Star Trek TNG Remastered?

[SoM]

Personally I'd be against them replacing the ILM model in TNG with a CG Enterprise D because ILM's model is just so perfect. But there are some effects in the first two seasons that can be fixed with CG.

Like Q's net in Encounter at Farpoint?

The model is great, but you could never appreciate it fully on television. Generations was a revelation in that respect.

It's Probert's design that I love, not the model itself (and not the four footer either).

I agree. I hate the four-foot miniature. The six-footer is much better. Having said that, I'm sure that a far superior rendering of Probert's design could be made -- whether a CGI model or a physical model.

I never actually noticed just HOW big the difference was until I saw the side-by-side at the DrexFiles.

 

[RAMA]

I can't imagine any activity with DS9 until B5 makes an announcement on the matter.

ummmm....millions more are aksing "what is B5?"

Rob

Babylon 5. Basically DS9 didn't become a serial until King B saw that Babylon 5 was actually more popular. Then he hatched the Dominion War to complement B5's Shadow War and changed the format of the show to compete.

But B5 fans shouldn't hold their breath for a remastered version of that show. As wikipedia explains:

Mastering problems
The transfer of Babylon 5 from fullscreen to widescreen (originally for the Sci-Fi Channel; later released on DVD) created significant problems with regard to special-effects/CGI footage. Several factors complicated the process.[104]

• Although originally broadcast in the standard television aspect ratio of 4:3, all live-action footage was filmed on Super 35 mm film (with a ratio of 1.65:1). The idea was that, once widescreen televisions (with an aspect ratio of 16:9 or 1.78:1) became more popular, the episodes could be easily converted into a widescreen format.

• CGI shots were rendered in the 4:3 ratio, but designed so that the top and bottom of each shot could be removed to create a widescreen image without ruining the image composition.

• All of the purely live-action shots were stored as high-definition digital images.

• However, CGI shots, and shots combining live-action with CGI, were stored in the much lower-definition NTSC digital format. (Again, the expectation was that it would be relatively cheap in the future to recreate the CGI in widescreen.)

• Over the years, the original computer-generated models, etc., have been lost, making it necessary to use the old 4:3 CGI shots.

This has resulted in several consistent flaws throughout the Babylon 5 widescreen release. In particular, quality drops significantly whenever a scene cuts from purely live-action to a shot combining live-action and CGI. This is particularly noticeable on the PAL DVDs, since CGI shots had to be converted from NTSC, as well as being blown up to fit a widescreen television. In addition, while the live-action film was originally widescreen, shots were composed for 4:3, resulting in a conspicuous tendency for actors to clump up in the middle of the screen.

JMS himself admits that B5 is dead, and Warner will never fork out the cash to re-do all of the effects in the series due to how many effects it used (the five seasons of the show used more than all seven seasons of any Trek series).

Sorry Babylon 5 was never more popular than DS9. It never came remotely near to even its worst ratings.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

I like how the CGI model keeps the detail of the smaller model (the reason they built it) but keeps the lines of the 6 footer:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=83092&page=4

I would definitely be excited for any new FX on that level or even better.

 

[Similitude]

Wow @ Anyone claiming B5 was more popular than DS9.

 

[trevanian]

Perhaps the poster is trying to say more popular among SF enthusiasts, which would be evidenced by how B5 cleaned up at the Hugos most years.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

on the startrek.com boards there is a thread on the same TNG series topic:

Star Trek remastered
http://boards.startrek.com/community/messages.html?;act=ST;f=6;t=33332251

 

[trevanian]

on the startrek.com boards there is a thread on the same TNG series topic:

Star Trek remastered
http://boards.startrek.com/community/messages.html?;act=ST;f=6;t=33332251

That TREKBUFF guy over there really knows his shit. Any way we can get him to play on this field, or do you think he got chased away from here already by a posse of eyeball eating gushers?

 

[Similitude]

Wow, I haven't posted there in forever, can't believe they have the same format after all those years.

 

[Bertie]

Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now.

And if you don't agree, well, its not like your existing 480-interlaced disks are going anywhere. For the rest (as the Modernists liked to say) "Make it New".

