Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

ST:TMP Fixer Upper 224

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-see dept.
herdingcats writes "so, bigtime director Robert Wise is exorcising his demons of disappointment in the original version (cost: $45 million; revenue: $160 million, eventually) by cutting, splicing, evolving, and devolving the original production....which he felt lacked humanity, mostly because the studio rushed it to holiday theaters on the heals of "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters" successes." Its apparently going to be a video release (well, DVD for me) that tries to remain true to the original storyboards, not Lucas Style "I meant to do that- greedo really fired first" sorta lame changes. Oh, and a CG enterprise.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ST:TMP Fixer Upper More

ST:TMP Fixer Upper

Comments Filter:
  • This is good news. A generalization made about Star Trek movies is that the odd numbered ones all suck; this trend was started by TMP. TMP was big and shiny, but it lacked a gripping plot or character development. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was a much better movie overall. So, to this day, the even numbered movies are perceived as being better.

    Kudos to Robert Wise for trying to fix this. There are many people to place the blame for the original failure on, but I'd rather focus on appluading Robert Wise for still wanting to scratch that itch, in the spirit of open source. ;)

  • Worth watching once, perhaps. (Score:3)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:08PM (#445507)
    It is nice to know that the director has a chance to go back and fix the dreadful pacing of an unusually disappointing film.

    At the same time, is there really much here to save? One of the biggest criticisms of the film was not so much the mind-numbing dullness, the self-congratulatory character introductions, or the ambiguous special effects, but the total lack of any real creativity. It was a re-telling of an old TV plot, padded out into a 2-and-a-half-hour orgy of blueish-white light and slow tracking shots of the Enterprise.

    I recall my local paper's review headline was "Where NOMAD Has Gone Before".

    I will probably rent it and watch it once, just as I watched the re-cut of "The Abyss" once, but I'm not going to go out of my way for it.

  • Or, maybe, "ST:TMP ME"


    --

  • Despite myriad Internet reports to the contrary, the "new" ST:TMP will not feature a great deal of previously unseen footage (including the infamous "memory wall" Kirk-Spock spacewalk sequence that takes place inside V'ger).

    Huh?

    Okay, I am not a Star Trek fan. At all. But I recognize most of the references that you often hear these days. What's this one?

  • I thought a virgin could capture a unicorn.
  • Well, there's the disagreement on the notion between the various people responsible for the film (Ridley Scott was not solely responsible for the film) - the fact that, after all, it WAS a film, not reality, so Deckard could not REALLY have been a replicant.

    So, ONE person on the crew indended for the audience to believe Deckard was a replicant - but was that in the ORIGINAL story? Yes, no, it moved around so much, who knows? I think the replicant theory is just a matter of opinion. Just because Ridley Scott says so, doesn't make it so. He's ONLY the director.

    Now, if the movie were say, like Yentl, where it was basically all done by one person (Written, produced, directed, starring, blah blah blah), then I could say maybe Barbara Striesand WAS INDEED a replicant. . .
  • Due to King Lears tragic ending, it has been performed for more years with an alternate 'happy' ending by (Ben or Sam, I can't remember, I think it was Ben) Johnson, where Lear survives and goes off to live with his 'good' daughter, Cordelia. It was only restored around 1920.

  • Actually, it was the Greeks who took Troi, and I wonder if she likes it that way...

    Ironically enough, IIRC Marina Sirtis is Greek.

    Yes I'm a geek.


    --------------------------------------

  • "I'm fully functional, and programmed in multiple techniques. . ."

    It'd be hilarious to hear Data say that to Seven's face upon their very first meeting :)
  • What does TMP stand for? I always thought it was a file extension for DOS. Since it's a movie I'd guess The Menacing Phantom since there was references to Star Wars in there... :oD
  • Khan's chest looked really fake.


    Nimoy says in his autobio I Am Spock [amazon.com] that those were Ricardo Montalban's real pecs.


    III was worth seeing, for the final scenes on Vulcan if nothing else.


    STIII is probably the most underrated Trek film. All of the actors put in excellent performances, and Nimoy deserves extra credit for the performance he pulled out of Shatner.

  • If you actually read the article that was linked to, they specifically mention NOT adding that scene. Nothing is being added to the movie that shouldn't have been there to begin with.
  • It's simple, really. Science fiction is the branch of speculative fiction that retains the laws and theories of science as we know them, and projects them. The branch of speculative fiction that rejects the known laws of science is called Fantasy.

    The problems with Star Trek's science of the future are almost indenumerable.
    1. Noises in space
    2. Starships that make banking turns
    3. A billion humanoid races
    4. Teleportation devices that don't use a receiver

    And that's just off the top of my head.

    Yes, I'm aware that there's an excuse for 3. I'm also aware that excuse is there because Larry Niven stole it from his own writings in desperation. Besides, it's contradicted in the ST:TNG series finale.

    Speaking of that series finale, they had a "making of" special before it, and the host (Jonathan Frakes) NEVER called it a science fiction series. He repeatedly called it an adventure series. Perhaps it's because some of those people know what real science fiction is.

    Look, we KNOW already that they write the stories first, and make the science up afterward. It's not like you're getting people like Asimov (who wrote endless science articles) or Heinlein (who wrote about antimatter in the Encyclopaedia Britannica) to write Star Trek episodes. You're getting people who don't know a lot about science to write about the science of the future. How could you possibly expect the science to be valid?

