Jump to content

Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan


Hitch

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They remasted TWOK? So the old 2disc SE I have is worthless now?

I thought they were just remastering for bluray...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I thought that as well when I saw him on the ST interview. I prefer him with a bit more meat on his face. His DVD interviews on A BEAUTIFUL MIND and ALIENS show a healthier James.

They remasted TWOK? So the old 2disc SE I have is worthless now?

I thought they were just remastering for bluray...

Keep your 2 disc SE. This is the ORIGINAL 1982 movie remastered to 2:40.1 anamorphic widescreen with 5.1 Dolby Digital EX sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I thought that as well when I saw him on the ST interview. I prefer him with a bit more meat on his face. His DVD interviews on A BEAUTIFUL MIND and ALIENS show a healthier James.
They remasted TWOK? So the old 2disc SE I have is worthless now?

I thought they were just remastering for bluray...

Keep your 2 disc SE. This is the ORIGINAL 1982 movie remastered to 2:40.1 anamorphic widescreen with 5.1 Dolby Digital EX sound.

Interesting. I forgot they added scenes back into TWOK.

Did III and IV get remastered too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With those 'errors' being reported about the others. Someone like me who has only a 42'' HDTV shouldn't really notice it too much. I'm still planning on buying the set this year a long with the TOS Season 1 Blu-Ray set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The waterfall on the matte painting for the Genesis cave looks great, more blue. Funny, a few days ago I posted an old Starlog article on my blog about the matte paintings for TWOK. That image always looked flat to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did feel that there is a more prominent blueish hue running the movie. It looks and sounds fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, Horner looks almost scary to me - old, dishevelled, tired, almost sick ... :o;)

It looks like he's whistling. I wonder if he's whistling Star Trek II or Aliens. I wonder if he even knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, Horner looks almost scary to me - old, dishevelled, tired, almost sick ... :o;)

It looks like he's whistling. I wonder if he's whistling Star Trek II or Aliens. I wonder if he even knows.

Actually that would be Star Trek III or Aliens..... ;)

The man is in his 50's, not everyone ages gracefully. But he was rather small and thin to begin with,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the man still has a full head of hair. Gray is ok if you've got your hair. You can color your hair, you can't paint over baldness.

I figured you'd correct me on the difference between II and III. I never listened to Aliens outside of the film and it doesn't bother me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy the score to Aliens, regardless of the Klingon music appearing in it.

I just brought it up because it was mentioned in the recent FSM Star Trek Podcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad I got into the scores in the reverse order.... for me, thats Aliens music in ST3 ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got bored easily by the Horner interview. I should go back and listen to it, but he doesn't seem to have much enthusiasm for it.

I have a 42" HDTV and the Blu-Rays look damn good, especially TMP. The only real issues I have is with TVH, where some of the scenes look a little blurred out. Of course, this'll be different on a 110" screen like the digital bits guy used...

It's interesting that cue sheet says 'revised September 1, 1982' when the movie was released in June 82.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least we now know he was at the TMP recording sessions with Jerry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horner thinks he is singing the Khan Theme, but actually he's singing the Klingon Theme.

He's confused.

I'm afraid you are the one who is confused- he is actually humming Aliens. :P

I enjoyed the clip, thanks Hitch. He's more personable and less egotistic in this interview than he often is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to hear Horner talk. Sometimes you think they'd sound different with the way how they look. This is I think the first time I've seen a Horner interview. Thanks for putting that up Hitch.

Edit: I noticed that they played some unreleased bits during that interview. I hope one day we get an expanded edition of the score, it definitely deserves it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You having hearing problems, mister? :folder:

Seriously! It's like withing the first 15 seconds of the interview. I had to rewind it twice to make sure I was right. But, he calls him "Joey." The only thing I can think of is that he was going to say "Joel", realized he was wrong, and stumbled the rest of it.

Jeff-who, today, celebrates his 9th wedding anniversary. Can you believe it?

Congratulations!

(From Williamsfan301, who celebrates his 5th wedding anniversary in July)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. The reason for my thinking PAL was slower is purely down to playing video games. When I was 16 I seem to remember reading in a magazine that the NTSC version of Street Fighter II was slightly faster than its PAL counterpart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was interesting to watch, though - but he repeats himself a lot. And, yeah, that accent is so put in.

I loved the way he said "Harve Bennett" as if he was trying hard to remember the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. The reason for my thinking PAL was slower is purely down to playing video games. When I was 16 I seem to remember reading in a magazine that the NTSC version of Street Fighter II was slightly faster than its PAL counterpart.

NTSC has 60 half-fields per second, PAL has 50. That means that if you play the same sequence of 50 half-frames directly on each system, it'll take a second in PAL, but less in NTSC. That's how video games used to work, when all computers of a brand were still pretty much the same and there was no reason to do actual time calculations in games. Therefore, NTSC games were faster than PAL games.

With movies, the 24 frames of a film have to be converted into PAL or NTSC format. With NTSC, they take alternatingly take three half-fields for one frame of film and two for the next frame (so-called 3:2 pull-down). This matches the 24 frames perfectly to the 60 half-fields. With PAL, they simply make two half-fields (i.e. one full frame) for each film frame. That matches the 24 frames to 48 PAL half-fields. The last two half-fields in that second will already be from the next second of film. This means that for film, PAL runs faster (about 4%), but smoothly, whereas NTSC runs at real speed (nearly... the 60 hfps aren't an exact number, it's actually 59.94) but is jerky.

In my opinion, the most important thing about Blu-Ray is that movies actually come in the original frame rate, without speedup and without pull-down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.