|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 28, 2012 19:35:01 GMT -5
I had been scouring the Internet for weeks trying to get my hands on a copy of the theatrical release of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" at a reasonable price. Selling at Amazon for just $9.99 some months back, I missed that window and decided to hold off on buying one. Then lo and behold the price dramatically increases, fluctuating between $27 and $30. Well, I wasn't buying that movie for that much, but one thing had become clear: the inventory had significantly decreased in supply. Nevertheless, I persevered and periodically would check back on the title every week or so. Finally last week I got my chance and got it at an 'acceptable' price. It arrived yesterday, and I had to go with the "Region Free" version that had been released in the UK. To my surprise, the movie had never been released as a single feature here in the United States on Blu-ray. It's only available in a boxed set with the other original cast movies. (Scroll down to the Second Cover on the Page --that's the release that I have, and notice the grayed out numeral "I" in the title, which is how Amazon lists the product interestingly enough)[/i] I checked back with Amazon yesterday and found that not only was the price up to nearly thirty bucks again, but there was a warning in red at the bottom of the Page informing customers that there were only eight copies left. So I was right --the dramatic price increase was of course due to a drastic decrease in available supply. I haven't popped it in to check it out yet, but it's a little weird having the UK release of the movie because not only are their Blu-ray cases a little different, along with their advisories, which look equally weird (meaning theatrical ratings and such) on the cover, but I'm fortunate to have gotten one. The studio will probably release the movie here on Blu-ray as a single feature at some point, but who knows when that will be, or even if it will happen. And yes, for those of you who may recall, I'm annoyed that I can't get The Director's Cut on Blu-ray because the studio didn't retain the newer special effects put together for that release in their archives. Nevertheless, I think most of those effects would hold up pretty well on Blu-ray anyway, having watched the DVD on an HD television. However, I felt I had to get a copy of the remastered theatrical release because The Director's Cut may never make it to Blu-ray thanks to the studio's blunder. And if you want a copy of the "Region Free" theatrical release on Blu-ray for your library, not only is time running out, but it'll cost you. And most Internet searches for the movie will not only not yield a better purchasing price, it'll lead you right back to Amazon through one seller or another. Trust me, I know--I've looked. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 28, 2012 21:18:19 GMT -5
It's amazing the prices they get for Star Trek stuff. I would really enjoy getting the remastered blu ray episodes. But there is no way I'm paying $60-$80 a season. It's shameful.
Star Trek DVDs are just too damn highly priced.
The only Trek on blu ray I have is the Abrams movie. I see no real reason to buy stuff I already have on the new format. I would make an exception for the episodes because of the new effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Mar 28, 2012 21:44:17 GMT -5
Hey, nice to see you drop by over here.
It's always annoying when you have to scour the internet for something that's fast disappearing. I found this CD that I wanted to get a friend for hanukkah, and it was sort of out of print, or hard to find anyway. I finally had to order one from Switzerland.
It's worse when there are limited copies and you just miss the window. There's a lot of stuff I would have in my collection if it weren't for that.
Thanks for the heads-up. Sadly I've been unable to buy any new DVDs in awhile.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 28, 2012 21:44:32 GMT -5
The only Trek on blu ray I have is the Abrams movie. I see no real reason to buy stuff I already have on the new format. I would make an exception for the episodes because of the new effects. I have "The Wrath of Khan", "The Voyage Home", and "The Undiscovered Country" all on Blu-ray --bought them at Best Buy when they were all on sale for $9.99 each as you may recall. Now I have the theatrical version of TMP on Blu-ray also, so I'm still missing "The Search for Spock" and "The Final Frontier". The reason TMP on Blu-ray is much more expensive is now is, as I said, because those discs are now in short supply, so the price increased substantially as a result. As for the original series --I have both the original release on DVD and the remastered release with the new FX work also on DVD. I can get by with those, however, if I'm going to watch them on my HDTV I have to either watch them in Normal, which gives the entire picture, but boxed in on the monitor. If I Zoom the view I still get an excellent quality picture, but I lose some of the image...not much, but enough for it to annoy me a little. If I had the remastered version on Blu-ray, I don't think I would be making that sacrifice by Zooming in on the picture, which it's a little hard not to do when you're watching it in standard view, boxed in on your monitor. I don't think I'll buy them on Blu-ray though because I already have all three seasons twice over, so it strikes me as overkill were I to buy them on Blu-ray too. And as you say, they're too damn expensive to boot, which is another disincentive to bother. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 28, 2012 21:51:28 GMT -5
Thanks for the heads-up. Sadly I've been unable to buy any new DVDs in awhile. -TK Well, I'm out of work again as you know, so I'm watching every little thing I do right now in terms of spending. However, since I figured out what was going on with the Blu-ray of TMP, and I finally saw it for a price I was willing to spend, and given that it wasn't a big purchase, I figured I better go for it while I still had the chance. Past that point the cost was going to be too high again for me to want to make the purchase. You can still get it for a reasonable price though if you don't mind going for a used copy, but I'm wary of that, especially when it comes to movies on disc. You may get a great copy, but you have to look at the seller's satisfaction rating by the customers that have bought from and rated that business. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 29, 2012 6:19:08 GMT -5
That's the thing--it makes no sense for me to buy TWOK, TSFS and TUC again. I have them. The extra quality is not that noticeable, especially since my PS3 does an enhancement of its own. Even at $9.99, I don't see the need at this time.
