The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek - Original Series (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=204958)

MarsSpectre March 2 2013 07:00 PM

Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
So, I just watched the remastered version of Court Martial. Once again, I have to say the remastered effects are excellent. I don't understand why people think they are so awful. They can't make them look like modern day effects because they wouldn't match up with the rest of the shots. Instead of seeing the same old stock footage, it's good to see effects that are more specific to the story.

Now, I did a search and see that this subject has been talked to death so I really don't want to re-hash all the same ideas and I know resurrecting old threads will get them locked.

I just wanted to mention that while this was a good dramatic episode, the whole "Jettison the Ion Pod" concept is as confusing today as it was back in the 70's when I saw it it re-runs. It seems the writers did not adequately explain the purpose of an Ion pod, or more importantly, why it had to be jettisoned in order to save the ship. I'm still baffled by the whole thing.

I do like the remastered shots that shows where the Ion pod was located (near the shuttle bay) and the "hole" in the side of the ship where it's obvious the pod was jettisoned.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...e/ion_pod3.jpg

Robert Comsol March 2 2013 08:06 PM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
In the original series there was a fast blinking running light at the same spot (installed after the pilot films on the 11' VFX model).

In fly-by VFX and the like featuring the 11 footer in its regular series condition, it's easy to spot (just stating plain facts, nothing else). ;)

Bob

Metryq March 2 2013 08:16 PM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7752037)
It seems the writers did not adequately explain the purpose of an Ion pod, or more importantly, why it had to be jettisoned in order to save the ship.

I have no problem with that aspect of the story. Screen time is limited, and it's not necessary to explain everything for the sake of suspension of disbelief. Even Kirk brushes off the explanation as common knowledge, "Everyone here in this court knows the dangers involved."

I simply took the situation at face value—what was done was necessary, though risky, and involved split-second timing. Opening "ports" in a firewall is also necessary, yet increases risk.

F. King Daniel March 2 2013 08:25 PM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7752037)
I do like the remastered shots that shows where the Ion pod was located (near the shuttle bay) and the "hole" in the side of the ship where it's obvious the pod was jettisoned.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...e/ion_pod3.jpg

Although I still have no idea what an iod pod is or does, I wish they'd gone with the old Star Fleet Officer's Manual's idea of what and where the ion pod was, rather than some random part in one side of the ship:
http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/a...01/ion_pod.jpg

Elvira March 2 2013 10:12 PM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7752037)
I don't understand why people think they are so awful.

The big one for me is the particular shade of grey they used for the Enterprise's hull color.

What I took from the story is that the mere presence of the pod, while in the storm, was endangering the ship in some fashion. It would seem obvious (imo) that Finney was physically in the pod doing something.

Whether the hole/burn on the aft of the secondary hull is supposed to indicate the pod's previous location, or is just some of the damage from the storm ...YMMV.

:)

GSchnitzer March 2 2013 11:16 PM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Original 1978 speculative source for the location of the ion pod back by the fantail is here:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...8&postcount=21

TREK_GOD_1 March 3 2013 01:58 AM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7752037)
I don't understand why people think they are so awful. They can't make them look like modern day effects because they wouldn't match up with the rest of the shots. Instead of seeing the same old stock footage, it's good to see effects that are more specific to the story.

People think the FX are awful because they look like a video game from 2000. So, if the intent was to make something that matches, video game FX had the opposite effect, and only call greater attention to the mistakes.

Warped9 March 3 2013 05:14 AM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7752037)
Once again, I have to say the remastered effects are excellent. I don't understand why people think they are so awful. They can't make them look like modern day effects because they wouldn't match up with the rest of the shots.

Except they do look like modern cgi effects, as plain as day. And as such they are jarring next to the remaining live action footage. Also they made shots that simply couldn't have been done in 1966-69 and that's another dead giveaway.

MarsSpectre March 3 2013 05:24 AM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 7753948)
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7752037)
Once again, I have to say the remastered effects are excellent. I don't understand why people think they are so awful. They can't make them look like modern day effects because they wouldn't match up with the rest of the shots.

Except they do look like modern cgi effects, as plain as day. And as such they are jarring next to the remaining live action footage.

I don't see it that way at all. I think they did a great job blending in.

Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 7753948)
Also they made shots that simply couldn't have been done in 1966-69 and that's another dead giveaway.

Uh...that was the whole point of remastering it, creating effects that they didn't have the ability or budget to do in the 60's.

