It's official: Thank God for Remastered!

[Forbin]

I wonder how much they paid Jefferies to like the new effects.

 

[RAMA]

I wonder how much they paid Jefferies to like the new effects.

..and THIS about explains it all...

 

[RAMA]

I keep checking into this thread tho I tell myself not to. It's like a train wreck -- I can't not look.

Me too! I look between my fingers.

Let me see if I get the recent logic:

axiom:Some or even many people don't notice the changes, thus the changes are "good."

There's something even more wrong with the post you paraphrased. If it was presented as justification for the new effects, then it failed. If casual viewers couldn't tell the difference, then why do it?

That was probably not the intent of the post, though.

Doug

C'mon...there's a reason why they hire jurors who haven't heard of cases before...

RAMA

The more time passes, the more the Shakespeare texts (and generally all old texts) will turn into a "foreign" language, simply because language naturally evolves over time into something new and different. So eventually, at one point, there will be the need for a translation. So yes, it's "good".

Ho boy, I SO disagree with you, but that's fine! You be you! But -- I would still quibble that "good" is too generic a word. It would be "good" in some sense, I'll give ya that. Getting people acquainted with the plots maybe? But Shakespeare IS his words.

Older viewers will always bring preconceptions into it, while a newer viewer can actually judge the improvements more objectively.
RAMA

I would argue that we ALL have on blinders and bring preconditions. I THINK I like the old because it is artistically true-er. Perhaps, though, it is subconsciously just what I like cuz I grew up with that version. I'll certainly concede that I come to the table with preconditions, some I'm conscious of, some not.

However, the "objective" new viewers are not blank slates or robots. They might be predisposed to preferring technologically snazzier things, or preferring effects that remind them of a major medium the've been immersed in: videogames. I think it's wrong to assume that one class of people is automatically less biased, thus free-er in some sense, than another.

There's something even more wrong with the post you paraphrased. If it was presented as justification for the new effects, then it failed. If casual viewers couldn't tell the difference, then why do it?

That was probably not the intent of the post, though.
Doug

No; I assume the poster was comparing his viewers' experience to what he/she thinks they WOULD have gotten with the old effects, i.e. they WOULD have noticed the old, less snazzy effects. So NOT noticing the new was a good thing compared to the alternative. At least that's how I interpreted it.

The first quote WASN'T mine. Though I generally agree with it...I would also say there are a lot of "language Nazis" out there who say language usage is going to pot, but I think most real experts realize language is always evolving, and its not really just what you find in the dictionary and text books.

OK true, newer viewers have their own preconceptions, whether they are totally new or vaguely familiar with Trek..however if you posit the idea that the new FX are dramatically different, and shoehorned into the episode, I think those who have seen LESS Trek are a more objective viewpoint..they are not directly comparing the show scene for scene.

 

[BillJ]

I wonder how much they paid Jefferies to like the new effects.

So the only way Bob Justman could possibly like the new effects is if they paid him?

Pretty sad how low someone will go to try and win an internet argument...

 

[RAMA]

I wonder how much they paid Jefferies to like the new effects.

So the only way Bob Justman could possibly like the new effects is if they paid him?

Pretty sad how low someone will go to try and win an internet argument...

EXACTLY! If it doesn't fit into the narrow view of the world, change the world to fit!

RAMA

 

[Ronald Held]

The TMP refit grew on me, but did not replace the TOS Enterprise. Ryan Church's just seems like a cludge.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Thanks to those bowed nacelle support pylons, it looks like a cludge with rickets. I don't despise the design but it is an improvement upon nothing save maybe the D and the E.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The TMP refit grew on me, but did not replace the TOS Enterprise. Ryan Church's just seems like a cludge.

Although nice designs, the TOS and TMP Enterprises both had very fail necks and nacelle pylons, to the point they would have been serious design flaws. Why every enemy ship didn't snap them in two with one well-placed shot I'll never know.

I like the 2009 Enterprise. It's got this weird, alien, suped-up look about it - like if the TOS ship were put on steroids and moved into a gym from a very young age. It's neck and pylons don't look frail. It's a bit ugly and lumpy from some angles, but I think it adds to it's alien vibe, which gives me the impression it features tech from several Federation planets, not just Earth.

 

[scotpens]

Although nice designs, the TOS and TMP Enterprises both had very fail necks and nacelle pylons, to the point they would have been serious design flaws. Why every enemy ship didn't snap them in two with one well-placed shot I'll never know.

The TOS Enterprise was designed for its esthetics, period. Real-world structural engineering considerations weren't an issue -- the ship only had to look believable to TV audiences. The original Enterprise was meant to suggest a majestic clipper ship under full sail, and that it certainly does with its slender, mast-like pylons and coved fantail. I mean, it's just so damn PRETTY.

I like the 2009 Enterprise. It's got this weird, alien, suped-up look about it - like if the TOS ship were put on steroids and moved into a gym from a very young age. It's neck and pylons don't look frail. It's a bit ugly and lumpy from some angles, but I think it adds to it's alien vibe, which gives me the impression it features tech from several Federation planets, not just Earth.

IMO, the Abramsprise looks ugly and lumpy from EVERY angle. Its lines and proportions are just totally wrong. It's a pastiche of a mongrel of a hodgepodge.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Although nice designs, the TOS and TMP Enterprises both had very fail necks and nacelle pylons, to the point they would have been serious design flaws. Why every enemy ship didn't snap them in two with one well-placed shot I'll never know.

The TOS Enterprise was designed for its esthetics, period. Real-world structural engineering considerations weren't an issue -- the ship only had to look believable to TV audiences. The original Enterprise was meant to suggest a majestic clipper ship under full sail, and that it certainly does with its slender, mast-like pylons and coved fantail. I mean, it's just so damn PRETTY.