 

[RobertScorpio]

Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now.

And if you don't agree, well, its not like your existing 480-interlaced disks are going anywhere. For the rest (as the Modernists liked to say) "Make it New".

Yep..I totally agree. I am from that time, I grew up in the late 60s and 70s. I have a bose sound-system in my car, and it plays both CDS and flashdrives. Anyone who thinks the sound of vinly records, and those old stereo systems, can compare to a Bose, or other modern systems, is just having a coke-induced memory..I know..I've had them!

Rob

 

[trevanian]

Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now.

It ain't nostalgia, but it IS your loss if you can't tell the dif.

Me, I can't tell with audio, but I sure as shit can tell with visuals. New tech ain't necessarily better tech ... it is often just easier, cheaper or faster to make and market.

Oh, and you left out, 'physical is better than virtual' ... that's another bit you can rail against, and I'll quite happily enjoy handcrafted models and sex with organic women over whatever it is that is coughed up as the trendy replacement of the week.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now.

Vinyl is better than digital. It has nothing to do with nostalgia.

 

[Doug Otte]

Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now.

Vinyl is better than digital. It has nothing to do with nostalgia.

Indeed. It's just that most people can't hear (or see, in the case of video) the difference. I had a discussion w/ another soccer parent recently about vinyl vs. CD, and she was agog when I said that vinyl sounds better than CD. She literally just stood there with her mouth open - couldn't possibly understand the idea.

Doug

 

[ManaByte]

Wow @ Anyone claiming B5 was more popular than DS9.

Actually, it was. Was also more respected in SciFi circles, which is one reason why Harlan Ellison was a consultant on every episode.

B5's popularity is the sole reason you got the Dominion War in DS9. Berman wanted to turn DS9 into a serial with a big war to copy B5's five-year Shadow War story arc.

 

[trevanian]

Wow @ Anyone claiming B5 was more popular than DS9.

Actually, it was. Was also more respected in SciFi circles, which is one reason why Harlan Ellison was a consultant on every episode.

B5's popularity is the sole reason you got the Dominion War in DS9. Berman wanted to turn DS9 into a serial with a big war to copy B5's five-year Shadow War story arc.

Gotta disagree there. I think Berman was opposed to every aspect of serialization outside of cliffhangers. I think the retake the station part of ds9 was supposed to run for a helluva lot longer than the half dozen shows it does, but the creatives couldn't get approval to go further.

 

[ManaByte]

They didn't even start the serial nature of the show until the fourth season or so, which is long after B5 was starting to put a hurt on DS9.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Wow @ Anyone claiming B5 was more popular than DS9.

Actually, it was. Was also more respected in SciFi circles, which is one reason why Harlan Ellison was a consultant on every episode.

B5's popularity is the sole reason you got the Dominion War in DS9. Berman wanted to turn DS9 into a serial with a big war to copy B5's five-year Shadow War story arc.

Dude, I'm going to commit sacrilege and admit that I much prefer Babylon 5 to DS9 (collective gasp!), but B5 was never during any season more popular than DS9. It wasn't even close. DS9 was right up there in the ratings in the top five syndicated series or just below for most of its run. B5 never cracked the top ten any time that I paid attention to its rating. And trust me, I did pay attantion. It doesn't mean it wasn't a great show, but the numbers didn't even come close to DS9. Ever.

Of course, B5 had to make it on its own without the built-in audience a Star Trek name being attached to it would get.

EDIT:

Just did a quick google for B5 ratings, and found this listing of top action shows, posted January 1997:

Show HH A18-34 A18-49 A25-54
Star Trek: DS9 6.5 4.2 4.9 5.1
Hercules 6.2 3.8 4.0 4.1
Xena 6.1 3.7 3.8 3.9
Baywatch 4.5 2.3 2.3 2.4
Outer Limits 3.9 2.3 2.6 2.7
Babylon 5 3.7 2.4 2.8 2.8
Highlander 3.1 2.0 2.2 2.3
Sinbad 3.1 1.7 1.8 1.7
F/X: The Series 3.0 1.4 1.7 1.8
Baywatch Nights 2.8 1.5 1.5 1.6

