Star Trek TMP - any news?
Organic999
cleaned up, with a commentary by Robert Wise
dhmac
news:20001008234853...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
> Just curious, anyone know if/when this is due out? I remember it was being
> cleaned up, with a commentary by Robert Wise
>
WinningerR
version.<<<
Indeed it is, with some new special effects as well. I don't think an official
release date has been announced yet, but it's definitely coming soon. Next
three months, I'd say.
Deborah Proctor
"WinningerR" <winni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001009015137...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
I wish they'd hurry up so I can auction off my Star Trek I through VIII on
laserdisc.
Deborah Proctor
mara...@uswest.net
dhmac
matte-lines as thick as an actor's arm.
DVDfever Dom
"Deborah Proctor" <mara...@uswest.net> writes:
>
>"WinningerR" <winni...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20001009015137...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>laserdisc.
Is that a "Buy one get seven free" offer?
Dom Robinson
Editor, DVDfever.co.uk; Contributor, HCC, City Life & Freeloader.com
d...@DVDfever.co.uk Everything in its right place
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk
/* 382 DVDs, 143 laserdiscs, 82 games, 31 videos, 17 cinema films, CDs & news
/* navy seals, platoon, blackadder, wwf royal rumble, 1st wives club,chinatown
/* Reviews + ONdigital, DVD, widescreen VHS lists & release schedules online
Deborah Proctor
"DVDfever Dom" <d...@dvdfever.co.uk> wrote in message
news:971213...@dvdfever.co.uk...
> In article <SvlE5.133$mP1....@news.uswest.net>
> "Deborah Proctor" <mara...@uswest.net> writes:
> >
> >"WinningerR" <winni...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20001009015137...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
on
> >laserdisc.
>
> Is that a "Buy one get seven free" offer?
>
> Dom Robinson
> Editor, DVDfever.co.uk; Contributor, HCC, City Life & Freeloader.com
No. But I'll certainly entertain all offers.
Deborah Proctor
mara...@uswest.net
Neil Ottenstein
"dhmac" <dh...@altavista.net> wrote:
> "WinningerR" <winni...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001009015137...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> matte-lines as thick as an actor's arm.
I saw a presentation at Shore Leave in July of some of the cleanup and
improvements and it was quite impressive.
Neil
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rick
>Just curious, anyone know if/when this is due out? I remember it was being
>cleaned up, with a commentary by Robert Wise
The latest rumour is a "special" release on Sunday January 7, 2001.
or
for marketing purposes: 1 7 0 1
Bob Marso
dhmac <dh...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:8ru0bk$jsc$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> matte-lines as thick as an actor's arm.
>
Trek Movie Memories" it has a very telling section describing Robert Wise's
frustration over the fact that after he finished making the movie he had to
rush the editing in time for the scheduled release.
Having a small amount of time from which to work was made worse by the fact
that the special effect departments were rushing together several sections
of the film as well. All told, it was reported in the book that Wise never
saw the whole film as it was to appear on the screen until a special
screening for all involved. Reportedly, he was very upset but it was too
late, paramount had no interest in extending the budget to allow for
changes. Thankfully, he will finally get a chance to complete the editing
process. He's a good editer, afterall he did edit "Citizen Kane" didn't
he?
All said, I personally hope that not only will the special effects be
enhansed with previously unseen scenes added, but more importantly I hope
he desides to cut some parts as well including that ever too long scene
showing everyone on the bridge stairing into space as the "Enterprise" makes
its long long journey into V'Ger.
Bob
jaye...@my-deja.com
> Thankfully, [Robert Wise] will finally get a chance to
> complete the editing process. He's a good editer, afterall
> he did edit "Citizen Kane" didn't he?
Yes, he did. But then, he just followed Welles' instructions
on how to edit it, rather than making his own editing choices.
That's also true of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, which Wise
also edited -- in addition to his directing the additional
footage and re-editing the film to RKO's specifications when
Welles wasn't around to object.
> All said, I personally hope that not only will the special
> effects be enhansed with previously unseen scenes added,
From what I understand, there will not be any additional
scenes -- at least, none above and beyond what is in the
extant "Special Edition" that first aired on TV. Among the
added SFX will be fixing the infamous SFX "hole" in that
one shot of Kirk and Spock in the airlock where the SFX
were never completed (because the scene was edited out
before the SFX work was finished).
> but more importantly I hope he desides to cut some parts
> as well including that ever too long scene showing
> everyone on the bridge stairing into space as the
> "Enterprise" makes its long long journey into V'Ger.
It's not really all that long. It just seems that way (same
with the other oft-criticized scene of the outside "tour"
around the Enterprise in drydock). But I agree that it
needs to be tightened up.
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
"Listening to you, I can't help but think that somewhere
in the world a village is missing its idiot."
jaye...@my-deja.com
> A SFX redo was badly needed by this film, with its rushed
> effects and matte-lines as thick as an actor's arm.
Agreed. Especially horrible are the matte-lines around the
Klingon ships in the opening sequence. They mar what is
otherwise a terrific scene.
Lyle J. Petersen
<jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8s7dvk$s4q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Bob Marso" <ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > All said, I personally hope that not only will the special
> > effects be enhansed with previously unseen scenes added,
>
> From what I understand, there will not be any additional
> scenes -- at least, none above and beyond what is in the
> extant "Special Edition" that first aired on TV.
Ah, but there will be. They will have the scene where Kirk and Spock are
attacked by VGER's "antibodies" as they venture inside of it. I saw some
vidcaps of the work being done on that scene. Very cool looking!
-Lyle
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Jeff D. Robertson
> "dhmac" <dh...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
> > A SFX redo was badly needed by this film, with its rushed
> > effects and matte-lines as thick as an actor's arm.
>
> Agreed. Especially horrible are the matte-lines around the
> Klingon ships in the opening sequence. They mar what is
> otherwise a terrific scene.
I hope they do a better job at removing them than was done with the Star
Wars Trilogy Special Edition. I still saw matte lines (although they
were reduced) when the films were rereleased in theaters.
David Mullen
>> Klingon ships in the opening sequence. They mar what is
>> otherwise a terrific scene.
>
>I hope they do a better job at removing them than was done with the Star
>Wars Trilogy Special Edition. I still saw matte lines (although they
>were reduced) when the films were rereleased in theaters.
This is ridiculous -- what's next, replacing King Kong with an all-CGI
version? What is this obsession with "fixing" old movies with re-done
special effects? There are plenty of examples of poor matting, unrealistic
rear-projection, etc. in many great films of the past -- are we going to fix
all of those as well? Replace all those rear-projection close-up shots of
James Bond skiing down the mountain?
These films were made in a certain period of film history using certain
technology available to them -- respect what they were able to pull-off with
their time, money, and technology instead of judging them by modern special
effects standards. When I watch "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", I want to
see the Enterprise model pull out of the space dock model with some matte
paintings of the Earth in the background -- I don't want it "improved" with
a new CGI Enterprise with CGI worker-bee ships zipping around, comped into a
digitally touched-up photo of the real Earth in the background.
Just as part of the experience of watching "King Kong" is seeing what could
be done with the stop-motion and rear-projection technology of the day, part
of the experience of seeing ST:TMP is seeing what could be done with
optically printed composites and miniatures and matte paintings. I don't
mind an obviously NEW scene being shown with new special effects in that new
scene, out of curiosity, but leave the existing special effects alone --
just clean them up a bit if they've deteriorated at all.
David Mullen
jaye...@my-deja.com
> This is ridiculous -- what's next, replacing King Kong
> with an all-CGI version? What is this obsession with
> "fixing" old movies with re-done special effects? [snip]
For the most part, I agree with you. I don't think films
need to be "upgraded" just for the sake of upgrading them,
because current technology is "better".
