Star Trek - The Motion Picture DIRECTOR'S EDITION UHD/BD Release; Limited Set Includes 1983 TV Version!

[mkaroly]

^^ What the heck????

[Paul MacLean]

^^ What the heck????

Kind of reminds me of when I was a kid watching Space Academy!

[Paul MacLean]

Is the theatrical cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture available on 4k disc?

I searched Amazon but couldn't find it.

[AndyDursin]

1-4 are in a box that has both UHD and BD discs (says 4k Ultra HD + Blu-Ray on top):

[Paul MacLean]

Thanks!

Is there any difference between the September 2021 set and the February 2022 set?

[AndyDursin]

Odd, I don't have any idea why there are 2 listings...both say 8 discs so it could be they sold out of the November allotment then the next batch was a February one...kinda odd. They're both the same $67 price though.

If you want to roll the dice on the $40 used copy you can give it a shot! GoPeachy has 2 used listings -- "good" for $37 and "very good" for $40 both with free shipping. Neither state they are missing discs so might be worth a try. I've ordered from them before with good success, and I think the one time I did have an issue, they corrected it/gave me a refund quickly etc.

[Paul MacLean]

Anyway, I just took in the new Directors Edition...

While I never had a problem with some of the alterations made for the old DVD (and even liked some) I admit they are mostly arbitrary. The "spiffier" titles of the earlier DVD looked ok -- but I can't say the plain title cards which opened the theatrical version compromised the movie (and an they did design a new -- an impressive -- font for the original film).

But this time they've gone too far. I agree with Andy -- what's with the "glittery" titles? They look like something you might have seen in an advertisement for a Liberace concert! My biggest beef however is that they changed a music cue near the end, when Decker is explaining how V'Ger wants to "touch the creator". What was the point of this -- especially when Fred Steiner's cue for the original scene perfectly nailed that moment?

And beyond that, I don't really care that Ilya can soothe Chekov's pain, we never needed the ensign explaining to Kirk that McCoy was hesitant to beam-up. There was nothing wrong with the computer voice in the original film, or the "BEEP-BEEP-BEEP-BEEP" alert sound. All the "Directors Editoon" is good for is the scene with Spock's tear, and his explanation that "logic is not enough". I maintain that is a crucial moment in the film, and for me I suppose it is worth putting up with the other changes to have that footage.

But it does seem to me that of the alterations were made because some of the effects and sound design were "dated". Maybe -- but these "improvements" will also seem dated in years to come.

Oh...and Paramount no longer offers the theatrical cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture for streaming. You have to rent it now.

[AndyDursin]

My biggest beef however is that they changed a music cue near the end, when Decker is explaining how V'Ger wants to "touch the creator". What was the point of this -- especially when Fred Steiner's cue for the original scene worked perfectly?

I can't even...Honestly I flipped through the end of this and didn't watch all of it. But that kind of alteration is just confounding. What did they replace it with?

[Paul MacLean]

My biggest beef however is that they changed a music cue near the end, when Decker is explaining how V'Ger wants to "touch the creator". What was the point of this -- especially when Fred Steiner's cue for the original scene worked perfectly?

I can't even...Honestly I flipped through the end of this and didn't watch all of it. But that kind of alteration is just confounding. What did they replace it with?

I finally had time, so I went and checked.

The moment in question comes at 2:00:48 in the theatrical cut, when Decker says "To bring the creator here -- to finish transmitting the code in person. To touch the creator."

In the "directors edition", this moment occurs at 2:04:29 -- and a celeste passage from one of Goldsmith's original rejected cues is used instead.

Why this was done I can't fathom. It was totally arbitrary, and unnecessary -- and it doesn't work as well. And it's not like they were restoring what Goldsmith originally wrote for that moment either (the celeste phrase was written for the moment right after they descend into the Voyager "pit").

[Chris Shaneyfelt]

Was the scene with Spock's tear in any of the prints released theatrically in '79? I saw the film in the theater when I was a kid, and I could swear I remember Spock "crying." Is my mind playing tricks on me? Perhaps I'm thinking of a longer TV broadcast version? I haven't seen the "Director's Edition."

[AndyDursin]

It's a scene you likely first encountered on ABC, Chris, because it was first restored there on the early network broadcasts in the early '80s, and then again on the "Special Longer Version" home video releases.

Of all the additions in the longer/"Director's Edition" cuts it's this scene that really does enhance the film as a whole. The rest of the additions I could live without, and the assorted deletions I'd rather have as part of the movie, but that's just me!

It's visible here starting at the 2:58 mark (this is a comparison video with the old Director's Edition DVD):

[Chris Shaneyfelt]

It's a scene you likely first encountered on ABC, Chris, because it was first restored there on the early network broadcasts in the early '80s, and then again on the "Special Longer Version" home video releases.

Of all the additions in the longer/"Director's Edition" cuts it's this scene that really does enhance the film as a whole. The rest of the additions I could live without, and the assorted deletions I'd rather have as part of the movie, but that's just me!

It's visible here starting at the 2:58 mark (this is a comparison video with the old Director's Edition DVD):

Ah, the ABC broadcast must be it - thank you, Andy! By the early 80s I would have been old enough to remember more details, so that makes much more sense. Thank you for posting the comparison video - it's great to see that scene again!

[Paul MacLean]

As time goes on, I find myself re-evaluating many of these "improved" versions made decades after the films were originally released.

I approve wholeheartedly of releasing original directors cuts -- i.e. the directors' original visions which were compromised by studio interference --but these later "revisits" (in which directors fix "problems" in the original cuts) have shown themselves to be wrong-headed in almost every instance.

