 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 21, 2023 - 5:04 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
We were told their goal was to finish an unfinished film, which I categorically dispute because what was put on the screen was a finished film. To my knowledge no one ever walked out of the theater and said, "That didn't feel like a finished film." Absolutely no one to my knowledge complained about the sound mix at the time.
I actually agree that "unfinished" is a bit of hyperbole – I would say "hastily finished" is more accurate.
That said, from the filmmakers' point of view, that lack of time to polish was a legitimate source of frustration ever since the film was released. Solium, you seem to feel that that claim is a retroactive rationalization, but it's certainly what I'd read for years and years before the "director's edition" was released.
Of course, you can prefer whichever version you wish, just as you can prefer various versions of films by Spielberg, Cameron, Scott, Coppola, Chaplin, Jackson, et al. This is hardly a unique situation.
I never complained about TMP being unfinished (though it's not a film I've ever warmed to, despite my long posts about it!), but I did always find it odd that there were so few sound effects, and high school me was very patronizing about the very visible arm holding up the Enterprise as it left dry dock. To me, the rush was always obvious (granted, partly because I'd read about it in the press at the time).
In any event, your preferred version of this film is widely available in 4K on down. (Famously, it's near-impossible to watch the original versions of the first three Star Warses, and absolutely impossible to watch the original release of 2001: A Space Odyssey.) So why get so worked up about this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 21, 2023 - 6:45 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
I actually agree that "unfinished" is a bit of hyperbole – I would say "hastily finished" is more accurate.
So why get so worked up about this?
You answered your question for me. Because I find it rather hyperbole. I'm well aware of the production problems, the race to get it finished for its release, etc. That they didn't have time to do everything they wanted to.
Was Star Wars a finished film in 77? By the arguments made here I would have to say, "No". The Director would be the first to tell you the finished film isn't what he envisioned. I could point to poor effects shots, the silly masks in the Cantina scene, even the last battle lacked all the shots Lucas needed to pull it all together. Though his wife did pull a miracle in the editing room and made it work.
Point is, what film of this magnitude is ever finished then? What was put on screen was the final result. Its not like its missing special effects shots with placeholders, or scenes with no sound, or missing opticals, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The score made up for the lack of sound effects. Sometimes a score has to carry a film which was the case here. I mean there's no sound effects in 2001 for the outer space scenes. Of course that was deliberate, but it works.
If this were anything but Star Trek, I might agree. But the Enterprise - ALWAYS - had layers of sounds. Every room had its own atmosphere. That was the point. It added a degree of reality. It wasn't an artistic decision to have almost no bridge sound effects and it's not like they dialed the sounds back up when Goldsmith's music wasn't there. I also think the lack of those ambient sounds is much more obvious in a theater than at home. Seeing the theatrical recently on the big screen, it was much more blatant just how sonically empty the film was, particularly in the scenes without underscore. I was aware something was missing.
However, what I generally curl my lip at are the addition of TV series sounds on the new bridge when all of those vintage sounds were avoided until Star Trek 6, when for some reason the doors all sounded like they were cranked up to full 10 in 1966 MONO. The doors were louder than anything else. Realistically, everyone on the bridge should have reacted whenever they opened. For the ST:TMP DE, I would have preferred the Star Trek II sound effects library, at least it's film era appropriate and shows the technology changed and advanced instead of hewing close to 10 and 15 year old tech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, what I generally curl my lip at are the addition of TV series sounds on the new bridge when all of those vintage sounds were avoided until Star Trek 6, when for some reason the doors all sounded like they were cranked up to full 10 in 1966 MONO. The doors were louder than anything else. Realistically, everyone on the bridge should have reacted whenever they opened. For the ST:TMP DE, I would have preferred the Star Trek II sound effects library, at least it's film era appropriate and shows the technology changed and advanced instead of hewing close to 10 and 15 year old tech.
Star Trek 4. They used the classic sounds on the bridge in Star Trek 4.
No, I don't think Wise would have added TOS sounds if he had been given another six months of post back in 79. But he was OK with it in 01. And it sounds more balanced than tacked on in 22.
My biggest objection to the 01 DE was the abundance of not just TOS but also TNG sound FX. The 22 sounds more in keeping with, as you say, the Wrath of Khan sound (which was really just an extension of what was done for TMP). It might not be as "pure" as I think it is, but it sounds right and the 01 did not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Trek 4. They used the classic sounds on the bridge in Star Trek 4.