    None of the examples you gave of the "seriousness" of Star Trek are proof that it's science fiction. It is what it is, space fantasy. Enjoy it for that.
  • "The Abyss" - When Cameron was told to cut the film for time, he was so angry that he chopped out 20 minutes from the CLIMAX of the movie, which not only removed the most expensive footage from the whole film, but wiped out the explanation as to why the aliens were there in the first place.

    Actually, I don't think "angry" describes Cameron's intent at all. By all accounts, including his own on the liner notes of the laserdisc Special Edition, Cameron was happier was with the longer version but agreed with Fox that it needed to be trimmed -- the argument being that this was before Dances With Wolves and an action/adventure film shouldn't be longer than 2:15 or so. Cameron has always said he doesn't like calling the Special Edition a "director's cut" because he felt the theatrical version was the director's cut as well, and he in no way bitched about the studio ruining the movie.

    Also, since the FX for the climax hadn't even been done yet, it was hardly the most expensive footage. :)
  • As for the extra footage they added to the movie from the cutting room floor: Oh boy! more passes around the Enterprise.

    That doesn't sound like what it will be.

    Though I like to pop the tape in every once in a while just to look at the Enterprise, as I think this refit version is the most beautiful of all of the versions.

    Gordon.

  • Something that provokes curiousity entreats (begs) inquiry (a question). It is completely appropriate in the literal sense of every word in the phrase. It also conveys the exact intention of the sentence to those that read it, so it is successful in that respect as well. Even those that think it can only be used as a phrase know what is meant by it.

    No. Even if the poster wasn't misusing an existing phrase with a specific meaning, "beg" still does not work here. This particular fact's children are not going to go hungry if we don't ask the question; you really can't anthropomorphize that far. "Raises" is a much better word for this context.

    My biggest problem with people misusing "beg the question" is that makes them look stupid. When I'm reading, serious grammatical and usage errors distract and annoy me. I then stop taking the author seriously. If he doesn't know what words mean or where apostrophes go (hint: never between an ending vowel and a pluralizing "s"), why should I take his word on more complicated matters?

    Sure, language constantly changes and words mean what people want them to. Does that mean that "subliminable" and "strategery"[1] are words? If you're speaking the rare Texas Oilman Standardified English dialect, yes; if you're speaking American Standard English, it means the President of the USA is an idiot. When I watch the new reality shows and see people mixing metaphors and mangling phrases, I think they're dumb. We'll all be dead before simple facts can beg questions and ppl watch movie's on there television's. And when I see a word with quotation marks around it, I read it as sarcasm or a direct quote, not bold or highlighted text.

    So, people, either learn what stuff means or get an editor. If you find yourself using a word or stock phrase and you don't know the exact meaning and etymology, look it up.

    [1] Fake, but funny.
  • In France, for example, someone other than the director's immediate family remaining in the theater for the entire length of the movie is unheard of.
  • The annotations are copyrighted, but the original text and any modifications of the original text, are not copyrighted.

    Besides, if you were to make a copy of the text (without the annotations) from that book, there's no way to prove that your copy of the text came from that book.
    --

  • The film was released to begin with because Paramount wanted to make money. Money money money money money. Money. Bob Wise had no control over its release schedule. No director ever does.

    As to the second half: where *should* it end? Or more precisely: should it end at all? Why shouldn't the original creator have the right to go back and revise his creation. It still belongs to *them*, not to us. We have no particular right to access the 'original' for all time. If Bob Wise has managed to convince the people with the bucks that he can make ST:TMP better (read: watchable) and thus, make them more bucks while at the same time finally feeling proud of the work, why shouldn't he?

  • Yay! (Score:3)

    by xkenny13 ( 309849 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:08PM (#445526) Homepage
    As someone just getting into DVDs, I'd like to applaud Paramount for *not* releasing a stock copy on DVD, only to produce a "Director's Cut" a year later, just to scoop up the bux.

    I sincerely hope the director's cut works out as well as it sounds ... I, for one, can't remember the last time I watched ST:TMP. If nothing else, I remember getting bored with all those long, seemingly extended shots of the exterior of the Enterprise (I think they were shuttling in?) ... so I hope those get a snip or two here or there as well.

    Also, will that "memory walk" be part of the outtakes? Seems only fitting...

  • ST:TMP (Score:5)

    by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:09PM (#445527) Homepage
    Star Trek: The Mantom Phenace?


    - - - - -
  • Did anyone else read that wrong? I saw (in my head anyway) ST:TPM and thought Star Trek: The Phantom Menace. What would that be? Jar-jar meets tribbles?
  • I said "essentially uncapturable" - also, in literature the virgin usually doesn't want to capture the unicorn. It sometimes dies upon capture. Basically they are meant to be free.

  • Re:Is it just me? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I thought DVD=Bad anyways? Slashdot said so, and Slashdot is never wrong.
  • Imagine the commercials - Mickey smoking a 'boro and drinking a Bud saying "Whazzup" to the fish in the river.

    Hopefully we get to see this some day! :)

  • well, DVD for me

    Yeah. And probably on a Sony VAIO running windows...

    Hey, you may not have heard of this, but didja know that you can watch DVDs as a Linux user? Yeah, you have to buy a $100 DVD hardware decoder though... Apex makes mine, but Pioneer, Panasonic and JVC make some too. Click here for a starting point [bestbuy.com].

