If you haven’t yet checked out our review of the new WRATH OF KHAN Director’s Cut Blu-ray (arriving today!), we mentioned a lot of large color corrections, but also a small content change – the deletion of two short lines inserted for the 1985 ABC television broadcast.

Some eagle-eyed viewers who received their new disc early noticed one additional issue that we (and everyone else, it seems) missed in the review, from the Kobayashi Maru simulation that opens the film – an apparent editing error in the early moments of the movie.

*   *   *

The Enterprise approaches Gamma Hydra, Section 15; Sulu projects a ‘parabolic course’ to avoid entering the Neutral Zone.

sulu-course

As ‘Captain’ Saavik learns the details of the Kobayashi Maru

km-details

…she calls for Sulu to plot an intercept course into the disputed area.

km-saavik

On the 2009 Blu-ray (and the 2002 Director’s Cut DVD), Sulu then turns to Saavik, beginning to protest the order: “May I remind the captain that if a starship enters the zone…”

Meanwhile, the Kobayashi Maru data begins to fade off of the viewscreen, one character at a time.

km-09

In this new release, while Sulu voices his protest, he remains facing forward – and that ‘parabolic course’ graphic seen about a minute earlier in this scene is used instead… though the dialogue audio in place is correct.

km-16

Following this shot, both versions of the film return to the historically-established shots of Saavik shutting down Sulu’s protest, and his annoyed reaction as he turns back to his monitor.

km-sulu

km-rolleyes

*   *   *

This is certainly a strange thing to have happened – it seems that the editing team on the remaster may have accidentally re-used the same over-the-shoulder shot from before the Kobayashi Maru was even detected.

We’ve reached out to Paramount Home Entertainment to see if we can learn anything about what may have happened here – whether it was an intentional choice, for some reason, or an error – as soon as we have any more information we’ll update you all here.

  • Two none

    I really hate senseless changes like this!!!!! They just drive me absolutely nutz!

    • MJ

      Jesus, lighten up dude. LOL

      • SciFiBrony

        Although, it is admittedly a valid concern (or at least a VERY STRONG curiosity) as to how that goof slipped everyone by INCLUDING the Trek Core staff.

        • With the audio being correct, this four-second shot was simply overlooked because we looked away from the screen for a moment.

          As you said, though, this was not mentioned by any other reviews out there either – so at least we’re in good company!

      • Darkthunder

        It’s a George Lucas edit all over again. Remember when he edited Star Wars Episode IV, to try and make the “Han shot first” scene more ambiguous? Didn’t help. Han suddenly “jerks” his head in place, without moving his body.

        • No, it’s not. You’re saying they made this change to intentionally alter the story and character development of Sulu?

          • Darkthunder

            No, I’m saying Paramount had ONE job to do, and they completely messed it up. Just like Lucas did with Han.

          • Ace Stephens

            That’s not “just like” it when Lucas did it intentionally while, as far as we know, Paramount had no intention of doing this.

          • Tuskin38

            What Lucas did was intentional, this probably wasn’t. It isn’t the same.

    • Straw Man

      Looks like we know what George Lucas is working on these days.

  • Mike Rogers

    Since this uses seamless branching, it makes me wonder if this is an anomaly that shows up on some machines and not others since the file for the movie is not entirely linear.

    • Sykes

      The audio would be incorrect if that were the case.

  • DIGINON

    Is it possible that Nick Meyer just didn’t like the shot with the fading letters anymore? But instead of replacing the visual FX on the screen, he just reused the earlier shot of the view screen, but with the correct audio?

    • Sykes

      The re-used shot creates a continuity error. I won’t pretend to know what’s in Meyer’s mind, but I’m gonna go with, “No. Hell no.”

    • Drew Hatch

      It’s missing from the theatrical version on the disc as well. It’s definitely an error.

  • THX

    Strange!!

  • Christopher Roberts

    It’s probably that shot and correct graphics from the DC have gone astray, and couldn’t be rescanned at 4k.

    • DangerousDac

      I could be wrong, but I don’t believe TWOK was reassembled from individual shots like TNG was. The original master had enough resolution for 4k anyway, so it was unnecessary.

  • archer923

    This is a really odd error. Because with the 2002 and 2009 releases the shot is there. And don’t looked damaged. If it was some how lost for the 2016 release. Which I don’t buy. Because this isn’t like TNG. Re compositing stuff. Why wouldn’t they have reused the already HD version from 2009. It be like TNG reusing shots to replace upscale footage. They’d just use the 1080p shot. Instead of stealing a shot. I’m saying the editor messed up. It was overlooked practically with every reviewer, till now.

