TOS-Remastered: a waste of time - Page 3

Mr. Laser Beam · December 15 2009, 07:22 PM

goldbug wrote:

they almost included a TOS-ified Miranda in the Ultimate Computer but decided not to due to script lines in the episode referring to "starships"

Damn.

TeutonicNights · December 15 2009, 09:05 PM

It's a good reason to use only connies though.

The writers probably had a fleet of Starfleet's best in mind, like the E was.
Just like the destruction of the Yamato on TNG or the Odyssey on DS9 wouldn't have had as much shock factor if it had been some random Excelsiors. Did they comment on which ship was supposed to be the Miranda?

I'm pretty sure a Miranda have looked gorgeous though

buckeyenation · December 16 2009, 01:03 AM

i think a fine job was done one the remastering, and have very few complaints, although the bonus material on the dvds could have been better

Captain Robert April · December 16 2009, 09:40 AM

ST-One wrote:

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

Dennis wrote:

That's hardly true; there's certainly no evidence that Trek fans are smarter or more discerning than people who don't like it.

No, not anymore.

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

ST-One wrote:

No, no they really won't.
Simply because the VFX-shots in Star Trek ('09 film) don't drop in picture-quality like they did in Star Trek (TOS).

Also because it will have been long forgotten by the general public.

You chose the right username

I hate to break it to ya, but by frequently engaging in these sorts of discussions, guess what?

YOU'RE ONE OF US!! YOU'RE A NERD!! JUST LIKE THE REST OF US GEEKS!! DEAL WITH IT!!

Yeoman Randi · December 16 2009, 03:20 PM

buckeyenation wrote:

i think a fine job was done one the remastering, and have very few complaints, although the bonus material on the dvds could have been better

I have to agree with you on that point. I expected a lot more bonus material.

iguana_tonante · December 16 2009, 03:35 PM

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

And anyone who just can't get into or watch classic Trek because of it's "Cheesy" effects is too superficial to understand what Star Trek is all about in the first place.

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

Dennis wrote:

That's hardly true; there's certainly no evidence that Trek fans are smarter or more discerning than people who don't like it.

No, not anymore.

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

ST-One wrote:

No, no they really won't.
Simply because the VFX-shots in Star Trek ('09 film) don't drop in picture-quality like they did in Star Trek (TOS).

Also because it will have been long forgotten by the general public.

Your bitterness is so tasty!

Myko · December 16 2009, 04:34 PM

I don't mind the remastered effects, but I don't think they're great either. Instead of mediocre effects from the '60s (compared with high-budged productions like 2001 etc.) we get mediocre effects from the '00s.

As a historical document of what the production staff of the original show actually created they are worthless of course, which is probably the biggest reason I will watch the original effects. *shrug*

Nerdius Maximus · December 16 2009, 05:03 PM

ST-One wrote:

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

Dennis wrote:

That's hardly true; there's certainly no evidence that Trek fans are smarter or more discerning than people who don't like it.

No, not anymore.

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

ST-One wrote:

No, no they really won't.
Simply because the VFX-shots in Star Trek ('09 film) don't drop in picture-quality like they did in Star Trek (TOS).

Also because it will have been long forgotten by the general public.

You chose the right username

I take it you think the new film is going to create "a whole new generation of fans?" I think not. Star Trek 4 was a bigger blockbuster than the Abrams movie, and most people only have vague recollections of it. "Isn't that the one about the whales?" I liked the movie, but it's not really going to rejuvenate the franchise in the way people think it is. The general public still calls it "Star Trak," and to them it's just another action/fantasy movie like anything else out there. In order to build a strong following, Star Trek will need a new series, something to keep people interested week after week. A movie every couple of years doesn't create fans. It's a momentary diversion before they move on to something else.

Nerdius Maximus · December 16 2009, 05:04 PM

notte_silente wrote:

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

And anyone who just can't get into or watch classic Trek because of it's "Cheesy" effects is too superficial to understand what Star Trek is all about in the first place.

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

No, not anymore.

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

ST-One wrote:

No, no they really won't.
Simply because the VFX-shots in Star Trek ('09 film) don't drop in picture-quality like they did in Star Trek (TOS).

Also because it will have been long forgotten by the general public.

Your bitterness is so tasty!

Thank you!

JoeD80 · December 16 2009, 07:30 PM

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

The general public still calls it "Star Trak,"

I have not met anyone recently that doesn't know that it's "Star Trek."

Voyagerian · December 16 2009, 07:54 PM

I have been around long enough to have over the years, as has been shown on local tv stations here and there, TOS as originally aired, and it's been beloved to me as any TOS fan. But I have zero problem with the 'upgrade' or whatever you care to call it. Let's face it, no fx were as gopd then as what can be done today. Do we as said need to go back and redo all those classic films?No. Need we have done so to TOS to make it more palatable-certainly not to us 'old-timers'!LOL.But c'mon...as best as it could have been done then-it had its flaws, so, tweaking kills nothing, and,to me, they look great, and don't clash or contradict anything. And the added scenes/ships are further enjoyment. You needn't to have been born twenty years ago to like this alteration, far as I am concerned. I would think that Gene would have loved to have had this level of technical sophistication when his team was churning out his series....