    Oh, and at least in the past, Taco's girlfriend uses Windows, so he's familiar with what Windows looks like; he's just chosen Linux.

    --
    Evan (in a twistedly sarcastic mood today fer some reason).

  • Re:Re release? (Score:3)

    by Cytotoxic ( 245301 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:10PM (#445534)
    I have to conquer on the lame "2001" rip-off of flying through the clouds around V'Ger. I was young enough at the time to buy just about anything, and I was bored to tears. The other Kubrick rip-off was Spock flying his space-suit through the gallery of V'Ger's collected worlds, complete with reflections on the face shield, etc. Way too long and way too boring.

    This was my first experience with a movie that had a great trailer but didn't live up to it's own advertizing. The ad used the scene where the klingons get blasted (amazingly cool effect for the time), so you think there's going to be lot's of fighting with Klingons. Yeah! Perfect movie, right? Nah, they were just teasing... you get to watch about a half an hour of clouds flying by, followed by 15 minutes of Spock in a space suit drifting slowly into the bowels of a big space museum.

  • Collectors box (Score:3)

    by IceFox ( 18179 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:15PM (#445538) Homepage
    What I am curius about and what probably many of you out there also want to know is if there will be a collectors box of all 1-6 dvd movies. (Just like the box set for the VHS) As each movie was released 6..5..4..3..2.. and now 1 I kept putting off buying them simply because they might make a box and I don't want to buy them twice. I know about the next gen box set that is out there, but there will be more next gen. :) So does anyone know if I didn't wait in vain and a box set will be released?

    While we are at it does anyone know if there will be DVD box sets of the seasons of Original and Next gen when they are done being put out?
  • By the way, Star Trek X is in production.

    Oh, is that going to be the one where Captain Picard[tm] is the leader of a squad of crime-fighting mutants?

  • ST:TMP = Star Trek: The Motion Picture

    Thank you. That's the only reason I read the comments on this 'un...

    (Apparently I'm insufficiently nerdy.)

  • They apparently made 9 different endings for Sliver, and the film still sucked.
  • The summary was incomprehensible.
  • Hopefully they'll cut out that big 30 minutes of just flying through V'Ger's cloud. I remember falling asleep during that, waking up and not missing a thing.

  • So is the movie.

    Don't worry.
    --
  • I'm glad to see that Wise is finally getting to release the movie he originally wanted to, but every time a new directors cut is released it just serves as a reminder that they shouldn't exist.

    Don't misunderstand me; I am very much for the director's original version being seen, as opposed to what a studio executive thinks will sell the most tickets. But its almost a crime against art that an executive can cut films down as is.

    In France for example, someone other than the director approving the final cut is unheard of.

    Wouldn't have it been much better if the good cut had been seen on the big screen years ago instead of being released as a DVD? Even better, wouldn't it have been great if we didn't have to buy the DVD AGAIN to get the director's cut?

    Because the directors cut is almost always significantly better (Blade Runner) or only marginally worse (The Exorcist) I see no reason to even put up with the studio's crap.

    I encourage you to do the same thing I have and boycott any new movie that wasn't released the way the director intended it to be (the reason I didn't see Almost Famous). With any luck, by the time the LotR movies come out, we won't have to wait 20 years to see them.

    By the way, is it just me or has the dallas observer just been severely /.ed?

  • Not in the context I used it. You can take creative licence with the English language every once in a while, not everything has to be perfect.

    Instead of correcting grammar how about adding something usefull to the discussion?

  • CG costumes hopefully (Score:4)

    by SimplyCosmic ( 15296 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:17PM (#445567) Homepage
    If the future consists of "boldly going where no one in pajamas with oversized belt buckles has gone before", count me out.

    Of all the things that went wrong with the original motion picture, this is the one change that would give the movie the most credibility.

    Or maybe not.

  • "to them it would be like The Matrix is to us." Actually, to many of us it was like the Star Trek TV episode about Nomad, only the TV show was better.
  • "Jar-jar meets tribbles?"

    Probably more like Jar-jar eats tribbles (sluuuurp!), and if we're lucky, chokes on a fur ball.

  • Pictures of CGI fixes (Score:3)

    by Julius X ( 14690 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @06:47PM (#445575) Homepage
    For those who are interested:

    IGN Filmforce posted some pictures a few months ago of the work being done by Foundation Imaging for the TMP special edition:

    The new CGI Enterprise model [ign.com].

    And another [ign.com] article featuring the CGI fixes done to the scene on planet Vulcan.

    Overall this looks like it will be pretty interesting...I can't wait to see it.



    -Julius X
  • You can't shine shit.
    I beg to differ. In some societies, dung is even today used seal the floors of dwellings. The floor is then polished to a handsome -- yes, wait for it -- shine.

  • Re:Wrong. (longish) (Score:4)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @01:56PM (#445580)
    This is STAR TREK, this is serious Science Fiction,

    That comment reminds me of the old man in the bank in "Raising Arizona":

    "Well which is it, sonny? You want we should freeze or you want we should get down on the ground?"

    A little news flash: Star Trek was never serious science fiction. It was Wagon Train in space.

