The OFFICIAL STNG Next Level Bluray watch and review thread

[Pseudo]

I haven't read this thread, but I've just watched Encounter at Farpoint. I absolutely love the live action sequences. And while I have an absolute respect for those who worked on it and an understanding that the HD-ening is designed to showcase their efforts, I have to say that a lot of the model work looks distractingly like model work. It's not convincing enough and takes me out of the moment occasionally.

Other than that minor quibble (and it is a pretty minor one for me) I'm utterly sold and will be purchasing the seasons as soon as they're available!

[GalaxyX]

Pseudo wrote:

---

I haven't read this thread, but I've just watched Encounter at Farpoint. I absolutely love the live action sequences. And while I have an absolute respect for those who worked on it and an understanding that the HD-ening is designed to showcase their efforts, I have to say that a lot of the model work looks distractingly like model work. It's not convincing enough and takes me out of the moment occasionally.

Other than that minor quibble (and it is a pretty minor one for me) I'm utterly sold and will be purchasing the seasons as soon as they're available!

The models themselves look incredible. I can't believe the level of detail they had, which is all clearly visible now.

The problem IMO is that everything is just too damn static. This was their opportunity to get that damn ship to move a little bit more. But it seems we are not going to get that, just the same old boring static shots as the original.

[Dick_Valentine]

Mark 2000 wrote:

---

We need to start ignoring the CGers. They really won't be pleased until the entire show is redone. It's amazing me how many people are convinced there's more CG shots in the show than the producers are admitting to. If it makes them happy...

This hull cutting scene is amazing, BTW. I'm looking forward to seeing the detail in the cut away decks.

Why do you always put your replies before the quoted text?
I know hardly anyone cares about "netiquette" any more but I was always told that was rude, like you were butting in to the conversation before the other person got to speak!

Anyway, pointless distractions aside (sorry! ), it saddens me to see CGI get a bad rap these days.
Yes, in the past it has been misused and it was probably pushed through the entertainment biz a good 5 years before technology was properly ready for it (but then there's the old circular argument of...would it get better unless it was used more...etc etc) but at the end of the day the Sky is the limit with CGI and these days it can do everything model shots can do and then so much more.

I know people have attachments to the model shots of the past but that's mainly for nostalgic reasons rather than technical.
It should never completely smash up the canvas and replace the painting but using it to bring us an episode more in line with the writers original intentions before budgets and technology limitations compromised it.

I'm just beyond tired now of the CGI bad/models good blinkered arguments, sometimes it comes off like Statler and Waldorf complaining that the local shopping centre used to be fields in their day.
Both are just tools for the artists involved, both can be used effectively and both can be misused, so enough with the entrenched "it's CGI so I must hate it" positioning (or vice versa) and lets try to be a bit more open minded please?

[GalaxyX]

Dick_Valentine wrote:

---

Why do you always put your replies before the quoted text?
I know hardly anyone cares about "netiquette" any more but I was always told that was rude, like you were butting in to the conversation before the other person got to speak!

Anyway, pointless distractions aside (sorry! ), it saddens me to see CGI get a bad rap these days.
Yes, in the past it has been misused and it was probably pushed through the entertainment biz a good 5 years before technology was properly ready for it (but then there's the old circular argument of...would it get better unless it was used more...etc etc) but at the end of the day the Sky is the limit with CGI and these days it can do everything model shots can do and then so much more.

I know people have attachments to the model shots of the past but that's mainly for nostalgic reasons rather than technical.
It should never completely smash up the canvas and replace the painting but using it to bring us an episode more in line with the writers original intentions before budgets and technology limitations compromised it.

I'm just beyond tired now of the CGI bad/models good blinkered arguments, sometimes it comes off like Statler and Waldorf complaining that the local shopping centre used to be fields in their day.
Both are just tools for the artists involved, both can be used effectively and both can be misused, so enough with the entrenched "it's CGI so I must hate it" positioning (or vice versa) and lets try to be a bit more open minded please?

I have no issues with CGI. I have no issues with the models. Both serve well when they are needed.

As with everything else, the quality you get out depends on how much you put into it.

From what I've seen so far, it looks like the CGI is subpar to the actual models. In some instances it comes close, while in others it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Personally I don't care what they use if it meant it would liven up the series a little bit. If they are just going to use CGI that is not as good as the model work to simply "replace" the exact same model scenes, then what's the point?

[Maurice]

And once you start changing things, where do you stop? Are you going to start changing viewscreens, adding set extensions, add more people to backgrounds? Get rid of the skants? Redo the color timing to the current visual flavor of the decade (see the recent revision of The French Connection)?

The film is what it is. Fix it where necessary (missing shots, whatever), but if you want something else, make a new show.