With TMP, I would think that they will re-release it eventually. For me, I just don't really like the movie. It bores me to tears. I don't know if I could ever sit through it in one sitting.
I have a DVD of it, and pretty much let it collect dust.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 29, 2012 18:25:34 GMT -5
That's the thing--it makes no sense for me to buy TWOK, TSFS and TUC again. I have them. The extra quality is not that noticeable, especially since my PS3 does an enhancement of its own. Even at $9.99, I don't see the need at this time. You may not even be able to get them at that price anymore. But I understand your argument. I have an itch to collect movies that goes back decades actually. I'm only now making an effort to keep that urge in check. I have so many versions of the first "Star Wars" trilogy it's not even funny. I don't have them on Blu-ray however, and may make no effort to get them in that format, or if I do, I won't get the most recently Blu-ray release, but rather the one before it since Lucas couldn't resist his urge to tinker with the movies again with this latest release, and I don't care to see those movies ruined [again] because of his compulsion. I may not even get ST: III and ST: V on Blu-ray since I already have those on DVD. I'll ponder that in the months and perhaps even years ahead. I have an XBOX 360, not a PS3, but I wonder if it can also enhance standard DVDs the way your PS3 can. With TMP, I would think that they will re-release it eventually. For me, I just don't really like the movie. It bores me to tears. I don't know if I could ever sit through it in one sitting. I have a DVD of it, and pretty much let it collect dust. Yeah, I can certainly understand that sentiment since I too feel the same way about it. You may recall me and Bob knocking heads over the movie some months back before the old AOL boards got pulled when we were discussing the newer special effects created for the Director's Cut and whether that version could be released on Blu-ray. Bob has an affinity for that movie for some strange reason which is probably the result of personal nostalgia on his part, but I really don't like the movie either. However, it came to my attention while suffering through the Director's Cut of TMP several months ago that my copy has certain unmistakable flaws that I couldn't avoid noticing while watching it on my HDTV. I thought it was a perfect copy, but there was snow and grain showing up, and at one point there was also a bad image disruption. So I had to make a decision on what to do, and even though I dislike the theatrical cut of the movie more than the Director's Cut, it's been remastered, and I literally haven't seen it in decades, so I decided to go for it. I remember saying at one point on the old boards though that I'd rather watch "Generations" than TMP, and believe me, I'm no fan of the way they killed off Kirk there either, but overall it's a hell of a lot easier to sit through compared to TMP. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Mar 29, 2012 19:16:19 GMT -5
I like TMP, but it is definitely too slow for big chunks. It's a great Saturday nap time movie though. Pop it in, fall asleep, then wake up when it gets good again in an hour.
It's also curious to me that the extended TV version of the movie is not available on disc, since for awhile it was the only version (or most easy to find version) on VHS, and the version that always aired on TV. Sure there are continuity issues from footage that shouldn't have been there, but still.
The good thing about DVD over VHS now though is that it's simpler to just jump over the boring parts.
And I agree, Generations is easier to sit through, though I still find TMP a little more satisfying. (just a little)
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 29, 2012 19:55:41 GMT -5
The only version of Generations I would even consider watching is a custom made version a friend made for me that edits both Kirk deaths in such a way that Kirk doesn't die. It adds a full star to the movie.
Someone else did a version of just the end where Kirk is spared as well. Somewhat better, though not as complete as the one I have.
I absolutely refuse to watch Generations as it actually is.
TMP is just a bad movie to me--not one I am angry at.
I don't think I paid too much attention to that debate with April because I really don't like TMP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Mar 30, 2012 11:20:38 GMT -5
Aha! If I had said any of these things, I bet I would have been accused of being a ... dang, I forget the term ... something about a modern Trek fan -- the label means I'm not a fan of TOS -- which is not true at all. Whatever that term was, I got called that a lot at AOL.