  • James

    No matter, I’m over the moon that we’ve finally got one of the classic movies properly remastered and presented on blu-ray. The colour correction alone makes this one worth every penny. I for one can live with this tiny error.

  • DangerousDac

    Boy, I sure hope somebody was fired for that blunder.

    • Tim Lade

      Really? You hope someone lost their job for making a mistake? God, I wouldn’t want to work for you.

      • Neil Kesler

        Valid point Tim… we all make mistakes, yes I’d hate to work for you Dangerous Dac!

        • DangerousDac

          You too have also never watched The Simpsons.

          • Neil Kesler

            I’m almost 40 years old, I don’t watch cartoons

          • Ace Stephens

            Not even Star Trek: The Animated Series?! You’re not a real fan! 😛

          • Neil Kesler

            Dude I have a life, I work 50-60 hrs a week, I’m raising my 5 year old daughter and taking care of my mother who has special needs

          • Ace Stephens

            It’s a joke. Hence the :P…

            Just having a little fun since people are being super-serious around here with these release concerns.

          • Neil Kesler

            Well why don’t you think before you go opening your mouth

          • Ace Stephens

            …I did. I made a joke because I thought. I don’t know what you’re going on about at this rate.

          • Neil Kesler

            Just forget it , no hard feelings

      • DangerousDac

        You’ve obviously never watched the Simpsons.

        • Ace Stephens

          Everybody’s apparently super-serious around here, what with all the new release stuff and things not being perfect and all.

          • DangerousDac

            Yeah, I noticed that. I mean, I guess I was a little dry with my quote, but c’mon, it’s freakin’ Simpsons Man! From the episode literally dedicated to Sci Fi fandom.

  • Has this been altered on the theatrical cut as well?

  • Zarm

    *Raised eyebrow*

    Well, I’ll just chalk this up along with the red-blue alert from brothers or the missing contact flashes in The Bonding- a facepalm, “Ugh, you ALMOST had the definitive edition,” and hope that one day, there will be a complete, full package (of physical media; I know these things were corrected for streaming) that gets everything right. And in the meantime, just try to pretend I don’t see it when I watch. 🙂

    • Tim Lade

      Blue alert on the Enterprise-D is a life support failure. It isn’t a mistake.

      • Sykes

        In TNG’s “Brothers” they are supposed to be at blue alert but the team forgot to change it so it is red in one sequence. It is a mistake.

        • Tim Lade

          Yah as soon as I replied I realized what you meant. Sorry Brother!

          • Zarm

            I wasn’t exactly clear. And yeah- I’m sure to the crew of the D, it’s a LOT more than a mistake. 🙂

  • cylon8

    this is wqhat sheep get for constantly buying re-re;eases from paramount

  • Martin Paternoster

    Whoops …

  • CARTMANEZ

    looks like someone just gone and picked a whole bouquet of oopsie-daisies

  • New Horizon

    Wouldn’t someone have watched this and the earlier releases side by side to make sure the right things were changed?

  • Philip Grom

    Someone posted on imdb.com in the Trek II boards that in addition to the snafu described above, the following is also jacked up: Also missing the Kirk Spock dialog on the extra turbo lift scene where they are hurrying to the bridge. This part is supposed to be that way but it seems weird the footage is silent with no dialog!!…. Can anyone confirm that as well?

  • Jake Wolfe

    God Almighty, people complaining they won’t buy the debut Director’s Cut Blu-ray for this? And saying they want people’s jobs? And claiming it’s some insidious George Lucas change? No wonder people stereotype “Trekkers” as being obsessed weirdos. It’s like a whole four seconds, and nobody would even notice if they haven’t compared shots from previous releases. This has zero impact on the film. It’d be at least slightly more justifiable to object to a poorly done effects shot, or the terrible done-in-Paintbrush fake control panels on the side of the Genesis demonstration screen scene. And even those aren’t worth anybody’s job, or deciding not to buy, or disliking the whole film (as some do with films that have minor-at-best issues that bug them personally).

    • I’m pretty sure most of the George Lucas comments are humor.

      • Jake Wolfe

        Hard to tell, the Internet being the Internet.

    • It’s not about being a Trek fan. This kind of thing happens a lot. Beauty and the Beast, Blade Runner, Bachelor Party, Starship Troopers, Battlestar Galactica (’78) box set. If you’re putting down money on ANYTHING, you expect it to be flawless.

      • Jake Wolfe

        At worst, it’s an honest mistake. It’s only considered a flaw because it’s not exactly the same as the original version. But even with this being a mistake, it doesn’t take anything away from the release, or the film. It’s less than spilled milk. More than mountains out of molehills.

        If the original film had these few seconds just like this, nobody would have ever considered it a flaw. And that’s why I say it’s completely inconsequential.

