After seven years, the first truly new version of a prime-universe Star Trek film comes to Blu-ray, as Nicholas Meyer’s special Director’s Cut of STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN arrives with a new 4K-sourced remaster, supervised by the director himself.

(You can check out the content differences between the theatrical and director’s editions here.)

Fans have long been asking for the original ten Star Trek films to get another look from Paramount Home Entertainment, as many of the 2009 Blu-ray releases are plagued by overuse of digital noise reduction (DNR) effects, inconsistent clarity and color, and other issues which could really use some attention.

Unlike the other films, however, Khan got a new scan before those discs debuted in 2009, as the original film negatives were in “terrible shape” when that project began.

The result was a much cleaner presentation than the rest of the movies, but fans were left a bit mystified when Khan arrived with a new blue-tinted look, permeating a large portion of the movie in its first high-definition release.

After several years of repackaged releases of the 2009 edition, it was a great relief when we learned that Nick Meyer was overseeing a brand-new remaster of this classic film earlier this year – and that the long-awaited Director’s Cut version of Khan would also be included, something relegated to standard-definition DVD since 2002.


As we’ve reported previously, this single-disc Blu-ray release arrives on June 7 with all of the existing bonus material included, along with a new twenty-eight-minute documentary feature produced specially for this release.

This new feature (entitled The Genesis Effect: Engineering The Wrath of Khan) was put together by our old friend Roger Lay, Jr., who co-produced the great Next Generation and Enterprise Blu-ray bonus content.


Featuring interviews with behind-the-scenes Trek talent who worked on the film – Nick Meyer himself, along with producers Bob Sallin and Ralph Winter – plus Adam Nimoy, Larry Nemecek, and several others, talking about everything from the rush into production, the $100,000 reshoots adding the shot of Spock’s coffin on Genesis to the ending, and the role of the characters in the film.

Some of the behind-the-scenes discussion was covered in the previous Khan bonus material when the film was released on DVD, but there’s enough additional content to make this doc a nice refresher on the history of the film.

Strangely, the clips of Khan used in this documentary appear to be from the ‘old’ DVD / HDTV master, as the color and brightness levels align nearly identically to the film’s pre-2009 look.

Additionally, it’s a bit disappointing that this Khan release doesn’t include any of the 1985 ABC broadcast’s alternate shots (composed for 4×3 televisions), nor any deleted footage from the film in the bonus material, as many such scenes are known to exist based on the workprint on file at the UCLA Library archives – the “Saavik is half-Romulan” scene, footage of Khan’s group’s baby, etc.

Perhaps someday that footage will be restored for fan viewing, but that day is not today.


But that’s not what you’re here for, is it?

What people have hoping for in this release is a correction of the overly-saturated, blue-tinted picture that we’ve been watching for the last seven years – and we can tell you right now that blue is back under control in this Director’s Cut presentation.

White and silver features of metallic walls, cargo containers, engineering worksuits, and starship hull plates all return to their neutral tones, while the green features of the Genesis Cave, display readouts, and control consoles all lose that soft aquamarine hue and become a vibrant emerald again.

That’s not to say that the blue levels are the only thing that’s changed in this new release. There has been a definite return towards the color levels of the pre-2009 look, something we know many of you have been wanting to see since the first Khan Blu-ray debuted.

While this may appear overly-desaturated in direct 2009 vs. 2016 comparisons, looking at all three versions together places the Director’s Cut into somewhat of a ‘middle ground’, losing the amber overtones that affected the old master, but keeping away from the 2009 Blu-ray extremes.

In addition to these color adjustments, the overall clarity of the Khan Director’s Cut is a certainly a step above the previous release. This new 4K scan provides a notable improvement in texture and fine-detail visibility, from the signs in the background of the Kobayashi Maru testing facility to the cloth of the “monster maroon” uniform jackets.

One interesting thing that we discovered in our side-by-side comparisons was an apparent digital retouching of the Starfleet training set – implemented in the 2009 remaster – that seems to have been missed in the 2016 edition.

Finally, there has actually been a deletion in the extended director’s cut! A quick shot of Kirk, Spock, and Saavik climbing up through the Enterprise decks after their return from Regula was added to the film for the 1985 ABC television broadcast, and with it, two lines of overdubbed dialogue:

Kirk: “That young man… he’s my son.”
Spock: “Fascinating.”

