Paramount+ Theatrical Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) (1 Viewer)

[Tommy R]

I got to choose very nice seats for my showing on Wednesday as there was still plenty to choose from. Looks like only a handful of people going as of when I bought my tickets this past weekend.

 

[Doug Otte]

Why did you have to choose a seat in the second row If the theater was only half full? Anyplace near me lets you choose your seat when you buy the ticket.

I wanted a seat near the center of a row, and most of those seats were taken. It wouldn't let me choose a single seat (couldn't talk my wife into going) that only had one empty seat between mine and other sold seats. So, my only options were way off to the side, or in the center of rows 1 or 2.

I think some people didn't show up, because where I moved in row 3 (slightly off-center) had been marked as sold, I think. I was afraid a tardy person would show up after it started and kick me out, but I was lucky.

Funny ending: after I moved, a woman sat in "my" second row seat. I guess she didn't mind sitting that close.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

My reserved seat ended up being for a chair that was broken so I just found another one. It was actually busy enough at my theater that I had to move a couple times before the show because seats which had been unsold when I switched ended up getting snatched up at the last second. But I was still in a good spot so no complaints there.

The bulges of male anatomy were much more visible on the big screen and got frequent chuckles...mostly from the group of elderly women sitting behind me!

In the scene where Kirk addresses the crew (“Viewer off!”), it was very easy to spot the differences between the professional extras and the invited fans. The fan uniforms didn’t fit as well and a lot of them seem to overact in their reactions, and have a harder time standing still. It’s really, really, really subtle but I noticed it on the big screen.

The audience swung between rowdy and reverent. They didn’t take the 70s-styled looks, or bad line deliveries seriously - but they did take the story seriously.

There are acting moments that are well directed, and then moments where Wise allows Shatner to be in full over the top Shatner mode. I think this tends to happen more in the moments that were improvised or added last minute. For Star Trek II, Nick Meyer noted that he’d sometimes have to do a bunch of takes to get Shatner to almost lose interest in trying, and felt that Shatner did some of his best work when he bored and just speaking instead of Acting.

When Stephen Collins had his early confrontation where Kirk relieves him and he asks, slightly petulantly, “Why??” that got a laugh. I had to stifle the urge to respond “Because you’re a pedophile!”, which I think would have gone over well.

The seams from the opticals really show in many places. What’s interesting and may be of note to fans of filmmaking in general, is that you can sort of tell that it’s good people rushing, as opposed to unskilled people doing the best they can. I can imagine there were shots that they would have redone if time permitted. There’s a lot of dust and dirt built into the opticals and I think they would have tried some of those again given more time. There are a couple times that parts of the Enterprise nacelles start disappearing into a poor blue screen composite. And the black armature holding the Enterprise can be glimpsed in one shot as the ship departs spacedock. It’s amazing how much unintended detail is already seen in this 2K transfer from an IP or IN. A 4K transfer from the original negative would need some careful digital work to keep the stuff meant to stay hidden off the screen. But Paramount did a great job of wire removal on their recent War of the Worlds restoration so I know they can do a good job if they ever decide to do it.

I really wish they’d show the featurette after the movie.

 

[Tino]

. It’s amazing how much unintended detail is already seen in this 2K transfer from an IP or IN.

How are you sure of this Josh? Looked exactly like the Blu ray me.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

How are you sure of this Josh? Looked exactly like the Blu ray me.

The Blu-ray was sourced from a 2K scan of an IP or IN.

2K isn’t anything fancy - it’s HD-level resolution in a theatrical container.

They’re both from the same source.

 

[Tino]

The Blu-ray was sourced from a 2K scan of an IP or IN.

2K isn’t anything fancy - it’s HD-level resolution in a theatrical container.

They’re both from the same source.

So.......pretty much the same as the Blu Ray.

 

[Worth]

So.......pretty much the same as the Blu Ray.

A few extra pixels, plus better colour and less compression.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

So.......pretty much the same as the Blu Ray.

A few extra pixels, plus better colour and less compression.

