Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice...

Re: Never seen refit?

Sorry web, I keep looking at your Kor and he looks like he's got a spoon hiding under that hairline. Maybe I'm not looking at it right...I don't have any depth perception anyway.
IMO, still a little cluttered with extra blinky thingys. Although I don't have depth perception, I have excellent peripheral vision. Some of that stuff would have distracted me as a viewer.

 

Re: Never seen refit?

Query: just where is that window supposed to be? The design of the briefing room suggests that it was perhaps along the edge or somewhere in the saucer. The flat side walls were the separations between it and the next room presumably. And there are no flat areas on the exterior of the ship to account for such a window, except perhaps along the mid area of the secondary hull and why would they put a room the command staff would want close accessibility to all the way down there?

Sorry if this sounds nitpicky, but it is little things like this that I notice in regards to the contextual logic of an image. I also find myself in agreement with Yorktown1701's post in that better science fiction tries to envision new ways of possibly looking at things rather than just glitzing up what we have now, and all those winkies just look like an effort to make Matt Jeffries' Enterprise look more like the NX-01. Well, he said it more eloquently than I.

 

Re: Never seen refit?

If changing outdated (or blank, in many cases) display readouts and adding a viewport here and there "fundamentally alters" Trek then you're probably watching it for the wrong reason.
I thought Star Trek was about the characters and an exploration of the human condition, not what color the third blinking light from the left is.

I admit that some of the things in Web's posts are a bit over the top (I like the old sickbay read out panel), the general improvement is pretty obvious.

These kind of improvememts make it easier to enjoy what Trek is REALLY about (see above) without the distraction of thinking how crappy the effects are.

 

Re: Never seen refit?

 

Re: Never seen refit?

You're welcome.

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

^^ No. Part of TOS' appeal on top of everything else storytelling wise was that it took pains to envision things a certain way. The casual addition of extra winkies and robot debris are not "improvements" but little more than retconning something that really doesn't need any help. I may be being a shit about this, but it's essentially the same as handing someone a handmade gift that is obviously a work of devotion and long hours of skillful effort and hearing the ungrateful recipient balling, "But where are the shiny blinking lights?"

In a way though these supposed "improved" images are a handy comparison with my own efforts at photomanipulation. My approach has been to try following through on the original conceptual thinking while the other is simple revisionism just to look "kewl, man."

And see this is what I don't understand. They have the submarine in space look of the NX-01 to drool over as well as twenty years of current style Trek, so why the insistence to clutter up TOS with that which so obviously looks out of place? The defense of "to improve the viewing experience" in ragards to what made Star Trek really work is hollow because it shows the evident inability to enjoy something unless it's glitzed up in a particular way. This dovetails with a beaker full of death's thread in the TOS forum regarding whether TOS is lost on younger viewers. Will they tolerate the next generation wanting to "improve" TNG?

Oddly I feel the same way when I hear contemporary rappers (I refuse to call them artists or singers) butchering music we grew up with. Are they so obviously devoid of talent that they must corrupt what came before rather than create something new of their own? Sorry, thats getting off-topic I suppose.

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy watching TOS without being distracted by the generally archaic-looking special effects and sets. Some of it still stand up to today's standards, and some of it is just cool and has a weird kind of futuristic feel to it...but I think about 85% of all the visual effects and set pieces have seemed unrealistic and unconvincing to most people for at least the last 10 years or so (and that's being very generous in my estimate). In truth, TOS effects were considered outdated as far back as the late 1970's, when Star Wars came out. But the overwhelming quality of the stories and characters kept TOS interesting to a new generation. But that was YEARS ago.

Trek purists scream bloody murder about potential 're-imaginings' of TOS because of pure nostalgia. They can't let go of those hoaky, clunky dials and speedometer readouts, or the hand-drawn cardboard viewscreens. They've invested years of their lives rationalizing all the complicated underworkings of what boils down to cheap, budget strapped set designs. Keep in mind that the original trek designers actually intended far more complex sets and effects than what they ended up with. Take even a casual look at the Art of Star Trek book, which shows pre-production art for a very sleek, detailed shuttle craft among other things. You can't tell me that Roddenberry and others intentionally chose to make the shuttle look like a giant bread box, or that the Gorn was supposed to look like a cheap lizard suit. No, they did it because of budget. All this talk about the genius of the simplistic design is just an excuse. They didn't have the money or the technology to construct TOS the way it was intended by the series creative people.

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

^ But that's the way it did turn out though, and that's what we have. While I do enjoy these images as "What ifs" in reality I would not like to see TOS being done over using modern effects processes - that would be like updating the language used in the works of Charles Dickens because it was too archaic. So it requires a little more imagination than ENT does; is that a bad thing? I for one don't think it is - it makes watching TOS for me more akin to reading a book than watching a TV show in some ways.

I would also like to say that the general quality of the work here is really quite astounding.

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

With all due respect it's becoming ever more evident that you just don't get it. For example where was it said that we couldn't appreciate some of the viewscreen images being enhanced? Go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread as well as other threads on the TBBS regarding this very subject. The key difference that you do not seem to grasp is in regards to context. The additions you refer to that are supposed to "improve" the look of TOS have absolutely no relation whatsoever with the conceptual thinking that was used in TOS. There is a fine difference between enhancing what is already there in concept and in context and simply adding stuff just to make it look slick--it is that essential distinction that seems to escape the advocates of "updating" Star Trek.

And I must say that I initially never envisioned this thread getting so deep into this issue, but so be it.

