remastered..THUMBS DOWN

[ACE]

I agree wholeheartedly with trevanian's view of the remastered material.

I simply do not understand why there was not more of a concerted effort on the part of the CBS Digital team to match the color, grain and density of the Eastman 5251 and 5254 stocks that both the production footage and effects elements were originally shot on. With the exception of the digital matte paintings, nearly all of the ship passes, planetary orbits and battle scenes look as though they are output from a modern videogame console. Extremely muddy, gray and lifeless elements abound in this feeble attempt to replace the original effects shots of the classic show.

Was there even an art director or DP involved with the remastering process? It sure doesn't look like it. Some of the color compositions selected for many of the shots wouldn't even get a passing grade in the most basic photography class, let alone a professional network production. The stuff just doesn't match in any way the quality or character of the original photography. Didn't anyone even notice or question this?

What I really do not understand is why they immediately decided to "replace" all of the existing shots with "modern" cgi instead of making an effort to track down and retrieve the original library of effects elements and recomp them with modern digital tools. That would have made the most sense, and would have maintained the integrity of the original program while also providing state-of-the-art, first-generation quality to the original effects.


ACE

 

[Gepard]

Because-and everyone say it with me--that would have taken a lot more time and cost a lot more money. CBS is nothing if not thrifty (cheap), even when it comes to a tentpole property.

 

[Vonstadt]

*shrugs* I must be of a very small minority. I grew up watching TOS as a kidin the 70's and I actually love BOTH the old (a major place in my heart) and the remastered.

They both seem fine to me, I enjoyed some ofthe new shots, Especially the shuttles and the new 'matte' shots of the starbases.

Sure they were CG and I actually prefer both the model work and the CG. I intend to have both sets and both work fine for me.

I've always been a major TOS'er and as such was also a major niner when the show came about. I think the CG kept the sprit and feel of the gritty battleship feel of the old show. (I loved seeing the Antares finally! )

I only wished they had somehow used models to augment the CGI but youcan't get everything you want.

I hardly believe the Remastered episodes did anything to tarnish Trek nor am I of the 'Mario Generation' hell when i was six (When i saw my first episode with my Mom "Balance of Terror" ) there wasn't even PONG :P

Just my two cents, it was a new way to enjoy an old classic, it paid a decent amount of respect to the old show (Which I still watch untouched every morning on TVLand as I get ready for work )

Vons

 

[number6]

*shrugs* I must be of a very small minority. I grew up watching TOS as a kidin the 70's and I actually love BOTH the old (a major place in my heart) and the remastered.

They both seem fine to me, I enjoyed some ofthe new shots, Especially the shuttles and the new 'matte' shots of the starbases.

Sure they were CG and I actually prefer both the model work and the CG. I intend to have both sets and both work fine for me.

I've always been a major TOS'er and as such was also a major niner when the show came about. I think the CG kept the sprit and feel of the gritty battleship feel of the old show. (I loved seeing the Antares finally! )

I only wished they had somehow used models to augment the CGI but youcan't get everything you want.

I hardly believe the Remastered episodes did anything to tarnish Trek nor am I of the 'Mario Generation' hell when i was six (When i saw my first episode with my Mom "Balance of Terror" ) there wasn't even PONG :P

Just my two cents, it was a new way to enjoy an old classic, it paid a decent amount of respect to the old show (Which I still watch untouched every morning on TVLand as I get ready for work )

Vons

QFT!!!

 

[trevanian]

qft = quite fucking true
qft = quit fucking talking

qft = ??? Q needs to be FULLTIME in the next bondflick?

 

[Outpost4]

Quoted For Truth

And, Vonstadt, you are not alone. I am a guy who started watching Star Trek in 1966 when I was 13 and I like both versions, too. Some episodes, I like the remastered versions better. Other episodes, I like the original shots better. Others, I like parts of both. Still other episodes, I really don't care.

No soapbox here, except against those on either side who let the presentation get in the way of their enjoying Star Trek. Been there/done that already (with music, not Trek) and have worked through my personal problems with that issue. By now I'm pretty good about letting the entertainment shine through even the shittiest presentation. It's not that I don't care about the presentation anymore. Far from it. I care deeply. It's just I care for the work even more.