D'oh! That's right, I remember the "screen beep" now at the very end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 22, 2023 - 9:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
I have always thought it was rather nutty that Lucas got the grief for going back to his SW films but Wise was given the pass, or even praised for it. Lucas certainly claimed also, his early films were, 'incomplete'. I do not find the claim of incomplete TMP film very persuasive, despite the persistent efforts to make the 3-4 year production sound like a student film or something. I am glad that Wise had the chance, to make himself feel he had completed his work. But, also, I feel like any director returning to his film from decades earlier is, well, not really an objectively sound artistic idea in itself, while it is certainly creatively and intellectually interesting exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have always thought it was rather nutty that Lucas got the grief for going back to his SW films but Wise was given the pass, or even praised for it. Lucas certainly claimed also, his early films were, 'incomplete'. I do not find the claim of incomplete TMP film very persuasive, despite the persistent efforts to make the 3-4 year production sound like a student film or something. I am glad that Wise had the chance, to make himself feel he had completed his work. But, also, I feel like any director returning to his film from decades earlier is, well, not really an objectively sound artistic idea in itself, while it is certainly creatively and intellectually interesting exercise.
1) Star Wars is one of the most popular movies ever made. Right or wrong Star Trek: The Motion Picture is not.
2) I can watch any version of TMP I wish in current formats. (Admittedly this was not the case for a while.)
3) (This was emphasized less on the 2022 portion of the project than in 2001 There was a real attempt to only make the kinds of changes and effects that would have been possible in 1978. The argument in 2001 was that the film wasn't finished. What would it have looked like with those extra weeks? Lucas' argument in 1997 was that the effects were 20 years old. (And now the "new" effects on Disney+ are older than the originals were in 1997. And they still hold up better.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.... I feel like any director returning to his film from decades earlier is, well, not really an objectively sound artistic idea in itself, while it is certainly creatively and intellectually interesting exercise.
I don't have a dog in this hunt overall. But there is no objective reason I can think of to say that a director or any artist shouldn't be able to revisit/revise work from an earlier time. Whatever the reason.
Surely an artist has the right to rework their own work. Whether it yields something better will be a matter of opinion, not something that can be described objectively one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dang!
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is how I define unwarranted!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 22, 2023 - 10:50 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
This is how I define unwarranted!
yeah, Sean
Lets be honest Lucas is a lot easier to hate.
Wise was apparently one of the nicest and most soft spoken people ever.
He is like Santa.
And, well, should be able to, well, that is real, real open ended.
I suppose the biggest issue, the new effects look inferior, across the board, to the visual effects work in 1979, aside from just matte line clean-ups. I know, it does not make sense, but the worked pumped out on digital workstations is universally inferior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't love my watch on Paramount+ of the new STTMP last year. But not because of the updates, which I guess I'm just not that involved with.
This was the first time I can remember watching STTMP that I was just kind of bored by the story.
I know that's true of a lot of folks, but this used to be one of my favorites. And it actually felt more tedious than the last few times I've watched.
Which probably means don't watch it for a while - I've already seen it so often that I can repeat much of the dialog.
But I'm not in the camp of "absolutely I will not interfere!" It looked and sounded good to me. And I enjoyed the new effects. Just not enough to watch it again any time soon.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the Star Wars revisions either.
Shocking, I know.
(I know this thread was originally about the podcast, but just responding to the convo as it has flowed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 22, 2023 - 1:15 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jeyl
(Member)
|
My stance when it comes to 'Alternate Versions' of films all stems from one simple question. "Do these changes complement the film?" Granted that's a very broad term, but let me give you some examples to give you an idea. Let's start with the much-debated Star Wars Special Editions!
Complimentary Change: There is a scene where Han Solo is chasing down a squad of Stormtroopers down a hallway screaming at the top of his lungs. The change made in the Special Edition I feel 'compliments' the scenario because it does a better job at doing a 180º on Han's situation. In the original, Han turns around a corner and confronts the stormtroopers who are now facing his direction in front of nothing. This causes Han to retreat. But in the Special Edition when Han turns the corner, instead of facing just the Stormtroopers he was chasing, he's now facing a huge hanger full of Stormtroopers. It makes his rapid retreat so much more gratifying.
