|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More details on the Special Features: https://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/071422-1130 I have no personal interest in the SLV and want to upgrade everything to 4K to future-proof myself, so I'm getting the 6 disk set. This will give me literally everything I want in the same box, the Theatrical and Director's versions of the films in both Blu-ray and 4K. There will be a LOT of watching going on.
|
|
|
|
|
It will be screening theatrically at the Prince Charles Cinema in London from the 19th of August: https://princecharlescinema.com/PrinceCharlesCinema.dll/WhatsOn?f=13439605 It will, but be aware that the PCC is not equipped with Dolby Atmos, which the DE was prepared for. You might get a better experience watching it at a Dolby Atmos equipped cinema. That said, until I see listings at other cinemas, I do plan to go. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
...be aware that the PCC is not equipped with Dolby Atmos, which the DE was prepared for. You might get a better experience watching it at a Dolby Atmos equipped cinema. That said, until I see listings at other cinemas, I do plan to go. Also, call your cinemas; make sure it's being shown in undiminished 4K - not "The New 4K Restoration!" but actual 4K. In America, a company called Fathom Events got ahold of this and in my screening, botched it badly. It was 2k, the picture was very, very dark, and their sound was abominable. My friends who run theaters tell me that they are known for lousy presentations. If Fathom didn't mess this one up, then my local AMC Indianapolis 17 theater did. Make sure it's a true 4K presentation, and check the sound. Whoever answers the phone should know. If they don't, make them get someone who does. In an age where the most basic home setups are already better than most theaters' presentation standards (2K on a big screen? Seriously?), theaters are charging far too much to get any of this wrong, or just not know, or not care. Otherwise, watch it at home, where you are in charge of your experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
...be aware that the PCC is not equipped with Dolby Atmos, which the DE was prepared for. You might get a better experience watching it at a Dolby Atmos equipped cinema. That said, until I see listings at other cinemas, I do plan to go. Also, call your cinemas; make sure it's being shown in undiminished 4K - not "The New 4K Restoration!" but actual 4K. In America, a company called Fathom Events got ahold of this and in my screening, botched it badly. It was 2k, the picture was very, very dark, and their sound was abominable. My friends who run theaters tell me that they are known for lousy presentations. If Fathom didn't mess this one up, then my local AMC Indianapolis 17 theater did. Make sure it's a true 4K presentation, and check the sound. Whoever answers the phone should know. If they don't, make them get someone who does. In an age where the most basic home setups are already better than most theaters' presentation standards (2K on a big screen? Seriously?), theaters are charging far too much to get any of this wrong, or just not know, or not care. Otherwise, watch it at home, where you are in charge of your experience. Actually what you want is to make sure that they are screening off a DCP, not the Fathom Events "stream." The 4K part doesn't matter nearly as much - in fact, almost all commercial theater projectors are 2K (2048 x 1080), so asking for "4K" is likely to get you nowhere. The problem with the Fathom stream is that it's just that - a stream, with all the typical compression problems and artifacts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you kidding Adam or being serious? I onky ask because I'm genuinely not sure if you're saying you really want a TV frame version of the SLV because that's how it was on TV, or you're taking the Mickey out of collector completism. Personally, I'm really happy the SLV has been preserved in 4K, and I'm happy it's wide-screen with the fixed Enterprise airlock shot. Cheers Stephen, you had me until "with the fixed Enterprise airlock shot." I'm afraid I'm one of those collectors who doesn't like them fixing those kinds of things. Reminds me that human beings were behind the making of this, with models and lightstands and such. That said, I understand they've included the unretouched version as a deleted scene. Definitely excited for this!
|
|
|
|
|
Are you kidding Adam or being serious? I onky ask because I'm genuinely not sure if you're saying you really want a TV frame version of the SLV because that's how it was on TV, or you're taking the Mickey out of collector completism. Personally, I'm really happy the SLV has been preserved in 4K, and I'm happy it's wide-screen with the fixed Enterprise airlock shot. Cheers I meant what I said- and yes, this final DE definitely makes it redundant. So for archival purposes I would have likes to see the SLV pillar-boxed with that ABC 'night at the movies' intro. But I'm not sad either way.