        • Or, if you were a 14 year old kid studying computer graphics at the time, it’s actually QUITE important.

          And it’s not just spilled milk. That’s why these titles have uncorrected errors in the first place.

          • Jake Wolfe

            I don’t think any of us who are upset, or refuse to contribute money to Star Trek’s Blu-ray endeavours with this release, are 14-year old kids studying how to create 1980’s computer graphics. Just nitpickers who don’t forgive mistakes that almost nobody would have even noticed if they weren’t overanalyzing and comparing every shot.

            I just think Nick Mayer, and all the good people putting these Blu-rays together for us, deserve a little more respect, and dare I say “forgiveness” for such petty errors. The chances of DS9 and Voyager on Blu-ray are already slim enough as it is. Looking for infinitesimal excuses to not give back, or otherwise get upset, certainly isn’t going to help. And it’s also indecent and immature of us to get upset over something that has no impact on the actual film.

            My point is just that the response from some of the commenters is disproportionate. “This is how I define ‘unwarranted’.” Lol.

          • You don’t get it. *I* was the 14-year old in 1982. I said “at the time”. And it’s Meyer, not Mayer. It’s not a petty error, it’s a glaring one. The edit looks terrible. Sulu’s back is in two different spots in two different immediate shots. Have you seen it for yourself?

          • Jake Wolfe

            Spelling corrected.

            It’s petty because it’s a few seconds and it took “eagle-eyed” viewers to notice it. This just isn’t a big deal. If something so small ruins the movie for you, maybe you’ve been placing too much value on a few seconds, and too little on the other 1:53:56 of the film. Plenty of films have bad editing, including Wrath of Khan, since the beginning, aside from this one thing. It never ruined the movie before. Flaws in editing and effects don’t ruin good films. Plenty of great films have those flaws. Whenever a few seconds, out of two hours, become this big of a deal to somebody, it’s petty. There are still plenty of VHS, DVD, and even Blu-ray releases that keep those few seconds intact.

            And now I’m going to go live my life, since I have one, unlike the haters who can’t get past those few seconds of perceived imperfection. Three to four seconds (that less than 1% of fans get their panties in a bunch over) of a good film aren’t worth an hour-long discussion on a computer or cell phone screen. If those few seconds are so important, don’t make a big stink. Just don’t buy the release, and get over it. It’s not like this is the only release of the film ever, and all is lost because those seconds aren’t just as life-changing as they were “back in ’82” (see: Uncle Rico).

          • You go on with your life. When you get a favorite movie that’s got an error in it that bothers YOU, remember what you wrote here.

          • Jake Wolfe

            I’ll reply, for the sake of making my point: Star Wars. Errors and pointless changes galore. But even with those numerous changes and errors… I don’t let any of them change my love for the films. Regardless of how pointless the changes and errors may be, they don’t change the struggle of good versus evil, the underdogs versus the oppressors, or the love of a father and son that leads to redemption. As far as Wrath of Khan, the true meaning and importance of the film remains unhindered: the folly and foolishness of Khan’s blind revenge. Kirk’s failings due to arrogance. The dangers of science in the wrong hands. Those, and the characters, and their relationship, make the film great. Whether or not the editing is flawless, it doesn’t change the point of the film.

            I hope that can end our discussion on a more positive, philosophical and intellectual, note.

          • That’s great…for you.

          • Jake Wolfe

            Fair enough.

            My apologies, if I’ve been abrasive or have offended you. Years of Prequel bashers have made me a bit bitter, lol.

          • Philip Grom

            I guess I think in a sense there definitely are extremes, but at the same time I also feel as if too much “normalcy bias” kicks in for the consumer to where these rich companies expect us sheep to just deal with anything they mess up or undercut, and if this is going to be the what, 10th release of this film on home format, then they damn well better have their crap together by this point in terms of ensuring it’s 100% as it should be– no scenes jacked up, no audio issues, etc. Get it right, or don’t bother releasing it eh. Just my 2 cents. 🙂 Don’t take anyone take offense! 🙂

          • Jake Wolfe

            I would generally agree with that. Kn this case, I don’t think it was anything but an innocent mistake on the part of people who were otherwise working hard to give us a good release.

          • Philip Grom

            I can def agree w that lol I’m definitely not one of those people thinking it’s some conspiracy or was purposeful— All I ask is: Just fix the dang thing lol

          • Jake Wolfe

            Lol, right. The fact it’d take mere hours to fix it would make it a slap in the face if they didn’t just fix it. And better, replace the affected copies.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Two words: quality control.

          • Robert Lowndes

            I also think that Paramount should fix this, alienating the fan base will hurt them financially in regard to their ToS 50th Anniversary box set that has this movie in it.

