AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Okay, well, I watched this disc this evening. I am familiar with the work that went into it and I had been anticipating this release since I heard about the director going back and completing this film twenty years after it was rushed to the theater.


First, let me say that I am all for his changes. I understand why he did them and it makes perfectly logical sense!


However, I have to comment on the quality of the revisions...


These new CG effects shots look just plain sloppy! They look as if they were rendered at 30fps and stuck into a 24fps film... I know it doesn't make sense and there are probably a lot of things that contribute to this. I must say the new shots look very video-like in quality. The new shots have no film grain whatsoever and the contrast is different from the surrounding scenes.


In fact, there are some scenes where old elements of the film were brought into the new CG elements... there is clearly something afoul as the film elements clearly do not match the CG elements in terms of grain and contrast... the framerates look a little off as well.


Audio wise, there's huge problems with the 5.1 dialogue. 90% of the time the dialogue is very unfocused or way too quiet for the ambience from the front and rear surrounds. I found myself reaching for the volume control several times when we go from internal bridge shots with Shatner immediately to external V-GER zone shots... the music overpowers the dialogue nearly everywhere. I found the 2.0 track to be fine.


I appreciate the efforts of everybody involved but these new CG effects look extremely amateur and the 5.1 remix feels like little to no effort was made to keep dialogue at a level volume.


Image quality wise, overall, the disc look good! It's no Superbit disc, but it sure looks excellent for a film of its age! I did not see much, if any, EE... but I was not really looking for it.


This is a good effort by Paramount but it could have been done much better. I appreciate all the work that was done on bringing us this release but I wish I had the original theatrical cut available without the sloppy new CG elements. I can't help but feel upset that I purchased this disc... it should have been treated better.


On the technical merits of finishing this movie and the new CG, I have to give it a D.


Sound: C-

Image: B

Story: A (I've always liked it!)


I've not gotten into the extras yet, but I am sure they are cool as hell! That's for another page.


-- Robert
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
I have read some reviews and unfortunately they pretty much state what you state. It's a shame I was looking forward to this, I was going to buy it today, well I'll probably buy it Friday since I love the movie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,752 Posts
Boy, was I surprised with the poor video quality of the movie. I forget that this is a pretty old movie and that's the way it was back then. I give the video quality a C at most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
The reason I gave it a B was because it was clear that this is about as good as this movie can look. There are certain scenes where this is evident. Others that are not.


However, I can't explain why the shades of blue look so awful... almost like poor NTSC video. I am certain it did not look that bad in the theater.


Maybe it does deserve a C...


-- Robert
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
I viewed this disc not 10 minutes ago on a Sony CX860 on RCA F38310JX4. I was blown apart by the 'great' dolby surround of this movie. My interlaced DVD changer performed well with a excellent picture that I have viewed over a hundred times since it was released in early 80s to VHS.

You guys can say that this doesn't come up to your standards.




It does come up to mine in using a Sennheiser 5 sounds into Sony V-6 Headphones 5Hz. to 30,000Hz. frequency spread with Dolby Pro-Logic Surround System using premium headphones. I wonder if any of you know what the term hyperacusis means? Quoting Merriam Websters Medical Dictionary "hyperacusis: abnormally acute hearing". I have had it over 30 years, there are 'no' quartz clocks in my apartment. The on the walls clock faint or non-audible across the room to you, but quite audible and annoying to me 'ticking'!


When I put those Sony V-6 headphones on I can hear more than most human beings as tested by several audiologists over the years! All had told me I can hear under and over the normal 20Hz. to 20,000 Hz. which includes a dog whistle to which most human beings can't hear. I am entirely satisfied in both view and audio with Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Directors Cut)!

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,011 Posts
I agree with the statement that this is proably about as good as this film can/could look. I saw the film in the theate, several times in fact, it's not a particularly well filmed movie. For it's era it's pic quality is below average. My only complaint is the film's dialog. It appears they did next to nothing for the film's dialog, it's lousy, agreed;) , Robert! It's down to mumbles in places, I've seen, err, heard worse... But, given that this is a big release you'd expect a bit more, well, I do. I didn't get out the LD to compare, but I suspect it sounds better. It's the original cut too, since they choose not to employ seamless branching and give us both on the DVD.


The DVD's pic blows away the LD's, but the sound was really ho-hum IMO. I don't remember the LD's PCM track sounding this mediocre. I haven't even looked at the extra features yet. Best wishes!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,864 Posts
I compared the Laserdisc & DVD and usually I prefer the PCM but not in this case. The Dvd sounds amazing for what they've done.


The video was decent but showed alot of print scratches and wear it seems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
I have to disagree to an extent. As far as the effects are concerned- the newly created effects were hard to pick out- therefore they werent distracting (like Star Wars: Special Edition).

They didnt take me out of the movie-so bravo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,771 Posts
Sorry. Watched this last night with some friends who are big Trek fans (bigger than me) and we all agreed that this DVD was a major improvement over the laserdisc, and a major improvement over the theatrical version.


The new VFX, for the most part, matched nicely and we all had actually wished they didn't match the film grain! Many new FX went unnoticed by us. We simply didn't realize they had been replaced.


The only shot that bothered us what the platform creation outside the Enterprise at the end. The shots outside the ship were clearly fake and looked poor.


