STAR TREK TMP DIRECTORS CUT HAS A PROBLEM !
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2023
- Star Trek The Motion Picture the Directors edition is a great piece of work ! The movie has never looked so crisp and clear before ! Even the audio is amazing clear however it is not perfect ! Once scene with all the special sound effects hurts one of the scariest moments in the whole movie ,in fact I would say the scariest moment in all of the Star Trek movies !
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "DS9 Was Admiral Leyton's plan the right decision for Earth ?"
• Video
~-~~-~~~-~~-~ 
Развлечения
One of themost chilling lines in Star Trek - "What we got back didn't live long. Fortunately."
Yes, from the way the guy says it, he must be looking at something utter gut-churning.
@@DomH75 I think it would've been something along the lines of the mutilated Bartok at the end of The Fly 2!
Same can be said about Tuvix 😜
I imagine it looking like the baboon that got destroyed in the teleport pod in Cronenberg's The Fly .. I big slimy pulsating ball of guts and meat.
@@Foebane72 Just read your comment after typing something about the first Fly .. synchronicity.
I was only 9 years old when I watched the transporter accident scene from TMP. It haunts me even today. Nearly 40 years later.
Give me a F-ing break!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Me too, it was incredibly creepy. I can’t believe this film isn’t even PG in my country!
I was 7 years old! 😱 The sound of the screams always sends chills down my spine! 😥
I was 7, watching it on a rented VHS in 1982. TMP was already so different from TOS, which I loved (I can't remember a time when Star Trek wasn't on at home!) and this scene changed the friendly, fun transporter machine of the TV show into something to be respected. It's the difference between seeing a car crash in fun action movie and a real life car crash in a documentary.
@@DomH75 that’s before I was born but I was about 7 when I first saw it, too. It horrified me, I’m pretty sure I had nightmares 😂
That 'Malfuction, Malfunction' computer voice sounds just as chilling as those airplane black box recordings computer " Pull up, Pull up..."
The scary part about this scene is not what we see trying to come through this side of the transporter beam. It is what we imagine we would see on the other side that is briefly described as "what we got back....didn't live long.....fortunately..." I imagine it would have been agonizing clumps of flesh still alive for a moment before dying off.
That shoud have been something like the Carpenter's "Thing".
I know the novelization does give a graphic, detailed description of what it looked like. I imagined something like the 1986 "The Fly" after the baboon teleporter accident, but as emanemanrus5835 commented down below, yeah, I now see it as something like from "The Thing".
Can you quote the book?@@trekzilladmc
Having read the novelisation a few times, it created a false memory and I was convinced they did show the "creatures" that were beamed back. 😮
Happy to be proved wrong, but it does show what a powerful thing the brain is!
TMP showed that space exploration was no joke. At every moment anything could kill you, be it some weird energy cloud or even your own technology during a malfunction. The lucky ones just get disintegrated instantly, the unlucky ones linger.
That's why you'll never catch me doing space, even if it were a realistic possibility.
I think worst possible thing in Classic series was what happened Capt Christopher Pike. The end result of exposure to Theta radiation which left burned out shell of man. Unable even move or speak yet evidently his mind still very active and alert. Trapped in motorized wheelchair Forever.
Still remember how shocked I was to see this scene.....those SCREAMS!! 😬
Simply wasn't expecting this moment of absolute Horror in a Star Trek movie.....and now you understand why McCoy hates Transporters so much 😏
I would of definitely screamed just the same as her but even louder.
Ending up with your organs outside of your body doesn't bear thinking about.
certainly wasnt family friendly at all.
should read the novel. it's more detailed with the description of what was forming on the platform. Quote from the novel:
Shapes were materializing on the platform again-but frighteningly misshapen, writhing masses of chaotic flesh with skeletal shapes and pumping organs on the outsides of the "bodies." A twisted, claw-like hand tore at the air, a scream came from a bleeding mouth . . . and then they were gone. The chamber was empty.
@@katrinacleaver7721 Well, thank you for THAT Lovecraftian Nightmare!! 🤢😏
The best part of this sequence is the writing and blocking. Kirk and Scott moving Rand and the other Transporter chief out of the way so they were at the controls was great writing and one of the few times the military command spirit was accurately portrayed in SF, even ST.
They knew there was nothing they could do to stop it, or save the victims...even cross circuiting to B...but they relieved their subordinates from the responsibility.
Why wouldn't Kirk let Rand do her job? She's the transporter chief and he may have not touched the transporter controls in years. He knew the victims couldn't be saved? How do you know? The figures didn't start to form until after Kirk took the controls. How do we know he didn't contribute to the outcome? And I think they would've had a better chance of being saved by someone whose job it was to operate those controls then by him. You seem to have some experience with the military, so maybe you have more understanding than I do. But that's how I see it.
@@kwebb121765 because she would feel responsible...that is a commander in drama taking the responsibility. He "killed" them, she didn't.
