The Shape of the V'Ger Cloud

[Jeyl]

When you're touting something as the director's original vision...damn right, then changing your mind makes that claim a lie.

Oh, for crying out loud. It's just a movie. And for all intents and purposes, it's still the same movie. Kirk is still Kirk, Spock still mind melds with V'Ger, the klingons still get zapped, Decker joins with V'Ger and everything ends on a good note. Wise was Happy with new version, I'm happy with the new version, and a lot of other Trek fans are happy with the new version.

 

[Jeyl]

And on top of that, if you're not happy with the Director's Edition, the original theatrical version will be released on BluRay, in High-Definition in 16x9 Widescreen.

 

[Joker]

It's just a movie.

We're not allowed to talk about it then, I guess?

 

[Jeyl]

It's just a movie.

We're not allowed to talk about it then, I guess?

Heck no! Talk about what ever you want. I'd rather be in a forum with people who think about other's opinions than being in one where everyone agrees with you. Everyone who has posted against me obviously has a lot of respect towards the material for ST:TMP and I think that's great. I just like what we got with the Director's Edition.

Think about it. The very idea that Robert Wise came back and did a Director's Cut of the movie was a complete surprise to me. It was also the first Trek DVD to actually have features like a Commentary Track, documentaries, deleted scenes, TV Spots and the Text commentary. This was like a dream come true since I liked the film more than many Star Trek fans.

And I liked the work that was done on the Director's Edition very much. The new sound mix made things a lot less dull, the added moments from the Special Longer edition were nicely incorporated and the trims were appropriate.

It may not be the version that it could have been if they had more control and time, but even Richard Donner said that there is no way that Superman II can be 100% the way he wanted it to be if he stayed in the director's chair. But we got something out of it, and that is a good thing.

 

[trevanian]

But we got something out of it, and that is a good thing.

Maybe that is where we differ most strongly. We are getting what is supposed to be a new STAR TREK movie in a few weeks too, but I'd be happier doing without altogether considering how far afield they seem to have gone. I've only got the FIREFLY eps that exist, and that ain't much, but I love them all. Would I trade that for two more seasons, but two seasons that were done by, say, Bruckheimer's team of creative typists and seemingly-blind cinematographers? Not a chance.

By way of example, even though I am a huge 007 devotee, I'd happily have had a Bond film moratorium for all of the 70s through to the end of the Roger Moore era. Yeah, I would have missed some nice Ken Adam designs and Derek Meddings miniatures, but those seem pretty minor against the crushing disappointment that most Bonds of that era brought up for me.

Getting a fixed TMP is a great idea ... but getting 10% (or 25%) of what you hoped for is hardly worth the effort of rebuying and plowing through erroneous commentaries and spin-controlled documentaries and all the rest.

 

[Jeyl]

Maybe that is where we differ most strongly. We are getting what is supposed to be a new STAR TREK movie in a few weeks too, but I'd be happier doing without altogether considering how far afield they seem to have gone.

Oh, you mean how they might actually make a good movie that non-Star Trek fans can enjoy? I seem to remember the same thing happening when they brought in a new director to who work on a Star Trek movie who wasn't a fan of the series. His approach wasn't met with praise by Roddenberry, but the end result couldn't have been more positive. Star Trek II's director Nicholas Meyer. Are you telling me that you want nothing to do with the new Star Trek movie because they're doing things differently?

Getting a fixed TMP is a great idea ... but getting 10% (or 25%) of what you hoped for is hardly worth the effort of rebuying and plowing through erroneous commentaries and spin-controlled documentaries and all the rest.

So what in sam-manners heck did Robert Wise do this for?

 

[RyanKCR]

And on top of that, if you're not happy with the Director's Edition, the original theatrical version will be released on BluRay, in High-Definition in 16x9 Widescreen.

I want the SLV, my tapes of it are getting really really bad.
That is the version I want.