 

[Vonstadt]

qft = quite fucking true
qft = quit fucking talking

qft = ??? Q needs to be FULLTIME in the next bondflick?

QFT = Quoted For Truth ace, even an old man like me knows this

That and following his posts

We are all fans of the old show, has ST really reached a point where the fans are bickering over which special effects make it Trek?

I mean come on the thing about Trek has never been about how the ships look....its the stories! (Yes even Spock's Brain! ...we would not have "Brain Brain what is Brain!?" without it)

The effects were just gravey....so it seems silly to me to have a flame war over which gravey is better.

You like only one...have only that one.

You like both...well you get to choose.

Not worthy of a fight between a group of folks that love a show that is as great a show as Star Trek.

 

[EEE]

... I do think the remasters are all a personal call that each fan must and will make for themselves. No convincing from either side will work.

I still stand by this statement from the first page.

 

[trevanian]

qft = quite fucking true
qft = quit fucking talking

qft = ??? Q needs to be FULLTIME in the next bondflick?

QFT = Quoted For Truth ace, even an old man like me knows this

That and following his posts

We are all fans of the old show, has ST really reached a point where the fans are bickering over which special effects make it Trek?

I mean come on the thing about Trek has never been about how the ships look....its the stories! (Yes even Spock's Brain! ...we would not have "Brain Brain what is Brain!?" without it)

The effects were just gravey....so it seems silly to me to have a flame war over which gravey is better.

You like only one...have only that one.

You like both...well you get to choose.

Not worthy of a fight between a group of folks that love a show that is as great a show as Star Trek.

Maybe as an experiment somebody will splice jupiter 2 shots from LIS into TOS to replace the Enterprise, and realize that the stories can still trump the visuals. I would not bet on it, however, any more than if they took the LIS astrogation unit and put it in engineering and called it a warp core.

The visuals are part and parcel with the story, not icing. Otherwise it'd be radio.

As for the net acronym stuff ... I spent four years learning German and have little retention of that, a real language. So why should I even try to get a handle on all this sillyass emoticon rubbish and such that seems more a matter of trivializing the english language than clarifying it?

 

[Vonstadt]

qft = quite fucking true
qft = quit fucking talking

qft = ??? Q needs to be FULLTIME in the next bondflick?

QFT = Quoted For Truth ace, even an old man like me knows this

That and following his posts

We are all fans of the old show, has ST really reached a point where the fans are bickering over which special effects make it Trek?

I mean come on the thing about Trek has never been about how the ships look....its the stories! (Yes even Spock's Brain! ...we would not have "Brain Brain what is Brain!?" without it)

The effects were just gravey....so it seems silly to me to have a flame war over which gravey is better.

You like only one...have only that one.

You like both...well you get to choose.

Not worthy of a fight between a group of folks that love a show that is as great a show as Star Trek.

Maybe as an experiment somebody will splice jupiter 2 shots from LIS into TOS to replace the Enterprise, and realize that the stories can still trump the visuals. I would not bet on it, however, any more than if they took the LIS astrogation unit and put it in engineering and called it a warp core.

The visuals are part and parcel with the story, not icing. Otherwise it'd be radio.

As for the net acronym stuff ... I spent four years learning German and have little retention of that, a real language. So why should I even try to get a handle on all this sillyass emoticon rubbish and such that seems more a matter of trivializing the english language than clarifying it?

Well its not like it took an effort to learn what QFT was for me, first time I saw it I googled it or someone asked someone and was told what it was so it just stayed with me.

Your reference to the Jupiter Two is plain silly to the extreme. That is not what I meant. Clearly if someone spliced in elements of LIS into Star Trek why i would join your argument. Well not if they spliced in Hong Kong Phooey, that would be just too cool. :P

That is not respecting the medium.

I respect the fact that you dont like the upgrades. Evensaid so later on in my post. Its like Gravey ..I happen to enjoy both.

You don't, its cool with me. Just watch the old shows with the old effects.