These are scripts about feelings. This is not real, it is not logical, it is not objective. Despite all the talk fans do about logic, they love the gutsy stuff the most...because it is a PLAY.
Tis a far far better thing I do than I have ever done before.....
That's how you write emotional hero drama.
@@STho205 Because she is the transporter operator, she is responsible for doing her best to operate it, though not responsible for the deaths. But Admiral Kirk is irresponsible because he's taking control from someone who's probably more familiar with the transporter. If he'd left her at the controls there might a better, if still small, chance of someone surviving.
And as far as feelings and logic in a story, just because stories focus primarily on feelings does not mean logic goes out the window. And when you have Admiral Kirk doing something so stupid and then not to have an acknowlegement in the narrative that that what he did was stupid, then not only was the character illogical, he was badly written.
@@kwebb121765 it isn't real.
The whole thing was because Nimoy at the last minute took the job because enough cash was offered...and the replacement Vulcan was fired. That's ShowBiz
I thought I was one of the only people who noticed that. Kirk took the responsibility away from Rand, and even told her it wasn't her fault. In ST:TUC during the trial he still admitted that he was responsible for his ship and crew's actions. That's a leader.
I saw this back in 1979 when the movie first hit theaters. This really was a scary scene for 11-year-old me. The awful screams of agony which echoed a little after the beam cut out followed by dead silence until we face Kirk, who himself was absolutely aghast and what he had witnessed, was downright haunting.
I think this scene suffered as a direct result of the Director's Cut. It took away a lot from the shock I experienced when I first saw this.
Notwithstanding the mood-ruining changes for a moment, the rest of the scene was well done. I especially loved the touch with Kirk consoling Rand, reassuring her it wasn't her fault.
And just when your young psyche had healed from this horror, we are then treated to mind-controlling brain bugs in the sequel 😱 🐛
Hell, Montalbán's delivery of the line describing what the Ceti eels do was downright chilling, never mind what they ACTUALLY do.
@@kattphloxworthych How Montalban was not at least nominated for an Oscar, I'll never know.
If one knows this scene from reading the novelization they also know that not only did this leave an opening for Spock to return but also killed Kirks then girlfriend. I think that would have made it more interesting than having 2 random crewmembers die
She was a Starfleet Admiral
@@DesertBro I don't remember her being an Admiral
@@gwenking7700 Alternate timeline perhaps.
I agree, the final scream reverberating around the chamber is just chilling, almost ghostly.
this scream haunted me for a long time ...
Especially in the original cut, because it's almost a whimper/cry.
“What we got back…didn’t live long…fortunately…”
"I'd still like a Vulcan there"
"None available Captain. In fact there's nobody fully rated on the new design"
"You are Mr Deckard . I'm afraid you're going to have to double as science officer".
@@trevorbrown6654 And today, it would be racist to suggest that a Vulcan was any better than any other race or species, simply because of their race or species.
I saw this as a kid in the theater and it was terrifying.
Same. I was 8. The fact that they were helpless gave me anxiety
In retrospect, I love that TMP takes a more realistic view of Star Trek's technology than the series did. This was the first post-moon landing Star Trek, people's understanding of space travel by 1979 was far more sophisticated than it had been in 1966-69, and suddenly we saw a version of Star Trek where the transporter could be dangerous to use, and even the faster-than-light drive could randomly open a dangerous wormhole. Star Trek's technology could no longer be taken for granted.
I always imagined what came back at the origin transporter was a combination of the burned remains in The Thing and the inside-out baboon in The Fly.
My mind goes back to the digital conveyor scene in 'Galaxy Quest' when they turn the pig monster inside out. I mean, I know it was meant for humor, but someone had to have said "what if the transporter..."
The transporter malfunction, IN THE MOVIE, serves as a convenient way to kill off Spock's replacement, but IN THE NOVELISATION, written by Alan Dean Foster with input from Gene Roddenberry (hence, canon), there is a lot more detail given. While one of the victims of the accident is Sonak, the other victim is Vice Admiral Lori Ciana, KIrk's ex-wife.
When Kirk got back from the 5-year mission, he faced several difficulties: as the Captain of the only Constitution class vessel to come back from the 5-year mission, Kirk was the definition of a living legend, he also had some PTSD, AND he had to adjust to a promotion and a new posting off-ship - Lori CIana helped him through that transition and while the marriage didn't last, he still had strong feelings for her.
This relationship is important as there's a tie-in to the episode, The Naked Time:
When Kirk becomes infected, after physical contact with Spock, he gives a monologue:
"Love. You're better off without it and I'm better off without mine. This vessel; I give, she takes. She won't permit me my life, I've got to live hers. I have a beautiful yeoman. Have you noticed her, Mr. Spock? You're allowed to notice her. Captain's not permit---. [Looking at the Enterprise] Now I know why it's called 'she'. A flesh woman to touch, to hold, a beach to walk on. A few days, no braid on my shoulder." He then interacts with Spock and Scotty before they leave the room and he again talks directly to the Enterprise, saying, "I'll never lose you. Never."
