Which version is on the Blu-ray?
Is it the theatrical version or the extended version done for the VHS/DVD?
shareTheatrical Version, sadly.
None of the directors or extended versions released as the 2 disc DVD releases, have gotten the HD treatment.
I actually prefer the theatrical version a lot more .
1.) The scene where the Klingon "mask" is pulled off the assassin's face to reveal that of Rene Auberjonois's I have always found to be contrived and clichéd. It should have stayed like it was in the original theatrical version, with the assassin staying a Klingon (w/ no "mask" being removed)
2.) During Spock's mindmeld with Velaris, the rotating faces of all the suspects in the conspiracy plot that appear like word balloons in a comic, later added in the "special" edition, basically treating the audience like idiots.
3.) Scotty's line "That Klingon bitch killed her father" just sounds gratuitous, unnecessary, and turned out to be untrue anyway.
2.) During Spock's mindmeld with Velaris, the rotating faces of all the suspects in the conspiracy plot that appear like word balloons in a comic, later added in the "special" edition, basically treating the audience like idiots.
The flashbacks were actually scripted in the screenplay, but not present in the theatrical version. Nicholas Meyer put them back in for his 2004 DVD cut of the film.
And the other thing to consider here is, though, the vast majority of people who will watch this movie on television years after its release are statistically not going to be hardcore Trekkies like the rest of us, and they're not going to necessarily immediately remember who Admiral Cartright and Romulan Ambassador Nanclus are (unlike we nerds, who obsess over such minutiae).
Both characters only appeared very quickly much earlier in the film, and are subsequently set up during the mind-meld as these major conspiracy power-players, but one of the criticisms that director/screenwriter Meyer heard over and over again in the years following release was that "casual" viewers were utterly flummoxed by that scene, and didn't even make the connection based upon onscreen dialogue alone (as is the case in the original theatrical version).
Therefore, Meyer makes it a bit easier for the casual, non-Trekkie viewer to follow the conspiracy with those quick "flashes" during the revised 2004 version of that scene. As someone who originally saw Star Trek VI theatrically in December 1991, I'm not bothered by this choice at all. share
Therefore, Meyer makes it a bit easier for the casual, non-Trekkie viewer to follow the conspiracy with those quick "flashes" during the revised 2004 version of that scene. As someone who originally saw Star Trek VI theatrically in December 1991, I'm not bothered by this choice at all.
This still treats the audience like idiots because each one of the characters and their motivations are established within this movie. Two of the three don't even appear in any other Star Trek content. A moviegoer wouldn't have to see any other Star Trek material to understand to whom Valeris was referring.
Member - DFW Film Critics Association
http://www.cinemalogue.com share
Well, try to remember that all the Trek films had to appeal not just to Trek fans but also to regular movie goers who were curious as to what Star Trek was all about.
Meaning that what regular Trek fans would normally pick up on, or understand, regular folks probably needed a bit more spelling out of what was happening.
Me, personally, there've always been a sort of "hit you on the head" kind of explanations in Star Trek, ever since Spock was explaining about the Talosians or ESP in "Where no man has Gone Before", or Doctor McCoy saying things like "it acts like a virus..." or tribble "are born pregnant..." and so forth.
If you have to explain things to Trek fans, who are usually pretty savvy, then imagine having to explain that same thing to a regular Joe or Jane who just want to see a good movie, and maybe have a look at what Star Trek is all about.
That's why all the films are the way they are.
I don't understand your comment. The previous person was trying to argue that the flashbacks help the viewer understand who Lt. Valeris is referring to.
Whether you are or aren't a Trek fan, it's explained who Chang, Nanclus and Cartwright are in that film. No special knowledge required. If you don't know who Chang, Nanclus and Cartwright are at that point (and they show them again when they apprehend them on Khitomer), then either you weren't paying attention at all or you have the IQ of a potato in which case no movie is going to make sense to you.
Member - DFW Film Critics Association
http://www.cinemalogue.com
First i'm even hearing of an alternate cut of this movie. They put in a Scooby Doo scene??
share