          • Logic

            I’d love to punch your anal arse in the nose. What a little baby. Poor little puss.

      • Drew Hatch

        Not to mention the TNG Season 1 set.

    • Savage Brit

      If there were a repeated shot in the PSYCHO shower scene that Hitchcock didn’t intend, then I’d want a replacement DVD. It would seem someone got bored during the color timing.

  • Suggestion. Can we at least try and contact Paramount about this?

    phe_customerservice@paramount.com

    In my opinion, the film should be presented the way it was originally presented. A mistake though it may be, it does create a new continuity error in which direction Sulu’s head is facing. I’ve seen studios replace more mundane mistakes than this like the Little Mermaid Blu-Ray.

    I encourage anyone who has bought this Blu-Ray to at least let Paramount know of this error.

    • I wrote to Paramount on Twitter and sent them an Instagram link comparing the two versions. However, it might be a good idea to email them, too.

    • Paramount knows all about this from multiple sources already. No need to swarm them with messages.

  • Aqua

    Paramount needs to set up a disc replacement reprogram ASAP for this. I would have cancelled my pre-order if it hadn’t already shipped out. Hopefully we will hear from Paramount quickly. Especially since the 50th anniversary box is right around the corner. It needs to have a corrected disc in it.

    This is just an amateur hour level mistake.

  • Rob K Music

    I’m honestly more put off with Khan being a white englishman in the reboots, but that’s me.

    • LetschatFL69

      Agreed. I guess they just decided that no one could be as god as Ricardo Mantalban who owned the character so well.

      • tB

        “god” may have been a typo, but I think it reads most accurate. Perfect! 😎

    • the observer

      No doubt…

    • tB

      This is what bugs me about all live action movies lately, they cast ‘names’ instead of actors better suited ‘physically’ or with more acting chops/talent for said roles. Gal Gadot as WW comes to mind as an example of poor casting, IMO at least.

      • Rob K Music

        Additionally, movies are no longer based on good storytelling. They’re based on genre formula.

    • Kevin Earle

      I wish the reboots never happened. Absolute garbage!

      • Rob K Music

        Absolutely. In every way.

  • D.J. Ammons

    Very interesting! It will be interesting to see what Paramount says.

  • Thomas W.

    It’s all right. Someone made a mistake. Reminds of this:

    McCOY: I was nervous.

    CHANG: No. You were incompetent!

    Forgive them.

  • DamienL

    Pobodys nerfect. These types of mistakes however regrettable do happen. This presumably slipped past some pretty discerning sets of eyes (I’m guessing Meyer reviewed the final version?).

    Apparently even the big time studios and directors make these types of silly errors 😉

    Perhaps It’s a good opportunity for Paramount to review their QA process!

  • archer923

    The best thing right now is to just cancel your pre-order. Or return your order for a refund. Then just wait to see if they fix it, or not. Paramount knows the error exists. Just hope they care to fix it. In a future batch.

  • jerr

    “whether it was an intentional choice, for some reason, or an error ”
    it’s impossible that it’s a mistake. I think the “Sulu not being combative” is a reasonable explanation. So much for the little training cruise

  • Good gravy, folks, calm down. This isn’t the end of the world.

  • Robert Lowndes

    I recently found this missing from the Star trek II Director’s cut
    some audio at time index 1:21:04

    In the 2009 edition as Kirk, Spock & Saavik are climbing up the ladder

    Kirk says: That young man is my son

    Spock replies: fascinating

  • Thomas W.

    I wonder if they will fix this “mistake” for the international releases. In Europe the BD will be released end of july. Perhaps the international BDs aren’t produced yet. If it was a mistake they had the chance to rework it.

  • Chris

    Reading this after watching the director’s cut blu. Didn’t think anything was wrong with this scene per se, but do remember thinking, “Why are we seeing the back of Sulu’s head while he’s speaking?”. So although I concede that it is a minor flaw, it did take me out of the scene for a moment. And if I, as a casual viewer, noticed something wasn’t quite right, Paramount QA/QC should have also. They missed it, fine. But they do need to fix it and make the corrected version available to die hard fans that want it.

  • Andrew Cardinale

    Any update on this? Can we expect a replacement program similar to the S1 TNG Blu-rays?

  • They also missed the dialog from when Kirk, Spock, and Saavik are climbing the ladders and Kirk says “That’s my son” and Spock replies “fascinating”. They put them climbing the ladders but no dialog. It’s a little awkward.

  • Shop99er

    Man, talk about picking nits…..

  • Tim

    As an update for those who missed it. Yes it was a mistake, and a recall was issued. Still not got this but hopefully those in the shops are now the fixed version. http://trekmovie.com/2016/06/22/wrath-of-khan-directors-edition-recall-information/