  • While that is a good idea, a friend of mine has a theory that if a movie has midgets in it, it's an immediate classic. I am getting close to agreeing....
  • Robert Wise directed "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (great '50's flick, if a little slow) and "Andromeda Strain" (an OK book, not a great movie, very slow) ... so is it any wonder STTMP is a bit tedious?

    <nerd type="trekkie">
    In spite of this I kinda like STTMP ... the cloud scenes are cool, bald chicks are cool, and the Jerry Goldsmith score is the best of any Trek film. Nicholas Meyer just does a better job with the characters.
    </nerd>
  • I saw the premier in Washington D.C. Cast and crew were there. I was horribly disappointed as were many of the other filmgoers that day.

    It's not atypical of the film industry to rush when they think they've got some sort of time frame within which they can maximize their profits. In this case, they *@&#!& the pooch.

    Personally, I'm looking forward to the remake, despite the fact that as I learned more about Shatner, the less I can stand the original series and the films with the original crew.

    Give me any of the latest ones any day. At least the casts of these are decent human beings.

    Pete Davis

  • The first Star Trek movie was exactly that: both good and boring. Who cares if it was a rehash of The Changeling episode. Great special effects at the time and enough plot for 60 minutes. However, it did have the world's miniest of mini's on the late Persis Khambata. I hope they dedicate it to her.

    As for the extra footage they added to the movie from the cutting room floor: Oh boy! more passes around the Enterprise.

    Another thing to keep in mind, this movie was the ultimate laserdisk player demo as The Matrix is to DVD. Just make sure you have 2.5 free hours and a lot of caffeine.

    ----------------------

  • How about real special editions of the other films? Several aren't in anamorphic widescreen (yes, I *do* have a 16:9 TV), and the lack of extras is almost laughable compared to nearly every other DVD out there.

  • I always thought the theatrical version made no sense..
  • Everyone knows that only the "even" ST movies were worth seeing. Maybe the untold plan is to go back and fix all the "odd" ST's to make them watchable.

  • Re:The same film? (Score:5)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:43PM (#445612)
    Making movies is an expensive and collaborative project, and few directors ever really get everything their way during filming. When a director is forced to make a compromise and it works, you seldom hear them complain, but when it fails, it offers them a chance to say "see, I told you so".

    I think it is great, if a film was truly mangled, for the director to be able to go back and restore it. Other times, producers force changes for the sake of what they think mass audiences will like. Other times, it is just a matter of minor changes that the director really objected to.

    Some examples:

    "The Natural" - The shlocky, happy ending to this otherwise interesting film was not in the original novel, not in the screenplay, but was the result of audience focus groups not liking the tragic version. It wrecked the movie for me, but the Home Run Knocking The Lights Out scene is, for some reason, often the only clip used when critics discuss what a great movie it was. To the best of my knowledge, no "Director's Cut" of this movie has ever been done.

    "The Abyss" - When Cameron was told to cut the film for time, he was so angry that he chopped out 20 minutes from the CLIMAX of the movie, which not only removed the most expensive footage from the whole film, but wiped out the explanation as to why the aliens were there in the first place. The Director's Cut makes more sense, but the tired "we are troubled by seeing humanity hurt itself" theme, done much better more than half a Century earlier in "The Day The Earth Stood Still", convinced me that ruining this story was really not that big of a tragedy.

    "Brazil" - One of the most famous fueds in Hollywood history, the producers insisted on screwing up the ending, Gilliam refused, the release was stalled, and even when it was finally released properly (to massive critical acclaim), the chopped-up version was still used for a TV broadcast of the movie. The Criterion Collection disks offer both versions, complete with Gilliam's bitching.

    The Empire Strikes Back - Lucas desperately wanted you to see the monster that attacked Luke on Hoth, but the money was not there to make it look good, so he settled for an off-camera beast, which made the blocking of the scene kind of confusing to follow. Of all the "Special Edition" changes made, putting the monster back into the shot was probably the only one that was actually a good idea. (Don't even talk to me about the Jabba & Han scene from Star Wars.)

    "Blade Runner" - Released with overdubs that Ridley Scott did not really want, and with an up-beat ending that was made using left-over helicopter footage from The Shining. Defenders of the theatrical version insist that the overdubs really added to the classic Noir feel, but others insist that the over-explanation of everything wrecked it. The Director's Cut does not really have a alternate ending, but instead chops to cheap white-on-black credits right before the escape scene. Also, a "unicorn dream' (probably using leftover footage from "Legend" is added to cram down your throat the true nature of Ford's character). Personally, I think most people should see the overdubbed version first, but having done so, repeat viewers will probably enjoy the Director's Cut more.

    The Exorcist - Nearly perfect in its original form. The added footage was a marketing ploy, and nothing more. See the original, if you can get your hands on it.

    As for your first question, ST:TMP ended up being released for two reasons... 1) It cost a fortune to make, and they needed to get something back off the investment. and 2) Trekkie hype was becoming a cultural fixture, and "I Grok Spock" t-shirt were becoming more ubiquitous than Greatful Dead bumper stickers. Hard-core fans had been clamouring for a new Star Trek project for years. The pressure to release something, just to throw the trekkies a bone, was overwhelming.

  • Here is a script [startrek.com] of it (with some still shots) from the TrekWeb site, in all it's "glory".

    This appears to be a scene which replaced or extended the sequence where Spock blasts off in his suit to check out the deep interior of V'ger. The "memory wall" was a wall of crystalline structures which contained V'gers memory of certain events, and when touched, caused the person to experience those memories. I, for one, do not think I mourn its loss from the film.

