View Single Post
Old July 24 2013, 02:03 PM   #73
Warped9's Avatar
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Original or remastered effects?

While there are occasional individual elements that are of interest overall I feel TOS-R is a fail. I don't mean fail in terms of overall execution...if it were for a contemporary television production which TOS is not.

Dedicated fans have done better work than CBS because many fans often try to recreate the same TOS aesthetic in terms of lighting, lenses and camera movement. Doug Drexler's work for Star Trek Continues is a good example: the new f/x look like they fit seamlessly with the aesthetic of the live-action footage. As such there's nothing to jar you out of the story because it doesn't look like two distinctly separate productions stitched together, which is exactly what TOS-R is.

Here in Canada the new versions are being syndicated on Space so it can be seen on cable television anytime. I don't need to spend anything for Blu-ray and I can stick with my DVD box sets for TOS. And, yes, I do have a Blu-ray player. I now buy new film releases on Blu-ray, but I don't feel the need to replace previous DVD purchases. If they ever release the TMP DE on Blu-ray then I might pop for that one.

TOS could have been cleaned up and enhanced with new sequences that could have fit seamlessly with the original aesthetic and would have been clean enough to not be jarring to younger new viewers, but CBS didn't bother going that route. As such while I satisfied my curiosity in seeing the new versions I choose to stick with the originals.

I will add that I did go for the purchase of TNG-R on Blu-ray (the first few seasons which I like anyway) because the approach there is what should have been done for TOS. Yes, I know the situations are different because they had access to TNG's original f/x composites and they chose to offer the f/x as they were meant to be seen originally. Sadly TOS' original f/x composites are long gone, but it still could have been done though admittedly it would have been laborious and time consuming. Maybe someday it'll be done.
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; July 24 2013 at 02:14 PM.
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote