do you think TOS should have been remastered?

[WebLurker]

If you can't see the difference then this discussion truly is pointless.

Look, I'm not saying that the new effects are a seamless fit with the original footage, but neither is the TV show with the rest of the franchise. Besides, the point is to bring the show a little closer to reality, fit better in the franchise, and give people a new experience watching episodes for the umteenth time a new experience. And if you don't like that experience, you can always watch the old. Whatever happened to IDIC?

(Also, as I recall, at the time TOS-R was first released, it was hailed as being great, a stark contrast to the blind hate that the Star Wars Special Editions got. What happened?)

N/A.

"Trials and Tribble-ations" used physical models of the Enterprise, the Klingon cruiser, and Station K-7 built by Greg Jein.

http://startrekauction.blogspot.com/2009/12/trials-and-tribbleations.html
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/IKS_Gr'oth

Kor

Cool. So, in other words, TOS-R is not that far removed from modern-day model effects, if its CGI looks more like that model, which looks like CGI compared to the original?

 

[uniderth]

For me the remastered version takes all the hard work, effort, and creativity of the original artists and throws it in the dumpster. It doesn't respect the original work at all. These people had huge limitation and still turned out a quality product that has entertained generations. Now we're gong to delete that and make it "cool." At least a careful reproduction of the original shots (and I have no problem adding some new subtle details) would honor the original hard work that was done.

It looks like it was stitched together from stock footage.
In the remastered version, we see the Enterprise flying alongside the machine, and shooting.

And it looks like crap.

Besides, the point is to bring the show a little closer to reality, fit better in the franchise, and give people a new experience watching episodes for the umteenth time a new experience.

Don't mean to pick on you; but no, that's not the point, or rather shouldn't haven been the point.

 

[WebLurker]

For me the remastered version takes all the hard work, effort, and creativity of the original artists and throws it in the dumpster. It doesn't respect the original work at all. These people had huge limitation and still turned out a quality product that has entertained generations. Now we're gong to delete that and make it "cool." At least a careful reproduction of the original shots (and I have no problem adding some new subtle details) would honor the original hard work that was done.



And it looks like crap.

Uh, most of the effects are faithful recreations of the old ones. The new ones are made in the spirit of the old ones. Most of the blatant changes are fixes to continuity error (like the Botany Bay appearing in "The Ultimate Computer"). And, despite my criticisms of the cinematography, the majority of the footage recreates the composition of the original episodes (baring some exceptions that look wonderful, and many of those are brand new scenes inserted into the episodes). If that's not respecting the original work, then I have nothing for you.

I'm confused. The original version of "Doomsday Machine" looks like crap or the new one (or both)?

 

[uniderth]

I'm confused. The original version of "Doomsday Machine" looks like crap or the new one (or both)?

Both. But I prefer the original crap.

Though I was specifically referring to the new one in that comment.

 

[WebLurker]

Both. But I prefer the original crap.

Though I was specifically referring to the new one in that comment.

Not trying to sound like a jerk, but may ask why that is (beyond "because it was first")?

 

[Kor]

The way the Enterprise and the giant bugle move in the "Remastered" edition, and the way the shots are composited, look like absolutely nothing that ever appeared in the era of TOS, whether on television or in high-profile, big-budget motion pictures.

Kor

 

[uniderth]

Not trying to sound like a jerk, but may ask why that is (beyond "because it was first")?

The way I look at it is this: If I was going to restore a car I would want it to be as close to the original as possible. The original doesn't have to be the best or most amazing design out there, or even meet modern safety standards. But in order to accurately reproduce the original condition of the car I wouldn't want to put in a modern stereo, spinners, and or even LED lighting.

That's how I view the what the Remastered should have been. It should simply have been taking the original episodes and bumping them up to HD quality. It's not about creating new material, simply increasing the definition of the existing material. Many of the effects wouldn't stand up to an increase in definition, thus the need for redoing them. So in order to complete the objective the new effects should have matched the original effects as closely as possible while still accomplishing the objective of making it HD.