On the other hand, some things were never right to begin
with. We have numerous instances of films being reworked
because the original version wasn't the director's "true
vision". The thing about ST-TMP is that the effects were
not up to snuff even for the time. They were bungled,
rushed, and no one, from Robert Wise on down, was entirely
happy with the result. Who's to say what the result would
have been if Trumbull &co. had the time to do it to their
satisfaction in the first place?
To be honest, I can't really see that there's all that
much difference between "fixing" the "broken" special
effects and re-editing the film into a "director's cut".
As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". STAR
WARS wasn't broken, and Lucas fixed it anyway. But what he
did to it didn't make it a better film, not even marginally.
ST-TMP *was* broken from the git-go, and I'd like to see it
fixed. I think/hope that it'll result in a better film.
Pete Briggs
> I hope they do a better job at removing them than was done with the Star
> Wars Trilogy Special Edition. I still saw matte lines (although they
> were reduced) when the films were rereleased in theaters.
Where, precisely? Which shots?
All the original effects plates were recomposited by Pacific Title. I'd
be interested to know what you "saw".
Pete Briggs
> This is ridiculous -- what's next, replacing King Kong with an all-CGI
> version?
That would be the eventual remake...
> There are plenty of examples of poor matting, unrealistic
> rear-projection, etc. in many great films of the past -- are we going to fix
> all of those as well? Replace all those rear-projection close-up shots of
> James Bond skiing down the mountain?
Sure, why not? I wouldn't object to that.
>When I watch "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", I want to
> see the Enterprise model pull out of the space dock model with some matte
> paintings of the Earth in the background -- I don't want it "improved" with
> a new CGI Enterprise with CGI worker-bee ships zipping around, comped into a
> digitally touched-up photo of the real Earth in the background.
If it's actually improved, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever. If
someone wants to shell out the bucks to do it, well...that's their
problem.
David Mullen
>fixed. I think/hope that it'll result in a better film.
What's "wrong" with ST:TMP ultimately has nothing to do with special
effects...
I thought Trumbull's work was quite magnificent at the time, with a few
exceptions.
David Mullen
Joshua Zyber
news:ef_F5.1104$6w4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
David, I can't agree more. Earlier this year a local theatre had a marathon
of the first seven Trek films. Of them, only ST-TPM truly impressed me on
the big screen. It's special effects, dated though some of them are, still
far outshine most of the sequels.
- Josh
---------------------
Joshua Zyber
Staff Reviewer, DVD File
www.dvdfile.com
Curator, Laserdisc Forever Review Archive
www.mindspring.com/~jzyber/laserdiscforever.htm
Pete Briggs
>The thing about ST-TMP is that the effects were
> not up to snuff even for the time. They were bungled,
> rushed, and no one, from Robert Wise on down, was entirely
> happy with the result.
As I recall, the early reels were being played at the premiere, while
the latter reels were being express-couriered from the lab. Now, that's
scary.
> As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". STAR
> WARS wasn't broken, and Lucas fixed it anyway. But what he
> did to it didn't make it a better film, not even marginally.
Oh, I disagree. But we *are* talking marginal, admittedly.
Pete Briggs
> What's "wrong" with ST:TMP ultimately has nothing to do with special
> effects...
>
> I thought Trumbull's work was quite magnificent at the time, with a few
> exceptions.
I think the key is "at the time". I watched this again a few weeks
back, and...well, I think it shows how visually sophisticated we're
evolving. Virtually every shot looked unacceptable to me,
now...matte-lines in abundance.
Starman
<jzy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> David Mullen <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ef_F5.1104$6w4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >ST-TMP *was* broken from the git-go, and I'd like to see it
> > >fixed. I think/hope that it'll result in a better film.
> >
> > What's "wrong" with ST:TMP ultimately has nothing to do with special
> > effects...
> >
> > I thought Trumbull's work was quite magnificent at the time, with a few
> > exceptions.
>
> David, I can't agree more. Earlier this year a local theatre had a
> marathon
> of the first seven Trek films. Of them, only ST-TPM truly impressed me on
> the big screen. It's special effects, dated though some of them are,
> still
> far outshine most of the sequels.
Josh,
Did yor print of ST:TMP have the extended scenes put back in? At the
time of Generations' release our local theater group did the same thing.
We got the prints in early to make sure they were OK. The print of TMP
that I had was the same used at the Sit Long and Prosper a year or two
earlier (the mailing label and date were still on the cans) and the
extended version scenes were spliced in, but the soundtrack was mono
instead of stereo, so the audio would jump from stereo to mono and back.
Oddly enough, the goofed up Kirk spacesuit scene was not there.
Mike
--
ICQ: 6426785
AOL IM: StarmanTHX
EQ: Talisaar - Level 24 druid,
Jermakian - Level 7 Necromancer - Xegony server
Pete Briggs
> David, I can't agree more. Earlier this year a local theatre had a marathon
> of the first seven Trek films. Of them, only ST-TPM truly impressed me on
> the big screen. It's special effects, dated though some of them are, still
> far outshine most of the sequels.
On a recent big screen viewing, the mattes must have looked TERRIBLE.
They looked ghastly on my TV...
David Mullen
>> exceptions.
>
>back, and...well, I think it shows how visually sophisticated we're
>evolving. Virtually every shot looked unacceptable to me,
>now...matte-lines in abundance.
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW SOPHISTICATED EFFECTS HAVE GOTTEN NOW -- THE FILM WAS
MADE IN 1979!!! That's my point! I don't want to see the 1933 "King Kong"
with Year 2000 effects, and I don't want to see the 1979 "Star Trek" with
Year 2000 effects. What's next? Going back to early Renaissance paintings
and correcting the perspective so it matches latter improvements in that
area? Taking out any anachronistic language in a Dickens novel? We're
talking about a MOVIE, not a house that needed new plumbing. I don't want
the historic period in which a film was made to get blurred by mixing newly
made shots with original shots. I still watch my laserdisc occasionally,
plus I saw the film in a theater a number of years ago again, and I'm still
impressed with what was done with 1979 technology. It shouldn't matter that
these effects can be done better TODAY -- altering the effects to
"modernize" them for current standards & tastes is no better than colorizing
a b&w movie because people are now used to seeing color movies.
Do you compare every technique used in an old movie to how it's being done
today? Do you watch the outdoor scenes obviously shot on soundstages in
"American in Paris" and hope someday that they reshoot them in the real
Paris?
Lucas has a lot to answer for...
David Mullen
Paul Coddington
news:1eii91i.1h1068v1gun8hsN%pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk...
> <jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >The thing about ST-TMP is that the effects were
> > not up to snuff even for the time. They were bungled,
> > rushed, and no one, from Robert Wise on down, was entirely
> > happy with the result.
The one's we saw weren't bungled - the first set of special effects from the
original company were bungled (they weren't even shot on the proper film
stock). Then Doug Trumbell's team was called in to the rescue. They were
very rushed. The effects were state of the art for the time - but the
director did not have time to edit them to length before the release date.
Paul Coddington
Mattes seem to look more prominent on TV - something about the transfer to
video. A similar problem is seen with modern CGI effects - what looks great
in the theatre looks like a 3D cartoon on TV for some reason.
Pete Briggs
> IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW SOPHISTICATED EFFECTS HAVE GOTTEN NOW -- THE FILM WAS
> MADE IN 1979!!! That's my point! I don't want to see the 1933 "King Kong"
> with Year 2000 effects, and I don't want to see the 1979 "Star Trek" with
> Year 2000 effects.
I do. I can't wait. Some of the concept behind those effects was
extraordinary. Seeing them so they don't make me wince and feel sad at
what was lost in rush is a big bonus, as far as I'm concerned.
>What's next? Going back to early Renaissance paintings
> and correcting the perspective so it matches latter improvements in that
> area?
Really, David. Your emotions will be your undoing...
> We're talking about a MOVIE, not a house that needed new plumbing.
I suppose you'd sooner that Anthony Hopkins was not allowed to dub
Olivier in "Spartacus", and that scene were left out?