  • Yes, it was a complete rip off 2001. In fact, i just realized that the big picture of whats-her-name (the captain's (not kirk) girlfriend) was just like the starchild at the end...
  • Indeed, after the new cut was screened for the ratings board, the original G rating was upped to a PG.

    Nah...the real reason the rating changed was that the MPAA at the time actually forgot or didn't notice that Kirk and McCoy actually say "Damn" in the film.

    After years of watching it in video, this has caused them to lose much sleep...now they can finally rest easy, knowing that they've restored the rating to fit their convictions : "Damn" is still a dirty word, and too dangerous for a 'G' audience.

  • > well, DVD for me

    Yeah. And probably on a Sony VAIO running windows...

    Cheers,

    --fred
  • There is a description of the scene here [trekweb.com]. Apparently this scene takes place right after Spock leaves the enterprise to go inside V'ger. Kirk follows, and they find this wall of crystals that contain V'gers "memories" or patterns of things V'ger has assimilated or something. Then Spock goes on to explore V'ger and Kirk goes back to the enterprise.

  • Copyright extension trick? (Score:3)

    by JCCyC ( 179760 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:35PM (#445642) Journal
    So just what exactly are we seeing?

    This begs the question, "So why was it released to begin with?"

    This movie was released 22 years ago. Let's say copyright expires in N years. Now, without anyone noticing, you can't find the old version anymore. This version's copyright expires in N+22 years. Ooops. Maybe they're taking precautions against not being able to extend copyright to more than 5,000 years.

    It dawned on me when I bought a copy of Don Quixote in a bookstore in Madrid. It was the original, centuries-old text by Cervantes... but it was annotated by some Spanish academic. Guess what? Yes, (C) 19XX Some Spanish Publishing Company.

  • Re:I have just one request... (Score:3)

    by donglekey ( 124433 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:50PM (#445643) Homepage
    George Lucas certainly did not invent the acronymn CGI nor is he going against the grain by using it. CGI was coined in the late 60's when computer graphics was born. I knew CGI as computer generated imagery before I knew it as common gateway interface. It is a standard acronym that has been around for a long time, so accept it. I don't like George Lucas eighther, but don't think that just because you aren't familiar with something that it hasn't been around for a long time. It is arrogant to make the assumtion that your focus is shared with so many other people.
  • On the subject of which, seen todays Onion? -'Special 'Framers' Cut' Of Constitution To Feature Five Deleted Amendments'
  • Oops. Copied the wrong link, then lost DNS, now they're shutting down the network so I can't recopy the link.

    To get it yourself:
    1) Do a search on Google with the words "Trek Memory Wall"
    2) click on the "cache" link of any of the TrekWeb hits.
    3) select the first link.

    Sorry for the goof!

  • I have to conquer on the lame "2001" rip-off of flying through the clouds around V'Ger.

    Well, since Douglas Trumbull [imdb.com] worked on the special effects for both "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and "2001: A Space Odyessy", I'd say he's entitled to rip off his own ideas (it was he who came up with the process that allowed for the flying-through-a-space-warp shots at the end of "2001").

    BTW, I think you meant "concur", not "conquer".

  • Wrong. (longish) (Score:3)

    by Kasreyn ( 233624 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @01:01PM (#445649) Homepage
    The cast and crew didn't have many problems with ST:TMP. Wise never would agree with Gene on anything, so far as I read, and didn't agree with his vision of the ST universe. We certainly don't need him remaking it now that Gene's gone and there's no one left to make sure it's real Trek. Gene = Real Trek. Wise = try again.

    And I don't see what problem so many people had with the movie. Yeah, it's not Star Wars, there are not space dogfights, B movie dialog, and Princess Leia in a gold lame bikini. So what? This is STAR TREK, this is serious Science Fiction, if you want visceral entertainment just wait a year for George Lucas to offer you another installment.

    I expect it to suck horribly, and it was only in the earlier rerelease version that they finally included some of the most important scenes that were stupidly cut, such as the one where Spock grabs Kirk's hand as he tries to explain this "simple feeling" he has discovered. There is not a single more important scene anywhere in all of Star Trek. This time through they'll probably concentrate on giving half an hour to the destruction of the Klingon ships at the start, in full gory detail.

    And why a CG enterprise? It was fully convincing before, why fiddle with it and risk ruining it / alienating fans? (Trust me, long time ST fans like myself are their only real market) OOOOH, a CG Enterprise! In this day, everyone's imaginations are so stunted that they actually need such devices to help them suspend disbelief for a measly 2 hours, and that's sad. Letting the imagination atrophy is like letting any other part of your mind go to waste.

    My quick take on this:

    ST = stories delving into what makes us human, what friendship means, stories about diversity and unity, fellowship and peace. A hopeful look ahead, an optimistic story looking to the future and predicting peace, not more endless wars. Heh! look at that corny animated phaser. =)

    SW = Luke looks like a puppy dog. Qui-Gonn kicks butt. Obi-Wan kicks more butt. God, we hate Jar-Jar. Damn, Leia/Padme's hot. (others' opinion, not mine - she's a bit young) Oooh! Big flashy explosion. =O And the Emperor is pure Grade A liquid Evil in a can.

    Get it straight.

