been pushed back a few months to a year, 1983 had much less competition in that space. Just Return of the Jedi, Superman III, and maybe Octopussy. With some smart scheduling to stay clear of those, and (to keep us on topic here) to get away from big '82 hits like Star Trek II, movies like Blade Runner, The Thing, or Tron might have been more successful.

Hubris. Everybody thought E.T. was going to be some sort of kids only movie with no legs.

Funny how things work out.

 

[Osato]

I think we can all agree that Star Trek V is a classic in every sense of the word.

Star Trek V is where adventure and imagination meet at the final frontier.

 

[JoshZ]

Removing the awful voice over from Blade Runner is a little more than "changing three frames" IMHO.

It's fundamentally the same movie. Was removing the voiceover an improvement? Sure. Does it completely change everything about the movie that viewers claimed to hate in 1982? Of course not. The plot and the performances and the pacing are all exactly the same. But making any change, no matter how small, allowed viewers to revisit the movie with an open mind despite prevously writing it off.

"That movie is terrible. I hated hated HATED it! Oh, you changed something? OK, well, now it's good!"

Similar deal with Star Trek: TMP.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think we can all agree that Star Trek V is a classic in every sense of the word.

Star Trek V is where adventure and imagination meet at the final frontier.

I really enjoy V!

 

[Tommy R]

Similar deal with Star Trek: TMP.

Speaking for myself, besides some of extra effects shots that looked more modern, I couldn’t tell you the differences in the Director’s Cut and it didn’t change my views at all on the movie. I haven’t seen that cut in nearly 20 years, so maybe I’d notice more of the changes now, since I’ve seen TMP quite a few more times since the blu ray came out. For me, my appreciation of TMP has only really grown in the last 10 or so years, and I credit that to being an adult. As a kid I remember sort of liking it but thought it was super boring and couldn’t sit through it all in one sitting most of the times I watched it. Now as an adult I see the majesty and splendor or it all, as well as the themes resonating with adult mind set.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Only among a very small niche of cultists. The Director's Cut made it a beloved mainstream success.

Continue to disagree. "Blade Runner" found an audience on video well before 1992.

I think you understate its popularity pre-1992 and overstate the size of the audience the altered cuts brought.

 

[David Norman]

I agree with Colin on this. It was well into cult status and was movie into the sci-fan fan mainstream well before the re-edit and was a staple on HBO/SHowtime where I must have seen it 6-8 times. I know it was one of the first Criterion $100+ Laserdisc Boxsets I bought in 1991 along Close Encounters and 2001 (also the non Criterion Fantasia which was the final nail for me to go LD)

OTOH, it's quite possible the re-edit made the Professional Critics re-evaluate things trying to catch up with the increasingly vocal following that was starting to develop calling out those initial reviews. The changes gave the critics a chance to hang their changed opinions and save face a bit.

I hesitate to the day to consider BR a mainstream success. It's reputation is order of magnitude better, but I;d still consider it a niche sci-fi film esp with the success of many of the actors and production staff becoming much more important.