For me its just a wider spectrum of choices is all. I like both. So I can pick choose.

I feel the CG effects (sans Jupiter two or good old Hong Kong) reflected an effort to highlight and respect the graphics and models of old. *shrugs* I didnt see the effects as disrespectful nor degrading the story material.

Had they gone beyond that and done something as silly or as obvious as you suggest while I would be outraged.

But clearly they didnt do that and made an effort to be respectful and add to the genre of Star Trek.

So I will enjoy both.

You enjoy your one.

What is the issue here really? *boggles*

Vons

 

[trevanian]

I didn't consider the J2 notion extreme ... to be honest, I'd probably be less offended, because at least it would be an object that looked physical.

When you rescore LEGEND, dumping Goldsmith and replacing him with TANGERINE DREAM, you are significantly altering the experience of the film. Yet the visual is unchanged. In this instance, they ARE altering the visual, which is at least the 'meat' in meat&potatoes, even with a talk-happy show like TOS.

For me it is about respecting the work and the original artists (which is why the other thread I'm in right now in GENERAL is about the HarlanEllison treksuit.) If not for an obscure bit of legal verbiage in Welles' CITIZEN KANE contract, Turner would have released a colorized version more than two decades back. Your point is that affords the viewer options. My point is that the viewer is being afforded an option the artist did not want. And, to trot out my old screed against chooseyourownending, I don't think there should be a version of MOBY DICK where Ahab gets a bionic leg and beats Moby, all the while shouting in Shatneresque parody, "DICK!!!!"

 

[OneBuckFilms]

To my understanding, the original effects elements like do not exist, and may not be in the best of states.

They attempted the same cleanup process on the visual effects shots as a test, and they did not hold up well in high def.

In order to prepare Trek for the High-Def markets, it needed the new effects work.

As for the quality, most of it has actually been okay to my eye.

They had to produce, on a short time and budget, new visual effects for 80 hours of television.

Another thing that should be pointed out is that the unremastered versions are still available, so unlike Mr. Lucas' franchise, history is not being rewritten.

I heard that the new effects look far better in HD, and much of the subtle detail is lost in SD.

I agree wholeheartedly with trevanian's view of the remastered material.

I simply do not understand why there was not more of a concerted effort on the part of the CBS Digital team to match the color, grain and density of the Eastman 5251 and 5254 stocks that both the production footage and effects elements were originally shot on. With the exception of the digital matte paintings, nearly all of the ship passes, planetary orbits and battle scenes look as though they are output from a modern videogame console. Extremely muddy, gray and lifeless elements abound in this feeble attempt to replace the original effects shots of the classic show.

Was there even an art director or DP involved with the remastering process? It sure doesn't look like it. Some of the color compositions selected for many of the shots wouldn't even get a passing grade in the most basic photography class, let alone a professional network production. The stuff just doesn't match in any way the quality or character of the original photography. Didn't anyone even notice or question this?

What I really do not understand is why they immediately decided to "replace" all of the existing shots with "modern" cgi instead of making an effort to track down and retrieve the original library of effects elements and recomp them with modern digital tools. That would have made the most sense, and would have maintained the integrity of the original program while also providing state-of-the-art, first-generation quality to the original effects.


ACE

 

[Vonstadt]

And, to trot out my old screed against chooseyourownending, I don't think there should be a version of MOBY DICK where Ahab gets a bionic leg and beats Moby, all the while shouting in Shatneresque parody, "DICK!!!!"

Once again, though I respect your right to your opinion, this is again taking things to the extreme. The effects do not alter the story's direction one bit. They may alter the original artist's vision but I /believe/ they have honored the /intent/ of the artists from the day' vision.

Such tools back then could not have created some of the nicer visuals that we have seen. I do believe given the technology today back then we might've seen a nicer blend ofmodel work and CG art.

I have not seen one episode where the effects changed the outcome anywhere near your Moby Dick altering analogy. In giving the viewer such a viewing option the newly restored episodes are the same stories as they were before.

Trust me i've got all memorized (the classic ones) the spirit and the 'writing' are all still there.