[the_wildcard]

Quick question. I assume none of the episodes will ever be in true widescreen because of the way the film was originall shot, correct?

[DostoyevskyClone]

People have brought up an interesting point with regards to rescaling ships. That could be seen as an "error" that needs to be corrected, as opposed to simply 'jazzing' up the show or trying to inject new life into it. I agree that some scales are definitely off.

This has been in the back of my mind for a while, and others brought it up: how much more time and money would it have taken to give us two versions of each episode: one as it originally was, and one with interpretations based on what some fans wanted (rescaling ships, not using the same shot ten times in an episode)?

This is a serious (i.e. not rhetorical) question. Not every effect shot would have had to have been 'reimaged'. How long does it take to produce, etc. the average effect shot in TNG? How many of us would have been willing to wait a little longer and pay a little more for two versions of the episode? I know I would. I've waited this long already!

[GalaxyX]

DostoyevskyClone wrote:

---

People have brought up an interesting point with regards to rescaling ships. That could be seen as an "error" that needs to be corrected, as opposed to simply 'jazzing' up the show or trying to inject new life into it. I agree that some scales are definitely off.

This has been in the back of my mind for a while, and others brought it up: how much more time and money would it have taken to give us two versions of each episode: one as it originally was, and one with interpretations based on what some fans wanted (rescaling ships, not using the same shot ten times in an episode)?

This is a serious (i.e. not rhetorical) question. Not every effect shot would have had to have been 'reimaged'. How long does it take to produce, etc. the average effect shot in TNG? How many of us would have been willing to wait a little longer and pay a little more for two versions of the episode? I know I would. I've waited this long already!

I don't think they could have done a project of that scale, where they would give us 2 versions of the same thing. Personally I was hoping they would give it a TOS-R revamping.

The insane insistence that the HD version stay "true" to the original is annoying at best. You will notice that most of TOS-R actually stayed true to the "heart" of the series. While I loved TOS (and my dad even more so), watching the originals now makes us both laugh (my dad calls the Enterprise the "Frying Pan") because the FX are so cheesy. We love the original because it was easy to forgive them for the lame FX, because in that era, that's all they had. Along comes TOS-R, and while you can tell the ship is CGI most of the time, when compared to the original scenes, is light decades ahead!!! I'm fine with the CGI not being ultra realistic if we get to watch an episode like "The Doomsday Machine" actually play out the way it should have been from the start!

It's kind of the same for TNG. I love the show, but it had some stinkers in it that, for the most part were completely due to lack of budget (I'm sure Code of Honor was a budget episode after blowing their load on EaF and Naked Now, and it took them a while to give us another great one, like "Where no one has gone before", etc etc.

I was hoping TNG-R would revamp some of the budget limitations. It doesn't mean that the boring episodes needed Jar Jar Binks in every scene. I would be happy if key episodes play out with action that was only implied in the original episodes (again, due to budget). I seriously would have payed $200 a season easily for this. I don't think I would pay more than $80 a season for what we are getting. There are far too few episodes I liked enough to want to see in HD. The Sampler had none.

[davejames]

the_wildcard wrote:

---

Quick question. I assume none of the episodes will ever be in true widescreen because of the way the film was originall shot, correct?

I suspect it'll be shown in widescreen in syndication at some point. You see old Seinfeld episodes airing that way now, and it looks perfectly natural.

Granted, with TNG it might make the camera seem a little closer to the actors than before, but that's how many shows are shot today anyways, so it'll probably be an easy adjustment.

[davejames]

Maurice wrote:

---

And once you start changing things, where do you stop? Are you going to start changing viewscreens, adding set extensions, add more people to backgrounds? Get rid of the skants? Redo the color timing to the current visual flavor of the decade (see the recent revision of The French Connection)?

The film is what it is. Fix it where necessary (missing shots, whatever), but if you want something else, make a new show.

Yeah I don't think they need to correct every mistake that was ever made, but we are talking about a very different format here. If bringing the show to HD makes some things stand out and look a lot worse than they did before, then you're no longer presenting the show the way it was meant to be presented.

A lot of those effects were intended to be seen on old analog TV sets only, and CBS is simply trying to make sure they work on today's TVs, to extend the life of the show as much as possible.

So far, most of what they're doing is incredibly subtle, which only the most nitpicky of fans is ever going to notice. So I'd say they're going about it just right.

[Mark 2000]

Dick_Valentine wrote:

---

"it's CGI so I must hate it" positioning (or vice versa) and lets try to be a bit more open minded please?

Sigh. You know, why not dub silent films? People's mouths move in them. Cut all those stupid dialog cards out and add some audio.

Come on! Be a bit more open minded!