 

[trevanian]

Maybe that is where we differ most strongly. We are getting what is supposed to be a new STAR TREK movie in a few weeks too, but I'd be happier doing without altogether considering how far afield they seem to have gone.

Oh, you mean how they might actually make a good movie that non-Star Trek fans can enjoy? I seem to remember the same thing happening when they brought in a new director to who work on a Star Trek movie who wasn't a fan of the series. His approach wasn't met with praise by Roddenberry, but the end result couldn't have been more positive. Star Trek II's director Nicholas Meyer. Are you telling me that you want nothing to do with the new Star Trek movie because they're doing things differently?

Getting a fixed TMP is a great idea ... but getting 10% (or 25%) of what you hoped for is hardly worth the effort of rebuying and plowing through erroneous commentaries and spin-controlled documentaries and all the rest.

So what in sam-manners heck did Robert Wise do this for?

Presumably this band-aid version salved his memories.

As for the new movie ... nothing looks or sounds right. From all I had read, I figured the McCoy casting might work, but the scene I saw today made DiscoBones entrance from TMP look like gold by comparison, it was just painful. Visually this thing is just grotesque (and considering how much I detest a lot of the visual stuff in TMP, using an adjective like grotesque should prove how much more I dislike the look of the Abrams) to my eyes, and really, except for some shots of the Kelvin and the music on the official site, NOTHING has appealed to me about this.

Plus it is a little depressing, given how many bucks FAST & FURIOUS piled up this weekend, to think that all those lunkheads will probably suck this up like cinammon mocha slurpees and generate more o' the same. Yeah, to reaffirm for you ... I'd be fine going a decade or more w/ no TREK rather than this kind of stuff.

 

[trevanian]

And on top of that, if you're not happy with the Director's Edition, the original theatrical version will be released on BluRay, in High-Definition in 16x9 Widescreen.

I want the SLV, my tapes of it are getting really really bad.
That is the version I want.

We get that on laserdisc at GoodWill pretty often.

 

[Jeyl]

As for the new movie ... nothing looks or sounds right.

Well, Leonard Nimoy said no to Generations, and yes to this. I suppose that's something going for it.

 

[trevanian]

As for the new movie ... nothing looks or sounds right.

Well, Leonard Nimoy said no to Generations, and yes to this. I suppose that's something going for it.

I'm no fan of him as a director (just between the destruction of the Saavik character and the horrible staging of David's death -- let alone the 'science' and the ILM misdesigning or the plotting and the give-Bill-his-moment BS -- I have no respect for ANY of the creative agencies at work in SFS), so Nimoy turning down directing GEN in addition to decling to reprise Spock in GEN didn't phase me at all (I think Carson did a great job considering the Alien3-like pressures on him) ...

As for Nimoy turning down acting in the film, that had to do with the fact he had no significant role, which is a load different from this.

If quality were a factor, he'd've turned down that horrible TNG ep he did to promote TUC.

I think he likes the idea of being savior of the franchise, or at the very least certainly the protector of the franchise, going by what he did in that KimCattrallNudepicsInCapt'sChair story.

But this is getting pretty far afield of the v'ger cloud, y'know?

 

[RyanKCR]

And on top of that, if you're not happy with the Director's Edition, the original theatrical version will be released on BluRay, in High-Definition in 16x9 Widescreen.

I want the SLV, my tapes of it are getting really really bad.
That is the version I want.

We get that on laserdisc at GoodWill pretty often.

I can't get that. I don't have such a player.

I did buy another copy off Ebay that was unopened but it was still not the greatest quality and I have no way of preserving it.

 

[Psion]

As for the new movie ... nothing looks or sounds right.

Well, Leonard Nimoy said no to Generations, and yes to this. I suppose that's something going for it.