> Do you compare every technique used in an old movie to how it's being done
> today?
Yes. I'm in the business. Information is power. Sorry about that...
> Do you watch the outdoor scenes obviously shot on soundstages in
> "American in Paris" and hope someday that they reshoot them in the real
> Paris?
Okay, now you're just sounding RIDICULOUS...
jaye...@my-deja.com
> IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW SOPHISTICATED EFFECTS HAVE GOTTEN NOW
> -- THE FILM WAS MADE IN 1979!!! That's my point! I don't
> want to see the 1933 "King Kong" with Year 2000 effects,
> and I don't want to see the 1979 "Star Trek" with Year
> 2000 effects.
Maybe we have different takes on what they are doing on the
film. It's my impression that they aren't so much adding
"Year 2000" effects to the film, but using current CGI
technology to clean up shots that they believe to be sub-par.
> I still watch my laserdisc occasionally, plus I saw the
> film in a theater a number of years ago again, and I'm
> still impressed with what was done with 1979 technology.
I still watch my LD, as well, and I've seen the film a
number of times in the theater (but not in quite a while).
While the effects are impressive relative to some other
films, I don't think they are even close to what was
possible with 1979 technology. To my mind, they were a
backward step to what Dykstra did two years earlier in
STAR WARS, or what Trumbull himself had done in CE3K.
I'm not blaming Trumbull, as I think it's astonishing
what he was able to accomplish given the situation he
found himself in. But that doesn't change the fact that
the effects weren't nearly as good as they should've
been.
> Do you compare every technique used in an old movie to
> how it's being done today? Do you watch the outdoor
> scenes obviously shot on soundstages in "American in
> Paris" and hope someday that they reshoot them in the
> real Paris?
No. And I don't think that's the same thing that's going
on here. I suspect that you're reading more into their
motivations for doing this than are there. If Paramount's
idea is to modernize the effects to make the films more
palatable to current audiences, why are they only doing
it on ST-TMP? Why not do it for STII:TWOK as well -- that
film certainly has some shots that could be improved
(though in this case, it was largely due to Paramount
trying to keep the budget down). I believe that they are
doing it to *this* film, and *only* this film, because
they feel (as I do) that in this particular case, it's
warranted.
> Lucas has a lot to answer for...
I agree. And I wouldn't not like to see a frenzy of
facelifts done on past films. (If anyone *dared* to
touch 2001, I would have to start hurting people...)
BUT, as I've said before, if there's one film that I
believe could use a bit of makeover, it's ST-TMP.
Pete Briggs
> I agree. And I wouldn't not like to see a frenzy of
> facelifts done on past films. (If anyone *dared* to
> touch 2001, I would have to start hurting people...)
But could you think of anything that NEEDS fixing in "2001", really?
jaye...@my-deja.com
> <jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote:
That depends on one's point of view. When I watch 2001
these days, I notice that, as impressive as the effects
are -- given that they were done with 60s technology --
and despite the fact that they raised the bar for what
was to come later, they are no longer state of the art
by a big margin. This is not said to belittle the film
in any way.
But that's kind of my point. My arguments favoring the
facelift being done on ST-TMP has nothing to do with the
aesthetics of making the film conform to current levels
of visual effects. As I said in a previous response (but
changing the example), 2001 is not broken, and so is not
in need of fixing. ST-TMP was, and is.
I respect David's opinion on this topic; I just don't
agree with it. But as I suggested in another response, I
think we might be approaching it with different ideas about
what's being done with the film and the reasons for it.
Daryl Carpenter
Yeah, that weird "purple moon" effect when the ship is landing on the Moon. But
that's about it...
Daryl
There's a reason why they call this stuff "Space Age Technology." The modems in
the mid-sixties had faster connection speeds.
The 2001: A Space Odyssey Technology Site-
http://members.tripod.com/Aries_1B/index_m.htm
Remove CRM114 to E-mail.
Joshua Zyber
news:starman-DFFA9B...@news.iamdigex.net...
> > David, I can't agree more. Earlier this year a local theatre had a
> > marathon
> > of the first seven Trek films. Of them, only ST-TPM truly impressed me
on
> > the big screen. It's special effects, dated though some of them are,
> > still
> > far outshine most of the sequels.
>
> Did yor print of ST:TMP have the extended scenes put back in? At the
> time of Generations' release our local theater group did the same thing.
> We got the prints in early to make sure they were OK. The print of TMP
> that I had was the same used at the Sit Long and Prosper a year or two
> earlier (the mailing label and date were still on the cans) and the
> extended version scenes were spliced in, but the soundtrack was mono
> instead of stereo, so the audio would jump from stereo to mono and back.
> Oddly enough, the goofed up Kirk spacesuit scene was not there.
No, it was the standard cut of the film. All of the prints used in the
series were apparently from someone's personal collection. The first film
was actually in the best shape, though it seemed like every other reel would
jump in quality. Still, almost all of the later films were scratched to
hell, part 4 being almost unwatchable.
I assume this comes from the film being watched the least. I also noticed
part 5 not looking too bad.
Pete Briggs <pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1eiij61.ivrcwwvce03pN%pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk...
> On a recent big screen viewing, the mattes must have looked TERRIBLE.
> They looked ghastly on my TV...
Have you attempted to adjust the Brightness on your TV? If your DVD player
is set for "enhanced" black level and you've calibrated your TV using that,
then laserdiscs mastered at standard black level will look too washed out
and things like matte lines will be more evident.
I also don't understand all the complaints about the matte lines on the Star
Wars laserdiscs. At the time of the THX remasters, the contrasts were
altered to hide almost all of those garbage mattes if your TV is adjusted
properly.
On the big screen, there were a few prominent matte lines but most of them
were invisible.
Joshua Zyber
> > IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW SOPHISTICATED EFFECTS HAVE GOTTEN NOW
> > -- THE FILM WAS MADE IN 1979!!! That's my point! I don't
> > want to see the 1933 "King Kong" with Year 2000 effects,
> > and I don't want to see the 1979 "Star Trek" with Year
> > 2000 effects.
>
> film. It's my impression that they aren't so much adding
> "Year 2000" effects to the film, but using current CGI
> technology to clean up shots that they believe to be sub-par.
Yes, sub-par by Year 2000 standards. The difference then would be....?
> I agree. And I wouldn't not like to see a frenzy of
> facelifts done on past films. (If anyone *dared* to
> touch 2001, I would have to start hurting people...)
>
> BUT, as I've said before, if there's one film that I
> believe could use a bit of makeover, it's ST-TMP.
So because you like one film better than the other, it shouldn't be touched?
What exactly are your criteria for making this judgement call?
You know, I think that some of the stop-motion effects in Beetlejuice
weren't really up to the best 1987 standards. Had Tim Burton bothered to
spend $80 million on the film then (because, as you know, he must have had
an unlimited budget on his second feature film and all), they probably could
have been done a little better. Why don't we go and "clean up" all of those
sub-par effects as well?
Pete Briggs
> >But could you think of anything that NEEDS fixing in "2001", really?
>
> Yeah, that weird "purple moon" effect when the ship is landing on the
> Moon. But that's about it...
???
I'll have to pull out my copy again!
I'd like to "fix" two things.
1) When Bowman is opening Hal's panel, prior to getting into the memory
room, take a look at the seal on his wrist. The Discovery's meant to be
airless at this point!
2) Bowman enters the Discovery, and takes the GREEN helmet from the
emergency lock. Yet, when he goes back out in the Pod, he's switched
back to a nice colour-coordinated red helmet. (!?!?!?!!?)
Senz
Daryl Carpenter wrote:
>
> >But could you think of anything that NEEDS fixing in "2001", really?
>
> Yeah, that weird "purple moon" effect when the ship is landing on the Moon. But
> that's about it...
> Daryl
Also, during the monkey scenes, the sky looks like a used $20 backdrop
that had been "crumpled" pretty darn good. It's quite noticeable at
times: 7:18 and 8:35. And especially when the camera pans at time
8:47. I never noticed these imperfections until I saw them on DVD.
