What do you want to see in TAS Remastered?

[BillJ]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Why? What is the point of trashing the very work which attracted viewers/won an Emmy, etc.? Look at the Star Wars situation--the original films have been screwed with again and again since 1997, and most of the changes are not only pointless, but stand out as obvious computer artifacts...and that's from the alleged best efx house in the world.

Star Trek is what drew viewers to the Animated Series. And it's not trashing the work, its offering a different visual interpretation. It always drives me crazy when people offer up these all or nothing scenarios.

[TREK_GOD_1]

BillJ wrote:

---

Star Trek is what drew viewers to the Animated Series. And it's bot trashing the work, its offering a different visual interpretation. It always drives me crazy when people offer up these all or nothing scenarios.

The work had to pass the quality test to make viewers care. Lou Scheimer was determined to respect the content, and that went a long way in making TAS work.

If a low-balling company like Hanna-Barbera produced TAS, fans would have revolted with episode one, as it is a bit distracting to see characters' arms slip off of the body, insignias switch colors, and backgrounds painted on the level of a pre-schooler with watercolors.

That was H-B in the early 70s, and as the other big U.S. animation house (on TV), ST was more than blessed to have Filmation handle the series, which--as seen right out of the gates in 1973--was the right direction.

But to your point:

all or nothing scenarios

What is wrong with respecting original work and the artists responsible for creating said work?

Are some fans totally incapable of enjoying anything not fed through the grinder of CG revision?

While on the subject of ST, TOS Remastered was a terrible experiement, since the space shots and the Enterprise look no more realistic than a video game sequence. How does that help tell the stories, or make them enjoyable?

[BillJ]

If they remaster TAS, the original doesn't disappear from my shelf. It still exists. As far as the quality of TOS-R goes, it was indeed a very hit-or-miss project. But I'm still happy they gave it a try. Because, once again, my DVD's didn't disappear from my entertainment shelf. Same thing goes for Star Trek 2009, not exactly my favorite ST property but it didn't erase what came before from the universe.

And I never bought the "disrespects the work" angle. It's a forty year old property, if anything it shows an incredible amount of respect that someone wants to take the time to update it for modern audiences.

[zarkon]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

What is wrong with respecting original work and the artists responsible for creating said work?

Are some fans totally incapable of enjoying anything not fed through the grinder of CG revision?

The original work is already out.

What's wrong with a new spin on it. Though I wouldn't want cgi myself, just high quality animation.

[BillJ]

zarkon wrote:

---

What's wrong with a new spin on it. Though I wouldn't want cgi myself, just high quality animation.

Which is what I'd like to see done as well.

[Relayer1]

Personally, I thought the animation was crap. Sorry, but that's just my opinion. Most TV animation in that era was - don't start me on the Transformers and other such shows.

I'd be delighted with a complete re-do of the visuals. With the amount of space on Bluray discs it wouldn't be hard to include both versions to keep everyone happy.

With the wealth of recordings of the cast 'in character' to sample (I'm including TOS) it wouldn't be too hard to put a few new episodes together, licensing issues notwithstanding...

[TREK_GOD_1]

BillJ wrote:

---

If they remaster TAS, the original doesn't disappear from my shelf. It still exists.

It exists for you--but for the George Lucases of the world, original films are replaced by the endless altered versions, which is the only one available to future generations--and most studios are not interested in providing original and remastered on home video as seen with the TOS Blu Rays.

That's an exception, not the rule.

And I never bought the "disrespects the work" angle. It's a forty year old property, if anything it shows an incredible amount of respect that someone wants to take the time to update it for modern audiences.

Its disrespect when thinking everything old is "bad," or that no younger audience can wrap their minds around the fact that there were other technical skills employed before CG.

By that rationale, the current owners of 2001 should replace all efx shots with CG (maybe have the Discovery performing barrel rolls through an asteroid field--'cause that's exciting!), as everything eventualy demands "improvement."

[bbailey861]

I'm in. I'd like to see the animation redone using the same voice-overs, and as previously mentioned, it wouldn't mean my original TAS discs would be leaving my shelves. I'd like to see it, but if the cost is as pegged I don't see it being done.

[BillJ]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

By that rationale, the current owners of 2001 should replace all efx shots with CG (maybe have the Discovery performing barrel rolls through an asteroid field--'cause that's exciting!), as everything eventualy demands "improvement."

If its enough to get my 19 year old daughter (who already has massive respect for the classics) and my 15 year old son to sit though it and experience the story. Then I say have at it.

Or eventually all us old fucks are going to die and these properties get tossed into the dust bin of history.

Funny story. When The Doomsday Machine Remastered aired, we were sitting and watching it. My daughter leaves the room and comes back with my old VHS and seriously tells me that "this is the Doonsday Machine" pointing to the picture on the back of the package. Gotta love kids.

