TOS-Remastered: a waste of time

[Hambone]

I guess the thing that bothers me the most about this thread is not the varying opinions (to which everyone is entitled); it's the proclamation that the remastered episodes are a "waste of time".

A waste of whose time? The viewer's? Or the people who did the work?

I seriously doubt that Mike Okuda and company felt that they were "wasting their time" when they put forth so much effort into this project.

I know Mr. Okuda reads these forums and posts from time to time. I'd just like to say thank you, Mr. Okuda and your colleagues, for your time and effort. I have loved watching the new CGI effects and truly appreciate the labor of love that went into creating them.

 

[number6]

I guess the time that bothers me the most about this thread is not the varying opinions (to which everyone is entitled); it's the proclamation that the remastered episodes are a "waste of time".

A waste of whose time? The viewer's? Or the people who did the work?

I seriously doubt that Mike Okuda and company felt that they were "wasting their time" when they put forth so much effort into this project.

I know Mr. Okuda reads these forums and posts from time to time. I'd just like to say thank you, Mr. Okuda and your colleagues, for your time and effort. I have loved watching the new CGI effects and truly appreciate the labor of love that went into creating them.

QFFT!

A few disgruntled purists don't speak for all of fandom.

 

[RAMA]

As I've opined in other threads of this type, the remastering is unnecessary, but so is TOS... or almost anything, for that matter.

I've enjoyed what little I've experienced of TOS-R, and I enjoy and prefer the original versions of the episodes. Both are fun, and neither version looks at all realistic. Each version is a different flavor of "stylized reality," and that's okay.

One simple look at the comparison on the same disk proves this is wrong.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

Thank you to the makers of TOS-R. Ignore the comments of the "armchair special effects experts" who are posting here

As an amateur filmmaker who worked in 16mm and super8, I have done hundreds of effects shots, all in-camera, some quite successful.

As a professional writer covering the fields of visual effects and cinematography for 19 years (including 4 of the TREK movies), I think I have a faint idea of what I'm talking about.

If you choose to disagree, fine, but don't try to undercut the opinion of others by lowballing their tastes/talents when you don't know their creds.

Don't give a shit if you're Gene Roddenberry. No one's aking you watch Remastered Trek. And the BR disks have both.

Go play with your stone knives.

 

[Captain Robert April]

What, no bear skins?

 

[number6]

What, no bear skins?

Replaced by Snuggies!!

 

[trevanian]

Thank you to the makers of TOS-R. Ignore the comments of the "armchair special effects experts" who are posting here

As an amateur filmmaker who worked in 16mm and super8, I have done hundreds of effects shots, all in-camera, some quite successful.

As a professional writer covering the fields of visual effects and cinematography for 19 years (including 4 of the TREK movies), I think I have a faint idea of what I'm talking about.

If you choose to disagree, fine, but don't try to undercut the opinion of others by lowballing their tastes/talents when you don't know their creds.

Don't give a shit if you're Gene Roddenberry. No one's aking you watch Remastered Trek. And the BR disks have both.

Go play with your stone knives.

Is that trekkiespeak for 'go fuck yourself' or am I just reading into this?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Well, that post did have a point: the Blu-Ray version does have both cuts - and in HD, to boot. So both camps have what they want. Nobody really has a reason to complain.

 

[Captain Robert April]

It's kinda like those who complain about the voice clips on the DST tricorders.

If they bother you that much, don't play them. You can still activate the standard sounds, and never even come near those annoying voice clips.

If the CGI effects bother you that much, don't watch 'em. The originals are on there, too.

 

[WHF]

Re: TOS-Remastered: Fantastic, CGI: a waste of time

Every original series DVD, including the very first single disc releases, are remastered.

Paramount released TOS non remastered in 2004 on 3 DVD box set that you can still buy, and i have them, they are not remastered versions, the cage on disc 7 is still a mix of coulor/black white just like the old cic videos.

I have these sets as well and they are remastered. If you look on the back of the cardboard packaging that it came in it says "..Beautifully [highlight]remastered[/highlight] in pristine condition..."

Every original series DVD, including the very first single disc releases, are remastered.

Yes, a little something that's continually being missed.

