Then there's no point of a remastering, and they should have just left things alone.
Then TOS could never be viewed in HD, and one day that standard will be what our eye demands. Without HD, TOS will fall out of syndication packages and will go the way of all those b/w shows of the 50s.
The point of remastering the SPFX was so that the live-action footage, when screened in HD - and how amazing does that look - would not have to be interspersed with such obvious 60s FX.
That's complete bull. The SFX were filmed in 35mm just like the rest of the episodes. The SFX would have looked just as good as the rest of the eps in HD. The only thing you might get, is lines that held the ship or something, that weren't visible in SD, might become visible now. And I stress "might". The thing is, the idiots looked at the SFX, and didn't see cartoony 2D crap with bad lighting of the past 30 years, considered it too bad for HD, and went to produce the cartoony 2D crap.
What is the most obvious fake looking stuff in TOS? The live action planetscapes (which look just as bad or worse in early TNG ... try HIDE & Q for unwatchable awfulness.) If any kid who is jaded about modern fx can watch fake exteriors on TOS without eyes rolling up in his head, then a few matte lines shouldn't bother them.
I would argue that virtually
all space shots in
Star Trek -- TOS, "TOS-R," TNG, ENT, whatever -- look fake, and deliberately so due to stylistic choices. Unfortunately many people consider 200x fake styles to be more realistic than 196x fake styles.
Then they're all morons who can't watch at something long enough to notice.
The difference between 1960s Star Trek SFX, (as well as the first few movies SFX), is that they spent they're time created the illusion of a three dimensional solid object with mass; despite looking at a 2D screen. They did this with lighting and changing/moving camera angles. The result was, that SFX looked more 3D and often more real than even simply people walking in front of a camera.
From Star Wars onward (minus the first few Star Trek movies), space shots were produced completely different. Gone was any attempt to makes things look like actual 3D objects, everything became over-lit, "cool", bright ships flying about as if they were nothing.
What this difference in approach produced, can be seen today quite easily. Look at a simple film, then put in 3D video game, or 3D CGI movie. You'll see, in a 3D video game/movie, monsters, cars, humans, and such, are all produced in such a matter to produce the effect of a three dimensional object, and a three dimensional space, despite that you're looking at 2D screen. These video games and CGI movies, often give a far greater illusion of looking like a three-dimensional world than even live action filmed actors, and especially any SFX.
Once you realize this, and noticed that 1960s SFX actually went to create this 3D illusion, and see it on screen, looking at the 2D, brightly lit "cool" stuff that came with Star Wars will never look good again. And you see this especially with Star Trek Special Edition, when you actually know the old effects.
Yeah, I own the DVDs, watched the extras that including 'Making ofs' that show us how and by who it was done. But you know, when the creators make a 'making of', and put it in the extras on their DVDs, they lied through their teeth every step of the way.