    -Kasreyn

    PS, the writeup wasn't horrible; this is a discussion for ST fans, we have no need of people who don't know what "ST" is and can't connect "ST" to "Enterprise" in this discussion.

    Please note this is not a flame. =) (I hope)

  • Just give me more. Star Wars has failed me, and I am bitter.
    I want to see something besides the stupid ST: voyager cast, even if 7 of 9 is hot.

    Give me Patrick Stewart or give me death!

  • I don't know, the whole using Roman Numerals can lead to interesting concepts. Star Trek X?

    A two-hour version of the In Living Color sketch "The Wrath of Farrakhan", directed by Spike Lee?
    /.

  • The same film? (Score:4)

    by Wag ( 102501 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @11:59AM (#445655)
    So just what exactly are we seeing?

    This begs the question, "So why was it released to begin with?"

    Sure, it's great that the director gets to go back and see his vision fulfilled 20yrs later, but this marks a disturbing trend in Hollywood films. Not only do we get a different Star Trek:TMP, but we get a new and improved The Exorcist, a brand spanking new Star Wars, where does it end?

  • Except that it's "I am", not "I'm"....

    IIRC, Data's inability to use contractions was a bit shaky at first. He very well may have said "I'm."

    -jon

  • Maybe. It's been so long all I can remember is the eunuch machine. Brrrr.

    --
  • For you non-trekkies:
    Star Trek : The Motionless Picture -- Nice shots, but hardly any action.
    ---
  • Oh, I know about the "Deckard was a replicant" theory, and that is the only plausible thing that makes sense as far as the unicorn goes - but there were other origami things Gaff made. I was just wondering if there was some supposed symbolism to the unicorn - I mean, a unicorn is kind of a symbol of virginity, virtue, and also, extinct mythology, but I can't figure out what that has to do with the story in Blade Runner.
  • I find it ironic that Robert Wise, a second rate talent at best (he is probably best known for the THE SOUND OF MUSIC), sees fit to express his auctorial prerogative to remake STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. Ironic, because Wise presided over the butchering of what might have been one of the best films ever made, Orson Welles's THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. While Welles was in South America at RKO's behest, Wise supervised the deletion of fifty minutes of footage from Welles's rough cut; the cut footage was destroyed, and so we've got nothing left of THE MAGNFICENT AMBERSONS but a fragment.

    I suppose Wise can do what he likes to "his" film--although, with the possible exception of Stanley Kubrick and a small number of other control-freak directors, I don't think any director of a major Hollywood production can claim auctorial privileges over the films they direct. But, to my mind, if he dislikes STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE that much, he should make another film. Using the George Lucas excuse, that the film isn't "finished" and needed to be "completed" by patching in new footage and new special effects, is the coward's way out. Has anyone come up with a convincing defence of Lucas's alterations to the Star Wars films?

    But this sort of revision has become rampant. Old films are subjected to radical "restorations", e.g. the recutting of Orson Welles's TOUCH OF EVIL, the use of still photographs to "restore" GREED and A STAR IS BORN. Mediocre directors, enamored of every second of footage whether it adds to the film or not, assemble "director's cuts" to be sold for premium prices on DVD "special edition" releases. Remember the "director's cut" of Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER? What made that good wasn't what Scott added back, but what he removed--the stupid voice-over, the tacked-on ending. And, thanks to Lucas's precedent, it's possible that these botched-up "restorations" will be distributed to the exclusion of the original films.

    By the way, The STAR TREK picture is not a great movie, or even a very good one, but I'll say this for it--at least the movie is its own creation, and not just a puffed-out episode of the TV series, as was THE WRATH OF KHAN and just about every other subsequent Star Trek movie.

    hyacinthus.
  • I suspect that you have about one more year in which new film releases (or remakes like this) will be available in both VHS and DVD formats; after that point, it will be DVD only for a good majority (75%-90%) of the movies; the only studios that will continue to support VHS will be places like Disney that cater movies to kids. You'll probably be able to still get rental VHS movies, and you'll be able to special order movies on VHS, but after a year, VHS shelves are going to begin to be discontinued.

  • You forgot ... (Score:5)

    by SuperRob ( 31516 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:39PM (#445672) Homepage
    You forgot the hardcore sex scene where Data becomes "a real man" with Tasha Yar. They shot it, but it ended up on the cutting room floor. No reason that couldn't be included on the DVD.

    Now that's a special edition I'd PAY to see.

    "Intriguing, Lieutenant. So this is how humans "make love."

    "Shut up and fuck me already, Data."

  • For every one like you (and me, for that matter), there are three that buy every edition available for their favourite movies. That's why the video industry does as it does.
  • Instead of the movie they originally shot, replace all the video and audio with darkness and silence. They should 'remaster' "Star Trek: Insurrection" in the same way...

    I think that some ST films in the series prove something though, movies that cater to fans, suck.

    Insurrection = sucked ($15 joystick, plot)
    First Contact = sucked (it had the least believable EVA EVER!)
    V = sucked (it should have been good)

    Of course these are just my humble observations as a DVD-addict

    -----
    No the game never ends when your whole world depends

  • It dawned on me when I bought a copy of Don Quixote in a bookstore in Madrid. It was the original, centuries-old text by Cervantes... but it was annotated by some Spanish academic. Guess what? Yes, (C) 19XX Some Spanish Publishing Company.