Uncomplimentary Change: Luke described Tatooine as the planet farthest away from whatever counts as the brightest point in the universe. Nothing really happens on Tatooine and it's made clear early on that he wants to get as far away from it as he can. When we get to Mos Eisley in the original version, we see a pretty small space port town where not a lot is happening. In the Special Edition, suddenly Mos Eisley is BURSTING with activity! More people are walking the streets, aliens, robots and rontos are acting all cartoonish and more ships are flying in the sky than around Laguardia. Having so much activity doesn't really mesh well with Luke's unfondness for Tatooine since this now makes it one of the most active planets our heroes have been to.
When it comes to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the release of the original Director's Edition was an awe-inspiring experience. It made me think of details I didn't even know were problems and fixed others that I didn't know needed fixing. There was very little about the DE I had complaints about because every change that was done made sense. The DE was always my preferred version of the film and I'm glad it happened.
Having said that, I seem to be in the minority who found this 4K release of the DE to be... disappointing. Most of this involves the brightness/color tone changes that were done. Now I'm not talking about turning a blue uniform into teal. No. This is more about consistency. For example, the interior shots of Epsilon 9 look awful. It's so dark and shadowy compared to the original it's like someone applied a 'day-for-night' filter on it by mistake. Almost as if someone made a mistake because it pretty much erases a new change they made for this version. After the final Klingon Cruiser vanishes and we get one more look at the video display, the DE team added computing text on the left screen with added sound effects to complement it. The problem is that because the scenes are so much darker now, the text is completely ineligible. It wasn't until my third viewing that I actually saw the text at all. This couldn't have been a creative decision since all other instances where text was added are completely eligible.
This new 4K edition also feels rushed in comparison to the original DE. Some visual effects shots they changed were not re-worked. In the original Director's Edition, the shot of the V'Ger vessel firing it's first 'Orbiting Device' at Earth went through two major changes.
1. the shot was flipped upside down.
2. The orbiting device was replaced with a new CGI orbiting device to show it moving more along the vessel's surface and at a much faster speed.
The new Director's Edition does not redo the original orbiting device effect and simply takes the original theatrical shot and flipped it. This creates a visual inconsistency since the speed and angle of attack that the orbiting device takes is completely different when we cut to the next CGI shot of it heading towards Earth. What should be a fast moving energy projectile now goes from 10 to 600 in the next shot for no reason and it suddenly closer to the V'Ger vessel when it was shown flying away from it.
There are several other instances where I felt the 4KDE felt like a rushed project, but I'll save that for future occasions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe so but a lot of cerebral science fiction movies have minimal sound deign. This isn't Star Wars.
Goldsmith score brilliantly adds "sound effects" thru the soundtrack. I would argue the blaster beam is more a sound effect in the score than a piece of music. There are other examples where the music substitutes for sound effects like when the V'ger maw closes. Yes its music but it could be mistaken for a sound effect.
I agree, I think the blaster beam was indeed the "voice" of V'ger, but while this isn't Star Wars, it's also not Solaris or 2001 (as much as it aspired to be to a degree). It was still Star Trek and Star Trek was always big on sound design. Roddenberry always wanted sound to add to the reality. When episodes of the third season went out without the "wind sound" on planet shots, he objected because he felt that omission took away from the world they were building. Everyone's mileage varies, but the ship needed sounds. Good sound design is important to the reality of a fantasy world. Sometimes there was more sound in scenes set in the vacuum of space than inside the Enterprise. And there were few to no space scenes left unscored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This new 4K edition also feels rushed in comparison to the original DE. Some visual effects shots they changed were not re-worked. In the original Director's Edition, the shot of the V'Ger vessel firing it's first 'Orbiting Device' at Earth went through two major changes.
1. the shot was flipped upside down.
2. The orbiting device was replaced with a new CGI orbiting device to show it moving more along the vessel's surface and at a much faster speed.
The new Director's Edition does not redo the original orbiting device effect and simply takes the original theatrical shot and flipped it. This creates a visual inconsistency since the speed and angle of attack that the orbiting device takes is completely different when we cut to the next CGI shot of it heading towards Earth. What should be a fast moving energy projectile now goes from 10 to 600 in the next shot for no reason and it suddenly closer to the V'Ger vessel when it was shown flying away from it.
There are several other instances where I felt the 4KDE felt like a rushed project, but I'll save that for future occasions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pisYBWGqY9U&t=445s
Go to about 10:34. They absolutely re-did that shot matching the timing and composition of the 01.
BTW, those new shots of Vejur look OK on TV. They look stunning on the big screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