Last week when I showed Superman to my niece and nephew, I showed them the original theatrical cut -- with the original theatrical sound mix -- which I think is the better version. I admit I really like the scene where Superman speaks to Jor-El after his first night of righting wrongs (which Richard Donner restored to his 2000 "preferred version") but why do we need to hear Mrs. Kent shout "Clark! Get up!" over and over? What's the point of Luthor's "fire and ice" attempts to test Superman when we (and Luthor?) are already aware of Superman's strengths?

I thought it was cool when Fox allowed Ridley Scott to make a "tighter" cut of Alien, but I've gone back to the original cut -- which has perfect dramatic tension (and do we really need the scene of Dallas in the cocoon?).

Spielberg's attempts to spruce-up E.T. with added CGI probably seemed sensible at the time -- but today, the CGI effects actually look less convincing than the practical effects of the original (and digitally swapping-out the police rifles for radios was a ludicrous decision).

As far as I'm concerned, Barry Levinson destroyed The Natural with his "improvements" -- in particular the way he re-cut that beautiful opening montage (and ruined Randy Newman's gorgeous music cue in the process).

Ok, I admit that the added scenes of Coriscant, Tattoine, etc. at the end of Return of the Jedi add scope, and continuity with the prequels -- but nothing else in the Star Wars Special Editions was necessary.

Even in the case of Blade Runner -- though I loved being able to experience the film without narration, I have to admit that the original narration (as corny as it was in places) did help clarify things and propel the story along. I also wonder if the film would have made sense to most people had they first seen Blade Runner sans narration. The tricked-up shot of the ascending dove looks spiffier -- but the CGI embellishments also come off like a shot from a 2000s movie stuck into 1982 movie. I also saw no reason to restore the topless dancers, and while the unicorn scene looks cool, it is also "out of left field" (plus the inference that Deckard is a replicant ruins his entire character arc).

I also have no problem with Blade Runner's "happy ending", which is visually-striking and cathartic after two hours of dark, smoggy images, and does give the film a more satisfying resolution (also, I see it as more bittersweet than "happy").

Going back to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, as I said, I love the scene with Spock's tear -- but I'm borderline in whether it's inclusion is worth putting up with all the other alterations. What's with all the additional reaction shots of George Takei? A few of the new effects look a little better, but most are just pointless, arbitrary changes. And I agree with Andy -- why replace the computer alert voice?

[Monterey Jack]

So long as a movie offers ALL alternate cuts in the same platter or on a separate disc, I feel that directors are free to noodle around with their movies to their heart's contents. When the ONLY version available is a bastardized "director's cut" (like Walter Hill's The Warriors), I have a severe problem.

[AndyDursin]

I agree with Paul totally. I don't "have a problem" MJ but the reality is -- when has it worked? When has it actually made a film better? I guess I like the one added scene Milius put back into CONAN THE BARBARIAN (I think it's a 2 minute scene, but it's absent from the US Blu-Ray master) -- I can live without it too, but I like that one sequence which gives an added character beat.

Otherwise, the only instances I can think of aren't "Director's Cuts" but rather what Paul mentions -- original versions of movies before studios started recutting them. Things like LEGEND, 1776, LIFEFORCE, etc. Yet they don't fall into the category of "post-release tinkering," those are the original, finished versions of those films (that ended up being restored) before studio executives got involved and ruined them.

Yet in other instances, filmmaking is a collaborative artform and that kind of studio pressure can make a film better if a director's instincts aren't on the mark. Some movie buffs who subscribe to the auteur theory don't want to acknowledge that a director can make a mistake -- or that they can make a film worse if left to tinker too long and too much.

Coppola just recut GODFATHER PART III -- and took out the ending, the one lasting image (arguably the film's strongest single moment!) most anyone recalled from the original version of the movie! He's tinkered around with APOCALYPSE NOW a handful (or more) times since the movie first debuted -- but to what avail? Really no version to me enhanced his original theatrical cut.

No version of SUPERMAN THE MOVIE flows as well as the theatrical edit. Again, I agree with Paul, that one extra Brando scene was good, but it was kind of let down by an awkward ending to it. SUPERMAN II's theatrical cut smokes the awful "Richard Donner Cut" that I think most fans have been trying to come to terms with ever since it came out and disappointed pretty much everyone.

I've been showing Theo the "unofficial" 4K remasters of STAR WARS, EMPIRE and JEDI -- the theatrical version films work so much better than the "Special Edition" edits. The enhanced FX are anchored to the 90s instead of the 70s -- making them not even a modern update by today's standards. And I personally prefer the JEDI ending and Ewok celebration to the '90s FX additions and Williams' inferior "Simon and Garfunkel" finale (as Lukas called it) that he wrote for the SE release. That cue just doesn't do much for me, IMO it doesn't fit tonally with the rest of his scores which by that point where nearly 15 years old (or however long it was). Nor do I need Hayden Christensen restored to that moment -- why would his "ghost" be of the "version" of Anakin that went bad to begin with? Wouldn't it either be the old man (who just redeemed himself), or the innocent little kid? Anyway, that's one more where I'm good with what was there originally.

Then we have the endless cuts of BLADE RUNNER -- again, the theatrical version is the best one out of them for me -- and totally ill-conceived re-edits like THE WARRIORS and THE NATURAL which Paul rightly calls out for bastardizing Randy Newman's score.

For TMP I would've preferred we get rid of the CGI "enhancements" and the arbitrary sound changes, and stick to the theatrical version -- or do what Paramount first did years ago and do a remastered "Special Expanded Edition" with scene additions like the Spock dialogue that truly helped the picture. There, you can argue a Director's Cut WOULD'VE improved what was there -- but these other changes are an attempt to "jazz the movie" up when it frankly doesn't need it. The movie is what it is -- a product of 1979, and sometimes that's okay.