    I've often wondered about this trick; what happens if you take the book and tear out the new stuff (let's say it's all at the back). What you now hold is the original, unabridged and untainted work. What happens?
    1. Does the copyright only cover the new material,
    2. Does the copyright still cover the old material as well,
    3. Does the copyright actually cover the graphical layout of the pages (ie, font used, margin size, etc) rather than the information contained, or
    4. Does it not matter as the publisher will sue you into the ground regardless?
    The answer has a number of interesting implications, which are obvious and thus left as an exercise to the reader.

  • Re:Special Edition everything (Score:3)

    by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:43PM (#445679)
    You left out Capt. Kirk's visit to the VD clinic on Starbase 52 to clear up his little "tribble" problem.

    --
  • Ah yes, if only the anonymous masses would take some time a use a dictionary...

    http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=l ic ence

    That my friends will be the last comment I make on usage and grammar in this thread. I find it lamentable that so many folks would rather correct, scold, and criticize than take an active role in the discussion.
  • The "for Dummies" version of the article (NOTE - commentary follows)

    ST:TMP was yanked away from him (Wise) by the studio and plopped into theaters in hopes of cashing in on the success of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Paramount wanted the movie in theaters for the holidays, even though the special effects weren't even completed till, literally, the last minute.

    "At the time I made it, I was pretty unhappy," the 86-year-old Wise says now. "There were some unfortunate things going on. We had problems with the script--we were rewriting the script all the way through (...) There were so many things taken out I don't think should have been taken out, so when I had a chance to go back (...), that made me much happier about the film. With all my other films, everything went fine--I got my cut on them and got along with the studios. This is the only one I had this experience with."

    When the idea of restoring ST:TMP was suggested by filmmakers David C. Fein and Michael Matessino two years ago, Wise was at first resistant. The two finally convinced him to approach Paramount about completing his movie, and the studio agreed, but only for home-video release. It would take five months for the filmmakers to, at long last, "find the movie's flow," as Fein says.

    For Wise, it was necessary to step back in time, if only because he needed "closure," a term often used by Nimoy, Fein, and Wise himself. He has retired from filmmaking, and is content that at long last, all 40 of his films look, sound, and feel just as he intended.

    Most of the additions are taken from the additional 12 minutes' worth of footage put back in the film when it aired on ABC in the '80s. Scenes have actually been trimmed (especially those containing repetitive dialogue), and much of what has been added are additional special-effects shots, and a new sound mix that Fein insists makes the film far more "intense."

    What this shows is the tendency of the marketing types who want to tinker with property for their marketing aims.

    An example of this is what happened with the aborted sequel to Babylon 5. TNT wanted to make it into a combo Baywatch/WWF in Space. Fortunately the author (jms) told them where to go. If that is what they want, then let the marketroids write it themselves. Unfortunately, what happens is that nobody watches it, and then they try to rip off the name of a quality product to sell their junk.

    What we have above is an earlier example of that kind of disturbed thinking on the part of Paramount, in my opinion.

    Given the situation, not being released to the theater, but a home release, at least he has his final say in the matter. I hope it turns out good.

  • You have some pretty good points, but when I was asking why the film was released to begin with, I was speaking in generalities.

    I know there was a substantial investment in the film, time and money, but that doesn't justify releasing it if it's crap. Well, maybe in the minds of the investors it does.

    The fans pretty much agreed that the film was crap. I even remember standing in line waiting to see this flick (I was 11) and wondering what the big deal was about when it was over.
  • Blade Runner ;
    Explain to me wtf the unicorn dream had to do with Deckard's true nature. . .

  • TMA:MMS (Score:4)

    by SpanishInquisition ( 127269 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:03PM (#445686) Homepage Journal
    Too Much Acronymes Makes Me Sick

  • I loved the movie. However, it could definately use f/x improvement. Especially where Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the Vger probe (whatever you want to call her) are standing on the top of misshapen hull of the Enterprise. I guess they couldn't afford a bigger set back then.

  • Yawn (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Even by trimming all of the overdone and overblown effects, the story was just LAME -- just rehashes of 'The Immunity Syndrome', 'The Doomsday Machine' and the one about Nomad (forget the title of the episode). Why bother? Didn't they do a 'special edition' that added an extra 25 minutes of boring effects?
  • Or does Taco really seem more bitter/snobby than normal lately? It's apparently going to be a video release (well, DVD for me)
    Gee Taco, Got l33t?

    And I think we all remember his snide comments a few weeks ago when he incredulously asked if any of "us" (whoever "we" are) actually go to the microsoft website.

    Hey Taco, if you need any help climbing off that high horse, gimme a shout!

  • In case you're confused by the horrible writeup, the film they're talking about is the original Star Trek: The Motion Picture. A director's cut version is being released that is supposed to be much closer to the original version of what the cast and crew wanted the film to be.

    I for one look forward to it.

  • I was really little, and seeing that movie made me go out and learn about the Voyager probes, and the little recorded math and culture messages to aliens that are borne in them.

    I can see how they wanted it to be a weighty, high faluting 2001 style space opera, considering the issues they were dealing with.. a group of beings who worshiop a supercomputer as a god! Think about the people seeing this when it came out.. to them it would be like The Matrix is to us.. a film full of mysteries, exploring technologies whose beginnings are contemporary to the film.