Btw, I *am* mad at TMP. All that time spent looking at the ship -- which I have come to accept because it means so much to you guys to get a good look at the ship on the big screen -- but no time for one reunion scene with the crew. After waiting TEN YEARS, come on! One lousy reunion scene. <sigh>
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 30, 2012 12:27:06 GMT -5
Being a TOS fan doesn't mean you have to love everything about TOS.
Of the TOS films, I would rank TMP either 5th or 6th. It's hard for me to decide if that or Trek V was worse. It would be hard to watch a marathon because they both have severe flaws.
I still would rank it ahead of Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis.
What was interesting about TMP is that only 3 years had passed between the series and TMP.
TWOK had to make up the difference, so a LOT of time passed between TMP and TWOK.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 30, 2012 12:49:22 GMT -5
That is complete and utter nonsense. TMP has been reviled by most Trek fans since it hit screens back in late 1979 because it was so boring and so bad, and because it almost sank the franchise. Even the original series has its turkeys, with a large contingent of the fan base acknowledging its third season as being its worst for that very reason. And that if anything illustrates the difference between classic Trek fans and the more ardent fans of "modern Trek", who thought everything done in the later series' was just hunky-dory, no matter how bad it was/is in actuality.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 30, 2012 13:14:37 GMT -5
I think that's also why TWOK was so much better than TMP, and why TUC was better than TFF.
The fans got so outraged that the writers got in gear and made it better. If you show that you are content with bad quality, you never improve. I think that's a big part of what happened with MT. It was so bad, but not enough people complained, or perhaps there were enough, but they were ignored.
Either way, it never got its act in gear.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 31, 2012 1:03:28 GMT -5
TMP is just a bad movie to me--not one I am angry at. I wouldn't say I'm angry at it, only that it's a disappointment, and was a rather big disappointment back in 1979 when it was released, even though I found things to like about it. Back then I would have rated it as **1/2 stars out of **** and still pretty much feel that way, although perhaps I'd knock off a half a star now because the movie's ending is also pretty weak. The only anger I've ever had about the film was due to the extent to which it almost permanently killed the franchise, and of course the fact that it wasn't a better, more enjoyable movie. My father actually fell asleep in the theater watching it, which didn't please me one bit back in those days, although it is kind of funny. I just watched the first 21 minutes of the UK Blu-ray edition and shut it due to how late it is right now. I stopped it as soon as Kirk and Scotty step onto the Enterprise from the shuttle, and I have to say that the transfer is incredible. I did the right thing by buying it. The special effects look fantastic, and I'm not just saying that --they really do. My DVD copy of the Director's Cut really doesn't hold a candle to it, and that's no exaggeration. I'm glad I bought it. I'll finish watching it over the weekend, perhaps even in more than one sitting. When I watched the Director's Cut several months ago I watched it in two sittings, which is a good way to watch this movie. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 1, 2012 12:17:25 GMT -5
I watched the rest of the theatrical cut of TMP last night on Blu-ray, and to my surprise I actually enjoyed it. In fact, I watched the rest of it straight through without trying to break it into two separate viewings as I mentioned yesterday.
The special effects work holds up very well even in contrast to today's more advanced CGI methods, although I'm certain that they used CGI to clean up imperfections/artifacts present on the print as a result of the old optical effects techniques still being used in the 70s when they made this picture.
Quality-wise the movie looked great, although I noticed two imperfections that weren't addressed when they remastered this movie for this Blu-ray edition. 1) When the Enterprise is first pulling out of dry-dock, in one shot head-on that focuses on the front of the ship there were three or four black blotches of what looked like dirt on the camera lens, and they didn't bother to address this by removing it before transferring the film to disc. 2) Also, approaching the end of the picture as the Enterprise is moving through the V'Ger cloud, a portion of the right side of the interior wall jumps out of position for a quick moment before snapping back into place. The first shot with the Enterprise coming out of dry-dock is more noticeable and disruptive than is the second, but both pass very quickly in a second or less. What was bothersome about this however is that it could have been dealt with by the studio before committing the film to Blu-ray, so either the studio didn't bother to notice it until it was too late for them to do anything about it, or they knew it was there and felt it wasn't worth the time or effort on their part to fix. I should also point out that in both of these transfer imperfections that I do not believe that they are somehow isolated to just my copy. I'd have to ask other people who have this edition of the film of course, but the first visual imperfection appeared to have come from the master print itself, although I can't more definitively rule out that the second imperfection where the ship is moving through the V'Ger cloud was limited to just my copy rather than all that were produced. It could have been a glitch isolated to just my copy from during the transfer process for all I know, but I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't the case.