In this new edition, the film content remains, but the added dialogue is removed. Apparently this unneeded and somewhat clunkly bit of conversation wasn’t something that Nick Meyer wanted to keep in place, and was excised at his request (per The Digital Bits).

The debate over which color presentation is truly correct will last until the end of time, as everyone has different memories of how a film is ‘supposed’ to look – but this is Nick Meyer’s authoritative version of the movie, and it’s a damned fine version in our opinion. It’s likely that some of the adjustments made to Khan for this release won’t please everyone; but there are several shots unarguably improved on the Director’s Cut disc.

Overall, the positives far outweigh any minor quibbles we may have, and it’s fair to say that Khan has never looked this good. If you’ve never picked up this film on Blu-ray, there’s no better time – and if you already have the 2009 version, it’s truly a well-deserved upgrade.

Here’s hoping that STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN won’t be the last classic Trek film to get a second chance in high definition.

UPDATE JUNE 7: We’ve detailed an apparent editing error overlooked in our original review.


We’ve got plenty more comparison caps here for you to review, and we’ll be updating our Wrath of Khan image gallery with full-resolution screencaps soon. Check ’em out, then let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

"Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - Director's Cut" Blu-ray
  • grandadmiralbinks

    I just might buy TWOK another time. LLAP

  • Mat Rowe

    FILM GRAIN!!!!! *cries tears of joy*

    • Simon

      The 2009 transfer also had grain. It was not excessively DNR’ed like the others.

    • Admiral SnackBar

      I’m going to be projecting this Blu-ray on a big screen this coming weekend for friends and I’m hoping no one complains about “graininess”.

      • archer923

        If they complain. Tell them to stop watching The Walking Dead right now.

  • Jonathan Chapman

    Hard to buy it again for what I think is a 5th time… But also why stop now?

    • Cabo 5150

      My re-purchase tally for various editions and re-releases of TWOK currently stands at 8…

      VHS (x2), LaserDisc (x2), DVD (x2), Blu-ray (x2),,, and, no doubt, it’ll click up to 9 when and if a UHD BD is forthcoming.

      Ha ha, if you shine a UV light on my forehead you can clearly see the word “MUG” emblazoned across it!

  • BeatleJWOL

    Is there some mild reframing too or is that just the screencaps not being exact frame matches?

    • You’re correct, there is a small bit of reframing. No major changes there we noticed.

      • Guest

        That’s a little disappointing. Reframing is basically recomposing a film. Even if minor, it’s kind of careless and/or disrespectful IMO.

        • Cabo 5150

          Yes, and unfortuntely, it appears the reframing is a straight cropping the original shot composition – resulting in a uniform loss of picture information at the edges of the frame.

          I hope there isn’t too much of this.

  • Scott McC

    Excellent review Trekcore with the comparison shots being very effective. Not having the previous Blu-ray I will definitely be picking this up.

  • Zarm

    “In this new edition, the film content remains, but the added dialogue is removed.”
    Aw, man- I liked that bit. I hope they at least undid the music looping that marred the lead-up to the best cue in the film; Spock’s deadpan delivery was the only thing that kept that soundtrack-butchering tolerable. If they ditched the line but still looped the music to include a silent shot of ladder climbing, I will be MOST displeased.

    Overall, though, looks very exciting. Can’t wait to get this one- and holding out tentative (but extreme) hope that if this one sells well, they might consider giving a similar treatment to VI (in the minority, I know, but I like the re-edited scene better), TMP (I know all the expense and effort required to recreate it at this point, but it’s WORTH it; the film is elevated to such an extreme degree, even just by the soundtrack alone…!) and even TFF (Yeah, I know- it’s never going to be the best Trek film. But there are still seeds of greatness buried amidst the slapstick and inanity- a few judicious cuts for the film’s excesses, SFX that at least come up to original broadcast TOS standards, and a coherent climax where ‘God’ is actually visible chasing Kirk and the camera isn’t left zooming in on empty sky where he was clearly supposed to be, could go along way to at least making the film respectable. It’s long past due; while Shatner is still alive, at least let him have his chance at directorial redemption!)