The big difference in this case is that they've been remastered in high definition, and they've had new CGI effects added, WHICH IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER!

You'd think this group would be a little more technically savvy...

You are quite right, of course, that they have now been remastered in HD but the CGI is optional so one can still watch high definition remastered episodes without CGI. Maybe a better thread title would have been: CGI in TOS: a waste of time.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Re: TOS-Remastered: Fantastic, CGI: a waste of time

Every original series DVD, including the very first single disc releases, are remastered.

Paramount released TOS non remastered in 2004 on 3 DVD box set that you can still buy, and i have them, they are not remastered versions, the cage on disc 7 is still a mix of coulor/black white just like the old cic videos.

I have these sets as well and they are remastered. If you look on the back of the cardboard packaging that it came in it says "..Beautifully [highlight]remastered[/highlight] in pristine condition....

Your confusing terminology, Star trek Enhanced which we have now with the added CGI and in HD is whats being called remastered today and was only started in 2006, Remastered back in 2004 simply meant the episodes had been cleaned up somewhat in sound and picture by going back to the master tapes and adding 5.1 surround sound, those box sets have no added CGI in any of the episodes, if you do have these boxset then you have the original series without the added CGI effects, there is no way you can have those box set with the added CGI effects because enhanced Trek did not come onto being until 2006, two years after those box sets were released....Do you even have those box sets, if you did you would actually know this buy watching the shows on it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I guess the thing that bothers me the most about this thread is not the varying opinions (to which everyone is entitled); it's the proclamation that the remastered episodes are a "waste of time".

A waste of whose time? The viewer's? Or the people who did the work?

I seriously doubt that Mike Okuda and company felt that they were "wasting their time" when they put forth so much effort into this project.

I know Mr. Okuda reads these forums and posts from time to time. I'd just like to say thank you, Mr. Okuda and your colleagues, for your time and effort. I have loved watching the new CGI effects and truly appreciate the labor of love that went into creating them.

I'm sure Mike can cope with the fact I think the redone effects are sub-par.

That's not to say I don't get the effort put into things like this - I just think the whole direction it took was wrong, and I can't see the way it was done attracting any new fans (which some say was the point). Thus, IMO, a waste.

As you say, each to their own.

 

[FalTorPan]

As I've opined in other threads of this type, the remastering is unnecessary, but so is TOS... or almost anything, for that matter.

I've enjoyed what little I've experienced of TOS-R, and I enjoy and prefer the original versions of the episodes. Both are fun, and neither version looks at all realistic. Each version is a different flavor of "stylized reality," and that's okay.

One simple look at the comparison on the same disk proves this is wrong.

If you believe that glowing beams of light in space look realistic, or ships lit with strong ambient light while in interstellar space look realistic, then I stand corrected.

 

[TeutonicNights]

I just think the whole direction it took was wrong

And which direction would that be if I may ask?

 

[F. King Daniel]

I just think the whole direction it took was wrong

And which direction would that be if I may ask?

I said in the OP.

 

[TeutonicNights]

Well Balance was pretty unique in how they tried to keep the look of the old FX -even though the space battle plot could have allowed for much more- being the first TOSR episode to air and everything.
They didn't do that in TDM or Journey to Babel and many others. In most cases where they "didn't go far enough", it was pretty obviously lack of time and money more than anything. They sure would have loved to make an enhanced Vulcan soundstage for Amok Time for example.

If you're complaining about not enough courage to replace one of the connies in one friggin episode (where there was a good reason to use only connies), you should applaud them for giving us a BOP in "Enterprise incident", for sacrificing live-action material for inserting FX of Vulcan into "Amok Time", for enhancing the Eminiar 7 matte with a hovertrain etc. Those moments are more numerous than the real letdowns.
You may have wanted prolonged FX sequences, but I can understand why they didn't do that. The smooth hull on the other hand is an artistic choice and there is nothing wrong with that, really.

So if anything they were a bit shy right at the beginning with "Balance", and that one was a wasted opportunity.
But they definitely chose to get a lot more daring later on (and then a bit sloppy towards the end).

Choosing Balance of Terror as first episode was a mistake in my opinion. The Menagerie, as aired, would have been a better choice and would have pleased (most) "purists" and "progressives" alike, which the TOSR version of Balance couldn't.

