Pre-Order Star Trek: The Original 4-Movie Collection (4k UHD Combo) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Or perhaps they're already happening.

Thoughts from a Trek novice: I saw it for the first time a couple of years ago and I liked it. Maybe it was because my expectations were lowered by the "odd-numbered Trek movies are bad" thing and while it wasn't perfect, it was still an enjoyable movie.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I don't see how an intended scene is "questionable filmmaking" because you perceive it be slow. The film is indeed a long trek but that scene is a highlight and I doubt any real ST fan yawns in that scene.

Oh, the "real fan" card! Any true believer would love that scene - if you don't, you're a phony!

It's the definition of questionable filmmaking. It does nothing to help the story - it's just blatant fan service.

If people love it, cool, but that doesn't make it a choice that exists to make the story work.

It's just effects for effects' sake.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Agreed. The scene is fitting for the film and the directors vision. We are looking at a film that is 42 years old with modern film views too.

Nope. Many of us have disliked the never-ending Enterprise intro for decades.

I don't remember my reaction to the shot in 1979, but no later than 1991, I found that shot to be a pointless bore.

That was only 12 years later...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Film editing is always a product of its time too.

Star Wars 1977 could also have sequences run much quicker if it was made today.

2001 a space odyssey would be much shorter now too.

There is an artistic form with pacing and editing based on the directors creativity too.

Sergio Leone films and their pacing drive my father in law crazy but I love them.

There's undeniably a purpose to slow, gradually paced scenes. They can be tremendous when they serve a story purpose.

Take the opening to "Inglourious Basterds", for instance. It's snail's pace but it works magnificently because it establishes character and tension.

"2001" moves very slowly but it sets a mood and a style. There's a real narrative reason for the pacing.

The "TMP" shot just exists so a) the filmmakers can show off their budget and b) diehards can revel in these newfangled effects.

It's the opposite of the slow scenes in the other movies you mention, as those serve narrative purposes...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Thoughts from a Trek novice: I saw it for the first time a couple of years ago and I liked it. Maybe it was because my expectations were lowered by the "odd-numbered Trek movies are bad" thing and while it wasn't perfect, it was still an enjoyable movie.

I thought "TMP" was/is bad, but "Search for Spock" was always a perfectly serviceable movie. It's not great but it's good.

As noted earlier, I dislike "Voyage Home" - though I enjoyed it 35 years ago - and I dig "Final Frontier", so after the 1st 2 movies, I never bought the odd/even thing!

(I also liked "Generations"!)

 

[Camper]

I see both sides of the argument. In 1979 on a huge screen it was very impactful although in truth it does not move the story forward at all. We don't need 5 minutes of continuous shots to realize that Kirk loves the Enterprise. But in subsequent viewings and certainly on a smaller screen it just doesn't seem necessary in any way. Many parts of the first half of the movie seem to be simply showing the fans stuff that they never saw on the series. The shot of the giant shuttle Bay cargo area. The two-story tall Recreation room the elaborate engine room with multi levels, the elaborate Dry Dock, the space office complex which is apparently just a way station for Kirk to board the shuttle pod and continue his Journey to the ship. I'm sure Roddenberry after 10 years felt it necessary to meet the expectations of the fans in showing them the ship as a real elaborate spectacle rather than just have him beam aboard and walk into the bridge. On the other hand at least the first half of the movie goes from place to place showing us a lot of interesting things even though they don't move the story along too much. We see Vulcan we see San Francisco me see the exterior of the enterprise we see the various interior parts of the enterprise we see the ship going to warp we see the wormhole you see the ship going to warp again we see Spock's arrival in the shuttle warp sled and then we reach the cloud and the movie slows down big time. Can you imagine the movie without Jerry Goldsmith score making the slower moving scenes tolerable?

 

[KPmusmag]

Just chiming in to say I love the sequence of Kirk and Scotty approaching The Enterprise. As others have said, after years of watching the same 79 episodes over and over in syndication on a small TV screen and then to see this homage to the ship on a giant screen - I still get tears in my eyes when I watch it. To each his own, but sometimes I put the film on just to see that sequence and hear the epic music. Call me corny as Kansas in August and hopelessly sentimental. I admit it. But ST:TOS was a huge part of my childhood and seeing those characters - and The Enterprise - on the giant screen was absolutely thrilling in 1979 and I still feel it today. I actually like all the films because I just love spending time with the characters - who feel like family after all these years. If Star Trek is on the screen I am good with that. And I love the idea that The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning. We have a long way to go and ST gives me hope we can get there. (Cue the violins and groans.)

 

[Joel Fontenot]

Nope. Many of us have disliked the never-ending Enterprise intro for decades.

I don't remember my reaction to the shot in 1979, but no later than 1991, I found that shot to be a pointless bore.

That was only 12 years later...

And some of us have clear memories of loving it when seeing in the theater in '79 at the ripe old age of 14. I still love it today.

 

[Christian D66]

Oh, the "real fan" card! Any true believer would love that scene - if you don't, you're a phony!

It's the definition of questionable filmmaking. It does nothing to help the story - it's just blatant fan service.