Kirk *DID* lose the Enterprise, though - he accepted promotion, he took a shore job. The first time Kirk goes back to the Enterprise it's to take control, to become her Captain again, and what happens at almost the precise moment he talks to Decker, formally notifying him that he is resuming his post as Captain of the Enterprise? The transporter accident which results in the loss of the "other woman" in Kirk's life echoing the line from the monologue: "This vessel; I give, she takes. She won't permit me my life, I've got to live hers."
Should've also kept the computer's verbal warning. It made it all the more haunting.
Yes, the new mix with louder “beaming” eFX overwhelms the sound cue. I THINK they were compensating for a lack of sonic intensity in that moment without the computer voice saying “MALFUNCTION, MALFUNCTION” with the klaxon sounding. I agree with you that the original mix conveyed more horror and tragedy but I need to watch this in context of the rest of the act now. (We’ll always have our older copies!😅)
Still have my VHS copies and dvd releases BEFORE the director cut.
I always thought the synthesized malfunction alarm added to the dread. Removing it from the new version was a mistake.
@@josephcontreras8930 I have a DVD of the original release and honestly i think i prefer this one despite some defaults (?) of certain visual effects... John Dikstra as always did a remarkable job !
The screams of those crew members during the transpoter accident haunted my dream as a kid. It still scares me today
This scene has stayed with me as well since 14-year-old me saw it in the theater. Part of what really sells it for me was when Rand, by now a tough veteran, spins around unable to watch the horror unfolding on that pad. As a child, I recall I almost followed her lead.
Something I've never understood: They can beam down to a planet and back again using only the transporter on the ship. They can covertly beam onto enemy ships and back again using only the transporter on the ship. So why, when people are beaming over from another ship, or a station, do they need a working transporter on BOTH ends?
Beaming from one pad to another pad is supposed to give a more reliable and accurate transfer. Beaming to or from a surface location is usually done into a large open area. Beaming site to site inside a ship, or into an enemy ship, is more risky and needs more precise control, either by the operator in TOS, or by computer in the TNG era.
My explanation would be that in whatever situation that permits it, it is preferred to have sending and receiving transporters working together to double the safety margin, like having two sets of cables on an elevator. In the unlikely event of one set snapping, the other will prevent a tragedy.
Now imagine that one set snaps in such a way that the loose end cuts through the other set. The safety measure will have been the cause of the tragedy.
I think something akin to that happened here. The faulty modules on the ship caused the two machines to lose sync and the two people's reforming process became an argument rather than a cooperation.
Because it's not real.
Because they were making it up as they went along. And more importantly they could have saved money by not building an extra set.
@@stevenbennett3805 I'll bet you have some interesting insights on all fiction since human history began.
Then again, probably not.
That's why Lt Barclay from STNG really HATED the transporter because he knew of the accident. It was not only one but multiple. That's why Star Fleet created multiple back up buffers.
You are so correct sir about the backup buffers and Barclays fear of them ! Here's a question for you though if they ever did invent one of those things would you step into it ? From all the videos I've seen over the years about what the transporter is supposed to do I'm not sure I would want to get into one of those things !
@@w.f.syourdoctor In the later ST books, not sure if canon, he still hates it. And Barclay states there were more than 100 accidents, and Star Fleet hid the info. Even Riker in one ebook I read years ago, confided in Barclay he prefers the shuttle.
@@w.f.syourdoctor Never. Especially if it's the the scan and break down type of technology. That's killing the original. Only some kind of space folding or quantum jump - where the original is intact and the only version around - would be a remote possibility, even though a quantum jump or tunnel for a macroscopic object or collection of particles doesn't make sense as far as I understand it. The transporter is such hand waving technobabble even though it's a critical device for story telling, to be honest. How can a person perceive anything during the process? They'd have to be immobilized at the quantum level to get a perfect scan. They'd have to be frozen in time. If the science of the time provides for both gravity/inertia control and anti-gravity, they'd have such an understanding and control of warping space they'd necessarily have control of (warping) time too.IMHO anyhow.
Doctor McCoy always had a problem with transporting. Even in the original series.
Or Bones.
I think the scene was important because it gave the viewers a chance to see what could actually happen. That would be like having the Fly cut out every scene. It was just a movie.
Agreed. This was terrifying to watch as a kid. The changes buffered the horror
"*What* we got back didn't live long, fortunately"
Think hard about that one. Not only did they come back hideously deformed but came back as a single fused together mass. =\
I was 21 When STTMP came out! That Transporter malfunction really creeped me out!!!
Maybe that's it, maybe Robert Wise thought he went too far the first time and decided to soften it.
@@ebinrock When was this restored? Wise has been dead for some time.
The novelization goes into more graphic detail describing the misshapen bodies of the two unfortunate victims Commander Sonak & Admiral Lori Ciana. Reading it is truly horrifying.