 

[WHF]

Re: TOS-Remastered: Fantastic, CGI: a waste of time

Paramount released TOS non remastered in 2004 on 3 DVD box set that you can still buy, and i have them, they are not remastered versions, the cage on disc 7 is still a mix of coulor/black white just like the old cic videos.

I have these sets as well and they are remastered. If you look on the back of the cardboard packaging that it came in it says "..Beautifully [highlight]remastered[/highlight] in pristine condition....

Your confusing terminology, Star trek Enhanced which we have now with the added CGI and in HD is whats being called remastered today and was only started in 2006, Remastered back in 2004 simply meant the episodes had been cleaned up somewhat in sound and picture by going back to the master tapes and adding 5.1 surround sound, those box sets have no added CGI in any of the episodes, if you do have these boxset then you have the original series without the added CGI effects, there is no way you can have those box set with the added CGI effects because enhanced Trek did not come onto being until 2006, two years after those box sets were released....Do you even have those box sets, if you did you would actually know this buy watching the shows on it.

I never said that these sets had CGI, I said that they were remastered. That statement is correct. Now I admit that I made this statement with tongue in cheek because I was making a point about people using the term remastered incorrectly. I know Star Trek fans mean "old SFX replaced with CGI" when they say "remastered".

If I tell you that I have Casablanca on blu-ray and that it's remastered will you think that it has CGI in it (or that I don't own it because it doesn't have CGI)? I think this is the problem with the incorrect use of this term. Remastered means the same thing today as it did five years ago. The only time this term is used incorrectly is in relation to Star Trek.

 

[trevanian]

Re: TOS-Remastered: Fantastic, CGI: a waste of time

Remastered means the same thing today as it did five years ago. The only time this term is used incorrectly is in relation to Star Trek.

Truer words were only rarely spoken. Maybe they can put this in front of any new thread that gets onto the subject. For me, I just take the -r in TOS-r to mean retarded.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Re: TOS-Remastered: Fantastic, CGI: a waste of time

I have these sets as well and they are remastered. If you look on the back of the cardboard packaging that it came in it says "..Beautifully [highlight]remastered[/highlight] in pristine condition....

Your confusing terminology, Star trek Enhanced which we have now with the added CGI and in HD is whats being called remastered today and was only started in 2006, Remastered back in 2004 simply meant the episodes had been cleaned up somewhat in sound and picture by going back to the master tapes and adding 5.1 surround sound, those box sets have no added CGI in any of the episodes, if you do have these boxset then you have the original series without the added CGI effects, there is no way you can have those box set with the added CGI effects because enhanced Trek did not come onto being until 2006, two years after those box sets were released....Do you even have those box sets, if you did you would actually know this buy watching the shows on it.

I never said that these sets had CGI, I said that they were remastered. That statement is correct. Now I admit that I made this statement with tongue in cheek because I was making a point about people using the term remastered incorrectly. I know Star Trek fans mean "old SFX replaced with CGI" when they say "remastered".

If I tell you that I have Casablanca on blu-ray and that it's remastered will you think that it has CGI in it (or that I don't own it because it doesn't have CGI)? I think this is the problem with the incorrect use of this term. Remastered means the same thing today as it did five years ago. The only time this term is used incorrectly is in relation to Star Trek.

So while the OP and everybody else here were obviously discussing the new CGI Remastered Star trek you were personally discussing terminology in the most unclear fashion i have ever seen......well there you go.....although on the plus side you sort of inadvertently confirmed the latter part of the title of this thread which i find ironically funny.

 

[WHF]

Re: TOS-Remastered: Fantastic, CGI: a waste of time

Remastered means the same thing today as it did five years ago. The only time this term is used incorrectly is in relation to Star Trek.

Truer words were only rarely spoken. Maybe they can put this in front of any new thread that gets onto the subject. For me, I just take the -r in TOS-r to mean retarded.

I don't have strong feelings about the CGI replacing the original effects, I will watch either one and I will enjoy both versions. I'm quite happy that the blu-ray sets allow us to watch both.

I prefer to think that the -r should stand for revised. Maybe we should refer to it as TOS-cgi.