RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,128
Posts: 5,433,495
Members: 24,933
Currently online: 600
Newest member: karanfree

TrekToday headlines

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 20 2009, 10:48 PM   #46
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

If Paramount can find a way to do entire seasons, they'll sell entire seasons. It's just finding a way to make it practical and cost effective. They're not going to want to do all the post-production for the entire series all over again from the start the conventional way.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2009, 11:23 PM   #47
LitmusDragon
Commodore
 
LitmusDragon's Avatar
 
Location: The Barmuda Triangle
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

I think for any kind of hi-def treatment they are going to need to source from the original film negatives. It doesn't seem like editing the original film elements back together should be all that difficult. It's the fact that they'd have to replace every single transporter and phaser effect that would make this really time consuming. TOS at least could use the existing transporter and phaser effects and save their budget for the background and space exteriors. All this stuff on TNG was done on video tape.
LitmusDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 12:02 AM   #48
George Steinbrenner
Fleet Admiral
 
George Steinbrenner's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View George Steinbrenner's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

LitmusDragon wrote: View Post
It's the fact that they'd have to replace every single transporter and phaser effect that would make this really time consuming.
Really? I didn't know they'd have to go that far.

That being said: This is their chance to make phaser effects that make sense. As we all know, when we saw a phaser fired on that show, the beam actually took a visible amount of time to reach its target. This should not happen. These are beams of light, after all. They should be instant. The only time I ever remember this actually being done right, was in Voyager's "Future's End" when somebody fires a 29th century phaser. It *immediately* took out its target. The beam appeared between the phaser and the target without any sense of taking any time to reach it. It was near instantaneous. As all phaser beams should be.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
George Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 12:08 AM   #49
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Nebusj
Rear Admiral
Quote:
Also, look at how the show was having to go into reruns every 7 or 8 weeks, because they were so far behind. That is with not having the TOS optical backload situation, so the show could have easily been in an ever-increasing hole (like taking 2 years to get 25 episodes out) if they had been doing it all in a traditional finish process.
But that also reflects changes in how TV schedules worked. In the 1960s and 70s, you had TV shows run, basically, a new episode every week for 26 (or even more) weeks in a row, then go into the rerun (or preemption) cycle. By the 1980s, the rising importance of sweeps months meant there was motivation to put in reruns on weeks nobody was watching (like, between Christmas and New Year's) and save brand-new episodes for February and, particularly, May. It wasn't just Next Generation going into reruns for a month at a time; it was everything.

ME:
I don't recall ANY other show (except MOONLIGHTING, which missed most of its airdates) going on that cycle till the 90s.

If you start in late September, throw up reruns in the holiday weeks and figure maybe one or two pre-emptions, then you still have new programming into the first part of May if you're doing 22 (later if you do 26, which was getting less common in network, but was common for syndication at that point I think.)

Last edited by trevanian; May 21 2009 at 03:30 AM. Reason: put in quote from Nebusi
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 03:27 AM   #50
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Babaganoosh wrote: View Post
That being said: This is their chance to make phaser effects that make sense. As we all know, when we saw a phaser fired on that show, the beam actually took a visible amount of time to reach its target. This should not happen. These are beams of light, after all. They should be instant. The only time I ever remember this actually being done right, was in Voyager's "Future's End" when somebody fires a 29th century phaser. It *immediately* took out its target. The beam appeared between the phaser and the target without any sense of taking any time to reach it. It was near instantaneous. As all phaser beams should be.
That's making a science-minded assumption about the beam, which is a pretty big leap considering how unscientific trek is becoming (especially recently.)

By way of comparison, I remember getting in an argument with somebody about the guys in SW being able to block laser beams with a light saber, saying it doesn't matter how force-ful his parrying is, he doesn't move at lightspeed. The counterargument (the main one, there were many, including the notion that Luke can use the force to see into the future to know where to stick his sword) was that the beams weren't traveling at lightspeed. HUH? They're BEAMS! They canna travel any slower.

If that's the level of science that informs most SW, and by extension, most current TREK, then the beams will probably be able to bend around corners by the next sequel.

The slow beams DO bother me as well (esp in CONSPIRACY), but there are so many other things that seem like bigger deals (the many early TNG planets that look like out of focus blobs, the no-blur of ship movement in many early shows, esp with the 2 fter model), that the phaser speed seems miniscule by comparison. If I had a huge caveat, it would be the fireballs in space that showed up from FARPOINT onward. Fireballs in space just don't track, that is serious SW territory (and another example of how moderntrek is getting the science worse ... for the director's edition of TMP they added a fireball to the rock blowing up at the end of the wormhole.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 04:31 AM   #51
George Steinbrenner
Fleet Admiral
 
George Steinbrenner's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View George Steinbrenner's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

trevanian wrote: View Post
By way of comparison, I remember getting in an argument with somebody about the guys in SW being able to block laser beams with a light saber, saying it doesn't matter how force-ful his parrying is, he doesn't move at lightspeed.
Ah, but he doesn't need to. All a Jedi has to do is *put his lightsaber in front of where the beam would be*. That doesn't require moving at lightspeed. The beam is going to get from whoever's firing, to the Jedi, regardless. All that matters is having something *blocking* said Jedi from being hit.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
George Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 04:48 AM   #52
nickfrye
Ensign
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

did you know that start trek is on bluray?

gives us a chance especially young ones to watch over the original film..

you can have star trek from its hit series to the original movies..
nickfrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 04:53 AM   #53
FalTorPan
Vice Admiral
 
FalTorPan's Avatar
 
Location: Out there... thataway.
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Babaganoosh wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
By way of comparison, I remember getting in an argument with somebody about the guys in SW being able to block laser beams with a light saber, saying it doesn't matter how force-ful his parrying is, he doesn't move at lightspeed.
Ah, but he doesn't need to. All a Jedi has to do is *put his lightsaber in front of where the beam would be*. That doesn't require moving at lightspeed. The beam is going to get from whoever's firing, to the Jedi, regardless. All that matters is having something *blocking* said Jedi from being hit.
You're right. The Jedi doesn't have to move at lightspeed to parry a laser bolt. Let's estimate how fast he would need to be.