    Again, a slim hope- but my hope nonetheless. Either way, it will be nice to have one more films that I can add the blu-ray version to my viewing rotation, because I no longer have to choose between improved picture quality and a superior edit. This time, it’s the best of both world… except, that’s a different blu-ray. 😉

    • Admiral SnackBar

      I am probably lapsing in my Star Trek V “making of” history (I had the “making of” book back in 1990 or so, but that was a long, long time ago), but, what was the exact reason that Paramount slashed the budget on V so much? I honestly don’t recall. With the huge commercial success of The Voyage Home, you’d think they’d almost given Shatner carte blanch to do whatever he wants. Granted, the script isn’t the greatest, but I agree with you that there are great ideas under the surface and it could have been a much better romp of an adventure film. I just don’t remember why the studio was so stingy with the cash on this one. The bad effects were one of the main standouts to me when I saw this on opening weekend when I was 14 years old. Oh, how disappointed I was on the drive home that night.

      • bulletproof1979

        Star Trek V had a bigger budget than IV, unfortunately Shatner spent millions too much on the “epic” opening desert scenes, and on the rockmen that should have featured in the climax but ended up unconvincing and so were cut, and there wasn’t enough left elsewhere.

        • Zarm

          …On the other hand, it could be that. 🙂 Like I said, my memory is unreliable.

        • Bjoernar Dohm

          Unfortunately, Shatner also chose an effects house that just wasn’t up to the job.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            That was definitely a reason the movie was delayed. The effects house weren’t used to taking on so many effects.

        • Demode

          It was more than that, though. They went with a fairly new FX company that promised great starship FX, but failed to deliver. They wanted ILM, but they were too busy working on Indiana Jones.

      • Zarm

        I could be completely wrong on this, but I think it was the exact success of Star Trek IV that was the problem; namely, that they were able to make the money for so much less than a normal Trek budget. Of course, that’s because 2/3 of the movie could be shot on location, needed no effects (save a few transporter beams and the whale animatronics), were exterior and required no lighting, no set construction (even the BoP sets were pre-existing), etc. In short- way fewer production requirements or costs than a typical Trek film (and for all that, they couldn’t manage a second day to reshoot the Sulu’s-ancestor scene…).

        Then, some suit at Paramount said “Wow! Look at how much less it cost to make this movie than the last three-” (never mind the REASON why) “-And it was a HUGE hit! If you did it before, you can do it again, so CLEARLY you don’t need that large of a budget here…”

        Now, that could just be me fibbing- after all, it’s been a number of years since I read the making-of as well- but that was the impression I was always left with. (All this compounded by a rockman prop that didn’t work on location, scuttling that scene and using up some of the precious budget for results not seen onscreen, and trying to save a little of the limited budget by going with a new FX house that bid lower, had a great demo reel, and had NO idea what they were doing- hence making the film look cheaper than it actually was). The perfect storm of bad luck, poor decisions, and studio limitations. (Another of which was, I believe, ‘man, that humor was so darn popular in IV; give us more funny stuff!’)

        In short, I think (again, if my memory does not deceive), it was the studio trying to replicate the success of IV without understanding that what worked for IV would not work for a typical Trek movie, and trying to impose the same budget and style on a vastly different kind of story.

        …And yeah, those effects; it’s like they shot the models stop-motion. No motion blur AT ALL. Plus REALLY bad bluescreening (I read Star Trek Movie Memories before I saw this film, and the sketch of tiny Kirk standing before the BoP looked like one of the most epic shots ever composed for Trek- but in execution, it’s just… SO bad), stars that look like comets, phasers always being conveniently fired just off the top of the screen… ugh.

        • Admiral SnackBar

          This all makes a lot of sense, actually. I should go scour the used book stores or Amazon for a copy of that “making of” book. I’m sure I sold mine in a yard sale many years ago.

          Also, I totally remember that BoP concept art. Wasn’t he aiming a phaser right at it? Memory is foggy, but that’s what I recall. I’m sure all I need to do is Google is for some instant gratification.

          • Zarm

            Sounds about right. *sigh*

            I’m reading through the Generations/First Contact art book (a great book, but with some face-palmingly bad mis-labeling of the graphics), and thinking about that film, too. So many of the ‘lesser’ Trek films are such agonizing cases of ‘what could have been,’ because one or two different decisions feel like they could have turned the whole thing around. TFF is the poster-child for that, of course.

        • Admiral SnackBar

          At least the comic book version knocked it outta the park. I still have my copy of it.

    • Jay

      Any update now that it’s out?