Here are the SF ratings for the 1996/1997 TV season:

OVERALL 96-97 SEASON (9/16 to 5/21)
Prime-Time
Rank Net/Viewers/LastYr
1 (highest listing) 30.8 million viewers
12 The X-Files FOX/18.3 /15.5
74 Pretender NBC/10.9 /
76 Profiler NBC/10.8 /
85 Millenium FOX/10.3 /
94 Lois & Clark ABC/ 9.7 /17.0
110 Sliders FOX/ 8.5 / 8.7
112 Dark Skies NBC/ 8.4 /
125 Voyager UPN/ 6.2 / 7.3
144 Buffy,Vampire Slayer WB/ 3.7 /
148 The Burning Zone UPN/ 3.2 /
155 (lowest listing) 2.4


Syndicated (Gross Average Audience & Women/Men 25-54)
Rank Net/Rating/LastYr /Women/%Change /Men/%Change
-- Xena MCA/ 6.5 /5.5 / 4.0 / +18% /4.0/ +14%
-- Hercules MCA/ 6.1 /6.2 / 3.8 / 0% /3.8/ - 5%
-- Deep Space Nine Par/ 5.9 /6.7 / 4.1 / - 7% /4.8/ -11%
-- Outer Limits MGM/ 3.5 /4.2 / 2.5 / -14% /2.5/ + 9%
-- Babylon 5 PTN/ 3.2 /3.0 / 2.2 / +16% /2.7/ + 8%
-- Highlander Rys/ 3.0 /3.3 / 2.1 / - 5% /2.1/ - 5%
-- Psi Factor Eye/
-- Viper Par/
-- F/X: The Series Rys/
-- Sinbad Eye/

EDIT2: Checked two random 1996 episodes' rankings. One came in 22nd place for the week, the other 25th place for the week. DS9 was regularly in the top ten. I'd further compare the ranking to DS9's ranking for the same week, but my eyes are tired and I'm going to bed now. Suffice it to say, DS9's ratings were always better than B5's.

 

[Gary Sebben]

Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now.

And if you don't agree, well, its not like your existing 480-interlaced disks are going anywhere. For the rest (as the Modernists liked to say) "Make it New".

I think this is a bad analogy. A CD is not trying to synthesis sound from scratch that sounds like real sound. A model has weight. The light hits it just right. Its a real object. A CG model is and it render engine is trying to simulate that real thing. Yes, the CG is more flexible, but it is also a less than accurate representation of the model.

 

[Cyrus]

In terms of overall TV viewers B5 was never more popular than DS9, it wasn't even close (DS9 ratings were around double that of B5). DS9 was always in the top 3 among 1 hour syndicated shows (including 3 seasons as #1) while B5 more or less dropped out of the rating charts after the first few episodes of its second season. And serialization of a syndicated series is not helpful in that regard as it turns off casual viewers, and both shows had their best ratings in their earlier seasons. As for popularity among hard core sci-fi viewers, I guess that's up for debate. B5 was clearly more popular among Hugo voters.

Berman was very much against serialization of DS9. He wanted them to end the Dominion war after a few episodes, the writers had to battle with him to keep it going.

The debate about Vinyl vs CD or CGi vs models is interesting. But I don't care if they use models or CGI, as long as they create an HD version of the TNG I'll be happy.

 

[Dac]

Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now.

And if you don't agree, well, its not like your existing 480-interlaced disks are going anywhere. For the rest (as the Modernists liked to say) "Make it New".

I think this is a bad analogy. A CD is not trying to synthesis sound from scratch that sounds like real sound. A model has weight. The light hits it just right. Its a real object. A CG model is and it render engine is trying to simulate that real thing. Yes, the CG is more flexible, but it is also a less than accurate representation of the model.

But the whole point of CG is being able to do things which are impossible with a model, or would take so much time and money with one that they are unpractical.

While I LOVE Physical models, and am not opposed their use in any way shape or form, they are overall harder to do than CGI and more time consuming. I can knock together a good enough spaceship mesh in a day or two and be animating it by the weekend. I highly doubt a model animator could say the same thing and achieve the same results.