When I hear what we got back didn't live long I think of 1986 The Fly when the telepods turn a baboon inside out
@@w.f.syourdoctorExactly ! and that crescendo of Howard Shore's music, ending on a low, dire note, gave me goosebumps then, and still does! such a tragic moment !
I am going to object to one part - when we first cut to the transporter room, those extra sounds were there LONG before the Director's Edition. They were heard in the "Special Longer Version" for the TV broadcasts and VHS release shortly after the original film. Honestly... it sounds weird without them, because Grace Lee Whitney's delivery (as Chief Rand) of those lines sounds AWFUL on its own. Its clearly her trying to talk over something... and yet in the Theatrical version, we hear nothing for her to talk over, except "MALFUNCTION... MALFUNCTION... MALFUNCTION"
The point is, those added electrical effects were SUPPOSED to be there. The scene was filmed in a way where those sounds were clearly meant to be there, and simply forgotten in TMP's original hasty theatrical release.
As for the screams... we still hear them, and its just as horrifying.
To me, the bigger objection is removing the harsh "GRRH GRRH GRRH GRRH" alert sound in favor of the more generic nonsense they used. I could do without the monotone "MALFUNCTION... MALFUNCTION... MALFUNCTION", but the original alert effects were definitely better.
Above all of that, the theatrical version was missing several pieces of important dialog that would be put back with the "Special Longer Version", and most of which also returning in the Director's Edition (though some still missing). Seriously, if you want your proper TMP experience, go find the SLV. Though you'll have to forgive the inclusion of an incomplete scene with a clearly visible sound stage and Kirk in the wrong spacesuit, but its fine :P
I believe in the SLV included in the Blu Ray special release from a couple years ago, they digitally fixed the airlock scene.
What bothers me is that they have cut Sulu calling pitch, roll, and yaw maneuvers when attempting to dodge the first cloud plasma torpedo. It just adds to the scene nicely.
Those were only in the "Special Longer Version". The Theatrical Version was missing all of that as well.
i still regard this transporter malfunction scene as the most horrific in all of ST
I would love to agree with you, but the Ceti Eel sequence in Star Trek II was FAR more horrific. I’m 50 years old and when I watch that scene, I STILL watch it with the sound off…
It's subtle, but you're right. The echo of that final scream is haunting, and it's lost in the remake. Over-restoring films is a bit of a bane of our time, sadly.
In the novel, the woman who died in the transporter was Kirks former wife. Admiral Sienna I believe was her name
You are right. It does lessen the impact. I'm not sure why this scene is disliked by some. I've always thought it showed that even though Trek is far into the future, tech can still break down, and horrible accidents can still occur. Technology is not infallible. Actually, when you look at it the whole story is about how technology can bite you in the ass.
That scene highlights why Doctor McCoy was always nervous about using transporter.
The original version is more disturbing because the sound of the victims screaming.
Yes, I knew it was NOT an improvement when they minimized the scream echo. They got carried away with changes that did not need to be made, but done because they could.
I have watched this three times, and sorry but I can’t see the differences you are describing. It’s just nitpicking to me, the scene still has its full effect.
It looks like in the remaster they've taken out the reverb of the woman's last scream. I guess they were trying to be technical - the transporter beam cut out at the moment, so they were overthinking and trying to make it follow the special effects.
The thing they forget is that reverb in the darkness added a sort of phantasmic, ghostlike quality to the scene that added to ST:TMP's eldritch-like horror moments that are dotted throughout the film that sets this one apart from the others.
I have often thought, in watching all the episodes of Star Trek, that the risk of tech malfunction and being left powerless in the ocean of space is huge…and terrifying. Kudos to the producers of this film for bringing that risk to light.
The DVD Director's Edition was a nice balance between the theatrical and the Blu-ray/4K Director's Edition. I feel like the Blu-ray/4K did a little too much in some places, and ironically not enough in other places (ie: bad rotoscoping of Spock and Bones in the officer's lounge). Whereas the DVD Director's Edition was actually the last version to be signed off by Robert Wise himself. Too bad they didn't just take that version and re-release it for Blu-ray/4K.
Yes, that lounge scene is the one I had a problem with. The same scene that was in the standard def DE DVD was fine with me.
They couldn't re-release the DVD Director's Edition version in 4K, unfortunately. The powers that be handing out the cash to make it cheaped out, and didn't want to spend cash to future-proof the production. The special effects for it were only rendered in standard def at 720x480, and the movie itself was mastered at a 720x480 resolution. 480p is literally the highest quality that the DVD Director's Edition exist in.
@homiedclown yeah I know. The HD stuff would still have to be re-done. But should've kept it the same as the DVD version
Aside from the horrid new red-alert sound (Why did they replace the old one? No explanation has been given) they deleted the new computer voice too, I liked that androgynous voice.
I agree ! On my phone the "red alert" synth voice ringtone instantly gets all my attention !😉
@@Proteus2049 How did you get this ring-tone?