  • TrekRules

    For me, the alternate shots in the ABC version really don’t matter as the content is the same and they just used closeups instead of wide master shots since it was for tv. It was better than doing pan and scan but in the end, we don’t really lose anything from them not using those shots and using the master instead. The deletion of the “my son” line though is disappointing as it showed a little different aspect of Spock however it is not entirely surprising as he also recut 6 a little when they released his director’s cut. Guess when the changes are small, no one says you ruined thier childhood 🙂

    Glad to see the screenshots look good – read some reviews where they complained about them but they seem fine.

    • danielcw

      > “he also recut 6 a little when they released his director’s cut”

      Star Trek 6 is not a Director’s Cut. I don’t know if Meyer – I assume he is your “he” – was involved in the longer version, but I don’t think he was involved in the changes made for the special DVD edition

      • The Bandsaw Vigilante

        The 2004 DVD version of The Undiscovered Country is indeed Meyer’s director’s cut of the film — he talks about it quite extensively during the audio commentary track, and how he was finally able to go back and fine-tune the film to his exact specifications after many years.

        • danielcw

          Interesting. Then why wasn’t the DVD called Director’s Cut?
          I remember seeing all the special features, but I can not remember, if I ever listened to the commentary track

          • The Bandsaw Vigilante

            Marketing reasons — while the first two double-disc re-releases were billed as “Director’s Editions,” the intervening several ones prior to TUC were not, and very likely Paramount simply didn’t want to disrupt the ongoing symmetry at that point.

            Meyer definitely talks about it being his final cut of the movie, though, during the supplemental features.

  • Gustavo Leao

    I just ordered mine at – I am sold !

  • Jed Raybould

    Pretty darn good review. Here is my TWOK home media tally VHS (3x), DVD (2x), blu (2x). This upcoming release would bring my total to 8. Here’s hoping other TOS cast and TNG cast movies get a much better cut soon.

  • Charles Baxter

    Very good review, although it seems to me like they are correcting all the errors made color wise on the 2009 Blu-Ray which makes it look a lot more like the 2002 DVD color wise at a much higher quality. I might get it, but it doesn’t seem like much of a directors cut IMO.

    • Simon

      Except the 2002 DVD was in error as well. The red push, made to compensate for the poor reds of CRT monitors, contaminated the intended color for modern displays. The new transfer is exactly how I remember the theatrical – not just 1982 but having attended numerous revival screenings over the years as well.

      • Charles Baxter

        I know why they did the DVD the way they did. I am just glad they got rid of all the extra blue from the 2009 Blu-Ray version.

        • eyeresist

          I think the blue was an attempt to compensate for the 80s beige-ness of the original print, which TBH I am not a fan of.

  • M33

    TMP Director’s Cut next! — Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please

    • Zarm

      Seconded, with a dozens more ‘Please’s. 🙂

    • Bjoernar Dohm

      Abso-fucking-lutely, YES!

    • Crewcrusher

      They can’t unless they spend a lot of money. ST:TMP Director’s Cut SFX were rendered in Standard definition. To make a High Definition version, they would have to remake all those shots from scratch.
      I would love it, but it doesn’t seem likely. Paramount just treats ST like a red headed stepchild.

  • danielcw

    Does the cinematic version also have the improved picture quality, or do I have to watch the Director’s Cut?

    • Same quality for both.

      • Very glad they didn’t just slap the 2002 master on the disc for the theatrical version.

  • scooternva

    This is all well and good, but I think I’ll hold off until they actually release a 4K UHD version. (And why didn’t they?)

    • KamenRid3r

      The reason Paramount hasn’t done a 4K Blu-ray release simultaneously is because, according to The Digital Bits, they’re using the 4K Blu-rays of Star Trek ’09 and Into Darkness to see if it’s worth releasing other movies on the format. If those fail to sell then Paramount will probably release movies in 4K only digitally.

  • KamenRid3r

    I’ve got this pre-ordered on Amazon. I really urge all fans to try and purchase this and not wait until it hits a bargain bin, or a different format. If this fails to meet sales expectations, then Paramount will see no point in putting effort (in TMP DC’s case, extra effort) in doing proper remasters of the other films. I plan on tweeting Paramount a pic of my copy, when I get it, and demand that the rest of the movies get a similar treatment (especially TMP, TUC.) I also urge others to do the same. Will tweeting your TWOK DC blu-rays help? Maybe, maybe not. But doing nothing will, for sure, get you nothing.