If people love it, cool, but that doesn't make it a choice that exists to make the story work.

It's just effects for effects' sake.

The oddest critique of ST:TMP might be "it's just blatant fan service" -- uh, who was the intended audience for a movie based on a cult series kept alive by fan service and a continuing film/TV series literally created because of fan service?

I've stated over and over I found the TV show a bore but not the movie as a film fan. So the point that you purposely misread is that if I a NON-FAN love the scene as do many -- how many Trekkers complain about that sequence? It's a literal movie sequence designed to show off like any number of sequences in film and it also has a dual purpose. The Enterprise is a major CHARACTER getting her greatest intro. The rest of the film is overloaded with fx no doubt but that's been established.

Anyway, you're wrong because of fan service we're getting two versions of ST:TMP in 4k.

 

[Christian D66]

Nope. Many of us have disliked the never-ending Enterprise intro for decades.

I don't remember my reaction to the shot in 1979, but no later than 1991, I found that shot to be a pointless bore.

That was only 12 years later...

Funny. I was 12 and recall the entire evening perfectly. So a post 1991 memory is hardly the best movie guide.

Besides, I don't trust a Dalek to school anybody on ST:TMP.
Have you seen DR. WHO AND THE DALEKS?

 

[Museum Pieces]

The reason I think the flyby works in TMP is because Kirk only ever had one real love: the Enterprise. It's a love scene to me--not just for the fans, but it's important to the movie and to the character of James Kirk. On opening night I remember hearing someone in front of me say, "Can you imagine what's going through his [Kirk's] mind right now?" Yes, I could. And it was pretty spectacular.

 

[Christian D66]

The reason I think the flyby works in TMP is because Kirk only ever had one real love: the Enterprise. It's a love scene to me--not just for the fans, but it's important to the movie and to the character of James Kirk. On opening night I remember hearing someone in front of me say, "Can you imagine what's going through his [Kirk's] mind right now?" Yes, I could. And it was pretty spectacular.

And few note Kirk's reaction at the end. He turns to Scotty and says, "Thank you." Like a dance.

 

[Reed Grele]

I'd preorder if I hadn't already bought each film in the series multiple times in multiple formats going back 40 years!

I applaud Paramount for supporting 4K physical media, but I may sit this one out for the time being and perhaps wait for a Black Friday sale.

 

[Osato]

I'd preorder if I hadn't already bought each film in the series multiple times in multiple formats going back 40 years!

I applaud Paramount for supporting 4K physical media, but I may sit this one out for the time being and perhaps wait for a Black Friday sale.

I think Star Trek 4 on vhs was the first one I bought.
I’ve bought that one and the
Others over and over on various formats. No beta or laserdisc, but vhs dvd and Blu ray.

Star Trek films are those essential titles in my collection.

I ordered the 4k set the same day the preorder went up on Amazon.

Even though I prefer the directors cut of tmp, I’ll watch / sample that one first.

I’ve see khan 4k on iTunes. 3 and 4 will be a treat to see in 4k too.

 

[Johnny Angell]

If that’s what Paramount feels they need to do in order to put this release on a path to financial viability, I’m ok with the double dip. They could have easily just put out the theatrical editions and called it a day. That they’re putting effort in, even if the product configuration isn’t everyone’s ideal, is a major step up from the status quo for the past 12 years.

Who says they need the double-dip? This could just be a continuation of the double, triple, quadruple dips we’ve been seeing since DVD’s came out. I’m weary of it.

 

[BobO'Link]

I'm pretty happy with my existing BR (the "Stardate" edition with all TOS and TNG movies and the separate DC of WoK), mainly wanting the extended/DC versions of the TOS movies which have them. I can wait for BR editions of those.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The oddest critique of ST:TMP might be "it's just blatant fan service" -- uh, who was the intended audience for a movie based on a cult series kept alive by fan service and a continuing film/TV series literally created because of fan service?

Paramount didn't throw big $$$ at "Trek" just to entice existing fans to see the movie. They could've made a much cheaper movie without a legendary director if all they wanted was the existing fan base to see it.

No, they got delusions of "Star Wars" grandeur in their minds, so they wanted "TMP" to be a huge hit with people who didn't know a Klingon from a tribble.

So the "intended audience" was much broader than the percentage of existing fans who would love the 47 minutes of "Enterprise" shots.

And even that existing fan base isn't universal in their praise for that scene, as plenty of those folks didn't like it. I was and am a "Trek" fan and I think it's a snore, so even if the filmmakers did only care about existing fans, that scene was a problem...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Funny. I was 12 and recall the entire evening perfectly. So a post 1991 memory is hardly the best movie guide.

So your 1979 memory is A-OK but my 1991 memory is questionable. Oookay...

Besides, I don't trust a Dalek to school anybody on ST:TMP.
Have you seen DR. WHO AND THE DALEKS?

No. I guess this is some sort of insult!

 

[Lord Dalek]

Trekkies were always more into the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic than shots of the Enterprise. Guess what there isn't much of in TMP?

 

[Robert Crawford]

You guys need to agree to disagree and move on as some comments are getting a little too personal.