[T'Girl]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Its disrespect when thinking everything old is "bad," or that no younger audience can wrap their minds around the fact that there were other technical skills employed before CG.

The animation in TAS isn't bad because it's old, it's bad because it bad. It's below the standards of even 1950's Bugs Bunny cartoons. it's difficult to think of a modern example of TAS's particular animation style.. Even everyday average animation like Family Guy, and American Dad are far superior in technique and quality to TAS.

At least their faces move.

The only thing that makes TAS desirable is the voices of the original actors and the scripts. Some of the ship designs and landscapes could also find their way into a new TAS. Incidentally, a new TAS would not automatically have to be CGI, although that would be a possibility.

[TREK_GOD_1]

T'Girl wrote:

---

The animation in TAS isn't bad because it's old, it's bad because it bad. It's below the standards of even 1950's Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Er...do you realize that the Warner animation studio had a large number of artists working on the short subjects produced during its heyday in the 1940s? Do you realize animation houses of the TV era deliberately streamlined the process to be cost effective and efficient, but that does not automatically mean inferior quality (otherwise early H-B, like Jonny Quest or The Flintstones would not be praised for technical as well as story merits).

it's difficult to think of a modern example of TAS's particular animation style.. Even everyday average animation like Family Guy, and American Dad are far superior in technique and quality to TAS.

Most modern animation is quite poor, with several companies employing a form of CG and in other cases, flash animation, which (in my view) is not much better than moving construction paper figures connected by paper clips. Over the years, many of the series aired during Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming block used this kind of animation, which is on par with the worst of H-B's 1970s work (when the studio farmed work out to Australia).

[Lieut. Arex]

The colors in time trap to be correct

[Kamdan]

I don't mind pink tribbles, but the Kzinti should be recolored. There was actually a color change the character of Thelin in Yesteryear. He was caucasian for the VHS and Laserdisc editions, but was more grey for the DVD edition.

[Maurice]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Er...do you realize that the Warner animation studio had a large number of artists working on the short subjects produced during its heyday in the 1940s? Do you realize animation houses of the TV era deliberately streamlined the process to be cost effective and efficient, but that does not automatically mean inferior quality (otherwise early H-B, like Jonny Quest or The Flintstones would not be praised for technical as well as story merits).

Technically, Warner's produced theatrical cartoons into the 1960s and even at it's lowest ebb of the Looney Tunes era the animation was superior to anything done on TV, because they were still primarily doing full animation, not limited animation as is produced for TV.

As to Jonny Quest and The Flintstones, they might be praised for design and/or art direction, but there's nothing technically sophisticated about either.

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Most modern animation is quite poor, with several companies employing a form of CG and in other cases, flash animation, which (in my view) is not much better than moving construction paper figures connected by paper clips. Over the years, many of the series aired during Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming block used this kind of animation, which is on par with the worst of H-B's 1970s work (when the studio farmed work out to Australia).

Most TV animation is and has been limited animation. A lot of it is just illustrated radio. So much of it are static shots of characters talking and talking and talking and—occasionally—blinking. It's move to position, stand there, talk talk talk, move into next position (or just cut away).

[TREK_GOD_1]

BillJ wrote:

---

If its enough to get my 19 year old daughter (who already has massive respect for the classics) and my 15 year old son to sit though it and experience the story. Then I say have at it.

That was part of the Lucas excuse for all of his Special Edition changes (along with "matching" the visuals to the then-forthcoming "prequels"), and what happened?

Three terrible versions of Jabba the Hutt (the cut scene) appearing less realistic than the full size puppet made in 1982. After a try in the reissue, and twice on home video, they could not create a realistic Jabba, or even try to match it to the design of the puppet.

Slapped in creatures obviously not in the same frame or believable scale as the filmed material (Mos Eisley introduction), not to mention the CG lacks the film grain of the 70mm negatives.

Cityscapes (Cloud City, the shoehorned Couroscant in Return of the Jedi) with all of the realism of a video game.

Was it worth it? Aside from the special editions drawing in original fans (who were going to see the "prequels" in any case), I doubt it was worth the flood of criticism he recieved for the changes.

Funny story. When The Doomsday Machine Remastered aired, we were sitting and watching it. My daughter leaves the room and comes back with my old VHS and seriously tells me that "this is the Doonsday Machine" pointing to the picture on the back of the package. Gotta love kids.

Well, there you go! Your daughter was not turned off to a model constructed in 1967, and I think she's not alone. By the time I was a kid, the RKO King Kong was already several decades old, and its effects process had been refined through years of Harryhausen, et al, but I was able to enjoy the pure fantastic nature and atmosphere of that old movie without eye rolls. I understood what the artists were going for and enjoyed it.

Even after the 1976 release of Dino DeLaurentis' big budget, efx-heavy remake (and a man in a suit), it did not make me suddenly scowl at the RKO original.