I suspect (hope? pray?) this was based on an excellent script as opposed to the overwrought art direction that is so damned distracting in all these clips we're seeing. Personally, I was a lot more optimistic about this movie before the publicity department started cranking out stills in November. The Enterprise is ugly, the bridge is way too busy and bright, the corridors look like too much money was spent on them, but none of that speaks to the script and the acting. Those two ingredients are ultimately the most important. Deliver a good script and performances, and I'll forgive the Revlon boutique for a command center.

 

[trevanian]

PSION, while I think history will remember this a lot less favorably than TMP (mainly cuz one aspired to something more and failed, rather than going lowest common denominator), the one thing I'll probably always associate BOTH of these efforts with is in the design arena.

I left TMP thinking, how do they read clipboard reports when most of the light comes from the floor? and on this new one, I can't help thinking, 'how do these guys even think with all these bulbs in their face?'

They are both environments I find distinctly unpleasant (The Lockheed cafeteria in 79 and the Revlon aisle at Target in 09), and wholly non-evocative of TOS.

 

[Data Holmes]

And on top of that, if you're not happy with the Director's Edition, the original theatrical version will be released on BluRay, in High-Definition in 16x9 Widescreen.

I want the SLV, my tapes of it are getting really really bad.
That is the version I want.

Agreed. I would love to see them just put out one TMP set with all three cuts on it and be done with it.

 

[Jeyl]

I left TMP thinking, how do they read clipboard reports when most of the light comes from the floor? and on this new one, I can't help thinking, 'how do these guys even think with all these bulbs in their face?

The set uses floor lights. This is a disaster! Kind of like how everyone hated Wrath of Khan for being too red, or re-using TMP space footage. Not since the fan made cake of TOS bridge that put Scotty in the navigation station has there ever been such a poor portrayal of Star Trek environments.

 

[CoveTom]

Oh, you mean how they might actually make a good movie that non-Star Trek fans can enjoy?

I don't know if that's what others mean, but I know that's not what I mean when I am concerned about the direction of the new film. I'm concerned not that they're trying to appeal to non-Star Trek fans or that they don't want folks to have to know 40+ years of backstory to enjoy the film.

I'm concerned that it appears, from the admittedly small pieces of the film I've seen thus far, that they're going for the "lowest common denominator" approach to filmmaking; the approach that feels that you can't appeal to a mass audience with thought-provoking storylines but instead must fill every scene with non-stop action, quick cuts, lots of 'splosins, at least a dash of sex, and alot of eye candy.

Which I've always thought was an interesting belief on the part of Hollywood studios since, if you look at the top-grossing films of all time, that formula ain't it.

I seem to remember the same thing happening when they brought in a new director to who work on a Star Trek movie who wasn't a fan of the series. His approach wasn't met with praise by Roddenberry, but the end result couldn't have been more positive.

That's true, but Meyer was a different animal altogether. He was an intellectual who was first and foremost concerned with telling a compelling story. Yes, he had a healthy lack of respect for the traditions of Star Trek and was willing to change things to suit his vision. And that might be a similarity. But as a filmmaker, he was interested in telling a good story first and showing big eye-candy action sequences second. He definitely wasn't interest in appealing to the lowest common denominator.

And perhaps we can take a lesson from his experience that should be applied today: He had to make a film on a shoestring budget, told using only a few sets, without a ton of splashy effects shots. And yet he managed to put together what is stilll widely regarded as the best of the Trek films.

It's my opinion, in fact, that Trek will only produce a great film again when they actually slash the film budget and force the director to tell a good, solid story that can stand on its own without the need for 10 effects houses churning out miles of CGI footage to make it look good.

So what in sam-manners heck did Robert Wise do this for?

None of us know for sure. But I suspect that he was offered the opportunity to re-visit TMP and jumped at the chance, given that it was one of the only major disappointments of his directorial career and he'd always wanted the chance to "fix" it. But that doesn't mean that the end product was good or that it really reflected what he would have wanted, had he been given the time, money, and people to do it right.

 

[Praetor]

How weird that this went from V'Ger and TMP to XI in three pages.