Chrisisall · December 16 2009, 08:31 PM

Captain Randy Hall wrote:

Well, I enjoy the Remastered series a lot. Sure, I still get a kick out of the original episodes, but that doesn't mean I don't have a good time with the new stuff.

Yeah, the remastered FX are mostly cool. Doomsday Machine, for example, is in a whole new ballpark now, thanks not so much to great new FX, but for LACK of crappy, distracting OLD ones!

seigezunt · December 16 2009, 08:36 PM

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

seigezunt wrote:

at some point, the new effects will become dated as well.

Which is what makes all this revising of old movies so ridiculous. We really think we've reached the point now where cgi is so realistic that you can't tell it apart from something filmed in live action. That's it, we've reached the pinnacle of what we can do, it can get no better. I think that's how George Lucas feels. To hear him talk, Jar Jar Binks looked like a living, breathing creature that was filmed alongside the cast. And that "Han Shoots first" scene was just terrible. It looks like an effect from "Tim and Eric's Awesome Show." But George Lucas thinks it really looked like Harrison Ford moved his head to the side to dodge that blaster bolt.
I've got news for him. CGI is still in its infancy. 30 years from now, people will look back on the movies of today and laugh. You'll probably be able to scan your image and insert yourself as a character in movies and games.
Which is why I maintain that it's pointless to go back and "perfect" old movies, because you just can't do it. Something more realistic is always around the corner. Remember all the hoopla over the T-1000 in T2? That's positively amateurish compared even to the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park a couple years later. But it works, and it pushes the story forward, which is what effects are for. People have gotten to where the movies are all about FX now. They don't want intriguing plots, they want to be dazzled by cg eye candy. Let movies and shows remain a product of the times they were created in, damn it!

That said, some of those in-space shots of the Enterprise were a little dodgy, and I don't mind the cleanup. But I can do without the rehauls such as the suspended bridge in Amok Time.

Captain Robert April · December 17 2009, 12:17 AM

^ The advantage of that rock bridge shot was the ability to include the city of Shi-Kahr in the distance (one more poke in the eye of the "TAS isn't canon" crowd).

seigezunt · December 17 2009, 01:46 AM

Captain Robert April wrote:

^ The advantage of that rock bridge shot was the ability to include the city of Shi-Kahr in the distance (one more poke in the eye of the "TAS isn't canon" crowd).

oh, hadn't noticed. Will have to take another look now that I have the 47".

December 15 2009, 09:05 PM	#32
TeutonicNights Commander Location: Non-isotropic cosmos	Re: TOS-Remastered: a waste of time It's a good reason to use only connies though. The writers probably had a fleet of Starfleet's best in mind, like the E was. Just like the destruction of the Yamato on TNG or the Odyssey on DS9 wouldn't have had as much shock factor if it had been some random Excelsiors. Did they comment on which ship was supposed to be the Miranda? I'm pretty sure a Miranda have looked gorgeous though

December 16 2009, 01:03 AM	#33
buckeyenation Lieutenant Commander Location: in the expanse, playing fizzbin	Re: TOS-Remastered: a waste of time i think a fine job was done one the remastering, and have very few complaints, although the bonus material on the dvds could have been better

December 16 2009, 04:34 PM	#37
Myko Commander Location: Stockholm, Sweden	Re: TOS-Remastered: a waste of time I don't mind the remastered effects, but I don't think they're great either. Instead of mediocre effects from the '60s (compared with high-budged productions like 2001 etc.) we get mediocre effects from the '00s. As a historical document of what the production staff of the original show actually created they are worthless of course, which is probably the biggest reason I will watch the original effects. shrug __________________ Myko

December 16 2009, 07:54 PM	#41
Voyagerian Commander Location: N.C.	Re: TOS-Remastered: a waste of time I have been around long enough to have over the years, as has been shown on local tv stations here and there, TOS as originally aired, and it's been beloved to me as any TOS fan. But I have zero problem with the 'upgrade' or whatever you care to call it. Let's face it, no fx were as gopd then as what can be done today. Do we as said need to go back and redo all those classic films?No. Need we have done so to TOS to make it more palatable-certainly not to us 'old-timers'!LOL.But c'mon...as best as it could have been done then-it had its flaws, so, tweaking kills nothing, and,to me, they look great, and don't clash or contradict anything. And the added scenes/ships are further enjoyment. You needn't to have been born twenty years ago to like this alteration, far as I am concerned. I would think that Gene would have loved to have had this level of technical sophistication when his team was churning out his series.... __________________ ''There's nowhere I would rather be, or any people I would rather be with''-Harry Kim, 'ENDGAME'

December 17 2009, 12:17 AM	#44
Captain Robert April Vice Admiral Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...	Re: TOS-Remastered: a waste of time ^ The advantage of that rock bridge shot was the ability to include the city of Shi-Kahr in the distance (one more poke in the eye of the "TAS isn't canon" crowd).

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US