(Remembering the argument about the clarity of CDs when they first came
out and how some bands preferred the hiss of tapes to cover up their
imperfections)
Senz
Daryl Carpenter
>room, take a look at the seal on his wrist. The Discovery's meant to be
>airless at this point!
movie spacesuits, the seals never stay in place.
>2) Bowman enters the Discovery, and takes the GREEN helmet from the
>emergency lock. Yet, when he goes back out in the Pod, he's switched
>back to a nice colour-coordinated red helmet. (!?!?!?!!?)
The red helmet was still on the rack in the pod bay.
David Mullen
>facelift being done on ST-TMP has nothing to do with the
>aesthetics of making the film conform to current levels
>of visual effects. As I said in a previous response (but
>changing the example), 2001 is not broken, and so is not
>in need of fixing. ST-TMP was, and is.
I don't think "bad" or flawed movies are less deserving of protection (by
which I mean, protection from people who want to "improve" on it over how it
looked originally.) Like I said, would it be right to take a mediocre late
Gothic / early Renaissance painting and improve its crude rendition of
perspective just because we know better now how to do it? A film is an
important artifact of its day and we shouldn't start making changes so that
it matches the tastes and standards of a later generation of viewers. Using
modern technology to restore it to how it looked originally is acceptable,
even cleaning up an obvious scratch or dust speck that might have even been
in the original. But the matte lines that resulted from things like the
backlit-frontlit multi-pass / optical printer matting system that Trumbull
used are an artifact of the type of technique employed, and how good or bad
they managed to do the effect is a permanent record of the work of a group
of artists & technicians working at a certain moment in history under
certain pressures and time contraints.
Look at the V'ger probe scene on the bridge -- Dykstra had NO idea how Abel
was going to remove the crew member pushing the column of light around. He
solved this problem by projecting the image onto a mylar surface (I believe)
and pulling it until the crew member disappeared, distorting the whole shot
around that line. It created a strange "warped" effect that was cool but
was actually there because it was the only way Dykstra could solve that
problem. NOW he could digitally remove the crew member and not only NOT
distort the room, but not have the whole footage look like a grainy
rear-projected image. Should he do it just because now it's possible?
As for an expanded version using new effects that were never completed
originally, I have less problem with that because the new footage was never
in the theatrical release, nor are any finished effects works being altered
or dumped.
A good example of this issue is "Dune", a film that I have a LOT more
problems with, effects-wise, than "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." But as
much as I would like to see some decent effects replace some of the grainy
crap in that film, I can't support such a decision because, again, that film
was made and released -- it's part of history now. Let's put state-of-the
art effects in NEW movies, not old movies. Putting modern effects in old
movies is like putting aluminum siding on Mount Vernon -- it's not an issue
of whether it would IMPROVE a period home.
David Mullen
Vincent J. Murphy
>believe could use a bit of makeover, it's ST-TMP.
>
I don't mind them giving the film a facelift as
long as the original version is still accessible.
After all, when I think of Star Trek: The Motion
Picture, I think of the movie I watched in
the theater.
This is why the Star Wars redo annoyed me a
lot: not only were the Special Editions not all
that great, but the real versions were
made unavailable.
So while I love the fact that Robert Wise is
getting to redo ST:TMP, I'd really rather
see the version that was released in
theaters. If Paramount can make both types
of fans happy, then I'm all for it. :)
VJM
jaye...@my-deja.com
>> Maybe we have different takes on what they are doing on the
>> film. It's my impression that they aren't so much adding
>> "Year 2000" effects to the film, but using current CGI
>> technology to clean up shots that they believe to be sub-par.
> Yes, sub-par by Year 2000 standards.
By Year 2000 standards, anything made up to within the last
year or so would be "sub-par". But I don't see any indication
that Paramount (or anyone else) is running around with a
hammer looking for nails to pound in.
ST-TMP seems to be an exception. Why is that? I think that
an answer that boils down to "because the can" is far too
simplistic.
How do we know that it's a studio decision? Maybe they
approached Robert Wise to be involved with doing a Special
Edition DVD, and he agreed only if they'd let him go back
and create a "director's cut". Not just to reedit scenes
back in, but to get the visual effects to where he wanted
them to be in the first place.
Is that really any different than, say, Ridley Scott going
back and inserting the unicorn dream into BLADE RUNNER,
and removing the voiceover and the final scene? Any
director's cut is basically the director saying, "That
wasn't what I had in mind; this is." Why should cleaning
up the visual effects be automatically excluded from
being part of that process?
>> I agree. And I wouldn't not like to see a frenzy of
>> facelifts done on past films. (If anyone *dared* to
>> touch 2001, I would have to start hurting people...)
>> BUT, as I've said before, if there's one film that I
>> believe could use a bit of makeover, it's ST-TMP.
> So because you like one film better than the other,
> it shouldn't be touched? What exactly are your
> criteria for making this judgement call?
No, it has nothing to do with how much I like one film
versus the other. I'd say the same thing about a film
that I liked *less*...oh, say, SILENT RUNNING. Like
2001's, SILENT RUNNING's effects weren't flawed to begin
with, and don't need a makeover.
James Cameron wrote of his decision about creating the
Special Edition of THE ABYSS as his chance to "do it
right", to do it the way he should've done it in the
first place.
I believe that Wise feels the same way about ST-TMP.
And I agree with him. I don't think there's anyone
who would deny that the film could use some tighter
editing. And no one would complain if Wise went back
and did that. Why is this OK, but cleaning up the
effects is not? What are *your* criteria for deciding
that one activity is acceptable and another isn't?
David Mullen
>And I agree with him. I don't think there's anyone
>who would deny that the film could use some tighter
>editing. And no one would complain if Wise went back
>and did that. Why is this OK, but cleaning up the
>effects is not? What are *your* criteria for deciding
>that one activity is acceptable and another isn't?
When editing, you're using material from the original shoot to create an
alternate version -- the material itself still dates back to the time of
shooting. Adding new effects to complete this alternate version is OK
because it's obviously new footage serving a new purpose in the story -- one
could even compare the look of the new effect to the original effects. But
re-doing old effects with new technology JUST because they can be done
better now begs the question -- why is it so important to fix it? Where do
you draw the line -- all old movies with less-than-perfect effects should
now have them replaced by better, modern effects? Why? Because we can't
stand looking at old movies with their archaic technologies? Why is
re-doing the flawed effects in ST:TMP a different attitude than re-doing Ray
Harryhausen's stop-motion dinosaurs with CGI dinosaurs? Wouldn't it be
great to see "Valley of the Gwangi" with a new, more convincing dinosaur,
without all of that obvious grainy rear-projection to combine the
live-action elements with the miniatures? What's wrong with seeing a movie
with its flaws intact, if that's the way it was released to the public
originally? We accept flaws in other works of art, why not movies?
I've actually heard people say "I hope they fix those old effects in "2001"
when they re-release it theatrically!" -- THAT'S the sort of mentality that
Lucas has started in people, this notion that old movies have to be altered
to match the technical standards & tastes of modern movies. It's just like
taking some deliberately pastel, grainy, foggy-looking movie of the 1970's
and pumping up the color & the contrast, and digitally reducing the grain,
so it matches how movies look NOW.
I don't have a problem with Robert Wise cutting an alternate version. I
don't have a problem with adding new effects to finish his new sequences. I
don't have a problem with cleaning up the old film to remove dust & dirt. I
have a problem when people start saying that the old efx suck and should be
replaced by new stuff that matches the quality of modern efx. For one
thing, I LIKE the old special effects -- Trumbull had an eye for lighting &
color that was different than the stuff ILM was doing at the time. And I
also have a problem with the notion of re-doing shots in a film, as opposed
to re-cutting old footage to create an alternate director's cut. Because it
does open the door for re-doing effects shots in other movies like those by
Ray Harryhausen or Willis O'Brien -- it starts this mentality that old
movies have to be altered to match modern tastes and standards. If someone
can't see anything wrong with this type of thinking, I don't know what to
say to explain it any more clearly.
