Star Trek VI SCE DVD Review @ GENRE ONLINE.NET

Here is my DVD review of Paramount Home Entertainment's "Star Trek VI: The
Undiscovered Country: Special Collector's Edition" at GENRE ONLINE.NET:

http://www.genreonline.net/Undiscove...untry_DVD.html

Do you want to see "The Animated Adventures Of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek" on
DVD? Do you want to see a live action "Star Wars" TV series or have some other
idea for the future of that franchise? Paramount and Lucasfilm are listening so
be sure to e-mail each respectively at private.php?do=newpm&u= and
.

Please drop by and visit... Thank you.
GENRE ONLINE.NET: The Web Resource For Home Video Entertainment & More
http://www.genreonline.net
Mark A. Rivera - Writer/Reviewer/Editor/Webmaster

Writer R5

On 19 Jan 2004 03:57:15 GMT, ospam (Writer R5) wrote:

>Here is my DVD review of Paramount Home Entertainment's "Star Trek VI: The
>Undiscovered Country: Special Collector's Edition" at GENRE ONLINE.NET:
>
>http://www.genreonline.net/Undiscove...untry_DVD.html
>

Sorry to hear they have not fixed the incorrect aspect ratio.
This should be (and was) 2.35:1 like all the other Star Treks.

Peter Koenig




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter Koenig

Peter Koenig wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2004 03:57:15 GMT, ospam (Writer R5) wrote:
>
>
>>Here is my DVD review of Paramount Home Entertainment's "Star Trek VI: The
>>Undiscovered Country: Special Collector's Edition" at GENRE ONLINE.NET:
>>
>>http://www.genreonline.net/Undiscove...untry_DVD.html
>>
>
>
> Sorry to hear they have not fixed the incorrect aspect ratio.
> This should be (and was) 2.35:1 like all the other Star Treks.
>
> Peter Koenig
>

Yes but the director originally intended a 16:9 AR, so this is what we want.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

Grand Inquisitor

"Peter Koenig" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Sorry to hear they have not fixed the incorrect aspect ratio.
> This should be (and was) 2.35:1 like all the other Star Treks.

The "incorrect" aspect ratio was chosen by the director. Complain to him
about it.

Joshua Zyber

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:34:36 GMT, Grand Inquisitor
<> wrote:

>Peter Koenig wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2004 03:57:15 GMT, ospam (Writer R5) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Here is my DVD review of Paramount Home Entertainment's "Star Trek VI: The
>>>Undiscovered Country: Special Collector's Edition" at GENRE ONLINE.NET:
>>>
>>>http://www.genreonline.net/Undiscove...untry_DVD.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry to hear they have not fixed the incorrect aspect ratio.
>> This should be (and was) 2.35:1 like all the other Star Treks.
>>
>> Peter Koenig
>>
>
>Yes but the director originally intended a 16:9 AR, so this is what we want.

No, that is not what "we" want, that is what YOU want. You probably
want the latest Star Wars rev 4.0 also. * I * want the SAME MOVIE
I saw in the theater in 1991 on the DVD. No ridiculous extra scenes
and no dead space at the top and bottom of the frame.

Peter Koenig


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter Koenig

From on top of The Wall I yelled "YOU! YES YOU Peter Koenig
<>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is Pink?"
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:34:36 GMT, Grand Inquisitor
> <> wrote:
> No, that is not what "we" want, that is what YOU want. You probably
> want the latest Star Wars rev 4.0 also. * I * want the SAME MOVIE
> I saw in the theater in 1991 on the DVD. No ridiculous extra scenes
> and no dead space at the top and bottom of the frame.

To be honest tho the added scenes did add to the story and should
never of been cut. Any reason on why they were?

--
Brian "Demolition Man" Little

Brian \Demolition Man\ Little

Peter Koenig wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:34:36 GMT, Grand Inquisitor
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Koenig wrote:
>>
>>>On 19 Jan 2004 03:57:15 GMT, ospam (Writer R5) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here is my DVD review of Paramount Home Entertainment's "Star Trek VI: The
>>>>Undiscovered Country: Special Collector's Edition" at GENRE ONLINE.NET:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.genreonline.net/Undiscove...untry_DVD.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry to hear they have not fixed the incorrect aspect ratio.
>>>This should be (and was) 2.35:1 like all the other Star Treks.
>>>
>>>Peter Koenig
>>>
>>
>>Yes but the director originally intended a 16:9 AR, so this is what we want.
>
>
> No, that is not what "we" want, that is what YOU want. You probably
> want the latest Star Wars rev 4.0 also.

That was a vicious insult and it is entirely uncalled for.

* I * want the SAME MOVIE
> I saw in the theater in 1991 on the DVD. No ridiculous extra scenes
> and no dead space at the top and bottom of the frame.
>
> Peter Koenig

I see this as a situation similar to Kubrick. Kubrick preferred the 4:3
AR and shot his movies with the ultimate intention that they be seen in
that ratio on home video, with cropping on the top and bottom for
theatrical presentations. It seems to me that this is the same
situation. A director shoots a movie, framing the shots in his
preferred ratio, knowing that they will be cropped theatrically. Isn't
the director the one who should make the final choice about what the
ratio should be? Sometimes the theatrical version isn't always the
preferred version. And preferring a less-cropped 16:9 picture over
2.35:1 is *nothing* like Lucas's deranged mangling of his earlier movies.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

Grand Inquisitor

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:02:30 GMT, Grand Inquisitor
<> wrote:

>Peter Koenig wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:34:36 GMT, Grand Inquisitor
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Peter Koenig wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 19 Jan 2004 03:57:15 GMT, ospam (Writer R5) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Here is my DVD review of Paramount Home Entertainment's "Star Trek VI: The
>>>>>Undiscovered Country: Special Collector's Edition" at GENRE ONLINE.NET:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.genreonline.net/Undiscove...untry_DVD.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sorry to hear they have not fixed the incorrect aspect ratio.
>>>>This should be (and was) 2.35:1 like all the other Star Treks.
>>>>
>>>>Peter Koenig
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes but the director originally intended a 16:9 AR, so this is what we want.
>>
>>
>> No, that is not what "we" want, that is what YOU want. You probably
>> want the latest Star Wars rev 4.0 also.
>
>That was a vicious insult and it is entirely uncalled for.
>
> * I * want the SAME MOVIE
>> I saw in the theater in 1991 on the DVD. No ridiculous extra scenes
>> and no dead space at the top and bottom of the frame.
>>
>> Peter Koenig
>
>I see this as a situation similar to Kubrick. Kubrick preferred the 4:3
>AR and shot his movies with the ultimate intention that they be seen in
>that ratio on home video, with cropping on the top and bottom for
>theatrical presentations.

Which is why I never bought Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining, or Full
Metal Jacket on DVD.

>It seems to me that this is the same
>situation. A director shoots a movie, framing the shots in his
>preferred ratio, knowing that they will be cropped theatrically. Isn't
>the director the one who should make the final choice about what the
>ratio should be?

Yes, but if he wanted 16:9 he should have fought for it to be shown in
theaters that way. Maybe he tried and lost- I don't know the story. At
any rate, I'm sure knowing that he had to crop to 2.35 led to some
framing choices he wouldn't have made otherwise.

>And preferring a less-cropped 16:9 picture over
>2.35:1 is *nothing* like Lucas's deranged mangling of his earlier movies.

On this we agree so I withdraw my vicious insult. Perhaps I can tape
black cloth to the screen and restore Star Trek but that won't make
Han shoot first.

Peter Koenig



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter Koenig