RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,608
Posts: 5,425,654
Members: 24,807
Currently online: 603
Newest member: Dixonn

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 16 2013, 01:49 PM   #91
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

MarsWeeps wrote: View Post
toonloon wrote: View Post
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the missing shuttle craft in Galileo 7.
I just watched this episode last night and noticed that right away. When the Galileo is getting ready to launch, you can see the shuttle Columbus in the lower right corner of the scene, but when it shows Galileo leaving the shuttle bay, Columbus has vanished.



One shot I did like was the rear landing strut retracting after launch.

Also, I had to wonder, why they only launched one additional shuttle to help search for the Galileo? Wasn't the Enterprise supposed to have at least 4? For example, in The Omega Glory, it was mentioned that "all 4" of the shuttlecraft were still on board (The Exeter) so it implies that a Constitution class Starship would normally carry 4 shuttles.
I never noticed the missing shuttle! But every time I see that shot, I do notice the flat, undetailed back wall of the shuttle bay and think "Haven't you seen STV? Put the some hanger doors and a turbolift in there!"
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 07:16 PM   #92
Metryq
Captain
 
Metryq's Avatar
 
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

Warped9 wrote: View Post
I really dislike the way they make the shuttlecraft and and the hangar deck look in TOS-R. It all looks clunky and dark, more like a video game.
I agree. The darker lighting scheme looks like OpenGL lighting in a game. Perhaps the artists were attempting to force some scale and perspective into the scene with pools of light—a common gimmick. However, bright lighting can work, too. Many of the brighter, almost "over-exposed" shots in WALL*E looked "more realistic" than darker shots because they brought out all the grungy textures.



The shuttle bay in TOS had a diffuse light covering most of the ceiling. One would also expect a landing bay to be brightly lit, no matter what sort of computer and/or tractor beam aids are in use.

Also like WALL*E, perhaps the shuttle bay should look a bit traveled and grungy—not worn, but the pristine look automatically shouts "computer generated!"

Perhaps the bay would have bright, "afternoon" lighting during a landing and red lighting during a launch. I'm not suggesting red lighting for night vision, since the shuttlecraft cockpit is lighted, and it's doubtful the shuttles are flown by sight anyway. When Decker steals a shuttle in "The Doomsday Machine" he apparently took off "blind" and did not open one of the window shutters until approaching the planet killer.

Just the same, many things in STAR TREK were done for audiences, whether or not "realistic" (e.g. the "swish" of the ship passing, or people being thrown out of their seats by a near-miss in battle). If they wanted the bay darkened during a launch, perhaps some spill light from the viewing galleries would have added some dimension. Anything. But that dark, almost shadowless light looks too much like a videogame.
__________________
"No, I better not look. I just might be in there."
—Foghorn Leghorn, Little Boy Boo
Metryq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 12:44 PM   #93
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

Warped9 wrote: View Post
I really dislike the way they make the shuttlecraft and and the hangar deck look in TOS-R. It all looks clunky and dark, more like a video game.

Hmm, this board needs a "thums down" emoticon.
Did you really have to bring the TOS-R shuttlebay scenes up again? I just had breakfast and there it blows:

For the more moderate Trek BBS members I strongly recommend these:

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 12:45 PM   #94
Kinggodzillak
Commander
 
Kinggodzillak's Avatar
 
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

On the whole I'm okay with the CGI effects; they're not great, but they do their job well enough and help sequences that weren't much to look at originally. Occasionally they're a bit disappointing, as in Doomsday Machine, and seeing the Enterprise twisting and turning like a fighter jet is always going to be wrong.

The one aspect of the new effects that does irritate me at times though is the way in which the new shots have clearly been pasted over the original shots.

What I mean by that is - for example - say it's the end of the episode. We have a shot of Kirk standing on a planet looking pleased with himself, which then dissolves into a shot of the Enterprise orbiting the planet, along with triumphant music. Now, in the Remastered version, the shot of the Enterprise has to appear earlier than it did in the original, in order to avoid the viewer spotting the original effects underneath during the fade from Kirk to the Enterprise. But that then means that we can get up to five seconds of the Enterprise before the 'look it's the Enterprise, hooray!' music comes in, and we may even still be able to hear sounds from the Kirk-on-the-planet shot while we're looking at the ship.

So basically what I'm saying is a CGI/extra effects shot has to appear earlier/disappear later than it did in the original, and this often throws the soundtrack off.

It was difficult to track down an actual screengrab to show what I mean, but there's a good example of when this process goes awry in A Taste of Armageddon, in the scene where Ambassador Fox beams down to Eminiar VII.

This is how the shot appeared in the original episode;



And this is how appears in the Remastered version. They've zoomed in substantially, and the pretty decent matte-painting has been given a bit of an (unnecessary, IMO) CGI makeover, adding a monotrain and extra people milling around in the background.



Staying with the Remastered version, watch what happens as we fade to the next scene;



Oops! During the dissolve the original shot is now visible alongside the new one, so we now have two cities and two sets of figures walking along.

Interestingly, the CGI'd shot completely disppears before we've even finished fading into the next scene, leaving the old one visible underneath.