Assume the shooter and the Jedi were standing ten feet apart. Light travels at exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. Ten feet is exactly 3.048 meters, which means that the laser bolt would travel from the blaster barrel to the Jedi's location in approximately 0.0000000102 seconds.

Assume the Jedi has to move his lightsaber a mere three feet in order to parry the laser bolt. Three feet is exactly 0.9144 meters, and the Jedi has an entire 0.0000000102 seconds to move the lightsaber. 0.9144 meters per 0.0000000102 seconds is about 89,600,000 meters per second, or only about 0.3 times the speed of light.

In summary, the Jedi would have time to take a nap and play a game of sabacc before moving the lightsaber.
__________________
Watch ASTRONUTS! Visit Trekplace! Check out my personal website!
FalTorPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 05:27 AM   #54
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Babaganoosh wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
By way of comparison, I remember getting in an argument with somebody about the guys in SW being able to block laser beams with a light saber, saying it doesn't matter how force-ful his parrying is, he doesn't move at lightspeed.
Ah, but he doesn't need to. All a Jedi has to do is *put his lightsaber in front of where the beam would be*. That doesn't require moving at lightspeed. The beam is going to get from whoever's firing, to the Jedi, regardless. All that matters is having something *blocking* said Jedi from being hit.
Maybe I'm just being extraordinarily dense or not getting the joke (if you're making one), but in those movies, especially the parts of the prequels I've seen, they are blocking multiple shots in rapid succession. ANY variation in how the shooter fires -- a flinch, a jostling, a nervous wiggle of the gunhand -- will result in a slightly different shot, and a resulting different position hit on the soon to be victim, necessitating a move on the part of the soon to be victim to head off that next beam hit.

I also don't understand how in the prequels they can jump out of air cars and free fall onto other cars successfully, but I'm hoping the explanation for that isn't as headache inducing as this one seems to be. On second thought, I bet it is, so I just don't want to know (or see those level of rationalizations in what is in theory a trek thread.)

Sorry for the detour.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 09:51 AM   #55
Tomalak
Vice Admiral
 
Tomalak's Avatar
 
Location: Liverpool
View Tomalak's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

trevanian wrote: View Post
If I had a huge caveat, it would be the fireballs in space that showed up from FARPOINT onward. Fireballs in space just don't track, that is serious SW territory
But it wasn't a "fireball", it was Q. He can do whatever he likes.
Tomalak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 01:22 PM   #56
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Tomalak wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
If I had a huge caveat, it would be the fireballs in space that showed up from FARPOINT onward. Fireballs in space just don't track, that is serious SW territory
But it wasn't a "fireball", it was Q. He can do whatever he likes.
I'm talking about the Enterprise torpedoes detonating, not anything Q is doing.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 01:36 PM   #57
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
They're not going to want to do all the post-production for the entire series all over again from the start the conventional way.

Hober Mallow
CBS DVD/Paramount Home Entertainment may not want to spend the money to re-conform the show to HD and that IS what it is called 'reconforming to HD'. They would be reconforming the original film to the standard definition edit, and re-rendering the visual effects in HD.
Please see these two posts for details on the actual work needed.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...5&postcount=27
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...6&postcount=28
The edit decisions have already been made starting in 1987. Whether they can access the edit decisions that correspond to the actual film negative is another matter (film keycode#s to pull negative to re-telecine original camera negative 'select takes' in to use for HD editing). Without an EDL [Edit Decision List] and film keycode every cut would have to be matched by eye which is a lot of work and NOT conventional.

When it comes to the visual effects and the live-action model work of Enterprise D most likely they would go with all CGI. see this post for why.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 01:45 PM   #58
Screamy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Screamy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Screamy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Screamy
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Wasn't TNG recently re-released to broadcast syndication?
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Screamy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 01:52 PM   #59
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: Star Trek TNG Broadcast Syndication 2009

Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
Wasn't TNG recently re-released to broadcast syndication?
"Although TNG is currently in reruns on cable, it has not been available for broadcast syndication in eight years.

...most of the country [USA] for the Fall 2009 season"
TNG Headed Back To Broadcast Syndication
January 27, 2009
http://trekmovie.com/2009/01/27/tng-...t-syndication/

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ndication.html
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2009, 02:16 PM   #60
Falcor5
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

I wonder if it would be easier for Paramount to justify the costs to convert TNG to HD if they got a channel like the Sci-Fi network or Spike to agree to air the episodes in HD as they were made. I mean I think that would be a pretty good draw if a channel had Exclusive rights to the first showing of a TNG episode in HD. And then after each season is aired they could release that season on Blu-ray. I know I would watch!!
Falcor5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
remastered

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 AM.

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