|
|
|
|
|
Ideally, I wish the SLV was completely unaltered or offered a way to view with the fixed airlock shot intact. I know on the special features Blu-ray for this set that scene is included both with and without that fix. To my mind, the SLV is more of a curiosity, like the Workprint of Blade Runner (shown only once by accident beyond preview audiences for test screenings, IIRC). All the added material for the SLV is on the features Blu-ray, as well as scenes removed from Theatrical for the DE (there were a LOT of trims, sometimes only a few frames here and there). More in line with this forum, the fact that both the theatrical and Directors Editions have isolated scores on both the Blu-ray and 4K movie disks is an awesome bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen, you had me until "with the fixed Enterprise airlock shot." I'm afraid I'm one of those collectors who doesn't like them fixing those kinds of things. I don't understand this point of view, honestly. The shot was only included in the Special Longer Version because it was being broadcast on TV in 4:3, and the unfinished shot of the set wasn't as noticeable. (I don't remember noticing a problem on my SLV VHS in the mid 90s.) In widescreen, in 4K no less, it is beyond glaring. It was *not* acceptable to include in widescreen 4K. I guarantee you they would have gotten more complaints for not fixing it than for fixing it. And it's quite telling that it is literally the *only* change made on the SLV, aside from putting it in widescreen for the first time ever. If you really wanted it to stay the way it was, then I guess you expect them also to keep the SLV in 4:3 aspect ratio and TV broadcast quality resolution? Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen, you had me until "with the fixed Enterprise airlock shot." I'm afraid I'm one of those collectors who doesn't like them fixing those kinds of things. I don't understand this point of view, honestly. The shot was only included in the Special Longer Version because it was being broadcast on TV in 4:3, and the unfinished shot of the set wasn't as noticeable. (I don't remember noticing a problem on my SLV VHS in the mid 90s.) In widescreen, in 4K no less, it is beyond glaring. It was *not* acceptable to include in widescreen 4K. I guarantee you they would have gotten more complaints for not fixing it than for fixing it. And it's quite telling that it is literally the *only* change made on the SLV, aside from putting it in widescreen for the first time ever. If you really wanted it to stay the way it was, then I guess you expect them also to keep the SLV in 4:3 aspect ratio and TV broadcast quality resolution? Yavar The mind boggles, doesn't it? If someone really wants a copy of the SLV with original s**tty picture quality, they can always pop in their old VHS. Or send their VHS copy out to a digital transfer house - then they've preserved that s**tty picture quality for posterity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see a distinction emerging between: I want to be able to watch the special longer version of the movie. And... I want to preserve my exact experience of watching the longer version as it was on TV and VHS. Strangely, nobody is asking for a 4:3 version of the theatrical cut, to preserve their experience of watching that on TV. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
This kind of packaging is notorious for scratching discs and for unavoidable fingerprints while trying to remove discs. Sometimes, depending on their position, even having to bend spines back to get at the actual content. They look nice, sure, but they're wholly impractical. Not at all. I bought the Bond 50 box set ten years ago and I love it. Absolutely no problem getting the discs in and out, absolutely no problems with scratching discs either. There is no such notoriety. In fact, I've never even heard of anybody call out this 'notorious' problem till this post. Fllimsy plastic blu-ray cases, on the other hand: are forever splitting at the folds, and the disc holding spindles break or lose their springiness over time, so you end up with discs rattling around in the case. Even worse are the box sets which the discs sit in a plastic holster glued to a backing board. They last no time at all. I'm really happy with the packaging proposition. By far the best way to do it. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Actually what you want is to make sure that they are screening off a DCP, not the Fathom Events "stream." The 4K part doesn't matter nearly as much - in fact, almost all commercial theater projectors are 2K (2048 x 1080), so asking for "4K" is likely to get you nowhere. The problem with the Fathom stream is that it's just that - a stream, with all the typical compression problems and artifacts. I must disagree, though not with your suggestion to check that the presentation comes from a file rather than a stream. On that note, I believe the parties involved on Paramount's side insisted upon DCPs for this much worked on feature, and for the good reasons you give. People should still check, but be encouraged that the answers will probably be the ones they want. But 4K vs. 2K matters immensely. Picture sharpness and detail matter. At home, both 2K and 4K look magnificent on a 4K screen. And yes, the difference is quite noticeable. The detail is noticeable. The naysayers on YouTube are welcome to their theories, but real life doesn't play out according to their incomplete math. And even when we stop noticing and get lost in the film, it still enhances the experience to have a 400% better picture (2K to 4K sounds double, but the difference is squared). I don't have to be consciously thinking, "4K is cool" for the richer environments, faces, details and color