stinkeye

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/review...rtrek6sce.html

Randy Miller III

I can't wait for this one...I pre-ordered it over at Amazon with STL, and it came out to like $12.50 shipped! Looks like it'll definitely be worth the wait!

dcprules

I'm really liking the new prices for the Star Trek special edition discs. Paramount is quickly gaining my respect. They are releasing big SE DVD's at cheap prices (Star Trek, Once Upon A Time in the West, etc.). Thanks for the review link, really looking forward to seeing this again.

Panda Phil

I guess you might call me a bitter old ex-Trek fan, so this one, TWOK, and First Contact are the only SE's I want in my collection. Looking forward to it.

milo bloom

According to the bits, the aspect ratio has been opened up to 1.85. It was shot Super35, but was theatrically shown at 2.35. Why is this so hard to get right? At least it's anamorphic this time.

Josh Z

I'm wondering if it's really 1.85:1 or closer to 2.0:1 like the old DVD? The Bits review states that both are 1.85:1, which is incorrect. The old DVD recycled the original laserdisc master, which was supervised by Nicolas Meyer and framed at 2.0:1 per his preference.

milo bloom

There's screengrabs over at the HTF, and it looks like they were taken within a 16x9 frame and there's tiny black bars, looks about 2.0:1 to me.

I suppose it's just my preference for 2.35 films, particularly SciFi, clouding my judgment, but if Meyer wants it, I'm game. I'm certainly not boycotting this.

DavidH

Can someone briefly explain to me why some Super35 2:35 movies are showing at different ARs on DVD? I never understood this really. Why not just take the exact image shown at the theater and put it on DVD this way? I once heard that the picture would be too small for most home displays if they did this. I don't know.

milo bloom

Why does any DVD with a different AR than the theatrical exist? Either pandering to the fullscreen crowd, or the director doesn't like being constricted by the inability of theaters these days to show anything other than 1.85 or 2.35.

Or, your guess is as good as mine.

Josh Z

In this case, Meyer claimed that he was dissatisfied with the 2.35:1 theatrical composition and felt that it was too cramped. He preferred to see the image opened up a little bit for breathing room. Had nothing to do with image size.

Josh Z

You know, a little over a year ago I saw a print of this projected theatrically at its original 2.35:1 and I thought it looked fine. But, like you say, if that's what the director wants who are we to argue?

milo bloom

Martin Blythe has spoken up over at the HTF in their 4 page thread about this. The reframing is at Meyer's discretion and to his specifications.

You know, he used to post here...

DavidH

True. I think too many people on the forum showed a lack of respect toward him.