9 times out of 10 they managed to avoid that problem by starting the fade earlier and trimming the start of the following shot, but occasionally baffling moments like that crept in...
Kinggodzillak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 12:55 PM   #95
MarsWeeps
Captain
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

One other thing I noticed...and this may just be a problem with streaming Netflix, but in the opening credits, when Shatner does the "Space...the Final Frontier" voiceover, the volume is very low, I can barely hear him.
MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 03:24 PM   #96
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
For the more moderate Trek BBS members I strongly recommend these:
What does this even mean?
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 03:41 PM   #97
Metryq
Captain
 
Metryq's Avatar
 
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

BillJ wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
For the more moderate Trek BBS members I strongly recommend these:
What does this even mean?
Thumbs down, rather than pukey.
__________________
"No, I better not look. I just might be in there."
—Foghorn Leghorn, Little Boy Boo
Metryq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 03:43 PM   #98
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

Is there such a thing as a moderate TBBS member?
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 04:00 PM   #99
Metryq
Captain
 
Metryq's Avatar
 
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

Kinggodzillak wrote: View Post
The "error" in the original that is all the more pronounced in the TOS-R version is the lack of hard shadows in the live action area. The original matte painting had the same shadows, but they were not as dark. With the enhanced contrast, the TOS-R version should have some rotoed shadows and shading on the actors.

__________________
"No, I better not look. I just might be in there."
—Foghorn Leghorn, Little Boy Boo
Metryq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 06:59 PM   #100
ssosmcin
Rear Admiral
 
ssosmcin's Avatar
 
Location: ssosmcin
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Now, did the CGI effects "make the show better"?

Bob
Considering that I find the series fine as is, then not really. Only one episode was really improved by the new effects, Tomorrow is Yesterday. During the finale, the lack of technology truly let the episode down. The slingshot method made zero sense as depicted back then. However, the new effects not only cleared it up, it made the sequence exciting.

That was the only episode that was completely improved. Even the Doomsday Machine was always an awesome episode with the AMT models and such. Star Trek did not rely on effect - if couldn't - so it was always the writing and acting that kept it afloat, And no amount of CGI will change that.

Did the CGI harm Star Trek? Well, it wasn't always accurate and they didn't always actually listen to the dialog to get it right, but for the most part, nah it didn't harm anything. Did it make it better? Aside from that one example, no. It was ALWAYS good! It never would have stayed alive this long if it wasn't. People who "suddenly like it because the effects are better" are, IMO, missing the point and probably can't watch any series that vintage. A shame, but that's their privilege. However, I do appreciate that people enjoy the new effects because they hold up well in HD where the originals do look worse. Which is why I don't like HD for old shows with optical effects.

If anything "harmed" Star Trek visually, it was High Definition.

Bob Justman's comments were evenhanded, which I also appreciate.
__________________
"Tranya is people!"
ssosmcin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 08:21 PM   #101
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

Personally I detest the TOS-R effects for the slingshot because the Sun looks like a glowy planet instead of a brilliant light source. It's seriously pathetic. Star Trek IV did it better, even thought hat has its flaws as well.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 09:09 PM   #102
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

ssosmcin wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Now, did the CGI effects "make the show better"?
Star Trek did not rely on effect - if couldn't - so it was always the writing and acting that kept it afloat, And no amount of CGI will change that.
Which I believe is exactly what Bob Justman wanted to convey "between the lines" without stepping on anybody's feet.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 03:01 AM   #103
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

Someone once said that it's a matter of comparing one set of fake looking f/x with another more contemporary set of fake looking f/x. And it is. Neither the original nor the cgi f/x look truly realistic, but what really matters is what an individual finds more convincing.

For me the original f/x, flawed as they are in some respects, are more convincing in conveying the ship's size and sense of majesty. I find the new f/x, while quite interesting in many respects, generally fail in conveying the ship's sense of size and majesty.

The original f/x were state-of-the-art for television at the time but not for feature film. However, it wasn't a huge gap since the main difference was time and money. Given sufficient time and money TOS' f/x could have been on the level of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Forbidden Planet and Planet Of The Apes. Films like Alien and Star Trek - The Motion Picture aren't that far removed from what was being done a decade or so earlier. But then it wouldn't have been possible because a TV series production doesn't have the luxury of a feature film's time and money and resources.

The situation is still pretty much the same today. In any era really you can lavish a feature film with awesome f/x because you're making only one picture. You simply can't afford to do that with series television.

The TOS-R f/x suffer from the same issue of not enough time and money available. It really comes down to time = money and the TOS-R guys simply didn't have enough time to do better.

That said I still think a bigger issue I have with TOS-R is the aesthetic of the new f/x. To me they don't look like what could have been done under the best of conditions back when Star Trek was in production. If I were to approach enhancing the original f/x I wouldn't be asking, "What can we do that they couldn't with today's resources?" I'd be asking, "What could they have done if they had had access (and sufficient time allotted) to the best resources available at the time?"

The difference is you're now trying to put yourself into the minds and perspective of the f/x artists of the time and seeing it through their eyes rather than a perspective coloured by forty years of advances in visual f/x. The end result means your new enhanced f/x should look more aesthetically consistent with the remaining live-action footage.

This is where I think TOS-R generally blew it.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 10:47 AM   #104
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

Kinggodzillak wrote: View Post
This is how the shot appeared in the original episode;



And this is how appears in the Remastered version. They've zoomed in substantially, and the pretty decent matte-painting has been given a bit of an (unnecessary, IMO) CGI makeover, adding a monotrain and extra people milling around in the background.


Although I don't want to beat a dead horse, I would like to add that the original matte painting was much wider than what we saw in both versions, where already the TOS frame was just one third of a wider picture! (Allan Asherman's Star Trek Compendium had a b&w shot of the matte painting revealing the "missing" two thirds to the left).

Had the TOS-R producers been aware of that we might have seen more of the "authentic" Eminiar VII skyline, possibly during the skyline beauty shot after Kirk's landing party had been disarmed.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20 2013, 09:09 AM   #105
Thete
Ensign
 
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Thete
Re: FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

I really don't mind the new effects but they certainly don't render the original effects redundant.

I've not seen all TOS yet, would you recommend I watch the old effects first?
Thete is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
doomsday machine, remastering errors

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.