to make a film more immersive and lovely. How can we spend tens of millions of dollars making a film, then worry about the comparatively minimal cost differences between 2K and 4K DCPs? For all the time and care to have been taken to enrich these visuals, Star Trek's beautiful images, how it can seem to not matter to reduce that picture quality by 75% at the end point? That already matters on a 55" television. How much more important is four times the sharpness and detail on a 35 foot wide screen? It's a colossal difference. My experience with a 2K presentation of the new ST:TMP at the AMC Indianapolis 17 was, in total honestly, a miserable one. It wasn't just that I knew what I was missing from having seen it at home; it simply registered as 'hazy'. I eventually noticed that I kept unconsciously rubbing my eyes to clear them. What a horrible way to crap all over these people's hard, lovingly done work. Frankly, what thievery to keep it from me. It's true that most projectors are 2k, but its also true that most multi-plexes have 4K projectors. Globally, 17% of projectors are 4K, almost twice what I expected, looking it up. In the UK it's 32%, and in the US 40% (as of 2017, and theaters don't swap these out very frequently, but the numbers may be slightly different today)*. Many 4K 'prints' are not projected in 4K because theaters assign movies based on seat count, not just as a priority, but often as the only consideration. If Top Gun: Maverick was a 2K release (it wasn't - Cruise really cares about movies), then it would get the big houses, even if those were the ones with the 4K projectors and the theater had three or four 4K movies to show, for which the business levels could not be expected to come anywhere close to Cruise's film. As hard as things have been on exhibitors for the past 2-3 years, it's an understandable choice on their parts. But that's not a huge concern on a Wednesday night, even at 7pm, and moving films from house to house is comparatively effortless in the digital age compared with shuffling film prints around 10+ years ago. I wish Paramount had pulled a Lucas and insisted on only 4K projection, as well as DCPs over streams. * https://www.screendaily.com/features/the-resolution-war-is-cinema-falling-behind-home-entertainment-on-innovation/5124023.article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen, you had me until "with the fixed Enterprise airlock shot." I'm afraid I'm one of those collectors who doesn't like them fixing those kinds of things. I don't understand this point of view, honestly. The shot was only included in the Special Longer Version because it was being broadcast on TV in 4:3, and the unfinished shot of the set wasn't as noticeable. (I don't remember noticing a problem on my SLV VHS in the mid 90s.) In widescreen, in 4K no less, it is beyond glaring. It was *not* acceptable to include in widescreen 4K. I guarantee you they would have gotten more complaints for not fixing it than for fixing it. And it's quite telling that it is literally the *only* change made on the SLV, aside from putting it in widescreen for the first time ever. If you really wanted it to stay the way it was, then I guess you expect them also to keep the SLV in 4:3 aspect ratio and TV broadcast quality resolution? Yavar I have to admit this is a really weird case for me. I suppose if this was still 4:3 (I do NOT want this in 4:3) I might have more of a leg to stand on if I said "Don't fix it". I mean, that's part of the myth: They included unfinished shots. But I've seen the widescreen of this shot and it's more scaffolding than set. Even with the "kitchen sink" mentality of the TV version this would not have been included if it looked like this. Does anyone know if the theatrical cut included here has the original Leaving Drydock (with the visible armature holding the model) or if it's the same version as last years Blu-ray with an ill advised and unsuccessful attempt to fix it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to admit this is a really weird case for me. I suppose if this was still 4:3 (I do NOT want this in 4:3) I might have more of a leg to stand on if I said "Don't fix it". I mean, that's part of the myth: They included unfinished shots. But I've seen the widescreen of this shot and it's more scaffolding than set. Even with the "kitchen sink" mentality of the TV version this would not have been included if it looked like this. Precisely. What was (barely) passable for an extended TV cut, designed for 4:3 low resolution broadcast, is absolutely 100% not passable for a widescreen presentation ("more scaffolding than set" is spot on), much less one in 4K UHD. The mind boggles, doesn't it? If someone really wants a copy of the SLV with original s**tty picture quality, they can always pop in their old VHS. Or send their VHS copy out to a digital transfer house - then they've preserved that s**tty picture quality for posterity! Actually, John, they do have a superior alternative – the original (4:3) SLV with unfinished shot was indeed released on digital, and could be ripped for far better quality than VHS (even though still just standard resolution...probably not as good as DVD). You're forgetting the laserdisc release! https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture_-_Special_Longer_Version_(LaserDisc) Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what you all are drinking, the unfinished airlock shot with all the scaffolding was very evident on a 4:3 standard def TV when it originally aired. It was not passable at all. Agreed. It leaped out at me way back then. This is one alteration I'm happy with. I'd even be okay if they altered the colors of the spacesuit to Kirk's footage matched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|