Rumor: TNG-HD is a-coming

[Mark 2000]

RAMA wrote:

---

I believe I covered the problem right here:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=415

On top of that, the Image G FX are not always up to par with the ILM FX.

RAMA

The imageG fx would be much more tolerable than bad, rushed CGI on par with TOS-R. The differences between the 6' and the 4' model are not enough to justify the risk of the above either. Give me the original, well shot elements any day over poor quality consistency.

[AviTrek]

Do we know what happened to the CGI model of the ENT-D from TATV? I seem to remember reading something happened to it, but I forget the details.

[Admiral Bear]

AviTrek wrote:

---

Do we know what happened to the CGI model of the ENT-D from TATV? I seem to remember reading something happened to it, but I forget the details.

The recycle bin?

[RAMA]

http://trekmovie.com/2011/08/06/stre...t-cbs-profits/

More good news for STNG-R...

RAMA

[AviTrek]

RAMA wrote:

---

http://trekmovie.com/2011/08/06/stre...t-cbs-profits/

More good news for STNG-R...

RAMA

Or bad news, depending on how you look at it. CBS is making money off their archive content while spending $0. That doesn't mean CBS is interested in spending money on improving that old content. Now if Netflix/Amazon/Apple comes out and says it will pay more money for HD content, that would be unambiguous good news.

[BillJ]

AviTrek wrote:

---

Or bad news, depending on how you look at it. CBS is making money off their archive content while spending $0. That doesn't mean CBS is interested in spending money on improving that old content. Now if Netflix/Amazon/Apple comes out and says it will pay more money for HD content, that would be unambiguous good news.

This.

One of the things that made Star Trek Remastered possible was the fact that Toshiba helped foot the bill.

[RAMA]

AviTrek wrote:

---

Or bad news, depending on how you look at it. CBS is making money off their archive content while spending $0. That doesn't mean CBS is interested in spending money on improving that old content. Now if Netflix/Amazon/Apple comes out and says it will pay more money for HD content, that would be unambiguous good news.

Nah its definitely GOOD news....firstly STNG-R would be "archive" material, but new so that would not be covered under the current deal, hence more dollars...secondly, the fact the old stuff is making so much money is good enough reason to invest dollars to make more $$$. Two other reasons: TOS-R's huge DVD-Bluray success before Netflix, and think of it as CBS making an investment in their future, keeping STNG going as long as possible with fresh interest.
RAMA

[Flake]

Certainly its in CBS interest to do TNG HD. No one is interested in crappy old SD video on the interwebs these days. They want HD whenever possible. Same with TV, in less than a decade most TV will be in HD and the crappy old SD stuff saved for late night reruns on third rate channels.

[ATimson]

Flake wrote:

---

Same with TV, in less than a decade most TV will be in HD and the crappy old SD stuff saved for late night reruns on third rate channels.

I'd argue that that's a pretty good summation of now, much less a decade from now.

[Tosk]

Mark 2000 wrote:

---

The differences between the 6' and the 4' model are not enough to justify the risk of the above either.

Not enough for you maybe.

[Mark 2000]

Tosk wrote:

---

Not enough for you maybe.

Most likely not enough for the majority of people watching, even some trekkies. I still can't spot the different between to the two while passively watching the way I can with the TOS models. I didn't even know there were two models until very recently and I saw TNG in the original run.

[Tosk]

Mark 2000 wrote:

---

I still can't spot the different between to the two while passively watching the way I can with the TOS models.

Did you have a preference between the two TOS models? And did it bug you on any level when they would switch willy-nilly between footage of the two?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I always hated the four foot model of the D - it was obvious from first introduction. I understand that the exaggerated hull plating was deliberate - but how and why a model was built that was so unlike the previous one in most contours and dimensions is kind of mysterious.

[Mark 2000]

Tosk wrote:

---

Did you have a preference between the two TOS models? And did it bug you on any level when they would switch willy-nilly between footage of the two?

I like the WNMHGB model best. But, no, I never cared enough to be mad when the footage didn't match. The 4 and 6 footer are actually less different than the two pilot and production TOS ships as far as noticeable geometry. The extra hull detail could be just chocked up different lighting. It really doesn't bother me.

[Maurice]

Dennis wrote:

---

I always hated the four foot model of the D - it was obvious from first introduction. I understand that the exaggerated hull plating was deliberate - but how and why a model was built that was so unlike the previous one in most contours and dimensions is kind of mysterious.

It's what I unlovingly call "The Fat Four-Footer".