RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,867
Posts: 5,328,903
Members: 24,556
Currently online: 529
Newest member: ndjamena

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 11 2011, 07:15 PM   #16
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

RAMA wrote: View Post
Armus, the design sucks, there is no way around it. The re-creators have the luxury of going to Sternbach's original creature design on paper to re-create it digitally.
Why would they need to replace Armus with a CGI creature if they didn't have to? Armus wasn't a VFX shot that needs to be remastered for HD. He was a guy in a costume. (And I didn't the design "sucked" at all.)
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2011, 07:24 PM   #17
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
Armus, the design sucks, there is no way around it. The re-creators have the luxury of going to Sternbach's original creature design on paper to re-create it digitally.
Why would they need to replace Armus with a CGI creature if they didn't have to? Armus wasn't a VFX shot that needs to be remastered for HD. He was a guy in a costume. (And I didn't the design "sucked" at all.)
By all accounts the producers hated the Metamucil creature. I think one of the first things they'd sign up to change would be the Armus mechanical effect...which apparently never worked correctly.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2011, 07:28 PM   #18
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

RAMA wrote: View Post
By all accounts the producers hated the Metamucil creature. I think one of the first things they'd sign up to change would be the Armus mechanical effect...which apparently never worked correctly.
My point isn't whether anyone hated it or not. The point is that if it's not a VFX effect that needs to be changed (or something that clearly did not work in its original format, which despite the mechanical problem you mentioned, didn't seem to have a problem in the final broadcast), why would they waste valuable time changing it if it wasn't really necessary for an HD broadcast?
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2011, 07:40 PM   #19
CaptainStoner
Knuckle-dragging TNZ Denizen
 
CaptainStoner's Avatar
 
Location: Hill dweller
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Holdfast wrote: View Post
To be honest, I'll be more than happy with a general sharpening of the image quality, especially in the first few seasons, and then redoing/updating any effects that look "off" as a result of the higher resolution. Otherwise leave them be.
I a agree with that in many cases, although I am on the "more ship shots" bus. It would be so nice to see the D and other ships in unique shots for every episode.
I think there must be a common thread of model builders here - people who respect the original FX of any series and the dinosaurian art of model building for film.

RAMA wrote: View Post
Art Vandelay wrote: View Post
I wish they'd redo all the spaceship exterior shots using the original film elements instead of going CGI. Models provide the shots with a certain gravity and scale that just wasn't there with the TOS-R all-CGI Enterprise. However, I am 99.9% sure that this will remain wishful thinking.

So, I guess my wish is that they leave the shots the way they are, just make them better looking. Some things that definitely need to be redone are:

- A few more fly-by perspectives of the Enterprise.

- More realistic planets.

- Replacing the Excelsior-class ship with different vessels in that oft-repeated fly-alongside shot.

- New beam-in shots of planet surfaces. Should give the illusion that the surface of Vagra II (Skin of Evil) is no soundstage.

- New planetary establishing shots. They repeated the Angel One cityscape far too often (later even in DS9 and Voyager.)

I honestly feel that some CGI work when hastily done on movies or TV can be of irregular quality.... however there are examples in the 90s and many in the 2000s where the CGI work is fully up to reality. The spacecraft designs I've seen lately in movies look better, more solid and more realistic than ever to me. I think ST09 effortlessly made CGI look like real live models but with all the improvements that allow movement on a scale not achievable with motion control.

I know I may be in the slight minority here, but the Gabriel Koerner model is my favorite of all the Enterprise models real or CGI, even if its imperfect. I think it bodes well for any remastering project if they give it a few corrections and tweaks.
I find some agreement here. I don't think CGI is necessarily going to look cold and dead. (And I wonder if there is something to the framerate with the TOS-R Enterprise. In some shots the movement just looks unnatural)
It can suffer from hyper-realism and cartoonishness which we saw with the SW prequels IMO ~
But as you say the texturing and particle effects and such are a lot better. Even on PC platforms the last generation or two of video cards has produced metallic and organic looking textures (especially on a CRT).

Squiggy wrote: View Post
Just give me more than the 7 recycled Enterprise fx shots and I'll be happy.
Especially in latter seasons, with that closeup of the 4-foot model shown at nearly every break.

Dennis wrote: View Post
All existing footage of Denise Crosby should be replaced with Katee Sackhoff.
Also, the light metal theme for "Tin Man" should be put back in.
CaptainStoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2011, 08:26 PM   #20
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

CaptainStoner wrote: View Post
I agree with that in many cases, although I am on the "more ship shots" bus. It would be so nice to see the D and other ships in unique shots for every episode.

