my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » I am thinking of giving the Star Trek films a watch (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: I am thinking of giving the Star Trek films a watch Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 03-26-2011 02:43 AM                        Tom, the "bad sound" you heard was likely from the mass quantities of ADR that the movie had. No transfer can eliminate that, it's now part of the movie's "charm", if you will. Many spoken lines sound different because they were recorded much later at a different place. They should have done the ADR for the whole take for consistency, but they broke it up into fragments of sentences so it does sound odd. The LaserDisc will have similar issues. The movie looks much better on Blu-ray than it does on DVD though. The DVD has scratches and dirt... parts of it were clearly from a print run in a bad platter theater many times. Film does that, y'know. It gets scratched and dirty because it's film. There's no stopping it. But anyway, they really did a good job with the Blu-ray transfer, considering. That said, it is an old movie on shitty stock so it won't look as good as other movies.  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 03-26-2011 06:48 AM                        Agreed. II is the only movie of the six that went through heavy "restoration" "because the print was in such bad shape". But it's always looked and sounded horrible. Easily the worst transfers of the movies on Blu-ray. Having said that, it's also considered the best of the movies by most of the Trek fan base.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-26-2011 01:54 PM                        In order of gross according to boxofficemojo. 1 Star Trek...............................$257,730,019 2 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home...........$109,713,132 3 Star Trek: First Contact................$92,027,888 4 Star Trek: The Motion Picture...........$82,258,456 5 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.........$78,912,963 6 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.....$76,471,046 7 Star Trek: Generations..................$75,671,125 8 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country..$74,888,996 9 Star Trek: Insurrection.................$70,187,658 10 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier........$52,210,049 11 Star Trek: Nemesis.....................$43,254,409 I'm a little surprised by this chart because I always thought II did a lot better than TMP, but it actually grossed less even though it came out 3 years later.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 03-26-2011 02:38 PM                     Those are surprising numbers Mike. I really thought these films had made a lot more money. AJG  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 03-26-2011 11:55 PM                     While II grossed less than TMP, the first one cost around $40million while II only cost around $10mil. Of course, the special effects work for the first was done in 65mm 9some in SP70, some in Todd-AO). And there were a LOT of FX shots in that first one.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 03-27-2011 12:12 AM                    [QUOTE]In order of gross according to boxofficemojo. * 1 Star Trek...............................$257,730,019 * 2 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home...........$109,713,132 * 3 Star Trek: First Contact................$92,027,888 * 4 Star Trek: The Motion Picture...........$82,258,456 * 5 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.........$78,912,963 * 6 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.....$76,471,046 * 7 Star Trek: Generations..................$75,671,125 * 8 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country..$74,888,996 * 9 Star Trek: Insurrection.................$70,187,658 * 10 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier........$52,210,049 * 11 Star Trek: Nemesis.....................$43,254,409 I'm a little surprised by this chart because I always thought II did a lot better than TMP, but it actually grossed What happened to Star Trek IV?  |  IP: Logged Mark Campbell Expert Film Handler Posts: 148 From: Seattle, WA USA Registered: Jul 2007 posted 03-27-2011 12:16 AM                     Guys you are not taking inflation into account for those box-office figures.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 03-27-2011 04:16 AM                    I just noticed IV  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-27-2011 07:50 AM                     And even if you did account for inflation...how much would the chart change? With Star Trek...each successive film typically made LESS...accounting for inflation would only accentuate that. The clear exceptions would be IV which did better than the other TOS movies so its might be curtailed a bit by inflation adjustment. For instance...to put it in TMP era, it would have only made $72,673,979...allowing TMP to hold its lead on TOS movies (actual ticket sales). But what about that...has movie ticket prices followed the CPI? I'm not too sure about that...lately they seem to be out stripping it but back in the late 70s-90s...were they? I don't know. But lets put the Star Trek (reboot) back in the TMP date...its effective income would only be: $85,798,323...leaving it still in the lead. BUT if you REALLY want to be fair...you also have to take into account the population too. That is, how many Potential movie goers actually went. That is, if your pool of people is 1-million in say 1979 and through just population expansion your pool of people is 10-million in 2010...then one would expect a 10-fold increase in ticket sales, presuming all else is equal (equal interest in the movie, same quality...etc). I suspect, if The Motion Picture had that last factor put in, it would be in the lead in terms of ticket sales/per population available. There is probably someone, like Michael Coate, that could churn up some numbers.  |  IP: Logged Mark Campbell Expert Film Handler Posts: 148 From: Seattle, WA USA Registered: Jul 2007 posted 03-27-2011 12:13 PM                     If one upgrades their Boxofficemojo account to "Premier" you can look at franchise histories adjusted for inflation.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 03-28-2011 02:38 AM                    ***1/2 Star Trek III The Search For Spock If Star Trek The Motion Picture is a film and Wrath of Khan is the perfect feature length version of the tv show, then The Search For Spock is a full out adventure/fantasy movie. I do remember watching part III when I was a kid when my brothers would get the home video. By far, Star Trek III was the most entertaining of the saga thus far. I think the aspect that I liked the most is that there were extended segments of the film that did not take place on the Enterprise. The fact that the Enterprise was destroyed was interesting and the absence of Leonary Nemoy for the first 90 minutes was also one of the strengths. Back for the second time was the music of James Horner. Part III had almost none of the familar Star Trek score which was present in part I. Probably the most fascinating aspect of Star Trek III was Christopher Lloyd. I couldn't get out of my head "Dr Emmitt Brown" the whole time I was watching Lloyd on screen. This is not a bad thing per say as Back to Future came out right after Part III so my preception would of been different back in 1985 if I saw the movie in theatres. As for the DVD. Well, thankfully it was much better than the Part II blu-ray. The sound of III was good and I am starting to become very fond of upconverted dvd presentations. Overall, the most entertaining of the saga so far.I liked how they ended of III and I had the sense that it was being set up for a part IV. I am also very surprised how fast I am going through the series and I am finding that I am enjoying the much more than I originally thought. DVD: **** Sound: ***  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 03-28-2011 04:49 AM                        Star Trek 3 really doesn't get enough respect.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-28-2011 07:25 PM                     I fell asleep during Star Trek III it was so boring...and I was running it.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 03-28-2011 10:43 PM                    **** Star Trek IV The Voyage Home Star Trek IV is not only a very good Star Trek movie, but it is also a very good movie in general. From beginning to end I was entertained, there is not a dull moment in the movie. I really liked the going back to San Francisco aspect. Also the chemistry between Kirk and Gillian Taylor, only flaw why didn't these kiss at the end. Now that I know most of characters and their chemistry, IV is also a funny movie. I laugh out loud a number of times while watching IV. The special effects of IV are the best so far. I was surprised to see Industrial Light and Magic during the credits and then I said "what a minute, the effects were very good". The only thing that I found issue with was the whole whale thing, seemed a little lame. Overall an outstanding experience, not only because the IV is a very good Star Trek film, but it is also a very good movie. I really liked IV. I also liked the little montage during the end credits. DVD: **** Sound: ****  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 03-28-2011 11:17 PM                        A lot of non-trekkies (or trekkers, supposedly there is a difference) refer to this movie as "Star Trek" The One With the Whales".  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.