Warped9 March 3 2013 05:32 AM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7753960)
Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 7753948)
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7752037)
Once again, I have to say the remastered effects are excellent. I don't understand why people think they are so awful. They can't make them look like modern day effects because they wouldn't match up with the rest of the shots.

Except they do look like modern cgi effects, as plain as day. And as such they are jarring next to the remaining live action footage.

I don't see it that way at all. I think they did a great job blending in.

Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 7753948)
Also they made shots that simply couldn't have been done in 1966-69 and that's another dead giveaway.

Uh...that was the whole point of remastering it, creating effects that they didn't have the ability or budget to do in the 60's.

And thereby pissed off a lot of folks who were fine with the way the f/x were as well as pissed on the artistic integrity of the original creators.

Secondly when are people going to understand that what was done was not remastering. The episodes had already been digitally remastered some years before for DVD release. What was done in TOS-R was replacing the original f/x, not remastering them.

For those who like the video arcade look then goody for them.

GSchnitzer March 3 2013 05:51 AM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 7753975)
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7753960)
Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 7753948)
Except they do look like modern cgi effects, as plain as day. And as such they are jarring next to the remaining live action footage.

I don't see it that way at all. I think they did a great job blending in.

Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 7753948)
Also they made shots that simply couldn't have been done in 1966-69 and that's another dead giveaway.

Uh...that was the whole point of remastering it, creating effects that they didn't have the ability or budget to do in the 60's.

And thereby pissed off a lot of folks who were fine with the way the f/x were as well as pissed on the artistic integrity of the original creators.

Secondly when are people going to understand that what was done was not remastering. The episodes had already been digitally remastered some years before for DVD release. What was done in TOS-R was replacing the original f/x, not remastering them.

For those who like the video arcade look then goody for them.

Well, they were actually remastered again after the mastering that was done for the original DVD releases years ago. So they were remastered *and* had new effects added.

Creepy Critter March 3 2013 06:40 AM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
I always thought that the ion pod should have been on a boom that extended out from the ship, say "below" the secondary hull, the reason for the extension being to get beyond the shields for accurate scans.

The hand waving that I've read elsewhere, that buildup of static charge would provide a "reason" to have to jettison the pod, is as convincing as anything in Star Trek.

As to why the pod had to be manned, perhaps one thing the officer did was carry back the record tapes of all the scans, as the effects of the storm made high-bandwidth transmission of the data across the boom impossible. Perhaps Starfleet computer control circuits also proved unreliable, so the instruments had to be controlled manually according to changing conditions in the storm.

F. King Daniel March 3 2013 11:32 AM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

T'Girl wrote:
The big one for me is the particular shade of grey they used for the Enterprise's hull color.

Yeah, it looks like the default, flat grey that's found in MS Paint and Photoshop. The ship always looked very white to me in the original FX - and I grew up reading it described as such (and pictured on the covers) in the old novels. Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise even mentions Starfleet deciding not to add the usual layer of paint to the Enterprise after the TMP refit since it's stark, metallic look was so awe-inspiring.

Quote:

GSchnitzer wrote: (Post 7752892)
Original 1978 speculative source for the location of the ion pod back by the fantail is here:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...8&postcount=21

Fascinating, thank you. So they did go by an old fanzine's speculation - just a different fanzine to the SFOM.

MarsSpectre March 3 2013 12:50 PM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 7753975)
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7753960)
Uh...that was the whole point of remastering it, creating effects that they didn't have the ability or budget to do in the 60's.

And thereby pissed off a lot of folks who were fine with the way the f/x were as well as pissed on the artistic integrity of the original creators.

Oh that's nonsense. If people are so pissed off, they don't have to watch it, the originals still exist. I'm surprised those same people haven't committed mass suicide after JJ rebooted the series.

Warped9 March 3 2013 01:36 PM

Re: Court Martial - Ion Pod revisited
 
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7754767)
Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 7753975)
Quote:

MarsWeeps wrote: (Post 7753960)
Uh...that was the whole point of remastering it, creating effects that they didn't have the ability or budget to do in the 60's.

And thereby pissed off a lot of folks who were fine with the way the f/x were as well as pissed on the artistic integrity of the original creators.

Oh that's nonsense. If people are so pissed off, they don't have to watch it, the originals still exist. I'm surprised those same people haven't committed mass suicide after JJ rebooted the series.

Not at all. I know a lot of people who haven't bought TOS-R (including me) and we're perfectly content with our earlier season sets.

New isn't always better particularly when the new overall is mediocre. And don't get me started about the crapfest that is JJ Trek. Not a single frame or idea worth a damn as he shit all over TOS.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.