@@nicholasmaude6906 I searched Star Trek "clean" version of a Red Alert sound effect video on RUclips, then converted it to MP3, shortened a bit to keep a sufficient long loop, then copied it to my phone ringtones library. I hope this helped !☺
Why does starfleet wait till tuesday to try testing the new transporter system
Because that's when the medical crew arrives.
@@MaiAolei and the tractor beam
I was only 6 when I saw ST: TMP in the theater in 1979 and yes it was very disturbing to me! It took me a long time to get over it. I didn't see the movie again until years later when we got our first VCR and I rented it and when that scene came on I was instantly taken back to when I was 6 watching it for the first time. Yeah it really shook me!
"But the animal is inside out..."
"It's inside out?!"
"And it exploded!"
"Did I just hear that animal just turned inside out AND it exploded?"
I HEARD THAT!
The new alert sounds also sounded cartoonish and cheesy. TMP was just fine as it is, and the only real (and shockingly glaring) problem with the original was the scaffolding surrounding the airlock as Spock was exiting the ship to make contact with V'ger (still don't know how that one got by!)
.
All the '79 effects are much more deep and atmospheric than what we see today.
I remember seeing the airlock set in the vhs tapes I had in the early 90s... I haven't seen a version with that still in it, since then. I always look for it. Lol
@@tra-viskaiser8737 That was only in the "Special Longer Version", which... for 15 years of my life, was the only version of TMP I had seen. Which made the Theatrical version so much more disgustingly jarring the first time I saw it. Originally, I was upset that the Director's Edition cut out several bits of dialog that I remembered,... but the Theatrical cut took away SO MUCH more of it.
There's two additional factors here: First, the woman in the middle, operating the transporter is Janice Rand. And the woman who tries to form in the transporter beam and screams as she dies is Admiral Kirk's consort... partner, or current love interest. That's not made clear in the film, but it's in the novelization.
The Transporter Scene was 2nd most Memorable, (or Traumatic) to me, as an 8 year old kid seeing a movie with my dad, who had introduced me to Star Trek TOS in the first place. The 'Wormhole' was the one that left me most shaken during the movie. At 8 years old, I had a very limited idea of what was going on. I understood the very basic concept of 'Faster than Light' Travel, and what the 'Warp' engines did to make this possible, and safe at the same time. I had learned about the basics thru the school and city libraries, back in the 70's. (I was reading at a very early age) And the idea of traveling FTL, without the protection of the 'Warp Bubble', was terrifying to me, because the entire crew, could become ONE with an ASTEROID in mere seconds...And I already hated ASTEROIDS and the little Flying Saucer that popped out of them to shoot at me, at the ARCADE.
I appreciate your attention to this important piece of movie history and I agree with you.
This was a haunting scene and way back when it came out I thought it had aged Bones, like he had grown a beard and was feeble and then next oh they fixed him and put him through again or something. Like this is a bad thing, teleporters are very bad. I was a kid and I'm, oh no, did they force him into the transporter, because Kirk is in a hurry. I was more worried about Bones going up.
Thank you, this is the first time I've heard Kirk's "O my God" since seeing in the theater. It's been cut out of every TV or VHS etc. screening I've ever seen since then. All my buddies said, no, Kirk would never say that. But I remember like it was yesterday ..
While it got rid of Spock's replacement, it also killed Kirk's ex-wife Admiral Ciana. They had a one-year contract marriage that took place between when Kirk got promoted to shortly before the movie.
In today's TV world NCIS or something like that would be knocking on Kirk's door right now wanting to know why he took the controls away from the transporter chief ! It probably would try and investigate him for the attempted murder of his ex-wife !
I know it sci-fi, but for whatever reason, it makes me tear up still after all these years... and still now after watching this video
I remember going to the theater to see Star Trek. After seeing Star Wars a couple years before, it seemed all movies were going to have awesome special effects.
TMP should have NEVER been Rated G.
Back then, Rated G didn't mean "kids film". It simply meant there wasn't anything ostensibly objectionable content-wise. When the PG-rating was first created, it was meant as a "okay parents, be very careful about this film, you may not want your kids to see it" hence PG meaning "Parental Guidance suggested"
Which makes it more funny that some people call anything PG-13 "kid-friendly"
I agree absolutely. I noticed the same thing. The impact is now lessened. Also, The removal of the Ship's computer voice (and throughout the film) was a bad move. It alters the narrative, and ruins my personal memory of the film.....This choice left me feeling "Negative control at Helm. Negative control at Helm." - 'nuff said.
I feel the same way about all the re-master CGI effects on TOS. Instead of just re-creating the original look and feel in clean CGI, they got "creative" and showed a bunch of bizarre spinning angle BS effects of ships that totally distract from the storyline. Ruins my love of the ORIGINAL sequence of events.
