ST-One
Vice Admiral
Last edited by a moderator:
Remastered Shots vs. Original Shots
- Thread starter FalTorPan
- Start date
Thanks for totally stretching the page, ST-One. 
As has been said for centuries, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. And especially that second one is a pig of a shot.
But you know, I really hope this next go around, when the episodes are released on Blu-ray, CBS Digital cleans up that shot the best they can and puts it out on the discs, along with the remastered version. It will end this silly debate and everyone can get back to enjoying Star Trek.
As has been said for centuries, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. And especially that second one is a pig of a shot.
But you know, I really hope this next go around, when the episodes are released on Blu-ray, CBS Digital cleans up that shot the best they can and puts it out on the discs, along with the remastered version. It will end this silly debate and everyone can get back to enjoying Star Trek.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Thanks for totally stretching the page, ST-One.
As has been said for centuries, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. And especially that second one is a pig of a shot.
The second one actually looks like somebody's BAD idea of a cleaned up image to me, just by blurring and softening the image.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Even ignoring our eternal debate over the visual effects, the fact that you think the sound mix is an improvement is enough to make me realize we will NEVER be on the same page. That's almost like looking at scenes from 2001 and 2010 and noticing how much better the sound mix is on the latter (I am choking as I type the words.)
It may be a small thing, but one production shortcut that always bothered me was in BREAD AND CIRCUSES. When the crew are beamed out of the prison cell there are three soldiers firing sub machine guns at them with a wall behind them. None of the rounds hit the Enterprise crew yet not a single bullet hole in the wall.
The remastered has corrected this and finally, bullet holes !
The remastered has corrected this and finally, bullet holes !
CBS, or whoever owns the rights, will satisfy the then-current, most-profitable, highest demand. If there's enough call for "the originals", they'll provide them. If not enough people still live who remember the difference they'll fall by the wayside, played in little movie houses by people who kept copies on 16 mm film and an antique projector. (We had a guy here in Sydney who had the whole set on film, and showed them on the big screen at monthly marathons, but he died about five years ago and his reels were auctioned off.)
Eventually when we have three-dimensional holodecks you'll probably be able to request your interactive TOS w/blurry 60s FX or optional CGI revamps.
^ For it to be right with my childhood memories, it has to be shown on a 25" Zenith TV with questionable color and a lot of fuzz. That ain't happening.
And I have to be going through puberty so I get totally hot and bothered by Eve in Mudd's Women. That puberty part definitely ain't happening again, either.
And I have to be going through puberty so I get totally hot and bothered by Eve in Mudd's Women. That puberty part definitely ain't happening again, either.
Last edited:
b/w here till 1975.
Being a poor Indiana cracker, it was more into the mid-1980s before I saw them in color.
I remember actually being a little put off at first, being so used to seeing them in black-and-white.
Joe, in HD now
Tamper is too tame a word. Rape. "They rape my childhood memories" is the battle cry of posters on boards across the internet.
I disagree because I think it's a matter of perception. Yes, the original shots were stylistic, but they were meant to represent something somewhat realistic. But of course the original f/x have aged in comparison with advancing f/x techniques and so now to many they look fake. For me the main distinction is the fact that models were more brightly lighted to compensate for the poorer resolution of '60s era television sets. On today's high-definition TVs it doesn't look right particularly for many younger audiences having never grown up with the original standards of viewing.
But to deliberately make it look fake rather than going for something of a stylized realism that would look more consistent alongside the remaining live-action footage is very misguided in my view. To that end I feel many of the new f/x don't look right alongside the live-action footage. It looks like two wholly different productions spliced together--which, in effect, it is.
You mean those black-and-white shows like I Love Lucy and The Andy Griffith Show? Yeah, people today hate those.
You mean those black-and-white shows like I Love Lucy and The Andy Griffith Show? Yeah, people today hate those.
Those have survived in some markets, yes, but not watched by near as many people as they used to be.
Therin, the market they have survived in is the whole United States of America. There are cities where The Andy Griffith Show, run by an independent station, will outpoll the local news.
I agree with your basic premise that TOS-R was created to make Star Trek appealing to a new generation, and God knows the US can be provincial, but those two shows are just classics and are still well watched.
I agree with your basic premise that TOS-R was created to make Star Trek appealing to a new generation, and God knows the US can be provincial, but those two shows are just classics and are still well watched.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
And color vs b&w doesn't seem to be the issue as much as it used to be (maybe MTV did some good with the occasional BW clip?) ...there are lots of programs in color that up and disappeared from syndication (ROOM 222, MANNIX - the latter is only now just hitting DVD) or never made it there at all, like HE&SHE.
Sure, but they are also essentially situation comedies, not SPFX-laden science fiction shows. They are aimed at different demographics.
I think there's also there matter of content and execution. I, like many others, enjoy watching classic films (many of them b&w), all the while accepting the differences in overall style from how films are done today. The main component for me is subject matter and general calibre of execution--how well has it stood up and still manages to speak to later generations.
For older viewers as well as perceptive younger ones value and enjoyment can be found in a great deal of older work. It also gives one another perspective when assessing newer works.