I always assumed that the tactical plot of the cloud on the viewscreen was an accurate representation of the boundaries of the cloud's shape, and that a 'sink' in these boundaries formed the concave 'entry' where the Klingon ships were destroyed and where the Enterprise entered. I always thought that what we saw in distance shots was largely a 'fog' that surrounded the boundary clouds.

My first exposure to TMP was the SLV on VHS, so while that had its incomplete sequences, I feel like anything less is lacking. I was always a little bored with it because of the pacing, but the movie tries to tell a good story on a big scale and should be admired for it.

I initially quite liked the Director's Edition because it felt like they tried to 'complete' the film, but as others have alluded to, it does feel like a compromise between what they originally intended to make in the 70s and what they could accomplish now with what they had. It doesn't quite feel complete, but I think there are some good changes (the inclusion of Vulcan's orange sky and deletion of the moon, cutting of some of the V'Ger flight), some bad changes (awkward cuts of the rec deck scene and a few others, the red alert klaxons... wtf?) and some changes that don't really affect my perception of the film much (the inclusion of the TOS shuttle in the hangar, a few replaced effects shots)

I think my 'ideal' TMP disc would include the theatrical cut, an effects-completed version of the SLV without any 'revisionism,' and the Director's Cut.

FWIW, I agree with this assessment:

It's my opinion, in fact, that Trek will only produce a great film again when they actually slash the film budget and force the director to tell a good, solid story that can stand on its own without the need for 10 effects houses churning out miles of CGI footage to make it look good.

I don't think this will preclude XI from being a good movie, and maybe Trek-starved fandom will elevate the new movie to at least temporary greatness because it's new Trek, but I generally feel like there is a lot about the new movie that suggests overthinking the plumbing.

It's weird to think that discussions of that movie might one day take place in this part of the board.

 

[RyanKCR]

I'm concerned that it appears, from the admittedly small pieces of the film I've seen thus far, that they're going for the "lowest common denominator" approach to filmmaking; the approach that feels that you can't appeal to a mass audience with thought-provoking storylines but instead must fill every scene with non-stop action, quick cuts, lots of 'splosins, at least a dash of sex, and alot of eye candy.

Which I've always thought was an interesting belief on the part of Hollywood studios since, if you look at the top-grossing films of all time, that formula ain't it.

That's not necessarly true. Look at TMP. It is a very thought provoking film but it is not considered one of the best. Look at TWOK. It is first and foremost an action flick.

It's the same argument I have with my friends on why there is no real genre shows on tv. Most genre shows are setup as backgrounds for the generic stories. For example, ER is a medical drama, right? Not really. It's a drama about people who work in an ER. I had my hopes up one episde years ago. It was adverstised as a kid from a third world country being brought in for surgery for his tetralogy of Fallot, something of which I have. But when the episode aired it only took about 5 minutes of the entire episode to tell that story. The show is more soap opera then medical drama. They did better a few weeks ago when they had the doctors volunter for the congenital heart camp. It gave a small look at how the kids cope with such a condition.

TNG suffered the same thing. It was a soap opera that just happened to take place in space. There were a few good episodes like Frame of Mind and Timescape. But mostly the stories did not need a sci-fi background to tell the story.

Back to TMP, it made us through sci-fi examine how we look at ourselves and what we consider important in life by seeing a new life emerge. TWOK is a submarine warfare store about revenge. Don't need sci-fi to tell that one.

 

[count biggles]

I guess we have different preferences, because I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

At heart, I'm not really a fan of science fiction. There's shows and movies from the genre that I like (Trek, Doctor Who, Firefly, Star Wars, 2001/2010), but it's more because I connect with the characters, and find something interesting in the stories being told — and specifically, how those stories speak to the human condition, not because they depicted a parallel universe inhabited by energy beings or some airy-fairy thing. If I want realism, I'll watch a documentary.