Pretty much. The Blu-ray had some extra DNR applied during the authoring stage that wasn’t on the actual master - the DCP appeared to come from the master pre-DNR application so it looked slightly more film like than the disc does, but still clearly the same underlying source.

 

[Tino]

My whole point is that this “ print” is pretty much the same as the Blu-ray. Some of you are seeing a slight improvement.

I did not. My show at the AMC 16 in Paramus was underwhelming.

It’s my favorite Trek film so I was hoping for more, hence my disappointment.

Just want to temper everyone’s expectations.

 

[Osato]

Nelson? You have to go Wednesday!!!

 

[Tino]

I actually may go again Wednesday.

 

[Osato]

I actually may go again Wednesday.

Awesome!

 

[Worth]

Pretty much. The Blu-ray had some extra DNR applied during the authoring stage that wasn’t on the actual master - the DCP appeared to come from the master pre-DNR application so it looked slightly more film like than the disc does, but still clearly the same underlying source.

I'd be fine with the existing blu-ray if it didn't have the DNR.

 

[Osato]

There was a rumor of an anniversary blu ray but it hasn’t shown up. Also it would use the same transfer.

Who is going tomorrow?

Nelson??

 

[ScottRE]

I posted this on the other Trek Thread as well.

I just came out of the theater. That was a wonderful experience. I think they were only about five or six other people in the theater with me. On a gigantic screen, it’s easy to see how empty this film actually is of content. However, visuals are still amazing.

This didn’t feel like a Blu-ray being projected. The scenes needing them had the original film’s subtitles. They didn’t have the Blu-ray versions. There was also a great deal of film grain. I didn’t feel like I was watching a film with heavy digital noise reduction. So my question is, what is the source of this print?

It was a very satisfying visual experience. I really felt like I was watching a projected film.

I found this to be a much more satisfying visual experience than the blu-ray. A lack of DNR and the original subtitles were huge to me.

You guys answered the question about the source, but without the DNR, it looks like fine film grain. I don't need my films cleaned up and made sparkly. When I saw Star Trek 2 in 2012 in a NYC revival house, they ran a junky 35mm print with scratches and splices. I was thrilled, because I knew it was the original film, not some rejiggered, over saturated restoration.

I'd be fine with a 4k cleanup of TMP, as long as it's true to the source. No "fixes" or "improvements." And then an additional Director's Cut upgrade to go with it.

 

[Worth]

...I'd be fine with a 4k cleanup of TMP, as long as it's true to the source. No "fixes" or "improvements." And then an additional Director's Cut upgrade to go with it.

The problem is, scanning something at 4K, especially an effects and opticals heavy film like this, is going to necessitate some digital "massaging" to keep it looking even somewhat consistent. It just wasn't meant to be seen that way - the flaws in film printing and projection smoothed over a lot of the inconsistencies.

 

[ScottRE]

Okay I’m pretty ignorant of the technical specs, so how far off in quality are a 4K picture and the original film prints? I’ve been under the impression that blu ray (which is 2k?) still falls below 35mm regarding detail?

Any clarification would be really appreciated.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'd be fine with the existing blu-ray if it didn't have the DNR.

I need to re-review the old "Trek" Blu-rays. I got them not long after I started BD watching so I think most of those reviews are more positive than they should be - there's a halo effect simply due to the superior format abilities of BD vs. DVD!

 

[Worth]

Okay I’m pretty ignorant of the technical specs, so how far off in quality are a 4K picture and the original film prints? I’ve been under the impression that blu ray (which is 2k?) still falls below 35mm regarding detail?

Any clarification would be really appreciated.

An original 35mm film negative is generally thought to have somewhere between 3-4K of real image detail, depending on the film stock and lenses used, lighting conditions etc. But what you'd actually see at the cinema is far below that, as an interpositive is made from that negative, then an internegative, then release prints - each step resulting in generation loss, so that the final print probably has somewhere around 2K of image detail. But then you also have to account for the mechanics of film projection - as the film physically passes through the projector, it's never perfectly stable, resulting in gate weave and imperfect focus. So with a release print, what your actually seeing projected is around the 720p range.

 

[ScottRE]

Thank you!

Learnin’ stuff.