    • The Bandsaw Vigilante

      This, basically. Paramount will undoubtedly be watching the sales-figures of this release very, very closely, and this one disc could literally determine the entire future of the (pre-J.J. Abrams) Trek feature film franchise on home video. Bottom line: if you ever want to see the Director’s Edition of TMP and the extended cut of The Undiscovered Country on Blu-Ray, you need to support this release immediately.

      Like CBS did with the TNG Blu-Rays, Paramount won’t be looking at sales-figures six months from now, they’ll be looking at the sales-figures RIGHT NOW. And we all saw what happened with those, when too many people sat on the fence. If this BD doesn’t sell well right out the gate, that’ll basically be it, as far as any future HD releases are concerned.

      • Philip Grom

        I respectfully disagree— Paramount has continually kept releasing Trek flicks on various formats since the late 80s, i.e. Laserdisc, VHS, DVD, and now Blu-ray, and they still can’t technically get it right the first time for what the fans want for extras/goodies on the old films…. So with that in mind, why should we pony up for yet another iteration of this when there’s truly no guarantee that’ll make them move an inch? They’ve already made plenty of money from us fans and consumers alike in my humble opinion. I think the bigger question is, is disc media in general on the way out? It’s really not an outrageous possibility…. (and I’m not just talking about Trek, but other movies, and TV shows hitting disc media in general. I’m not posting this opinion to garner hate from those that will buy the Blu-ray, and hell, I may still pick it up myself, but I don’t believe Paramount has any intention of sticking with disc media– regardless of WOK sales are through the roof.

        • Guest

          Personally, If they ditch physical media, I’m gonna ditch them. My main beef with streaming is that I like to own things. I don’t want to be at the mercy of my internet connection, or a streaming service that could pull a movie from it’s service at any time for any reason, and I don’t like to deal with glitches, lag or buffering either. Film is very important to me, and when I watch a film, the experience must be seamless. I don’t have time for any glitches or technical headaches, and like I said, I want to own it and watch it when and how I want. There are also many people that like the packaging, holding the case in your hand, pouring over the artwork, flipping through a booklet that may come with it, etc. The same way people still like vinyl. It’s almost ritualistic in a way. If these studios all cease physical media, I think they’re in trouble. Too many people will be excluded from being able to enjoy their products, and who’s gonna want to pay 8 dollars a month per streaming service, which currently, there are 3 main ones you need since they all have different exclusives on them, just to watch a handful of movies they like (assuming said movies are even available for streaming)?

          • Philip Grom

            And I totally agree— u can’t beat the aesthetic experience of having a real copy, with the box/artwork in hand. I think the only plus side to what’s happening is in the next 2-5 years, disc media will keep getting discounted to uber cheap prices, so buy up as much as ya can, while you can, as I’m thinking no later than 10 years from now you won’t be able to find it anywhere except for garage sales, and used sellers on Ebay and Amazon.

      • Tone


    • Tone

      Oh dear, you really believe that, don’t you!

      Paramount is only interested in profits, they will never spend/invest serious money in old Star Trek stuff. They will only EVER do the bare minimum needed to release anything. These people change the box the disc comes in and people like you go out and spend another $20, so you can see why the don’t ever invest anything in Star Trek.

    • Robin Dale

      Hey you know what might help with those sales? Actually having it IN THE F-ING STORES!! “Available in stores June 7” my raging a-hole! This is
      the very thing it says in all the ads and reviews. I live in a city of 3 million people and there is not ONE retail outlet that has it within 200 miles.Two. Hundred. WTF? Then they will say “well, it didnt sell well enough” or scream piracy and use those excuses not to do other special editions. Its inconceivable that I can’t actually buy this unless I get it mailed from Amazon. No good reason I can’t go out, 2 days after release, and buy it in any major retail store. Now, I am not buying it until I get it used for a lot less.

  • THX

    Great news! Can’t wait to watch the film and new documentary next week!!

  • Simon

    Took nearly 35 years but they finally got the color of the film correct on home video!

    • Cabo 5150

      But which version is “correct”?!!!

      Many people swear by the 2-disc DVD DC, while some prefer the 2009 BD. I guess It could be argued NM giving this his official seal of approval gives us a director endorsed reference, but I doubt this latest “retuning” of the colour timing is exactly what was seen in theatres.

      And what about the VHS and LaserDisc releases?