Sound, music, dialogue all were improved over the original versions. Picture quality was outstanding. Nothing could be done to remove the grain from the old vfx. It's there because it is part of the old method of doing vfx. So no complaints from me. Just praise and thanks for an improved film.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
Too bad you don't have hyperacusis like me then you would hear more than the average human being hears. So many films sound great to me because, I can hear things you can't. When you sum it up to all things heard by me it's a great dolby surround track. The sounds hit me from 5 directions and have me squirming in my seat, not because of how loud I like them to be,

but the sum total of all the sounds I actually hear.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,243 Posts
I was disappointed that Foundation Imaging didn't clean up some of the existing effects (particularly the Klingon attack sequence... damn those matte lines!). Overall, though, I thought the new effects worked well, and the re-editing really makes this a better movie.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
Why don't you ask for them to include the formula for 'Transparent Aluminum' while your at it, so our salt water aquariams don't have to be so heavy.lol:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,011 Posts
Hob, it's the anemic dialog that bothered me. It didn't "rise up" out of the surroundfield in multiple spots. It appears to be the one thing they didn't work much on. Surroundfields aren't much good if they muzzle or othewise mask the dialog. The disc met my personal expectations otherwise. Best wishes!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
I agree with you on the dialogue, but it was made 22 years ago. Rachael I have read so many books on Star Trek, when I read them I can still hear the original cast voices in my head.



I was one of the original signers to send in post cards to get the first shuttle named 'Enterprise'. The president was overwelmed at the number of post cards we sent in, I know I sent my 50 in. Live Long and Prosper and May the Force be With You Rachael.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,771 Posts
Quote:
I was disappointed that Foundation Imaging didn't clean up some of the existing effects (particularly the Klingon attack sequence... damn those matte lines!).
Paramount was not about to pay for that. None of the older VFX that are still in the film were cleaned up. Warner did it with SUPERMAN, but they are a much more restoration friendly company.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I can't believe all the negative comments on this thread! I watched this movie last night, and my wife and I both agree that Wise has taken a very mediocre movie and turned it into one of the greatest sci-fi films ever.


I should point out that I haven't seen the theatrical version in a while, so it was very difficult for me to remember where it ended and the director's cut began. I am thankful for that! I will never, ever, compare this movie side-by-side


This is truly a great film. If it were released this way back in '79, I am sure it would be regarded as such today.


The video quality isn't up to today's standards. The music is fabulous however.


All the comments here make me wonder how you guys feel about films like Ben-Hur and 2001, both of which are awesome but don't measure up to The Matrix when played on our modern systems. This version of Star Trek now sits on the same shelf as those in MY house.


Trek fans, don't be discouraged by what you read here. This is the movie you've been waiting 20 years for! Enjoy it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,902 Posts
I don't think anyone here is really discouraged, we all realize this is a 22 year old movie and as such will have it's flaws.

I hear a small amount of disappointment, but all in all I take this thread as a positive one...tonight's the night, I"m looking forward to watching this.

I do hope this version is better than both the theatrical (to slow) and the extended (way to slow)

I always got the feeling this would have made a great tv episode at 60 minutes. Hopefully this changes my mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,243 Posts
Kenny's right! Don't get me wrong, I thought it was terrific to see THE motion picture in the Star Trek series--after 22 long years--in the manner that it deserves. I had fifteen friends over to the Scooterplex tonight and everyone agreed that yes, it was still kinda hokey, but it sure was nice to finally watch the movie that should have been shown in 1979.


If you love Star Trek and can appreciate the movie for what it is, I cannot highly enough recommend that you add this DVD to your home theater collection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
I took a sneak peak at it last night, and I too have to register my disappointment with the video image quality. This was always my favorite Star Trek movie, and with all the advance hoopla, I figured that the dvd might approach the quality of the newly released version of 2001. It is also an old movie, but the dvd image quality is absolutely state of the art. I would rate it as one of my top 5 dvd's in terms of clarity and color. I don't buy the argument that Star Trek - TMP looks as good as it can for of movie of it's age.


I own the wide screen laser disk version of TMP. I made a s-vhs copy of it sometime ago. I found that when I play it back on my JVC 9500 vcr. the onboard 4 meg digital frame buffer interprets the blue hash as background noise and cleans it up significantly. The tape actually looks better than the laser disk. Unfortunately, it also looks better than the dvd.


Oh well, I'll be standing in line 5 years from now to buy the new and improved version, just like I did with all those versions of 2001 before they finally got it right.


Ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,902 Posts
All in all I'd say it's pretty good, the thing that bothered me was just how soft the image was, one of the softest in my collection.

At least no one will be screaming about edge enhancement...however there is a common ground, and I think Paramount should have found it. For my taste a minor amount of EE is preferable to this look.

Granded it is film-like, but I've come to expect a sharper picture out of modern transfers.

The no EE crowd will like it, I certainly don't mind it, but it could have been sharper.

The transfer has good color, is fairly clean of age artifacts, and it is, overall pleasing to the eye.

I think what you guys are hearing with the language track is compression, the language track is clean sounding, but very compressed...I'd also imagine some people (many?) have their center speakers placed completely wrong and that is adding to the problem in a big way.

As for this new version, all I can say is bravo! I've seen this movie three times in my life.

First at the theater, and was so blown away by the beauty of a huge Enterprise that I went back a couple weeks later to see it again...that's when I realized the pace was terrible and it was a boring movie. Several years later I caught it on tv, and again realized I just didn't like it.

I bought the LD, just so I could complete my Star Trek collection, but NEVER watched it.

Perhaps my taste in movies has matured (which it has) and perhaps it's R Wise's new cut, I sure it's actually both, but I can say that I now think this is one excellent story, with many good questions, some nice answers, and is now presented in a well thought out manner!
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top