I really don't know why anyone here is watching this show for the special effects. Have you noticed the flat lighting? The uninteresting camera angles? The extremely drab sound track? Come on folks, even if the CG looked amazing it would be lipstick on a pig. Enjoy the show for what it is and stop bitching.

[RAMA]

GalaxyX wrote:

---

I don't think they could have done a project of that scale, where they would give us 2 versions of the same thing. Personally I was hoping they would give it a TOS-R revamping.

The insane insistence that the HD version stay "true" to the original is annoying at best. You will notice that most of TOS-R actually stayed true to the "heart" of the series. While I loved TOS (and my dad even more so), watching the originals now makes us both laugh (my dad calls the Enterprise the "Frying Pan") because the FX are so cheesy. We love the original because it was easy to forgive them for the lame FX, because in that era, that's all they had. Along comes TOS-R, and while you can tell the ship is CGI most of the time, when compared to the original scenes, is light decades ahead!!! I'm fine with the CGI not being ultra realistic if we get to watch an episode like "The Doomsday Machine" actually play out the way it should have been from the start!

It's kind of the same for TNG. I love the show, but it had some stinkers in it that, for the most part were completely due to lack of budget (I'm sure Code of Honor was a budget episode after blowing their load on EaF and Naked Now, and it took them a while to give us another great one, like "Where no one has gone before", etc etc.

I was hoping TNG-R would revamp some of the budget limitations. It doesn't mean that the boring episodes needed Jar Jar Binks in every scene. I would be happy if key episodes play out with action that was only implied in the original episodes (again, due to budget). I seriously would have payed $200 a season easily for this. I don't think I would pay more than $80 a season for what we are getting. There are far too few episodes I liked enough to want to see in HD. The Sampler had none.

We are going to see SOME changes, I am sure about that, so far, I'm not unhappy with the percentage of new shots or tweaks. In the future though, some episodes could use, 20-40% changes to make them better....Yesterday's Enterprise is a great episode, but the battles are lackluster and out of scale for example.

RAMA

[NewHorizon]

Mark 2000 wrote:

---

No it wasn't. It was to replace the shots with near identical ones that looked as much like a model as possible. Then some vocal fans complained incessantly that they wanted more variety until Okuda had another model built that they could maneuver more and they essentially started experimenting with it, producing shots that were outside of the experience of the people they hired.

Actually, it was the same model but they optimized it. The first model was so heavily detailed that it took an extreme amount of time to render even a simple scene. CBS admitted this was a pretty big flub on their part. So they had some optimize the model to a point where they cut rendering down by several hours.

Something like that shouldn't have happened in the first place, but their production turn around and apparent lack of experience lead to that first mis-step.

[BillJ]

Dick_Valentine wrote:

---

Anyway, pointless distractions aside (sorry! ), it saddens me to see CGI get a bad rap these days.
Yes, in the past it has been misused and it was probably pushed through the entertainment biz a good 5 years before technology was properly ready for it (but then there's the old circular argument of...would it get better unless it was used more...etc etc) but at the end of the day the Sky is the limit with CGI and these days it can do everything model shots can do and then so much more.

I know people have attachments to the model shots of the past but that's mainly for nostalgic reasons rather than technical.
It should never completely smash up the canvas and replace the painting but using it to bring us an episode more in line with the writers original intentions before budgets and technology limitations compromised it.

I'm just beyond tired now of the CGI bad/models good blinkered arguments, sometimes it comes off like Statler and Waldorf complaining that the local shopping centre used to be fields in their day.
Both are just tools for the artists involved, both can be used effectively and both can be misused, so enough with the entrenched "it's CGI so I must hate it" positioning (or vice versa) and lets try to be a bit more open minded please?

If TNG-R (or TOS-R for that matter) had an effects budget equivalent to Avatar, then I might see a case being made for replacing the existing model work with CGI. But after watching TOS-R it seems unlikely they can do convincing work on a shoestring budget.

I'd rather have the original model work instead of cheap CGI.

[22 Stars]

BillJ wrote:

---

If TNG-R (or TOS-R for that matter) had an effects budget equivalent to Avatar, then I might see a case being made for replacing the existing model work with CGI. But after watching TOS-R it seems unlikely they can do convincing work on a shoestring budget.

I'd rather have the original model work instead of cheap CGI.

I agree, I think this project is being done the right way with these guidelines in place.

Instead of complaining we should still be amazed that they are doing this AT ALL. They are not guaranteed to make a ton of money on this through Bluray sales and yet they are still investing a lot of time and effort to re-edit every single episode.

Imagine if they had just said, "We are doing select episodes and releasing a few fan box sets" Some would be crying bloody murder.