  • Special Edition everything (Score:5)

    by Flounder ( 42112 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:05PM (#445697)
    Give Picard hair.

    Give Riker the balls to nail every babe on the show.

    Give Beverly Crusher a hot nude lesbian scene in the holo-deck with Deanna Troi and a tub of strawberry Jello.

    Give Wesley Crusher the screaming agonizing death he so richly deserved.

    Now, put that on DVD and I'll pay for it.

  • Fear... (Score:4)

    by jackal! ( 88105 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:07PM (#445698) Homepage
    Constant revisions must be hurting the video industry. I haven't bought a DVD since Princess Mononoke because I'm constantly afraid that I'll just end up wanting a better, more complete, more features, version of the same film later down the line. Why didn't I wait for the Criterion edition of Monty Python's Life of Brian? Why, gods, why!?!

    J

  • I think that the fact that TMP was the dying twitch of the pilot for Phase II is significant to the quality of the movie. Things must have been kinda confused.
    A couple years ago, in the midst of a hardcore trek phase, I got this book... "Star Trek Phase II." It talks all about the hypothetical series. Some of the concept art is really quite cool... and you can see where a lot of it got absorbed into FC and, significantly, Voyager. Also, they designed some sweet (and I rarely use that word) ships for the show. I understand some of the models showed up in the Wolf 359 "graveyard."
    The book also has some synopses of initial episodes, and a script. Some of these were assimilated (excuse me) for TNG episodes.
    Of course, there's some stuff I'm glad they ended up not using. Some pretty silly ideas. Bu the book is still mighty interesting.

    Titles... "The Return?" "Voyager," maybe, though that would have given it away and would have been kinda ironic these decades later.

    Random idea I just had: Phase II as a new series. Not entirely, of course, given the cirucsmtances, but... they still might be able to do something with it. On the other hand, it seems they've already used the best aspects of Phase II in the series and movies since.

    -J
  • Maybe in a few years we will get "Star Trek V: The Version That Doesn't Suck".
  • "I'm fully functional, and programmed in multiple techniques. . ."
  • To do so would be considered a "spoiler" by most movie fans.

    I will only suggest that it is a clue that complements the oragami figures which Gaff (Edward James Olmos) keeps leaving all over the place.

    If that is not enough to figure it out, you can certainly find out from other sources. (Or three of four helpful trolls who are probably already giving it all away to you as I write this.)

  • Is there such a thing as a "(C) on Mickey"? AFAIK Mickey is a trademark. What there is is a copyright on Steamboat Willie, another copyright on Fantasia etc., which have different expiration dates. If (C) on Snowboat Willie ever expires, Disney is still able to create a new cartoon starring only Mickey and it will still be copyrighted. More, if you create a Mickey cartoon yourself, even with an original plot, you're subject to a trademark (not copyright) lawsuit.

  • I hear this one will finally include preemptive multitasking.

  • not Lucas Style "I meant to do that- greedo really fired first" sorta lame changes.

    Are you saying Lucas isn't a genius to introduce scenes like these:

    • a Jawa takes a pratfall off a silly purple dinosaur
    • strange little robots that look out of place hover over the shoulders of storm troopers
    • Greedo foolishly shoots the wall over Han's head
    • Luke talks to some guy (Biggs) with a silly moustache
    • Han steps on a notorious gangster's tail, but the gangster's bodyguards (including the now not-as-mysterious Boba Fett) ignore him

    Don't even get me started on Empire Strikes Back, where Lucas added footage of Darth Vader stumbling down a shuttle ramp. I guess I'm pretty offtopic now...

  • Often times when a film runs out of money during production, the insurance companies that backed it take ownership, and the decision is no longer in the hands of the creative forces behind it.

    Even if they don't go bankrupt, the producers will still be very eager to get back in the black with whatever they have, no matter what the director wants... and most director's will try to cooperate with the chop-job, so they have at least some control over a film that is about to go out with their name on it.

  • This begs the question, "So why was it released to begin with?"

    First, that's a misuse of the phrase "begs the question", a phrase of art for a fallacy of debate.

    Second, the article answers that question.

  • Eh? (Score:5)

    by glowingspleen ( 180814 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:07PM (#445721) Homepage
    TMP? I'm lost, are we talking about The Manhatten Project? Man I can't wait to get that on DVD. I hear there are all these crazy outtakes where Einstein bets that he can eat anything in the room for cash.

  • Explaination (Score:5)

    by paulywog ( 114255 ) on Thursday February 08, 2001 @12:07PM (#445727)
    Aparently some of us aren't die hard trekies. It took me forever to figure out what this goofy post was about... How about a little help from our dear friendly authors who post these stories!

    ST:TMP = Star Trek: The Motion Picture

    Eureka!

    By the way, Star Trek X is in production. That's "Star Trek Ten", as in the tenth in a series of movies.

    http://www.startrek.com/production/startrekx/art ic les/111700.html

  • Man I wish I had that CGI Enterprise [ign.com] model! I'd make myself all kinds of neato scenes and desktop backgrounds. Some people didn't like the scene where Scotty flies Kirk to the new Enterprise and we get a good look at the redesign, but I loved that. Being able to position the Big E any way I wanted it and see any detail would be totally awesome.

Slashdot Top Deals

How come financial advisors never seem to be as wealthy as they claim they'll make you?

Close