This clearly was not accomplished as evidenced by the many changes introduced by the Remastered versions; even if they were done in the "spirit" of the originals. Therefore, I view the TOS-R efforts to be a failure. Just as I would view a restoration of a classic car that included modern safety features and a GPS to be a failure.

 

[Warped9]

Uh, most of the effects are faithful recreations of the old ones. The new ones are made in the spirit of the old ones.

No, they're not. Some are, but many aren't. Often the cinematography is quite different as is the lighting.

And the point of the new f/x shouldn't be to make it look more "real," but to make it look more authentic and keep it consistent with the show's overall aesthetic.

 

[WebLurker]

The way I look at it is this: If I was going to restore a car I would want it to be as close to the original as possible. The original doesn't have to be the best or most amazing design out there, or even meet modern safety standards. But in order to accurately reproduce the original condition of the car I wouldn't want to put in a modern stereo, spinners, and or even LED lighting.

That's how I view the what the Remastered should have been. It should simply have been taking the original episodes and bumping them up to HD quality. It's not about creating new material, simply increasing the definition of the existing material. Many of the effects wouldn't stand up to an increase in definition, thus the need for redoing them. So in order to complete the objective the new effects should have matched the original effects as closely as possible while still accomplishing the objective of making it HD.

This clearly was not accomplished as evidenced by the many changes introduced by the Remastered versions; even if they were done in the "spirit" of the originals. Therefore, I view the TOS-R efforts to be a failure. Just as I would view a restoration of a classic car that included modern safety features and a GPS to be a failure.

Okay, I disagree with you, but you did explain why you think the way you do well.

No, they're not. Some are, but many aren't. Often the cinematography is quite different as is the lighting.

Any specific examples I can refer to?

 

[BillJ]

Just like how well TOS meshes with the rest of the franchise?

The other parts of the franchise should be attempting to mesh with TOS. Not vice-versa.

 

[uniderth]

Okay, I disagree with you, but you did explain why you think the way you do well.

Ok, so to take it off on a bit of a tangent; if you were restoring a car, would you consider the inclusion of modern equipment a faithful restoration of the car in its original state?

 

[Kor]

The other parts of the franchise should be attempting to mesh with TOS. Not vice-versa.

Exactly. It's not TOS's fault that the rest of the franchise is different. In the overall context of the franchise, TOS is now it's own beast. And I say "so what?" There's no shame in that, and TOS shouldn't need to be changed to fit in with the spinoffs, just like the original "Mission: Impossible" series shouldn't need to be changed to fit in with the Tom Cruise movies.

Kor

 

[WebLurker]

Ok, so to take it off on a bit of a tangent; if you were restoring a car, would you consider the inclusion of modern equipment a faithful restoration of the car in its original state?

What kind of "restoration?" The point of restoring a car is to get it running again so it can be used. And on top of that, if it isn't that, but an exact recreation of the original, then you're demanding that the remaster project be something that it wasn't designed to be. We already had the original restoration, the point of this one was to see how the show's effects could be improved.

Exactly. It's not TOS's fault that the rest of the franchise is different. In the overall context of the franchise, TOS is now it's own beast. And I say "so what?" There's no shame in that, and TOS shouldn't need to be changed to fit in with the spinoffs, just like the original "Mission: Impossible" series shouldn't need to be changed to fit in with the Tom Cruise movies.

Kor

The movies and TV show are in different continuities anyways, so there's nothing to fit together in the first place. TOS is with it's franchise. And, anyways, most of the CGI changes are to make TOS consistent with itself. The few exceptions (like the Botany Bay Woden being replaced with a TAS robot ship) were either part of this fixing, or simply isolated incidences (like the new Tholian ship).

 

[Warped9]

Restoring a car is not always so it can be used. Sometimes the goal of restoration is to return it to original condition for museum display. In that case authenticity is the goal and the greater the authenticity the greater the value.