This film didn't strike me as bad as I remembered it to be honest, and while I'm still less than thrilled with it overall for various reasons, I was able to enjoy it to the extent that I did this time around because it was the first time I was able to look at the special effects sequences, some of which are long, in high definition. And to tell you the truth, if it is this version of the movie that remains the most prominent from this point on, with the Director's Cut never making it to Blu-ray, I wouldn't really mind after all. In some ways it is better than the Director's Cut because it is more complete in contrast.
If you do have an HDTV, I would recommend buying it and looking at it if you're a Trek fan. You may actually enjoy it more than you think the way I did.
Finally, and to my surprise, when I finished looking at it very late last night, I pulled up this "Region Free" Blu-ray edition on Amazon again to see what it was selling for presently, which was twenty-five dollars and change. What struck me as more interesting though is that as mentioned previously here in this thread, when I checked it just a few days ago Amazon stated that there were just eight copies left for sale. Well, last night it was down to just one, so strangely enough, and even after all these years, with this movie having been released 33 years ago, people are still buying it. To me, that's rather incredible. And if my initial post here and in the other Forum had anything to do with that, then cool and so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 6, 2012 6:25:06 GMT -5
I have a DVD copy of it, and my PS3 enhances the DVD. I doubt I would ever spend money on this movie again.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 6, 2012 16:50:19 GMT -5
I have a DVD copy of it, and my PS3 enhances the DVD. I doubt I would ever spend money on this movie again. While I can't speak to the extent to which your PS3 enhances standard DVDs for you, I can say that there's no question that Blu-ray discs are superior to DVDs. There ain't no two ways about it. Beyond that however, I have to ask what version of the movie you have on DVD, since the theatrical cut was never released in that format, only the Director's Cut was, so you would have to have that version of the movie therefore. As I told you though, there were problems with my Director's Cut DVD, so I had to make a decision about what to do: A) wait for them to redo the effects in that version of the movie so they could release it on Blu-ray also (I'm still of the belief that they could release those standard resolution FX sequences from the DVD on Blu-ray as is, while just tweaking them a bit using standard filtering techniques where called for). However, since that version may never get released on Blu-ray, or who knows when it would happen if it does, that wasn't a very practical solution; B) Say the hell with it and live with the flawed copy that I have; OR C) Buy the theatrical cut on Blu-ray, which was what I opted to do - and the movie looks great in that format. It also holds together better and more seamlessly than I had remembered. There are still problems with the script and story, just no getting around that, and in some places, particularly early in the film, the acting is very wooden, especially by the unknown actors that had been cast in the movie. The Epsilon 9 station and its crew stands out in that regard, and even the voice that radios back from StarFleet that what [they] got back didn't live long fortunately after Cmdr Sonak and the other intended crew member die in the transporter accident was a very poor recitation of that mere single line of dialogue. Then there's the scene where Shatner as Kirk tells McCoy that he needs him, badly --that was overdone. But overall, while slow, the film is not entirely horrible. One can find things to like in it also, which is why I think two-and-a-half out of four stars is a fair rating for the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 8, 2012 16:23:00 GMT -5
I agree that a blu ray will pretty much always be better than an enhanced DVD, but the differences aren't SO high that it's worth rebuying, for the most part.
I have the Director's Edition.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 9, 2012 1:14:21 GMT -5
I agree that a blu ray will pretty much always be better than an enhanced DVD, but the differences aren't SO high that it's worth rebuying, for the most part.
I guess I shouldn't care, since they weren't among the better original cast Trek films, but not having ST III on Blu-ray irks me more than ST V, since it was the better of those two movies. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 9, 2012 6:33:11 GMT -5
Star Trek III to me is the most underrated Trek movie. I think people judge it poorly because it's an odd numbered movie.
But it was better than any of the TNG films, and the Abrams movie. I rank it either 3rd or 4th overall, depending on how I feel about TUC at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 26, 2012 18:50:21 GMT -5
What was interesting about TMP is that only 3 years had passed between the series and TMP.
I remember disagreeing with you about this YEARS AGO, Marc, when this topic first came up on the old R&S board, saying that regardless of how much time is specifically mentioned in the movie, that it still didn't make definitively clear just how much time had passed from series to film. This is a view that was embraced somewhat by the Okudas, although I wasn't aware of that until now finally.