David Mullen
Pete Briggs
> > On a recent big screen viewing, the mattes must have looked TERRIBLE.
> > They looked ghastly on my TV...
>
> Have you attempted to adjust the Brightness on your TV? If your DVD player
> is set for "enhanced" black level and you've calibrated your TV using that,
> then laserdiscs mastered at standard black level will look too washed out
> and things like matte lines will be more evident.
I watched the extended version (with all those nice shots of unfinished
matte paintings and dodgy spacesuits!) on a (okay -- credibility risk!)
S-VHS tape.
God, for the DVD sometime soon, please...!
> I also don't understand all the complaints about the matte lines on the Star
> Wars laserdiscs. At the time of the THX remasters, the contrasts were
> altered to hide almost all of those garbage mattes if your TV is adjusted
> properly.
Oooooh.....oooch! My T.V.'s calibrated quite nicely, thank you....but
those garbage mattes were TRULY horrible!
> On the big screen, there were a few prominent matte lines but most of them
> were invisible.
Yup.
Pete Briggs
> >1) When Bowman is opening Hal's panel, prior to getting into the memory
> >room, take a look at the seal on his wrist. The Discovery's meant to be
> >airless at this point!
> Yeah, but it'd be silly to try to fix this with CGI. I've noticed that on most
> movie spacesuits, the seals never stay in place.
But perfectly do-able! That big
> >2) Bowman enters the Discovery, and takes the GREEN helmet from the
> >emergency lock. Yet, when he goes back out in the Pod, he's switched
> >back to a nice colour-coordinated red helmet. (!?!?!?!!?)
>
> The red helmet was still on the rack in the pod bay.
Yes, but the point I'm making, is...the ship is depressurized. He's
wearing a green helmet. Why take the red helmet, repressurize
(presumably inside the pod, or the airlock once more) and swap, just to
be more colour coordinated?
Maybe there's a minimum dress code at intergalactic Hiltons...
Pete Briggs
> Wouldn't it be
> great to see "Valley of the Gwangi" with a new, more convincing dinosaur,
> without all of that obvious grainy rear-projection to combine the
> live-action elements with the miniatures?
Okay, I'm game to write a remake. <g!>
> I've actually heard people say "I hope they fix those old effects in "2001"
> when they re-release it theatrically!"
Yeah, but that's coming from a viewpoint of ignorance.
>It's just like taking some deliberately pastel, grainy, foggy-looking
>movie of the 1970's and pumping up the color & the contrast, and
>digitally reducing the grain, so it matches how movies look NOW.
Yes, but if you know about those movies from the 70s, that's because a
certain Kodak film stock has deteriorated rather badly since then!
>For one thing, I LIKE the old special effects -- Trumbull had an eye
>for lighting & color that was different than the stuff ILM was doing at
>the time.
Again, the film-stocks used -- and Trumbull's front/backlit mattes, as
opposed to I.L.M.'s bluescreens -- played a portion in how that look was
arrived at.
>And I also have a problem with the notion of re-doing shots in a film,
>as opposed to re-cutting old footage to create an alternate director's
>cut. Because it does open the door for re-doing effects shots in other
>movies like those by Ray Harryhausen or Willis O'Brien
Why?
Have you read Peter Jackson's script for "King Kong"? I think it needs
a little more work, but I'd rather see that than the somewhat amusing
notion of putting a CG ape into the original. (Matching the
deteriorated film-stock would be quite an interesting challenge!)
Pete Briggs
> This is why the Star Wars redo annoyed me a
> lot: not only were the Special Editions not all
> that great, but the real versions were
> made unavailable.
It's not a case that the real versions were made unavailable. If you go
and read up in "American Cinematographer"; the second I.L.M. book, and
various other places, the film-stock had deteriorated quite
horrifically. The choice was made to plough all the money into creating
one SE version. Makes sense to me.
I'm sure the best version of the original that can be pulled off an
intermediate element print WILL appear on the eventual DVDs.
Joshua Zyber
> > This is why the Star Wars redo annoyed me a
> > lot: not only were the Special Editions not all
> > that great, but the real versions were
> > made unavailable.
>
> and read up in "American Cinematographer"; the second I.L.M. book, and
> various other places, the film-stock had deteriorated quite
> horrifically. The choice was made to plough all the money into creating
> one SE version. Makes sense to me.
>
> I'm sure the best version of the original that can be pulled off an
> intermediate element print WILL appear on the eventual DVDs.
BWAAA-HAAA-HAAAA-HAAAA-HAAAA!!!!
Stop deluding yourself, Pete. If that were true, then please explain to me
why Lucas asked Fox to destroy all existing film prints of the original
non-SE versions of the films.
Joshua Zyber
> > I also don't understand all the complaints about the matte lines on the
Star
> > Wars laserdiscs. At the time of the THX remasters, the contrasts were
> > altered to hide almost all of those garbage mattes if your TV is
adjusted
> > properly.
>
> Oooooh.....oooch! My T.V.'s calibrated quite nicely, thank you....but
> those garbage mattes were TRULY horrible!
I don't know what to tell you, Pete. If we were talking about the older
laserdisc editions, I might understand, but the THX remasters look
considerably better on my TV.
> > On the big screen, there were a few prominent matte lines but most of
them
> > were invisible.
>
> Yup.
And you're not seeing the connection here... why?
Pete Briggs
> > I'm sure the best version of the original that can be pulled off an
> > intermediate element print WILL appear on the eventual DVDs.
>
> BWAAA-HAAA-HAAAA-HAAAA-HAAAA!!!!
>
> Stop deluding yourself, Pete.
Well, unless you have a time machine and can categorically prove
otherwise...?
>If that were true, then please explain to me
> why Lucas asked Fox to destroy all existing film prints of the original
> non-SE versions of the films.
Can you give me a source for this allegation?
Regardless, Lucas has rather nice private prints of the original, which
were used for the SE colour-matching. At the very least, I'd imagine
that was used.
Starman
<jzy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Pete Briggs <pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1eilfk2.14zwnzk1lz0g2tN%pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk...
> > > This is why the Star Wars redo annoyed me a
> > > lot: not only were the Special Editions not all
> > > that great, but the real versions were
> > > made unavailable.
> >
> > It's not a case that the real versions were made unavailable. If you go
> > and read up in "American Cinematographer"; the second I.L.M. book, and
> > various other places, the film-stock had deteriorated quite
> > horrifically. The choice was made to plough all the money into creating
> > one SE version. Makes sense to me.
> >
> > I'm sure the best version of the original that can be pulled off an
> > intermediate element print WILL appear on the eventual DVDs.
>
> BWAAA-HAAA-HAAAA-HAAAA-HAAAA!!!!
>
> Stop deluding yourself, Pete. If that were true, then please explain to me
> why Lucas asked Fox to destroy all existing film prints of the original
> non-SE versions of the films.
Well, he can't have mine, DAMMIT!
Mike
--
ICQ: 6426785
AOL IM: StarmanTHX
EQ: Talisaar - Level 24 druid,
Jermakian - Level 7 Necromancer - Xegony server
David Mullen
>>movie of the 1970's and pumping up the color & the contrast, and
>>digitally reducing the grain, so it matches how movies look NOW.
>
>certain Kodak film stock has deteriorated rather badly since then!
5247 and 5254 color negative, used in the 1970's, isn't prone to rapid
fading unless stored improperly. It's the CRI dupe stock used for some
effects work that had an limited lifespan. I was referring to the
photographic style of many 1970's films to use fog filters & smoke, ala
Geoffrey Unsworth did, to wash-out & soften the image slightly, combined
with push-developing, which is no longer in vogue. "Superman" was shot with
a #2 Fog Filter, which is quite heavy by modern tastes, and all the
interiors & night scenes were pushed one stop as well. It was never
intended to look as sharp & saturated as modern films do, yet if the future
DVD doesn't look like modern films look, someone is going to complain about
"the crappy transfer."