 

Re: Never seen refit?



More Phase-II ish

 

Re: Never seen refit?

I enjoy a good debate about the pro's and con's of a TOS 'reboot'. Actually all of the images I've created (and im working on more) are just fun 'what if's' that I hope everyone can enjoy on some level, whether you're for it or not...

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Get distracted by the archaic-looking special effects?
First, I don't watch TV shows or movies for eye candy? I don't believe that I ever have. As an avid reader, I watch the stories whether Romeo and Juliet, CSI, Casablanca, Lord of the Rings, or Star Trek for the purpose of recreational entertainment...for the story...plot, characterization, twists, and turns.

For those people who need eye candy to enjoy entertainment, I fear that they will miss what GR called, "the human story." If you go back and read GR's original pitch (found at http://www.ydg.com/trek5/trek_pitch.pdf), TOS was "built around characters who travel to worlds similar to our own." He simply used the format of science fiction to tell the story of those characters. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were no different from Matt, Doc, and Festus. They were characters we loved and cared about what happened to them. Through the story, we saw how others dealt with common everyday problems. Yes, I'm rather introspective, but the story is the most important part, not the eye candy.

As for the Star Wars fx, Lucas himself thought they need updating in the late 90s, true. However, did the fx updates improve the quality of the stories upon rerelease? No! There were things that I had gotten familiar with in the first releases, so the changes then became a distraction for me in the story. When TMP came out, I accepted its new look because there was the understanding that it was at least 2-5 years later. It was understandable that technology would have improved.

True, The Art of Star Trek shows a sleeker shuttle, and true, budget constraints turned into a fondly-loved (by some of us) bread box. TAS solved those problems, but many people unfortunately reject it as well, today.
GR ordered research (go back and read The Making of Star Trek) into what would the future would look like. They were also given charge to remain in the budget. Even Shakespeare had to remain in a budget. The fact of the matter was and remains TOS's fx and set designs were two decades ahead of their time. TWOK's graphics were 1982 equivalents, not 2002. TNG, likewise, was no more than its day either.

Warped9 indicated that the story was in a context. He is right. Earlier, I listed Romeo and Juliet as a story. That story had a context - Medieval Verona - if I remember correctly. I watched about fifteen minutes of the Leonardo diCaprio version in 1996; after which, I got up and left the theater. It wasn't in context, so I couldn't watch it.

Personally, I am a fan of "The Cage", always have been since I first saw clips of it during "The Menagerie". Graphics wasn't what impressed me about the show. I find myself fascinated by its refusal to allow fx to rule the day. I have to side on the side of "context".

 

Re: Never seen refit?

Certainly. But trying to shove Star Trek into the visual style of the movies or- worse yet- the modern series is just plain wrong, IMO. Why not appreciate it for what it is? If somebody wants to remake Star Trek with modern day special effects, I don't have a problem with that, but to me, altering Star Trek's visual style to appeal to a modern audience strikes me as being somewhat akin to taking a pen to Shakespere's original manuscripts and inserting modern-sounding dialogue into them. Sure, it doesn't change the fundamental story, but it certainly alters the tone.

What I like about Warped9's work is that while it does give TOS a more expansive "feel", it doesn't betray the TOS design aesthetic. His stuff is modern, but it really does almost look like things that they could've pulled off in the '60s with a much higher budget. While I admire websbest's technical proficiency, he's throwing the '60s TOS crew into the movies of the 1980s and '90s, which is almost like having a movie where Charles Lindbergh is flying a space shuttle.

And I would argue that if you feel you need new effects and sets to enjoy the series, it is you who cannot appreciate what Star Trek's about. Besides, those "crappy" (I hate to do this, but I just have to: ) effects were tremendously state of the art for a 1960s science fiction TV show.

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

A good example of how well the basic TOS look would fare with modern processes is "Trials and Tribbleations"...Everything they recreated looked FANTASTIC to me both the sets AND the FX.

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

^^ The interior sets and costumes looked rather nice in T&T, but the exterior ship scenes looked like crap, er, cartoons. The contemporary F/X style in Trek just didn't suit the TOS ship design aesthetics.

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Actually, I thought that the ships in T&T looked a LOT better when using decent lighting than the overlit fakey Constitution from TOS.

Don't get me wrong, I love the design of the Constitution class, but they seriously overlit her in TOS.

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

^^ True it was overlit, but then television back then didn't have the resolution that it has today. And believe it or not in some shots I think the E looks more realistic than the way current Trek does its ships. And I stand by the opinion that I thought the ships looked like total crap in T&T.

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

A modified Gorn and Enterprise bridge...

Gorn

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Nice manip.



something about the eyes and shadow seemed a little flat to me so I played with it myself. Hope you don't mind.



I always wanted to see a special edition of this ep done. I always imagined the Gorn to be like humanoid Velociraptors

 

Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

First off let me say that I've enjoyed the pictures you've made eventhough I too feel you could not add quite so much to a single picture. But even so they are fun to look at.

Now let me address some points in the quote above:

I personally can't understand (well I can but shun the thought anyway) how someone let's the special effects and set design distract from the enjoyment of "Star Trek". In fact I think it only enhances it.

As for the "bread box" comment (**sound of nerve being struck**) I also don't see how any analysis of that design can lead to calling it a recepticle for bread.





Having said all that (I told myself I would stay out of this one, but oh well.) Warped9 and websbestcomics keep the images coming they are most enjoyable.