Kirk doesnt get a bionic parrot and Spock doesnt have a M-60 machine gun to mow down the Sleestak of land of the Lost to get the tribbles off of the starship Enterprise.

Relax, Breath and simply enjoy the Old Style then, they are still there and are still aired on TV as composed, written, directed and visually created.'

All is well.

However it does seem that we are going around in circles in this discussion.

I like em , you don't

I get that

Vons

 

[A beaker full of death]

I agree wholeheartedly with trevanian's view of the remastered material.

I simply do not understand why there was not more of a concerted effort on the part of the CBS Digital team to match the color, grain and density of the Eastman 5251 and 5254 stocks that both the production footage and effects elements were originally shot on. With the exception of the digital matte paintings, nearly all of the ship passes, planetary orbits and battle scenes look as though they are output from a modern videogame console. Extremely muddy, gray and lifeless elements abound in this feeble attempt to replace the original effects shots of the classic show.

Was there even an art director or DP involved with the remastering process? It sure doesn't look like it. Some of the color compositions selected for many of the shots wouldn't even get a passing grade in the most basic photography class, let alone a professional network production. The stuff just doesn't match in any way the quality or character of the original photography. Didn't anyone even notice or question this?

Nope. Your post evinces greater knowledge of the elements of cinematography and post-production than anyone involved in current Trek possesses.

I watched most of Nemesis the other day, and have no idea what the bridge of the Enterprise. I don't think they used a single master shot.
These people simply don' know the basics of moviemaking.

 

[ancient]

I agree that some of the 'big scene' shots suffer from looking a little too much like a crappy shot composition cooked up by some guy with a mouse who has awesome CGI modelling skills but who isn't an actual film-maker. Also, space tends to look grey to me, rather than black, but that's probably a CGI contrast issue.

Also, the nacelle caps do not look that way!

However, I apreciate the effort, and many of the individual shots - especially establishing shots - are quite awesome.

Bottom line - it has problems, but I'm still glad they did it. It was fun.

 

[trevanian]

I watched most of Nemesis the other day, and have no idea what the bridge of the Enterprise. I don't think they used a single master shot.
These people simply don' know the basics of moviemaking.

That's more Baird than the regular trekfolk. The guy is highly regarded as a cutter, but migod, I can't think of anybody who has gone so glaringly 'zero for three' in his directing at bats. When NEM is the best you can do after three big-budget studio pics, it is time to quit pretending (which I guess is why he returned to editing.)

 

[Gepard]

Bottom line - it has problems, but I'm still glad they did it. It was fun.

Fun is a concept many Trekkies seem to have trouble with.

 

[ancient]

Bottom line - it has problems, but I'm still glad they did it. It was fun.

Fun is a concept many Trekkies seem to have trouble with.

Trek is serious business! Trek is not entertainment (washes hands) it is LE HIGH ARTE, and must only be served with fine french wine and overpriced biscuits.

The original effects have aged like fine wine, getting better and better each passing year, as our eyesight deteriorates. So I have no idea why they would want to make a new version of the effects that might appeal to people other than me.

Jeeze, they'll let anyone into our special group these days.

Kids these days. Always wanting to be entertained. Dumbasses. They're adding onto my lawn again. Well, it's not my lawn per se, but I like looking at it. So I call it my lawn.

Whoops, it's a full moon again. Sorry.

 

[Gepard]

Jeeze, they'll let anyone into our special group these days.

Kids these days. Always wanting to be entertained. Dumbasses. They're adding onto my lawn again. Well, it's not my lawn per se, but I like looking at it. So I call it my lawn.

Whoops, it's a full moon again. Sorry.

*adds ancient to his list of people he loves*

 

[3D Master]

So I will enjoy both.

You enjoy your one.

What is the issue here really? *boggles*

I can NOT enjoy that one. THAT is the issue. I have this nifty HD tv, a blu-ray player, and would now like to enjoy Star Trek in its full HD glory. Except that the only HD versions that exists, have these horribly bad CGI shots in there, instead of the non-CGI original versions that I enjoy.