FX/editing wishlist/technical/related discussion for STNG-R

[Dukhat]

RAMA wrote:

---

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.)

[RAMA]

Dukhat wrote:

---

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.

[Dukhat]

RAMA wrote:

---

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?

[CaptainStoner]

Holdfast wrote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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.

[Dukhat]

CaptainStoner wrote:

---

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?

[Warped9]

BillJ wrote:

---

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?

[Herkimer Jitty]

Just stick some CGI blinking eyes on Armus, and he'll look waaaay better.

[Warped9]

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

---

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?

[RAMA]

Dukhat wrote:

---

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:

---

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.

[BillJ]

RAMA wrote:

---

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.

[Harvey]

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.

[GNDN]

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'.

[Timelord_Victorious]

And don't forget the goof where they forgot to add goo in the hole in some shots!

[Squiggy]

BillJ wrote:

---

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]

Squiggy wrote:

---

Then don't buy it.

BillJ wrote:

---

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.