As for "Star Wars", the original negative had faded about 10% and needed
cleaning up (it had been over-handled and printed off of). The only shots
that had deteriorated to the point that they HAD to be re-done to be
acceptable were optical composites made using CRI's, which mostly were
Lucas' famous wipes used for scene transitions. A few other dupes as well.
Luckily Lucas had saved the A and B side of those wipes (the original 5247
negative) so that they could be re-done traditionally again, in an optical
printer. There was no reason to re-do most of the special effects, most of
which had be done to internegative stock, other than to improve on them. He
could have restored the film to its original state, for posterity, and THEN
created an alternate version, such as how director's cuts are created.
Instead, the original cut of the film simply doesn't exist anymore, other
than in old prints and old intermediate dupes.
David Mullen
Pete Briggs
> >>It's just like taking some deliberately pastel, grainy, foggy-looking
> >>movie of the 1970's and pumping up the color & the contrast, and
> >>digitally reducing the grain, so it matches how movies look NOW.
> >
> >Yes, but if you know about those movies from the 70s, that's because a
> >certain Kodak film stock has deteriorated rather badly since then!
>
> 5247 and 5254 color negative, used in the 1970's, isn't prone to rapid
> fading unless stored improperly.
I think you're jumping the gun here, and putting words into my mouth.
As you say, it's the CRI *5249* stock for "Star Wars" which
deteriorated...of which some 62 shots had irreversibly deteriorated in
the Kansas vault.
> There was no reason to re-do most of the special effects, most of
> which had be done to internegative stock, other than to improve on them.
Yep. And I, for one, am glad they did. The recomps are a lovely piece
of work.
Frankly, there are a number of shots I would STILL like rejigged.
> Instead, the original cut of the film simply doesn't exist anymore, other
> than in old prints and old intermediate dupes.
Don't forget the Y-C-M separation masters, and Lucas' private three
strip Technicolour print!
lc...@my-deja.com
pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk (Pete Briggs) wrote:
> > Yet, when he goes back out in the Pod, he's
switched
> > >back to a nice colour-coordinated red helmet. (!?!?!?!!?)
> >
> > The red helmet was still on the rack in the pod bay.
Even more OT: This reminds me of a discrepancy that always stood out
between 2001 and 2010. In 2001, the pods were called by letter; in 2010,
they were called by number.
Our Email
brighten-up the picture a bit. This is Paramount
schleping out a "Star Trek" item, gang. They're
not going to put too much into it and they 'know'
fans will buy it regardless. That's why the series
was released in reverse order - to force a feeling of
having to buy the whole set.
Did they do much with the Trek 2 DVD? Nope.
It wasn't even the full version of the film.
Kulaga, Joseph E.
"Our Email" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:nAxH5.10042$Y6.32...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Starman
<kul...@cmt.anl.gov> wrote:
Other than a change in the opening titles from "Star Trek: The Wrath of
Khan" to "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" which was done in '84 for the
video release, nothing was missing from the original theatrical run.
Ian
wrote:
True; but the theatrical version was not complete. ABC shows the
complete movie every now and then, which includes an extended scene
between Kirk and Peter (Scotty's nephew) in the engine room
inspection. There is also an extended scene in sickbay shortly after
Peter dies where Kirk asks Scotty how long until the mains are back
online.
There are a couple of other scenes, but it's been about 10 years since
I've seen the complete version.
David Mullen
>complete movie every now and then, which includes an extended scene
>between Kirk and Peter (Scotty's nephew) in the engine room
>inspection. There is also an extended scene in sickbay shortly after
>Peter dies where Kirk asks Scotty how long until the mains are back
>online.
>
>There are a couple of other scenes, but it's been about 10 years since
>I've seen the complete version.
A longer alternate TV version does not make it more "complete" than a
theatrical version. Movies are EDITED; longer isn't always better. The TV
version you describe is just a longer, alternate version -- not necessarily
a better, "more complete" version, especially if Nicolas Meyer was the one
who cut that stuff out in the first place to improve the pacing. In fact,
the longer TV versions of "1941" and "Superman" pretty much ruin a lot of
the snappier scene transitions and slow down the pacing. "Complete" suggest
that it is the optimal version that the director preferred before it was
trimmed by the studio for no good reason other than to make it shorter; I
don't think this was the case with "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan". It
would have been nice for them to stick the extra footage in a "deleted
scenes" section though. The deleted scenes don't really help or hurt the
movie much, which is probably why they were trimmed to begin with. It's not
like the studio version of "Once Upon a Time in America" versus Sergio
Leone's cut, which are practically two different movies.
David Mullen
Davywiz
there were alternate takes of a few scenes, including closeups of Kirk and
Saavik on the elevator together, and the scene on the space station when Carol
Marcus is saying "I cannot and will not subscribe to your interpretation of
these events", etc. The only scenes that really helped the film were the two
that established Peter as Scotty's nephew. The theatrical version is awkward in
that Peter is never established as a relative of Scotty, therefore we are
confused over Scotty's extremely emotional reaction over Peter's death. (At
least I was confused the first time I saw the movie). The extended death scene
of Peter in the broadcast version was interesting, but not necessary.
David Mullen
because they were unsatisfactory for other reasons, like weak acting or
staging, or simply because the needs of the plot and pacing outweighed the
needs of character development (to paraphrase the movie...).
Many of the extra moments that are in the longer version of "Star Trek: The
Motion Picture" are quite poorly acted and don't help things. The scene
where Spock cries for V'ger, though, is well-acted and serves a dramatic
purpose, but is poorly scripted in terms of the WHEN and WHERE it occurs in
the story -- it's such a shift in emotional tempo during the suspense that
it's clear why it was cut out; it's an awkward transition in tone. It's
also a bit of a repetition of what Spock says about V'ger in the hospital
bed (which I think IS a good scene, well-acted by everyone, relying heavily
on the unspoken bond between them and the history that they've shared.)
I think that if you look at ST:TMP as a whole, the biggest problem is that
the story was too simple to be padded out for a feature, plus there is not
enough at stake emotionally for Kirk, only Spock. With "Khan" they managed
to create a storyline that was both action-packed and still
character-driven, AND still contain some ideas. Personally, though, I've
always thought that as flawed as ST:TMP is, it still feels like a big
feature film and not an expensive TV episode -- I liked the coldly elegent
monochromatic chrome look, I liked Trumbull's approach to lighting the
Enterprise, I liked Wise's stately widescreen compositions (although I also
love Meyer's camera movements.)
Most of the problems of the first one are probably more due to Roddenberry's
struggles with the story & writers assigned plus an accelerated production
schedule that forced them to start shooting without a satisfactory script.
In fact, the reason Meyer was so popular with Paramount and the producers
was his amazing ability to write FAST -- apparently his version of the
scripts for "Star Trek 2" and "6" were completed in only a couple of weeks.
David Mullen
Jeff Rife
> It
> would have been nice for them to stick the extra footage in a "deleted
> scenes" section though. The deleted scenes don't really help or hurt the
> movie much, which is probably why they were trimmed to begin with.
Not much, true, but it does explain why Scotty is *so* anguished at his death,
which we *do* see.
To be honest, I think it was sloppy editing, along with the inability to
re-shoot scenes.
The sick-bay scene pretty much stands on its own, with only the brief
"inspection" scene to establish it. Scotty dragging Peter's body to the
bridge makes very little sense without the longer "inspection" scene. Oh,
hell, it doesn't make that much sense *with* the establishing scene, but at
least a little more than without. Why this one wasn't the first to go is
beyond me.