The ambiance of the scene was taken from the original movie "The Fly" where Dandalow, the family cat didn't reintegrate during transport and an echoing meow was heard fading off as the scientist looked on in amazement. as a child the scene haunted me in a way I had not experienced before even though I could not reconcile how it was possible for disembodied "cat atoms" to make any coherent sound at all.
Thank you for watching the video I greatly appreciate that and the comments ! I don't think I have ever watched the original fly all the way through before! When you mention that scene I went to RUclips to find it and yeah I completely agree with you how does a completely broken down animal have the ability to meow ! Still it was a great scene
I remember when McDonalds made this movie into the first boxed Happy Meal with toys.
I STILL HAVE the phaser water-gun from this film.
I agree with you, the extra they added really does nothing to add to the scene, although I am not sure it hurts it either. To me, is has always been perfect, unlike some other scenes in the movie. Personally, I find the whole scene to be totally unbelievable to begin with. No Star Fleet ship would use an untested/being worked on transporter to beam up people first.
Some of the stuff they added was actually supposed to be there though. Like when we first cut to the transporter room. Listen to how Chief Rand is delivering her lines. She's clearly trying to talk over something, but we don't hear it. Its because it was forgotten in the hasty release of the theatrical version. The "Special Longer Version" created for TV broadcasts and VHS made that first shot what it was. NOT the Director's Edition.
@@k1productions87 The funniest part of the TV edition is they show Kirk suited up and going out of the airlock. The scene pulls back far enough for you to see Shatner on a wire, the edge of the airlock set, and wood beams of the studio. OOPS~! Didn't add the matte painting!
@@DesertBro yeah, and its the wrong suit. It was meant to go with the Memory Wall scene that didn't make it into the film
I would agree 100% with your criticisms of the changes to this scene. Either accidentally or by intent, they have reduced the horrific impact of what is going on
I have always assumed that the extra effects were added to "tone down" the scene. There are still shots I remember seeing years ago of the actors bending down etc. before any transporter effects were added. Plus, even worse, I think, is what the transporter operator at Star Fleet says, however the volume is so low, most do not hear it. He says "what we got back didn't live long, fortunately..." sounding to me like they got back a very poorly reformed pile of body and bones.... My question has always been " why the hell did they throw new modules into such a critical system and do no testing before beaming up living people? No way would that happen, even if they are in a huge hurry. Actually, that makes the whole scene to me unbeleivable, and I also LOVE the transporter, so not taking a shot, but stating what I have throught since I first saw the scene on opening day at the Movies..
I wonder if those stills (I've seen several of them too) were for takes that weren't used in the final product. In the final product Sonak seems to just stand still with his head thrown back a little, and the female officer has the short blip where her head seems to move to the other side while one 'version' is still in the original position. I didn't see anything that looked like the still shots myself. Kind of interesting, the stills make it seem like the upper coils are raining down (unseen) boiling water or oil or lead because they seem to be recoiling in pain from those upper coils.
Some of the effects weren't added to tone anything down, but rather because the hasty theatrical release forgot to add them. Listen to the way Chief Rand says "Do you read me, Starfleet? Override it. Pull them back!" She is clearly trying to talk over something more than just the monotone "malfunction... malfunction... malfunction". Those crackling electrical failure sounds were SUPPOSED to be there. And the "Special Longer Version" created for the TV and VHS releases put them in, as they were supposed to be (as well as all the dialog the theatrical cut was missing).
I agree! The worst pain I ever experienced was from an exploded appendix. Now imagine that over every square inch of tour body as it tears itself apart half on the pad and half in the pattern buffer. Shudders!
Totally agree with you. I was 16, maybe older, when the Film came to Germany. I do still remember the scream like from a haunted soul.
More effects doesn't make it scarier.
1979. I am 12. This original scene. I am McCoy from then on. It's so imprinted on me that the revised edit still brings me to the original fear.
I remember watching this movie when I was 9 years old, This scene really scared me in tears
I was 6. It wasn't until I was much older than I fully comprehended exactly what was going on.
I was freaked by this scene in the theater. I was only 10 years old and it made me as leary of transporters as McCoy.
I remember reading it in the novelization of the movie before I saw the movie. I was wondering how they were going to show it, and I wasn't disappointed. The gut wrenching silence after the screams...
I think they cut Kirk saying oh my god too.
They did and I don't understand why ?
I'm glad they did. It wasn't one of Shatner's best performances.
@@Pavel_M_Mihalik It was "peak" stiff Shatner staccato line reading.
Honestly, I think it was one of his best. True shock and horror don't manifest as screams but as jawdropping silence.
The movie came out in December of 1979 and my parents took me to see it Christmas Eve. This scene scared the crap out of me and I could not sleep to save my life. Wasn’t even thinking of Christmas morning.
Isn't it something how this scene takes place shortly after the Enterprise is practically glorified for six full minutes with sweeping visuals and a sweeping romantic score by Goldsmith to match? Then, once aboard, things quickly fall apart, the illusion is gone, what with this transporter malfunction and the warp malfunction (leading the ship into a wormhole).
