The personal insults are (always) hurled against those who question the conventional "wisdoms" here. I had to laugh earlier in this thread when another board member who dared offer his overall positive opinion of Trek remastered was accused of not tolerating an opposing viewpoint. The whole thread is a waste of time. It's a "re-run", and a far less interesting one compared to classic Trek at that.
do you think TOS should have been remastered?
- Thread starter Clym
- Start date
If you go beyond vocal fans such as found here you'll find many people okay with the new f/x who don't know or care whether they match the original aesthetic or remaining live-acion footage. And many if them might be those who wouldn't watch the show with the "creaky and cheesy '60's era f/x."
RAMA is one of those who cannot seem to get that not everyone is swayed by supposedly superior f/x in technical terms, particularly when the subpar quality of something that is supposed to be technically superior is pointed out.
He likes them--thats fine. But the near ever present insinuation that those who don't agree somehow don't understand or appreciate the supposed technical superiority of the new f/x gets annoying ax hell.
RAMA is one of those who cannot seem to get that not everyone is swayed by supposedly superior f/x in technical terms, particularly when the subpar quality of something that is supposed to be technically superior is pointed out.
He likes them--thats fine. But the near ever present insinuation that those who don't agree somehow don't understand or appreciate the supposed technical superiority of the new f/x gets annoying ax hell.
Last edited:
Well, you have one poster who claims that those of us that don't find the new effects superior, simply "don't understand". No one likes being told that their opinion is somehow uneducated.
These threads always get tiresome because some people think they can "win" a contest of personal taste, as absurd as that sounds. But it's all opinion and no one is more right than the other. Personally, I don't ever like the new effects, and though I think my position is defensible, in the end that's just my opinion and it's no better than any other.
One thing that kind of bugs me, though, is the use of the word "remastered." Remastering is going back to original source material to restore degraded elements or upgrade for transfer to a new format. This was indeed done for TOS HD, but inserting newly-made effects has nothing to do with remastering. As far as I am concerned, the episodes with new effects are in fact revised versions and should be referred to as such.
One thing that kind of bugs me, though, is the use of the word "remastered." Remastering is going back to original source material to restore degraded elements or upgrade for transfer to a new format. This was indeed done for TOS HD, but inserting newly-made effects has nothing to do with remastering. As far as I am concerned, the episodes with new effects are in fact revised versions and should be referred to as such.
An excellent point and one that is raised periodically even though hardly anyone seems to pay attention to it.
If I recall correctly TOS has been remastered twice. The first time was for its release on DVD and the second time for release on BluRay with the new f/x.
Well, as I noted earlier, I got some folks into Trek remastered who probably wouldn't have been able to deal with the original effects (which I tested by toggling a few times).
YMMV as to whether that says more about the individuals or about Trek remastered. But I'm inclined to think that gaining new fans is generally a good thing.
YMMV as to whether that says more about the individuals or about Trek remastered. But I'm inclined to think that gaining new fans is generally a good thing.
Doug Drexler has expressed his disappointment with TOS-R particularly in how they did the Enterprise. What seems to bother him even more is that even as the 11 footer is being restored and yet on television you can no longer see it because it's TOS-R thats broadcast everywhere.
My opinion wavers from "some of it looks pretty good" to "it looks like a cartoon." It also bugged me that ships were reused multiple times and in several cases were completely different designs from the original models. It annoyed me when the Friday's Child Klingon ship was just made into a far-away D-7; when the Aurora was made into a space VW bus; when the Woden was made into a far-away TAS drone; etc. Also, the Deneva ship got reused two more times as other ships. I understand the rushed nature of the production, but the constant reuse of models always made Star Trek look cheap (or at least TNG onwards)
The apparent color of ships in TOS really have a lot to do with how they were lit and the film stock and processing applied. You can't just go by a modern photograph of the model under neutral lighting. I mean, even the Enterprise looks different in person vs. on film. I was shocked with how much green patina was on it, but a lot of that patina is straight from TOS, not the repainting jobs. It just doesn't show on the film stock for some reason. What that means is if you go back to redo the FX you have to decide whether to go by what was shown on screen or the look of the literal model. I'm not saying this as a defense of all of TOS-R's judgment calls, but it would explain at least some of the discrepancies (like the botany bay which really doesn't look that red in Space Seed).
I'm a little late to the party so I apologize if this has been said already, but I really wish the original film elements of the model work still existed so they could have remastered them the way the did with TNG.
Since the elements don't exist anymore, I would have preferred something like Eden F/X was proposing.
Since the elements don't exist anymore, I would have preferred something like Eden F/X was proposing.
Last edited:
Even if another physical model could be made as closely as possible (the one made for the DS9 Tribble episode was...adequate) and used similar filming techniques, I'm not sure how closely you could recreate the movements of the ship.
Colouration wise, the onset colours were from lighting present and not added later. All well and good for just cleaning it up. But the models would have to be lit using modern light sources to be cost effecient among other things. The detail would have to be tested repeatedly until the right balance was found.
It might mean several paint tests etc I'm not sure who would sign off on that these days.
Colouration wise, the onset colours were from lighting present and not added later. All well and good for just cleaning it up. But the models would have to be lit using modern light sources to be cost effecient among other things. The detail would have to be tested repeatedly until the right balance was found.
It might mean several paint tests etc I'm not sure who would sign off on that these days.
/\ a common thing with CGI effects is the tossing out of the basic laws of physics, and that scene, though brief, should have been a more gradual maneuver, fighter planes can't fly like that, so how does a starship that weighs thousands of tons get away flying like that?...most of the time they did get the physics ok...but that one time..what were they thinking?
As to the Botany Bay..it's last use was as "the Woden" and it's probable that it was dirtied up to make it look like a tramp freighter..hence it's current paint..
As to the Botany Bay..it's last use was as "the Woden" and it's probable that it was dirtied up to make it look like a tramp freighter..hence it's current paint..
Except that they did not reshoot the Botany Bay to portray the Woden. Those were just stock shots from "Space Seed". Even the moving starfields are the same.
Here are some more pics for you.
First the original (two tone) Klingon miniature...
And the original Botany Bay...
Spockboy
Can someone explain (in basic terms) what made the Botany Bay look gray on film, if the model was actually this rust color? I think that would have looked great in the episode.
Yes. The TNG-R was much more in-line with what is generally considered a "remastering," basically a cleaned-up version of what already existed. There were some minor differences with some visual effects, but everything generally fits together very well and authentically.
Though fighter planes are in the atmosphere and within Earth's gravity well.
Kor
Last edited:
I definitely prefer the new effects. (If they do an all-CGI reanimation of TAS, I would probably prefer that as well.) But as much wiser minds have said: both versions are still out there, so everyone gets what they want. So can't we let it drop?
Why is it such a big deal whether or not there's a beam?
Why is it such a big deal whether or not there's a beam?
Why is it such a big deal whether or not there's a beam?
It took something cool and futuristic and made it mundane. At least for me.
Similar threads
