Star Trek films on Blu-Ray... what we know so far (1 Viewer)

[Jonathan Perregaux]

I'm pretty sure the titles were blue to begin with. I remember being struck by how much they broke from The Motion Picture's style, i.e. highly dynamic, different typeface, epic... and blue. I'm pretty sure I saw a "II" as well, though other sources—such as the novelization—omitted the number while keeping with The Motion Picture's typeface and rainbow colors from the original poster art. It's also possible that because I saw the movie further along in its release (not on day one), small changes—such as the main titles—could have been made since the premiere print.

Of course, before it was called "Wrath" it was called "Vengeance." At this early juncture, presenting the numeral "II" in any marketing material probably seemed like a bad idea, lest they invoke many people's disappointment with the first movie.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

The "II" was not on the 70mm prints. I've never seen a 35mm without the "II".


The credits have always been blue.


Neil

 

[Nelson Au]

When I first saw Star Trek 2 on opening day I couldn't help but be struck by the bargain basement font style of the titles. I love the movie, but it had a feel of being on a tight budget. Luckily the money they had was spent in the right places. But the graphic design of the titles was lacking to me. And the use of those rental computer panels bugs me too. [emoji4]

On another note, I sure hope the remastering of Star Trek The Motion Picture Directors Cut is progressing quietly and the powers that be at Paramount Home Video are planning a big surprise for us in the coming months.

 

[Paul Willson-Morris]

That Vengeance of Khan poster is a great find! The legendary Bob Peak.

 

[Nelson Au]

That Vengeance of Khan poster is a great find! The legendary Bob Peak.

Agreed! Mr. Peak was a great artist and his Star Trek posters are great. Funny how the poster art for the Vengeance of Khan has the Motion Picture font but was not used in the film.

There's a book of his work that's been out a while I've been meaning to collect.

 

[andySu]

 

[Tom St Jones]

The "II" was not on the 70mm prints. I've never seen a 35mm without the "II".


The credits have always been blue.


Neil

I see. It could be my memory has gotten the colors mixed up with the titles of some other film (it "has" been nearly 30 years).

As I said, supposedly the initial video release (released for rental only) were produced using a print, or prints, that had this version of the title. If so then perhaps those early VHS/ laserdiscs were actually struck from 70mm prints? I know some copies of the VHS I've seen have definitely had better pic quality than others. In fact, the first copy I bought, purchased new at a dept store in 1988, must have been scanned from a bad print because the picture - the film itself, not the transfer - was extremely grainy and rough, with tons of scratches. It also appeared somewhat oversharpened. (At the time, I was far too psyched about owning it to get too upset with the pic quality).

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

I see. It could be my memory has gotten the colors mixed up with the titles of some other film (it "has" been nearly 30 years).

As I said, supposedly the initial video release (released for rental only) were produced using a print, or prints, that had this version of the title. If so then perhaps those early VHS/ laserdiscs were actually struck from 70mm prints? I know some copies of the VHS I've seen have definitely had better pic quality than others. In fact, the first copy I bought, purchased new at a dept store in 1988, must have been scanned from a bad print because the picture - the film itself, not the transfer - was extremely grainy and rough, with tons of scratches. It also appeared somewhat oversharpened. (At the time, I was far too psyched about owning it to get too upset with the pic quality).

Early home video releases had the "II", ergo it wasn't sourced from a 70mm print or internegative. It wouldn't make sense to transfer a movie shot in 35mm to be transferred to home video from a 70mm element anyway.


The most likely answer is the one you said, your memory is fooling you.


Neil

 

[Osato]

I watched 2 and 3 this week. Love those tos films. I had forgotten about the James Horner extra on khan. Good stuff. Horner was around for Jerry scoring the motion picture as well!

 

[Allansfirebird]

Horner was around for Jerry scoring the motion picture as well!

That's the first I've ever heard of this...

 

[Tino]

Yeah. Is there a link to that story?

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

 

[Osato]

From the blu Ray extras!!!

 

[Osato]

It would be wonderful to have the longer cut of khan as well as some deleted scenes included on the next release.

I enjoyed it when they did this for DVD. Of course the theatrical is my favorite but I enjoyed the extra scenes and alternate takes in the dc / se version.

 

[Tom St Jones]

As you know, over the past couple of years it's been predicted by several "authorities" here that Paramount is unlikely to spend much money restoring/ remastering the legacy Star Trek films...not even for the franchise's 50th anniversary next year.. This for a number of possible reasonable and/or ignorant reasons that have been intensely debated previously. Frankly, I wish Trek was an MGM property. Why? Say what some of us will about MGM's treatment of some of their other historic assets - "The Alamo" in particular - at least they treat their biggest cash cow right, as seen in their meticulous restoration of all or most of the James Bond catalog (including, of course, the classics "Goldfinger", "Dr. No", "Thunderball", "The Spy who Loved Me" etc.)

 

[Osato]

I see there is a reissue of the tng films coming next year. Probably just new packaging...

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Trek-The-Next-Generation-Motion-Picture-Collection-Blu-ray/145048/

 

[Osato]

Pretty good article. Still one of M favorites too.

http://www.startrek.com/article/star-trek-iv-29-years-later

 

[Osato]

As you know, over the past couple of years it's been predicted by several "authorities" here that Paramount is unlikely to spend much money restoring/ remastering the legacy Star Trek films...not even for the franchise's 50th anniversary next year.. This for a number of possible reasonable and/or ignorant reasons that have been intensely debated previously. Frankly, I wish Trek was an MGM property. Why? Say what some of us will about MGM's treatment of some of their other historic assets - "The Alamo" in particular - at least they treat their biggest cash cow right, as seen in their meticulous restoration of all or most of the James Bond catalog (including, of course, the classics "Goldfinger", "Dr. No", "Thunderball", "The Spy who Loved Me" etc.)

4K transfers will be needed for the trek films. I'm sure paramount will make a good decision and have new transfers struck.

 

[Osato]

A bit off topic but... The animated series DVD set is $10 right now. I know hd mastering was done for these DVD transfers but a blu Ray release has never happened. I may cave on it. I was holding out all of these years for a blu Ray set. I can watch the episodes via Amazon prime.

 

[Kyrsten Brad]

A bit off topic but... The animated series DVD set is $10 right now. I know hd mastering was done for these DVD transfers but a blu Ray release has never happened. I may cave on it. I was holding out all of these years for a blu Ray set. I can watch the episodes via Amazon prime.

They were around $45 or so when first released. I waited and got my set at WalMart for $14.99 about 8 years ago.

I don't know if ST-TAS would benefit from a Blu release image quality wise. Maybe enough so they look half decent on a big screen. I'll leave that to those more informed on animated releases onto Blu.