Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews - Page 28

TMP isn't for everyone *shrug*

(Copied this post from a poster at HTF.)

This is from Daren Dochterman's blog. Interesting...

http://blog.darendoc.com/?p=580

"The films do look cleaner than they ever have before… (some a little too clean… but I think there is a backlash on normal film grain these days… which I’m sad to say) One point on the commentary of TMP that I’d like to clarify… when we made the recording, we were watching the transfer of the film that Robert Wise supervised the color timing for… and you can hear me commenting on that, and the fact that the two shots in the v’ger interior where we corrected the deflector dish color were in the copy we were watching… are not in fact in the new HD transfer. Overall, I’m sorry to see that the timing supervised by Mr. Wise and approved by cinematographer Richard Kline isn’t on this release… the new transfer seems shifted a bit too much toward the cyan in most scenes… but the contrast and black density seems proper now, now that NTSC vagueries aren’t a consideration. The colors on Trek II seem very cold and blue too… much more than I remember them… so perhaps this shift in color temperature is related.

Also, on another note… I seem to remember that our commentary for TMP was mostly wall to wall talking… we all had a lot to say during the film, and I was surprised that there were several sections edited out… (you can hear large sections of commentary silence that weren’t originally intended that way…) I can’t remember specifically what was discussed during these sections, but I guess there were reasons for editing… would just like to know what the concern was…"

Based on what Tolsten and Daren have stated, in addition to my own eyes and seeing obvious flaws while watching the first five films so far, I'm fully of the opinion these movies were not done properly.

That's just baffling on the part of Paramount. Hopefully they get the right people involved down the line for a new release of these films.

Count me in the 'TMP is a snorefest' clique. It has its moments, but the voyage through the alien cloud was sleep-inducing, and for me the revealation of what the cloud was didn't live up to the buildup.

I've watched both II and III, and to my eyes, both films are a marked improvement over previous editions on my display (JVC 61" LCOS) viewed from a distance of 11-12", and I have both the original DVD's and the special editions of both films. I did detect a little of the "clay faces" effect in III on a couple of close up shots, but I personally did not find it distracting.

IV, V and VI are on tap for later this week (my 16 year old, who loves the new movie, is now very interested in ST and wants to know if V is really as bad as everyone says it is).

For all the conspiracy theorists that are determined to push the notion that Paramount somehow performed computer "magic" to the SD versions and "made them" HD instead of using an HD transfer...

Any way that I can possibly imagine to do this would take at least as much time as using the HD master would... and quite possibly would cost MORE to do that using the HD master would.

Now, it is quite possible we are talking about older 2K masters that really needed to be done better... or maybe we really needed 4K or better masters.... or in the case of II, if they went back to the film and made a new master and cleaned that up...

...but anyone who sincerely believes they just "upconverted" the SD and wants to keep pushing that story, probably also believes in the car that runs on water and thinks their pet rock will procreate too. Please buy my bridge!

I reserve full judgment on the transfers until I get my set this weekend... and watch them myself... but I am allowing for the possibility that Paramount went with their older 2K masters with minimal work to get these out in time for the new movie. Studios do that all the time... then follow in a few years with an all-new super-cool edition.

I've watched them, they definitely are not upconverts.

Agreed.^

See, I too think it is the best. I am not a Star Trek nut, but I do like good science fiction, and it is the most realistic and deep of all of them. I like Kahn a lot, but I think the scope of the films have diminished with each movie. Of course, 2001 is one of my favorite films, so that should tell you where I am coming from.

I saw TMP four times theatrically. It is a good film but I do agree that the VGer flyover was way too drwan out. Otherwise I like it although it certainly isn't perfect.

Art

The box set is not the catastrophe everyone makes it out to be.
Paramount's first Trek DVD's weren't even all anamorphic- technically thats just as bad.
2011 they'll release all eleven films as seperate special editions to coincide with
Abrams /Kurtzman/ Orci's STAR TREk PHASE II.
They'll all be "fully restored" (not just Kahn). The contrast on Part 5 won't be fixed because the QC people don't think anyone will watch it anyway.
The TNG films will correct a few flaws that we complain about in November, as well as give a veneer of new edge enhancement to Star Trek First Contact to fool reviewers into thinking it's a better encode.
Finally nobody will ever think to add the extended ending to STAR TREk Nemesis, the one where Picard gets a new number One and tells him; "Were going to a place..... Where no one has gone before!!!".

So because they screwed up with the first DVD release, its OK that they do it with the BD release aswell?