Transporters disassemble those being transported and there's no guarantee of being returned to the same state.
You are 100% correct and that is why I would take the shuttle any day if I had a choice
The red alert, or malfunction sound that is replaced is terrible compared to the original
Agreed. That is what happens when special effect are put ahead of the movie.
I did not think that they would be able to scream because their bodies were not fully formed. The screams made it more eerie.
Movies in general have a tough time with silence. They undercut suspense and even horror with on the nose music and sound effects that function more like a laugh track telling you how to feel instead of making you feel it.
So true!
Youre right. Directors got too audibly hectic in this scene.
i kinda like the new sounds instead of the repeating malfunction alarm.
Was this done for just the hi definition release of the Director's Cut? I got the DC on DVD ages ago and it doesn't have those changes.
The original theatrical release was a rough-cut.
I know the original release in the theater was a rough draft or a rough cut but it's just a scene itself with all the new special effects really in my opinion took away from the tragedy that was happening
@@w.f.syourdoctor the sound effects when we first cut to the transporter room were supposed to be there. We hear them in the TV and VHS releases the following year. They were not added for the Director's Edition
If remember reading the novelization written by Gene Roddenbery and it mentioning that the female in the transporter was Lori Ciana, a science officer who was Captain Kirk's ex-wife.
Yeah, this was definitely done to lighten the scene, but with the understanding of what physically happened to them, not too much. The modern cinema has to deal with different demographics of movie-goers that find reason to complain about everything now. I'd be curious to know the personal opinions of the producers of this version.
I’ll never forget the impact of that scene on me back in theaters. Add to that the tragic surprise of the event. Sometimes Atmos mixes are too much. I prefer the chilling original.
You're right when you say that this scene is probably the most memorable of the whole movie: we never expected a scene like that in "Star Trek" and I think we were all surprised and quite terrified by this scene when we saw it for the first time. It's quite sad they lessened the emotional impact of this scene with these unnecessary modifications: the original scene was well written and intense enough, I still remember it with some chills 45 years later.
As far as the scenes, I prefer the original. It just seemed more eerie to me. Sometimes the lack of extra sound is a huge plus, same as in a musical composition (as in Silver Springs, Fleetwood Mac) Such a small part of the movie, but it served to draw me in like glue!
some of the sounds were supposed to be there though, added in the "Special Longer Version" for TV and VHS releases the following year.
Sometimes less really is more. This happens all the time in music as well as movies.
I love this movie, watched it at the cinema with my sister when I was 10. I didn't think the new version was that bad.
Lesson number one.
Don't f**k about with transporter systems while its in use!
“What we got back…
didn’t live very long.”
1:25 That's not Kyle behind Scotty. John Winston's Kyle appears briefly as one of the Reliant bridge crew in Wrath of Khan, but AFAICR that's the only time that character from TOS appeared in the Trek movies.
Download you say it I realized I said Kyle when I meant cleary ! Thanks for catching that !
Again thank you I didn't catch it and I should have but you did and thank you so much
I agree with you 100%. Although, when I saw it 45 years ago at the age of 10, I remember also seeing more graphic images of the two people. To me, they looked like they were de-aging, meaning that their patterns were going in reverse, age-wise. To the point that they were like fetuses that ended back at Starfleet. It's a scene that overwhelmed me at 10 yo, be it a false memory or not, I'd thought that I'd share what my was from seeing it in December 1979.
I agree with you. I was 12 when this came out - saw it about a month after it hit theaters... the 1st movie I went to alone with my friends without a parent with us. That scene really hit me hard then, and I have always remembered it.
I think the Directors Cut was the right call. Considering the technology lore wise, I think the screams wouldnt be as loud considering the added sound effects of the transwarp malfunctioning. Probably what the og theatrical was going for in the first place. Regardless, its still a haunting sequence which we wouldnt get another transporter accident thats probably just as scary until TNG with Lt William Riker
I think they actually should have saved Spock's replacement and not have this scene. it would have been interesting to have both Spock and Sonak in the story. Another thing to note is that transporter tech is just scary in itself. It would have to kill you to inscribe a pattern of you, then make a copy of you at the receiving end. That just doesn't sound like fun.
Sonak would have been a surplus character though. And Sonak by definition means no Spock.
TBH I don't know why anyone uses the transporter at all in Star Trek. It's always going wrong in one way or another. McCoy has the right idea.
I'm sure that this transporter accident was the impetus of ST:TNG Mr. Broccoli's transporter phobia.
You're right, the know-it-alls ended the sound effects too soon during the transporter disaster. While at the same time adding a bunch of silly sound effects. It's called the director's cut, but I suspect that the director as an old man was not involved or completely cognitive throughout the whole process. I suspect that he delegated too much to younger fools who were tech savvy, but not very aware of much or cared about all the nuances. They just didn't get it or cared. If those same guys reedited Jaws or the first Alien movie, they probably would leave nothing to the audience's imagination. Which was not only better than the special effects that were available at the time, but also a lot scarier.