And by the way, I inadvertently loused up and lost my previous post to this thread, which bugs me. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Apr 26, 2012 22:05:28 GMT -5
Yeah, it's muddy. The Okudas were a little too free with the gap there I think, but it's definitely possible that a little more than 3 years had passed. If we assume that we only saw 3 years of the 5 year mission (or maybe 4 and a half including TAS), that's 3 years plus. We know that Kirk has had a desk job as admiral for 3 years. We know that he spent "5 years out there, dealing with unknowns like this." But it's possible that he had a little down time or was assigned to a starbase or something briefly before being promoted. We don't know, and I'm sure it's closer to 3 years than not, but it's somewhat unclear from film dialogue.
Of course, if it is only 3 years, then that means even more time has passed before TWOK, which is "fifteen years" after "Space Seed". Given a 5 year mission, plus 3 years, then there's another 7 or 8 years unaccounted for before TWOK.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 26, 2012 23:21:43 GMT -5
I think it's fair to say that at least a good five years had passed between where TOS left of and TMP picked up.
If you count TAS as the last two years of the first five-year mission, whether you consider the animated series canon or not (I prefer to look at TAS as summaries of events rather than anything more substantive), it's a given that more occurred after where TOS prematurely left off due to early cancellation.
Then you throw in about three years to account for the refit of the Enterprise, Kirk being promoted to Admiral and his not logging in a single star hour in two and a half years, as indicated by the dialogue in TMP, and you come up with the movie taking place at least five years after where the series had left off.
But it is tricky, because as I had argued with CRAM quite a number of years ago, just because roughly three years is accounted for in TMP following the first five-year mission, that doesn't in and of itself mean that there wasn't more time that wasn't accounted for in there because the dialogue in the movie wasn't quite specific enough. It provided a general idea at best, and not necessarily one that could be deemed to be written in stone.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 27, 2012 7:39:35 GMT -5
There is definitely a lot of time between TMP and TWOK. Enough time for a second 5 year mission.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 27, 2012 11:39:59 GMT -5
There is definitely a lot of time between TMP and TWOK. Enough time for a second 5 year mission. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 16, 2012 13:31:57 GMT -5
Figures --now they do this ...consider when I completed my original cast movies collection, which is why I decided to put this Ad in this thread. That and the fact that one of you might decide to order these for yourself.
Over at Amazon:Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection (Star Trek I, II, III, IV, V, VI + The Captain's Summit Bonus Disc) [Blu-ray] (2009)www.amazon.com/gp/product/ref=pe_218170_24828930_pe_hero/?ASIN=B001TH16DI
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 16, 2012 13:59:35 GMT -5
That's actually a reasonably priced Star Trek item.
Impressive. I won't be re-buying them, but at least it's fairly priced.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 21, 2013 19:15:36 GMT -5
Over at GeekExchange.com:
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Aug 21, 2013 21:16:30 GMT -5
I agree with almost everything.
I only wish I could have seen the film on a big screen. I probably will never get the chance now.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Aug 22, 2013 14:51:54 GMT -5
Frankly, I found all the grammatical gaffes in Altman's piece rather distracting and annoying. This guy is a director, and while he was able to get his point across, he did so rather poorly in a number of clumsy, easily correctable places.
That aside though, I felt he gives the film more credit than it deserves. Yes, it was produced on a grand scale and with a huge budget for that time, but so what? The movie sucked, and its ending, which he compares to "Moonraker", the climax of which was far more exhilarating, though perhaps true in some sense, sidesteps the fact that the last moments of TMP couldn't have been more dull and anticlimactic. I get his comparison to "2001: A Space Odyssey" although that was hardly a new observation as people have been drawing that comparison for decades, ever since the film first came out in fact and Roger Ebert gave his review, drawing that comparison himself. That's how far it dates back. And while Altman makes a big deal of the box office gross of the film, he conveniently ignores that the studio was less than happy with the amount that the movie brought in. Given all they invested in it they felt it could bring in significantly more, even though they were the ones who had produced what was largely, and particularly critically speaking, a bomb. At best it can be said that the movie drew decidedly mixed reviews, with the negative reactions by critics getting more of the attention. Altman speaks about how the first film helped to ensure the sequels that followed, but it came damn near close to ensuring they would never happen. Were it not for the fact that anxious Trekkers, who wanted more big screen Trek features, returned to theaters to see the movie and help prop it up, "Star Trek II" might well have never happened at all. What it showed the studio was that there was at least a market for the Trek property, but the sequel was made on the cheap. If they had felt the first movie was indeed a huge hit they would have invested considerably more in the sequel than they did ultimately. Meanwhile, Altman knocks TWoK for its TV production values in various places. Dare I say that despite his point in that regard, even if true, people would rather look at that sequel any day over the first movie.
Altman means well, but history has rendered its verdict with respect to TMP, and it's not going to change at this point.
|
|