--
Jeff Rife | "When I first heard that Marge was joining the
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | police academy, I thought it would be fun and
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | zany, like that movie: Spaceballs. But instead
Home: 301-916-8131 | it was dark and disturbing, like that movie:
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 | Police Academy."
| -- Homer Simpson
Douglas Bailey
[re: ST2:TWOK]
> The sick-bay scene pretty much stands on its own, with only the brief
> "inspection" scene to establish it. Scotty dragging Peter's body to the
> bridge makes very little sense without the longer "inspection" scene.
I actually think the scene is better without the exposition: if we know
the dead guy is Scotty's nephew, it's not too surprising that he's eaten
up with grief, but if we see that he's *that* broken up about the death
of a member of his crew who did his job... well, I think it speaks highly
of the character. (Not to mention foreshadowing some of the sacrificial
talk at the end of the film: Peter, like Spock, gives his life in order
that others might live.)
I've never seen the television version, but I've always felt that the
theatrical cut works just fine on its own.
doug
--
--------------douglas bailey (trys...@ne.mediaone.net)--------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
Pete Briggs
> In fact, the reason Meyer was so popular with Paramount and the producers
> was his amazing ability to write FAST -- apparently his version of the
> scripts for "Star Trek 2" and "6" were completed in only a couple of weeks.
Don't forget he had collaborative input. That helps.
Da_Cheeze
Isn't what we talking about here just another echo of the "colorizing" fanaticism
that
started a few years back ? I mean, it really boils down to the same thing....
Personally, I've seen both cuts of TMP, and like the theatrical version better...
the pacing and acting is just better in that cut.
Pete Briggs wrote:
> David Mullen <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In fact, the reason Meyer was so popular with Paramount and the producers
> > was his amazing ability to write FAST -- apparently his version of the
> > scripts for "Star Trek 2" and "6" were completed in only a couple of weeks.
>
dhmac
> Daryl Carpenter <lyra...@cs.comCRM114> wrote:
>
> > >But could you think of anything that NEEDS fixing in "2001", really?
> >
I'd like to fix the effects for Jupiter - the real planet is so much more
impressive than it looks in 2001.
> 2) Bowman enters the Discovery, and takes the GREEN helmet from the
> emergency lock. Yet, when he goes back out in the Pod, he's switched
> back to a nice colour-coordinated red helmet. (!?!?!?!!?)
>
You do realize that this later Pod excursion to the Monolith takes place days or
even weeks after he disconnects HAL, right? By that time, he had switched to a
different helmet that matched his space suit.
Pete Briggs
> > 2) Bowman enters the Discovery, and takes the GREEN helmet from the >
> emergency lock. Yet, when he goes back out in the Pod, he's switched >
> back to a nice colour-coordinated red helmet. (!?!?!?!!?) > You do
> realize that this later Pod excursion to the Monolith takes place days or
> even weeks after he disconnects HAL, right?
How do you know this? There's nothing in either "2001" or even "2010"
to indicate this. I don't recall there being anything in the book,
either?
>By that time, he had switched to a different helmet that matched his
>space suit.
Well, that's the obvious answer, IF what you say could be proven...but
why did he even do that?
Interesting to note that HAL (supposedly) sucks all the atmosphere out
of the ship...yet when the Leonov crew board Discovery, there's a
breathable atmosphere in there? (To add credence to your theory about
the helmet change, Bowman could have ONLY changed helmets in either the
lock, the last pod, or if he did repressurize Discovery.)
Why isn't everything in Discovery covered in ice crystals in "2010", and
HOW can the ship's galley "go bad", when presumably:
A) The temperature would have dropped so rapidly.
B) Food would presumably have been of those reconstituted "pallette"
types that we saw them eat in the centrifuge? (Floyd even earlier on
the moonbus makes a comment about the artifice of the sandwiches, and
you have to assume that Earth-orbit food would be WAY fresher than
long-term deep-space missions.)
Also, the Leonov crew board an electrically dead ship (hence them having
to use the manual door opener), yet if there's no power -- presumably
with HAL being taken off-line -- how did Bowman view Floyd's message, or
get the bay doors open to launch another pod? He'd have to power down
any back-up batteries, which presumably he couldn't do AFTER he launched
his pod? (I've several other thoughts on this, but I want to see your
response!)
You also have to assume that there's no grapple on the first Pod, as
Bowman had to turn it around and explosively decompress from there, into
Discovery, AFTER using the claws. The same explosive decompression
would have sent the pod spinning away from Discovery, and without power
on Discovery, he couldn't have even remote-controlled it back to
Discovery after it had spun off.
This makes TWO Pods that Discovery has lost in rapid succession, after
the first "killer pod" went spinning off away from Poole. (Although we
don't see HAL pilot the first Pod back, so we have to assume it's lost.)
Therefore, the Pod that Bowman takes into the Stargate would have to be
the remaining Pod in the Discovery Bay...which means that the Leonov
team would find a completely empty pod bay...although there's one still
in there.
David Mullen
>> emergency lock. Yet, when he goes back out in the Pod, he's switched >
>> back to a nice colour-coordinated red helmet. (!?!?!?!!?) > You do
>> realize that this later Pod excursion to the Monolith takes place days or
>> even weeks after he disconnects HAL, right?
>
>to indicate this. I don't recall there being anything in the book,
>either?
The book describes quite a long period after Bowman disconnects HAL, where
he disposes of the other crew members' bodies and then has to navigate the
Discovery into an orbit around Saturn.
As Bowman works on the Discovery, post-HAL:
"The ship's power, navigation, and propulsion system were unaffected -- but
the last two, in any event, Bowman would not need for months, until it was
time to rendezvous with Saturn."
LATER:
"During the last three months, David Bowman had adapted himself so
completely to his solitary way of life..."
David Mullen
Pete Briggs
> The book describes quite a long period after Bowman disconnects HAL, where
> he disposes of the other crew members' bodies and then has to navigate the
> Discovery into an orbit around Saturn.
Ah. Okay.
But if it ain't on the screen...
P
Greg Andrews
>dhmac <dh...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
>> > 2) Bowman enters the Discovery, and takes the GREEN helmet from the >
>> emergency lock. Yet, when he goes back out in the Pod, he's switched >
>> back to a nice colour-coordinated red helmet. (!?!?!?!!?) > You do
>> realize that this later Pod excursion to the Monolith takes place days or
>> even weeks after he disconnects HAL, right?
>
>to indicate this. I don't recall there being anything in the book,
>either?
>
>>space suit.
>
>why did he even do that?
>
>Interesting to note that HAL (supposedly) sucks all the atmosphere out
>of the ship...yet when the Leonov crew board Discovery, there's a
>breathable atmosphere in there?
>
Oops! In the film, HAL didn't depressurize the ship. That was only
in the book. Bowman keeps the helmet from the emergency lock's suit
on because he's in a hurry to disable HAL before HAL can threaten him
further.
I vaguely recall 2010's director talking about this, and saying the
film 2001 didn't have a depressurization, so he treated the film 2010
Discovery as not suffering that kind of traumatic event.
>
> (To add credence to your theory about
>the helmet change, Bowman could have ONLY changed helmets in either the
>lock, the last pod, or if he did repressurize Discovery.)
>
He re-pressurized Discovery after lobotomizing HAL. Discovery hadn't
yet arrived at Jupiter (though the film doesn't go out of its way to
mention this). Remember that the three guys were still in hibernation
when HAL killed Frank Poole. They would have been revived when the
ship reached Jupiter. So the jump between HAL singing "Daisy, Daisy"
and "The Moons of Jupiter" had to be a period of hours, if not days
or weeks. Meanwhile, Bowman cleaned up the ship, jettisoned (sic)
the bodies of the hibernators, and re-established radio contact with
Earth.
However, your point about an atmosphere is valid in another sense.
Discovery would have slowly leaked its atmosphere during the 9 years
between 2001 and 2010. Even an amazingly air-tight ship with its air
pressure reduced by remote control from Eatch wouldn't keep its air
that long.