One gripe I had was that they added sound effects to the tactical displays. To me it was unnerving to watch the torpedoes silently wink out one by one.
I saw it in theaters in 1979 and the film presentation was very crisp and clear. It was subsequent home video transfers that caused the degradation of the film's presentation. And the transfers from film have been the only version we have seen since the original theatrical presentation. I saw the original version again in theaters (digital presentation) for its 40th anniversary and I was extremely underwhelmed. It lost so much in the digital transfer and the transfer itself was poor with a resolution too low for the screen size it was presented on.
This is one of those movies that doesn't translate well to any digital transfer.
I'm with you. That scene freaked me out as a kid.
I think you’re absolutely right. I have been a huge fan of star trek and of this movie. I remember that scene vividly when I was a kid and it was terrifying.
You asked for a comment, here's mine. I agree with you completely. I never was fond of the first motion picture, but we never got this type of transporter malfunction in the original series. Since The Next Generation had yet to be, this was pretty graphic for Star Trek. It kinda stuck with me. But there are others who the whole transporter had made them question it validity in the series. It covered TOS, the Next Generation, and so on. Sure, it was a plot device. In TOS SEASON 1, The Enemy Within, we have two Kirk's due to a transporter malfunction, leaving Sulu and landing party to almost freeze to death. I always wondered why the shuttle craft wasn't used here. Roddenberry had it created already, but waited to use it. But for answer, it best finds its way in Star Trek: Enterprise. In season one, all trips to ships or planets were done via shuttle crafts. Even though the transporter had a section spot located on the ship, it was never proven safe. There are episodes in what was to be the origin series, proving it was unsafe. I know this is long, but one last response. Author James Blish was given the early TOS draft scripts to turn them into books with series episodes 4 to 5 in each novel. He took on a project to write what is considered the first (or earliest) Star Trek book. Its title is SPOCK MUST DIE, involving a transporter malfunction and creates 2 Spocks. McCoy is delighted with the notion of 2 vulcans to annoy him. And he was the reason for the test. I have two copies of it. You are disturbed fir the right reason. Even I had never seen a transporter death before-and it involved 2 persons. I'm sorry I went long, but you brought this memory up for me, too. Hope I was a help.
I'm a french trekkie and I discovered the Star Trek series very late, after even watching the film in a theater ! I heard that teleportation was originally an effect chosen as a cost-saving measure. What a stroke of genius: A very impressive special effect and an elegant way to do without expensive model shuttles, and unrealistic landing sequences with the means of the time...
@Proteus2049 You are right. The transporter costs less to do than matt shots. Many shots were used for any involved shots. Reused shots were called "garbage shots." Meaning that the same shot could be used many times over. Such as the Enterprise orbiting a planet. A gap was left so that a new planet could be laid in and properly matted to fit a rotation look to the new planet to explore. Another garbage shot, or also called a throw-away shot, was the end of an episode showed the Enterprise leaving orbit and heading away as a few credits would appear just before the end theme. The most used on-set garbage shot was that of looking at the view screen from Kirk's POV to which we see Sulu turn to look at whomever is in the command chair in that episode and look back to the view screen. One RUclips video actually had the maker show how many times that garbage shot was used. Roddenberry used the term garbage shot and throw-away shot a few times in interviews. There are more cost savings things done on many shows. Irwin Allen was considered the king of budgeting his tv series shows. The king in filmland has to be Roger Corman.
@@user-sm7mh4lk4i thanks for this very interestnig developpement ! Roger Corman unfortunately died recently. A prolific man, a producer and a director who certainly did not only produce minor works but had that resourceful spirit that true enthusiasts have! and some directors cut their teeth alongside him, like Joe Dante !
Why Fx and ship miniatures are still so astonishing? Douglas Trumbull. Same guy of 2001 Space Odyssey and Blade Runner
They wasted a fortune in trying to do the effect originally with a new technology called "Magicam". You've seen it in the kids' show Far Out Space Nuts. It looks horrible, they called Trumball in to do it right - and that's only one reason the film was crazy over budget.
I agree, we got All the horror from it from the expressions from those about.
I watched both clips twice, I can’t spot the difference in visual effects.
I don't know what he's on about, the scene visually is the same in both, there are no change in effects. The sound in the Dir Cut is mixed a little differently, that's all, not the visuals.
This is our reminder that just because someone posts a youtube video, doesn't automatically mean they know what they're talking about ..
I think the main difference is in the audio (that's what most here are commenting on).
We all know this is fiction, but the scene was made so good that it resonates inside of you ...
Movies aren't "aired" in theaters. They are released/screened. "Aired" is a television term because shows are transmitted over the airwaves
Thank you so much for your comments they are greatly appreciated ! After my statement about it the film airing in the theaters that was just the technical error on my part and my apologies !