      • Simon

        I’ve been to numerous revival screenings over the years and the new disc is what it looked like.
        The VHS & LD were not accurate either.

  • batman4oz

    When can we expect the Holodeck Version?!!? I Do have a 75″ 4K 3D TV…but what I ‘really’ want is a Holodeck!

  • Mrplatitude

    Its disappointing that the previous Blu-ray releases weren’t of this quality, but its nice to see them finally putting out a good transfer. With already owning a few copies of the film though I’m not totally sure if I’m going to buy this right away, despite how great it looks.

    • Philip Grom

      Agreed— baffling that to coincide with the 2009 film, Paramount didn’t do a proper boxed set with not just extras but remasters of all original 6 films, and potentially a redo of the DC for TMP back then. Now they waited until they’re in the red financially, and that’s why I think regardless of WOK sells well this month, I don’t see them redoing the others. Best to keep those DVD versions from the mid 2000s that have extras on them. Sad but true, and a major pisser at that.

  • Thomas W.

    The benefit of the new scan is poor.

  • Guest

    I really hope the like of First Contact, The Undiscovered Country and The Voyage Home get this same sort of treatment, as well as Deep Space Nine. Those are essential as far as I’m concerned. I’d personally love the other movies and Voyager to get the same treatment, for consistency if nothing else, but I doubt Paramount would drop that kinda money on the less popular films and series. Still, it’s very disheartening that Enterprise and The Animated Series are both on Blu-Ray, but DS9’s been left in the cold, and what’s even more disheartening is when they finally do get around to DS9 and Voyager, they probably aren’t gonna restore them or do any new interviews or documentaries, etc. They’re probably gonna source from the DVD encodes, upscale them to “720p” and throw that up on streaming services, barebones and shoddy.

    • Cabo 5150

      TAS is not available on Blu-ray – other than “More Tribbles, More Troubles” on the Season Two TOS box. Enterprise was “ready to go” in HD as it were, without need of any work.

  • pittrek

    This looks so much better than the 2009 Bluray, great. However I hate the fact that they created a FOURTH version of the movie without actually telling it to somebody.

  • CoolGeek

    That truly is hideous box cover art.

  • Godzilla

    Will a 4k Blu ray work in a normal Blu ray player?

    • archer923


    • No, but this is a standard 1080p Blu-ray release. The remastering itself was done in 4K.

  • Thank you, Nick Meyer! I have only had the director’s cut DVD all these years, and I’m glad to see a proper restoration for it here. Tired of vintage films gettng these color timing overhauls to look more “modern.” Preserve them as they were.

  • Tone

    Why oh why did they not get CBS-D in to do this. They would have made this film look like it was shot today, instead we have a terrible unnatural colour palette, that makes it look like it was shot in the 70s.

  • Bjoernar Dohm

    Will this be a seamless-branching version, presenting the theatrical cut as well?

  • Rass

    “(entitled The Genesis Effect: Engineering The Wrath of Khan)”

    Titled, not entitled. The two words have very different meanings and are not interchangeable.

    • Snap

      It is an acceptable use of “entitled.” It can not only refer to a right to lay claim to something (ie: to feel entitled) but to also call something by a particular name, in this case a documentary.

  • Just got it here. Can’t wait to watch it! And glad to see that it’s got all of the previous docs included.

  • Jay

    Anyone notice on Dir Cut where Carol 1st says Who gave the or…er that it skipped on the “d” & then when asked again who & said was Kirk & Carols comments were all broken up but when I replay it only does this @ random, so just bad disc or?

  • Jay

    Why do I like the older version BR 2009 better when looking @ the comparison flash up above? seems to have a nice deep dark rich tones which makes the colors look more nice & rich & that blue tint also

  • Christopher Dalton

    The BEST Star Trek film in the original series movie era!

  • dep1701

    If Meyer wanted the dialogue removed in the added scene of Spock and Kirk climbing up the Jeffries tube, I don’t know why they didn’t just leave the scene out all together. Without the ” That young man is my son… ” dialogue ( awkward as it is ) it adds absolutely nothing to the film and actually ( IMHO ) disrupts the pacing of the movie.

  • How about the Director’s Cut of Star Trek VI? I’d love that. I’d really love the Director’s Cut of ST: TMP, but I know that they would need to re-do those new CGI effects. Who the hell made the decision to render those effects in SD? They KNEW that HD was on the way in just a couple years! That was a really bad call…