I think Fanboyz is simply saying that this Blu-ray set isn't the disaster that some, and some who haven't even seen it, are making it out to be.

I actually agree with that sentiment except in regards to the Undiscovered Country disc.

I really want to know what their excuse is for using an interlaced master.

Probably watched 4 and 1 the most in my life. I have watched 2,3,4 on blu-ray and I was happy with the complete trilogy. I do however really want 1(TMP) because sentimental value. I love the music score, the best out of the first four are 1 and 3. I can see how some would fall asleep to 1. I do relax and remember when I used to see it on abc movie night a long time ago(sentimental value).

I can understand why some doesnt see this set as a big problem, because its very subjective.

But please understand, that many of us do have a problem when something shoot on film looks digital.

Sometimes better then DVD isnt good enough.

A part of me is thinking just get the UK version of Khan standalone and wait for the rest to be re-released down the line, whenever that happens.

Wow! That's close. Are you sure you didn't mean 11-12'?

Doug

The colors of Khan are another reason I'm holding off on this set, not pleased with the look at all. Too bad I'll be waiting forever for a newer set, and Khan will probably be the same since they supposedly "remastered" it. Renting is good for me unless the used prices get really cheap.

Well, after watching the entire set I'd have to say that I was impressed despite reading many of the comments here that led me to believe that the PQ would be terrible. In my opinion it's not as bad as many here would suggest. It's not the best Blu-ray tranfer by far, but still a huge improvement over the DVD's on my HT. On my 118" screen, even the worst Blu-ray looks a hundred times better than the best DVD.

Knowing Paramount from previous formats, I too would agree that they're already thinking about the the next release in 18 to 24 months of "Collector's Editions." Lord knows I've bought these movies twice on each format since Betamax, just like the original Star Wars trilogy.

Oh it is a huge problem.
Film IS GRAIN don't erase it!!!
However I was expecting somthing south of Pan's Labrynth, on the level of Evil Dead 2 or Patton.

Finished VI last night, so have watched everything except TMP. For the most part, I'm happy to finally have these in HD. I skipped the DVD special editions after the sour taste of a couple of the original releases on DVD. Borrowed a couple of SE from a friend a few times.

My biggest complaint would be that these are the theatricals instead of the extended/directors cuts. Also a bit annoyed that deleted scenes hinted at/shown in the specials weren't included (mostly on V - which did have some deleted scenes, but not all of them... especially the Klaa/Vixis subplot, etc). Perfect opportunity for seamless branching. Doubt I'll double dip on anything since I'm not that big of a trekkie, unless it's a deal even better than the Costco deal. For $10 each, this set is pretty good!

One thing Paramount hasn't been given enough credit for is just how much dirt/scratch clean-up was performed on all of these movies.

I was watching ST IV last night, and put in the DVD for comparison afterwards. Every effects shot in the DVD is covered in dirt. The Blu-ray is virtually spotless in that regard. It's a huge, huge improvement.

We take it for granted these days that all movies will be clean and dirt-free, but the way special effects were optically-composited back in the day was very prone to embedding dirt on the film elements. This was a very common problem on most SFX-heavy movies prior to the age of digital compositing. Paramount went to a lot of effort to clean these movies up.

Yeah, but it sounds like they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sounds like. Sounds like. Again, another person who hasn't viewed the discs rushing to judgment.

Not all of the movies are perfect, but I and II look great. Although III and IV are problematic, they're still huge improvements over their respective DVD editions.

(I'll be watching the last two this weekend.)

How is saying "sounds like" rushing to judgment?

I'd been watching TOS season 1 on blu and going back and forth between it and the movies. I've noticed that they some of the episodes are excellent for diving into the movie.

I: well the Nomad episode is in another season, bummer.
II: Space Seed is a good prereq.
III: Errand of Mercy since it introduces the Klingons. I always liked TOS Klingons better than TNG and beyond because those Klingons which are just boring characters that seem to hinge every single action around honor.
IV: Tomorrow is Yesterday since it motivates time travel by warping around a sun. Also notice that they originally went back in time from passing near a "black star" which is what people used to call a black hole when it was not well understood. That connects with the new movie pretty well.
V: Return of the Archons since it shows people having negative emotions and conflict taken away in the name of harmony and happiness, making them mere puppets living in a stagnant society.

Okay, okay back on topic on bitching about image quality-- IV did look pretty bad especially those clay-faces, I thought that some of the pics were photoshopped, but they were not.

I find it surreal and bizzarre that we're having arguments in regards to the quality of these discs with people that haven't even seen them.