Robert Comsol wrote:
As for the cheap looking CGI I don't have the answer (the CGI matte paintings for the landscapes, however, are fascinating, IMHO).
I have no problem with the mattes. They still look very good. It's the ship battles that look particularly cheap. In fact, I've seen CGI from B5 that looks better! If I had to guess, I'd say Paramount knew the market would be there, and so simply didn't put much money into effects.
Which begs the question, why bother redoing them to begin with? Was it less cost effective than simply transferring the original effect shots into HD? I realize they won't look the best, but I'm willing to bet most fans will be fine with that.
Good question. I'd like to know that myself. Don't tell me that the best blooper from TOS is only the one from "Space Seed" where Kirk smashes the hibernation chamber glass, looses his phaser and suddenly Bones is rather preoccupied with picking up the phaser than his patient...
I'm sure it isn't the best blooper! The best ones make it on screen.
I am fascinated with the history of television shows I like. So I'm equally fascinated with little details, even if they take you out of the show, that reveal how the show was made, sets were constructed, ect. I imagine that a consequence of restoring older shows for HD means more of these details become evident.
One thing I have noticed watching the original Trek in my 30's is I no longer am bothered by the "cheapness" of the sets as I was in my teens, when TNG was on the air. I'm actually impressed with most of the sets, and the one that aren't the best I can appreciate more because I realize it is a product of the time period. Especially considering how equally cheap sets in big budget motion pictures at the time look as well (like Logan's Run).