There are many younger viewers who are quite surprised to find they enjoy older works once they experience them. They're often surprised to discover that something "good" actually existed before their own contemporary frame of experience. They can learn to appreciate the roots of the materiel they enjoy today.
The original '33 King Kong has very primitive f/x, but they work in context of the original production. By today's standards they're laughable, but a perceptive and appreciative viewer can still accept it for what it's meant to represent--all the while not laughing at its primitiveness. And no one would dare suggest replacing or "enhancing" the original f/x because the entire work is a testament to the enormous creativity which brought the film to fruition. The overall value of the '33 King Kong is not diminished one bit by its primitive f/x.
In like manner TOS' f/x are outdated by today's standards, but they still fit perfectly in context with everything else in the series such that they don't need to be "enhanced" for the the series to be appreciated. The enhancement is an interesting conceptual exercise, but overall I think it does a disservice to the creativity of the original producers.
For older viewers as well as perceptive younger ones value and enjoyment can be found in a great deal of older work. It also gives one another perspective when assessing newer works.
There are many younger viewers who are quite surprised to find they enjoy older works once they experience them. They're often surprised to discover that something "good" actually existed before their own contemporary frame of experience. They can learn to appreciate the roots of the materiel they enjoy today.
The original '33 King Kong has very primitive f/x, but they work in context of the original production. By today's standards they're laughable, but a perceptive and appreciative viewer can still accept it for what it's meant to represent--all the while not laughing at its primitiveness. And no one would dare suggest replacing or "enhancing" the original f/x because the entire work is a testament to the enormous creativity which brought the film to fruition. The overall value of the '33 King Kong is not diminished one bit by its primitive f/x.
In like manner TOS' f/x are outdated by today's standards, but they still fit perfectly in context with everything else in the series such that they don't need to be "enhanced" for the the series to be appreciated. The enhancement is an interesting conceptual exercise, but overall I think it does a disservice to the creativity of the original producers.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
^^ There may be more than one reason, or a combination of reasons.
To possibly argue that they needed to be updated to prepare the audience for the next film or to reintroduce the show to younger viewers in preparation for the next film is a non-starter in my view. In like manner to argue that the f/x needed to be updated for HDTV is also a non-starter. And both reasons are countered by what I said in my previous post--the original f/x fit in context with the rest of the series as a whole. Younger viewers may not like it, but that's just too bad, and that's also why remakes are undertaken.
I've watched TOS on a LCD HD TV and while I can easily see the f/x are not up to today's standards I still find them acceptable within the context of everything else.
I would also add that enhancing the original f/x for HD while not addressing other "sins" within the remaining live-action footage is doing not even half the job. Indeed, watching TOS in HD often illuminates production flaws that were never meant to be seen because they were hidden by the lower resolution of '60s-'70s era televisions. I find those revealed production flaws more injurious than the space f/x to the overall viewing experience.
But fixing those live-action blemishes (on top of redoing the space f/x) would have entailed enormous effort and cost--such likely impossible to justify.
Even if the original producers had had access to today's resources they still would have possessed a '60s era perspective and sense of aesthetics. And thus even with the best of resources a TOS with better f/x wouldn't look like TOS-R does today. The best effort by '60s standards would look like something between Forbidden Planet and 2001. And the final f/x results would look much more consistent aesthetically with the remaining live-action footage. And it would still look good in HD. Have you seen FP or 2001 on a nice big screen TV? Decades before cgi, it's rather impressive.
For me a more significant step was taken when the original episodes were digitally remastered years ago to regain the original sharpness and richness of colour and detail. I think that showed off the series much better than replacing the vfx.
To possibly argue that they needed to be updated to prepare the audience for the next film or to reintroduce the show to younger viewers in preparation for the next film is a non-starter in my view. In like manner to argue that the f/x needed to be updated for HDTV is also a non-starter. And both reasons are countered by what I said in my previous post--the original f/x fit in context with the rest of the series as a whole. Younger viewers may not like it, but that's just too bad, and that's also why remakes are undertaken.
I've watched TOS on a LCD HD TV and while I can easily see the f/x are not up to today's standards I still find them acceptable within the context of everything else.
I would also add that enhancing the original f/x for HD while not addressing other "sins" within the remaining live-action footage is doing not even half the job. Indeed, watching TOS in HD often illuminates production flaws that were never meant to be seen because they were hidden by the lower resolution of '60s-'70s era televisions. I find those revealed production flaws more injurious than the space f/x to the overall viewing experience.
But fixing those live-action blemishes (on top of redoing the space f/x) would have entailed enormous effort and cost--such likely impossible to justify.
Even if the original producers had had access to today's resources they still would have possessed a '60s era perspective and sense of aesthetics. And thus even with the best of resources a TOS with better f/x wouldn't look like TOS-R does today. The best effort by '60s standards would look like something between Forbidden Planet and 2001. And the final f/x results would look much more consistent aesthetically with the remaining live-action footage. And it would still look good in HD. Have you seen FP or 2001 on a nice big screen TV? Decades before cgi, it's rather impressive.
For me a more significant step was taken when the original episodes were digitally remastered years ago to regain the original sharpness and richness of colour and detail. I think that showed off the series much better than replacing the vfx.
Last edited:
Similar threads