I think there must be a common thread of model builders here - people who respect the original FX of any series and the dinosaurian art of model building for film.
Exactly. When TNG premiered, the VFX department didn't re-use all those movie models like the Reliant, Grissom, Excelsior, BoP, K'Tinga (actually re-used footage, not re-use of the model), etc. because they wanted to. They had to re-use them out of necessity, as the producers of the show didn't want to spend more money on new ship models if the show ended up getting cancelled after the first season.

With TNG-R, that necessity goes away. I'm sure the scriptwriter for "The Naked Now" didn't envision the Tsiolkovsky specifically as a 75 year-old Grissom-type ship. He/she probably could have cared less what type of ship it was. So why reshoot the scene with a CGI Oberth when you now have the chance to be really creative and come up with new designs?
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2011, 08:59 PM   #21
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Just be true to the original effects, don't need them to reinvent the wheel.
They did for TOS. So what makes TNG so special?
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2011, 09:19 PM   #22
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Just stick some CGI blinking eyes on Armus, and he'll look waaaay better.
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2011, 09:28 PM   #23
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
Just stick some CGI blinking eyes on Armus, and he'll look waaaay better.
There ya go. Now we're talkin".


Can we digitally erase Marina Sirtis? Please?
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2011, 01:47 AM   #24
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Dukhat wrote: View Post

With TNG-R, that necessity goes away. I'm sure the scriptwriter for "The Naked Now" didn't envision the Tsiolkovsky specifically as a 75 year-old Grissom-type ship. He/she probably could have cared less what type of ship it was. So why reshoot the scene with a CGI Oberth when you now have the chance to be really creative and come up with new designs?


Dukhat wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
By all accounts the producers hated the Metamucil creature. I think one of the first things they'd sign up to change would be the Armus mechanical effect...which apparently never worked correctly.
My point isn't whether anyone hated it or not. The point is that if it's not a VFX effect that needs to be changed (or something that clearly did not work in its original format, which despite the mechanical problem you mentioned, didn't seem to have a problem in the final broadcast), why would they waste valuable time changing it if it wasn't really necessary for an HD broadcast?
Doesn't it stand to reason if the suit and elevator failed, that the creature did not turn out as planned or expected?? Cause enough to "fix" the problems with modern FX. They didn't have time or the means to create a new creature.

BTW I'd like to make a correction, Andy Probert created the original concept design which I like much better and is easily within the realm of CGI today.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2011, 02:26 AM   #25
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

RAMA wrote: View Post

Doesn't it stand to reason if the suit and elevator failed, that the creature did not turn out as planned or expected?? Cause enough to "fix" the problems with modern FX. They didn't have time or the means to create a new creature.
But you're making a change purely for the sake of change. Armus worked quite well in 1988 and continues to look acceptable in 2011 on my 40" 1080p set.

I don't want them "fixing" TNG.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2011, 08:30 AM   #26
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Yeah, I don't see them doing anything to change Armus. Judging from the work done for Star Trek, the project won't have the time or money to make big changes like that. It is a practical effect that works, and one that will look fine in HD. I doubt it will be anyone's priority to "fix" it.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2011, 02:54 PM   #27
GNDN
Commodore
 
GNDN's Avatar
 
Location: Geosyncrhonous orbit over NJ
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

The part of Armus that will need to be redone (hopefully better) is the animation when the river moves and when he engulfs the shuttle. The practical effects were always fine, but the animation never matched that look. Hopefully more care will be taken in an 'upgrade'.
GNDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2011, 03:34 PM   #28
Timelord Victorious
TARDIS Janitor
 
Timelord Victorious's Avatar
 
Location: Germany, Earth, the Solar System
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

And don't forget the goof where they forgot to add goo in the hole in some shots!
Timelord Victorious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2011, 06:49 PM   #29
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

BillJ wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post

Doesn't it stand to reason if the suit and elevator failed, that the creature did not turn out as planned or expected?? Cause enough to "fix" the problems with modern FX. They didn't have time or the means to create a new creature.
But you're making a change purely for the sake of change. Armus worked quite well in 1988 and continues to look acceptable in 2011 on my 40" 1080p set.

I don't want them "fixing" TNG.
Then don't buy it.
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2011, 06:59 PM   #30
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Squiggy wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post

Doesn't it stand to reason if the suit and elevator failed, that the creature did not turn out as planned or expected?? Cause enough to "fix" the problems with modern FX. They didn't have time or the means to create a new creature.
But you're making a change purely for the sake of change. Armus worked quite well in 1988 and continues to look acceptable in 2011 on my 40" 1080p set.

I don't want them "fixing" TNG.
Then don't buy it.
BillJ wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post

19. Heart of Glory: Vorcha cruiser instead of the old K'Tinga. What a disappointment that was.

22. SKin of Evil: That awful, awful Armus creature. ugh
If they screw around with either of these they can cross me off the list of potential buyers. The point is to make it acceptable to view on a 1080p display not to reinvent the wheel.
I believe that's what I already said.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
tng-r

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 01:32 PM.

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