>
>Why isn't everything in Discovery covered in ice crystals in "2010", and
>HOW can the ship's galley "go bad", when presumably:
>
>A) The temperature would have dropped so rapidly.
>
That's only assuming HAL's depressurization was the last time the
ship was occupied. As shown above, the film didn't have a rapid
drop in pressure, and Bowman ran the ship for some time after quashing
HAL's rebellion.
It's reasonable to assume that Bowman would have jury-rigged remote
control via the radio link with Earth after HAL was disabled. The
book says this pretty plainly. Extrapolating from that, it's reasonable
to think Bowman would have turned full control over to Earth before
embarking on any extra-vehicular activity, such as chasing the monolith
in the pod. So Earth would have been able to shut Discovery down
gracefully, and even park it in a more stable long-term orbit than the
original one close to the monolith. Eventually, though Discovery's
power would run low enough that she couldn't keep her antenna locked
on Earth and she would be on her own.
>
>B) Food would presumably have been of those reconstituted "pallette"
>types that we saw them eat in the centrifuge? (Floyd even earlier on
>the moonbus makes a comment about the artifice of the sandwiches, and
>you have to assume that Earth-orbit food would be WAY fresher than
>long-term deep-space missions.)
>
Well, the REAL answer is "ice crystals weren't in the script, and
rotted food odors were". The temperature wouldn't have dropped so
rapidly for the reasons given earlier, so the food would not necessarily
have frozen quickly. I doubt that the screenwriter would have lost
sleep over the question of how food in a deep-space mission would have
been stored, and whether it could have leaked out.
I think the screenwriter liked Clarke's description of the aftermath
of the depressurization in the book, where food odors are mentioned,
and wanted to use the idea in 2010.
>
>Also, the Leonov crew board an electrically dead ship (hence them having
>to use the manual door opener), yet if there's no power -- presumably
>with HAL being taken off-line -- how did Bowman view Floyd's message, or
>get the bay doors open to launch another pod? He'd have to power down
>any back-up batteries, which presumably he couldn't do AFTER he launched
>his pod? (I've several other thoughts on this, but I want to see your
>response!)
>
The message Bowman saw in HAL's inner sanctum was pre-recorded, in
case HAL had to be shut down. As the lights in HAL's sanctum show,
the ship still had power, and of course, a message recorded for when
the computer was shut down would have to be automatic. It couldn't
rely on the computer to be seen.
The crew of the Leonov encountered a Discovery whose power sources
had exhausted themselves. That wasn't the case nine years earlier
when Bowman left the ship. In fact, the scene where you see Bowman
leaving the Discovery in the pod, Discovery's pod bay and bridge
has their lights burning brightly.
>
>You also have to assume that there's no grapple on the first Pod, as
>Bowman had to turn it around and explosively decompress from there, into
>Discovery, AFTER using the claws. The same explosive decompression
>would have sent the pod spinning away from Discovery, and without power
>on Discovery, he couldn't have even remote-controlled it back to
>Discovery after it had spun off.
>
No, he could have remote-controlled it back to Discovery. However, by
the time he was finished deactivating HAL, the pod may have been too
far away to retrieve. Also, if the ship didn't carry spare pod doors,
the doorless pod would have been useless.
>
>This makes TWO Pods that Discovery has lost in rapid succession, after
>the first "killer pod" went spinning off away from Poole. (Although we
>don't see HAL pilot the first Pod back, so we have to assume it's lost.)
>Therefore, the Pod that Bowman takes into the Stargate would have to be
>the remaining Pod in the Discovery Bay...which means that the Leonov
>team would find a completely empty pod bay...although there's one still
>in there.
>
Good point. Perhaps it was Poole's pod that Bowman retrieved via
remote control. Another possibility is that the autopilot on the
pod with the blown door could have prevented it from being thrust
away from Discovery. A third possibility is that HAL didn't let
Poole's pod get away. They were HAL's only means of repairing the
ship's external systems, so he might not have thrown it away.
I'll have to see if the book drops any hints about whether Bowman
takes the last pod or not. I haven't read it in a while now.
Hmmm... I haven't thought about continuity between the two films
like this before. This is fun.
-Greg
--
::::::::::::::::::: Greg Andrews ge...@panix.com :::::::::::::::::::
ObGuindon: Caution: This jacket has 37 Velcro(tm) closures.
Do not hug a moose with the flaps open.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Don Prevett
Keep in mind the major differences between the 2001 novelization and
film:
2001 book: Discovery's destination is Saturn, specifically the moon Io;
after attacking Frank with the pod, HAL depressurizes the ship, forcing
Dave to take refuge in an emergency shelter in the centrifuge section,
from which he emerges to lobotomize HAL; the interval between the HAL
incident and arrival at Saturn is clearly months
2001 movie: Discovery is going to Jupiter (Trumbull couldn't
realistically render Saturn's rings, so the production switched to a
ringless (thought to be at the time) planet, a deficiency later
addressed in "Silent Running"); Dave chases Frank in a second EVA pod;
the time between the HAL incident and arrival at Jupiter is not specified
Then Clarke writes 2010 and the subsequent *books* to match 2001 *the
film*.
The major difference between the 2010 book and film is that the film
omits the Chinese reaching Europa first plot, replacing it with Leonov's
probe discovering chlorophyll.
And people complain about the lack of continuity in the "Star Trek" TV
shows. See what liberties a major SF author takes with a respected
project...
Pete Briggs
> Oops! In the film, HAL didn't depressurize the ship.
Yeah. That's why I said "supposedly".
> I vaguely recall 2010's director talking about this, and saying the
> film 2001 didn't have a depressurization, so he treated the film 2010
> Discovery as not suffering that kind of traumatic event.
Was this in the "2010" making of logs? I haven't read that book in a
LONG time.
> He re-pressurized Discovery after lobotomizing HAL. Discovery hadn't
> yet arrived at Jupiter (though the film doesn't go out of its way to
> mention this).
Shame, really. How does Bowman circumvent the computerized systems,
though? And why didn't he have a lengthier dialogue with Earth about
HAL's failure? Surely they would have made some attempt at repairing
him? (Or the "Goddamned Whitehouse" could have fessed up!) They
apparently got his "My God, It's Full Of Stars" transmission!
> Well, the REAL answer is "ice crystals weren't in the script, and
> rotted food odors were". The temperature wouldn't have dropped so
> rapidly for the reasons given earlier, so the food would not necessarily
> have frozen quickly. I doubt that the screenwriter would have lost
> sleep over the question of how food in a deep-space mission would have
> been stored, and whether it could have leaked out.
Well, he damned well ought to! I would have! (Especially as he was the
director!)
> >You also have to assume that there's no grapple on the first Pod, as
> >Bowman had to turn it around and explosively decompress from there, into
> >Discovery, AFTER using the claws. The same explosive decompression
> >would have sent the pod spinning away from Discovery, and without power
> >on Discovery, he couldn't have even remote-controlled it back to
> >Discovery after it had spun off.
>
> No, he could have remote-controlled it back to Discovery.
As I said, how?
> Good point. Perhaps it was Poole's pod that Bowman retrieved via
> remote control. Another possibility is that the autopilot on the
> pod with the blown door could have prevented it from being thrust
> away from Discovery. A third possibility is that HAL didn't let
> Poole's pod get away. They were HAL's only means of repairing the
> ship's external systems, so he might not have thrown it away.
My theory is...they screwed it up! <g>
> Hmmm... I haven't thought about continuity between the two films
> like this before. This is fun.
You want continuity, take a look at the white-on-black patterning on the
pod bay floor. It's different in "2010" than it is in "2001". HOW the
art department screwed that up, is baffling!
Pete Briggs
> The major difference between the 2010 book and film is that the film
> omits the Chinese reaching Europa first plot, replacing it with Leonov's
> probe discovering chlorophyll.
I really missed that plot strand. Would have loved to have seen it in
the movie. Sigh...