 

[Trekfan12]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I happen to like the remastered TOS. They added things to the background that the set designers couldn't because of budget restrictions. (after reading "Inside Star Trek" it's a miracle they were able to film ST at all let alone that it lasted 3 seasons. And much cudos goes to Matt Jefferies in set design on a shoe string budget

 

[uniderth]

What kind of "restoration?" The point of restoring a car is to get it running again so it can be used. And on top of that, if it isn't that, but an exact recreation of the original, then you're demanding that the remaster project be something that it wasn't designed to be. We already had the original restoration, the point of this one was to see how the show's effects could be improved.

There's an idea. If they made a faithful remastering of Star Trek and then had a bonus feature that let you watch with "all new special effects" I could get behind that. Have an official remaster that is simply in increase to HD(meaning a proper recreation of original effects, errors and all). Then also have a bonus "let's-have-fun-and-see-what-we-can-do" version. Yeah, I'd be fine with that.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I happen to like the remastered TOS. They added things to the background that the set designers couldn't because of budget restrictions. (after reading "Inside Star Trek" it's a miracle they were able to film ST at all let alone that it lasted 3 seasons. And much cudos goes to Matt Jefferies in set design on a shoe string budget

So let's show our gratitude for all their hard work and innovation by deleting it and replacing it with what we want. Because, let's face it, their efforts weren't good enough. <= Sarcasm.

I just don't see how you can reconcile your first two sentences with your parenthetical.

 

[Noname Given]

...The point is to keep the show looking like it looked originally, only with cleaner images. The effects shouldn't look any different than they did originally in terms of content, just cleaned up visually.

Actually, the point (for CBS/Paramount) was to make it so the show could be seen at 1080P resolution (and if possible appeal more to modern audiences.) Why? Paramount wanted to continue to be able to syndicate it where possible - and HD clean up of the live action was a better more cost effective process; and TOS had the least amount of special effects shots - so 'win win' as CBS/Paramount saw with regards to ROI. The bottom line was to make a profit. And from all reports they did quite well with that in regard to TOS. And part of that probably was interest from older fans who were curious as to what was done.

[As an aside they DIDN'T make a lot on the Blu-Ray remasters of TNG and there they did pretty much keep the exact same shot composition overall, where possible. That indeed may have contributed to the lesser sales (and I sure as hell are not a TNG fan - don't own anything from TNG on DVD or Blu-Ray.]

 

[Warped9]

I respected the efforts for TNG-R. While some changes were made it still preserved and enhanced much of what was already there. The biggest improvement for me was in terms of colour. For example the command red rarely looked right before and now it did. That said I own only Seasons 1-4 on Blu-Ray.

TNG-R also had the original composites to work with whereas TOS' no longer exist.

It must also be said that enhancing TNG wouldn't likely show all that much because there is much less disparity in overall aesthetics between TNG and today then there is between TOS and today.

 

[uniderth]

But I doubt an amazing bedazzled special effects version of TNG would have done much better. At this point people already have their box sets even if it is still on DVD. Buying yet another box set of the same show might not be cost effective for most people. And yes I'll admit that new special effects may have contributed to sales. But even an unchanged HD version with improved effects would have sold well I imagine. I think the difference in sales probably has to do with appeal of show rather than the effects. Star Trek is just in the public eye more right now than TNG.

 

[Irishman]

I am fucking sick and tired of hearing the adjectives "cheesy" and "campy" and such invoked when people start talking about TOS or things like the "slow motion picture" in regard to TMP. Maybe they think they're cute or smart or whatever, but their inherent disdain and lack of grasping context and perspective just screams out.

When they write like that then fuck them. I have no interest to read further.

And the phrase "most of the new effects are not even noticeable" is complete bullshit.

But I can see why RAMA thinks this is an "excellent" article.

You know, Karl Urban (nu McCoy) loves The Motion Picture best of all the Trek films (even the ones he's acted in).