I like the 2009 Enterprise. It's got this weird, alien, suped-up look about it - like if the TOS ship were put on steroids and moved into a gym from a very young age. It's neck and pylons don't look frail. It's a bit ugly and lumpy from some angles, but I think it adds to it's alien vibe, which gives me the impression it features tech from several Federation planets, not just Earth.

IMO, the Abramsprise looks ugly and lumpy from EVERY angle. Its lines and proportions are just totally wrong. It's a pastiche of a mongrel of a hodgepodge.

I could not agree more!!!

 

[F. King Daniel]

Yet this "mongrel of a hodgepodge" will be the Enterprise a whole generation grows up with. Spin on that, people

 

[BK613]

The TMP refit grew on me, but did not replace the TOS Enterprise. Ryan Church's just seems like a cludge.

Although nice designs, the TOS and TMP Enterprises both had very fail necks and nacelle pylons, to the point they would have been serious design flaws.

LOL ever time I hear someone say something like this, I ask myself, 'What would a shipwright of 1710 make of fiberglass hulls and aluminum masts?' Probably call those a design flaw as well.

Why every enemy ship didn't snap them in two with one well-placed shot I'll never know.

TOS defenses were never based on hull strength but on the use of energy fields. Those times we did see the E fire on unshielded ships, the effects were devastating. Heck, it only took two shots to kill everyone aboard the Excalibur! So thickness of the neck and struts would be irrelevant.

-----------------------------

BTW, I can't believe you guys are still here, arguing over this. It's moot. They did TOS-SE and it's done and done. Watch or don't watch.

Me, I'll put up with the CGI to enjoy the restored and enhanced live action. Because contrary to what some think, there is a spectrum of attitudes towards TOS-SE and not just a up/down, yes/no distribution.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Ah yes, energy fields. Definitely not technical jargon made up after the point to explain away structural weaknesses

To the viewing public, those who don't own the technical manuals and whatnot, those connecting dorsals and nacelle struts look awfully frail.

And what if the special fields should fail, like everything on the ship has a habit of doing in a time of crisis (except the gravity, of course)?

 

[Chrisisall]

It's a pastiche of a mongrel of a hodgepodge.

That's SO funny!!!

 

[Warped9]

Although nice designs, the TOS and TMP Enterprises both had very fail necks and nacelle pylons, to the point they would have been serious design flaws. Why every enemy ship didn't snap them in two with one well-placed shot I'll never know.

The TOS Enterprise was designed for its esthetics, period. Real-world structural engineering considerations weren't an issue -- the ship only had to look believable to TV audiences. The original Enterprise was meant to suggest a majestic clipper ship under full sail, and that it certainly does with its slender, mast-like pylons and coved fantail. I mean, it's just so damn PRETTY.

I like the 2009 Enterprise. It's got this weird, alien, suped-up look about it - like if the TOS ship were put on steroids and moved into a gym from a very young age. It's neck and pylons don't look frail. It's a bit ugly and lumpy from some angles, but I think it adds to it's alien vibe, which gives me the impression it features tech from several Federation planets, not just Earth.

IMO, the Abramsprise looks ugly and lumpy from EVERY angle. Its lines and proportions are just totally wrong. It's a pastiche of a mongrel of a hodgepodge.

I could not agree more!!!

Seconded.

Yet this "mongrel of a hodgepodge" will be the Enterprise a whole generation grows up with. Spin on that, people

Maybe. I wouldn't bet the farm on the current design or the current interpretation of the franchise having the staying power you may be assuming.

 

[Chrisisall]

*crosses fingers that it's redesigned a bit closer to TOS-E for the next movie*

 

[Forbin]

I wonder how much they paid Jefferies to like the new effects.

..and THIS about explains it all...

 

[plynch]

Ah yes, energy fields. Definitely not technical jargon made up after the point to explain away structural weaknesses

To the viewing public, those who don't own the technical manuals and whatnot, those connecting dorsals and nacelle struts look awfully frail.

And what if the special fields should fail, like everything on the ship has a habit of doing in a time of crisis (except the gravity, of course)?

Structural weaknesses in zero-g in a warp bubble? Probably moot. And if shields fail, ya die. Without shields, thicker nacelles aren't stopping a photon torpedo.

CHANGE OF SUBJECT . . .
I have been arguing against absolute/general statements like the new (or old) effects are "better" or "crap."

But that's no fun. So allow me to make one. Then I'll return to my '90s-kind-of-guy civility for the rest of my tenure here.

Here goes. This statement is true. It is not opinion. TOS/TMP Ent looks better than Abrams-Ent. It is better. It is beautiful. It is graceful and not on steroids like everything in the 2000s. It is better.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Yet this "mongrel of a hodgepodge" will be the Enterprise a whole generation grows up with. Spin on that, people

I honestly doubt that. There's a big difference between a cool, exciting, funny space movie and a TV series which inspired a generation to go into specific fields of endeavor, and give oppressed racial groups hope for the future. "Influence a generation" vs "Cool Movie." If TOS had been just another cruddy sci-fi show, The Enterprise would be as iconic as The Spindrift. The fact that TOS was what it was made the ship and whatever else involved in the show legendary. To the general audience, 2009's Star Trek was just a profitable remake of a classic TV show. They don't consider it a "timeline altered sequel" but "a new version" of Star Trek. They aren't saying, "I can’t WAIT for the next one!" They're saying "Iron Man 2 was phat." "Shrek 3 rulez!"

 

[Brutal Strudel]

If TOS had been just another cruddy sci-fi show, The Enterprise would be as iconic as The Spindrift.

As much as I hate to show ignorance, I had to Google search Spindrift and I gotta say: holy fuck, is that a cool looking little ship!

The rest of your post is spot-on, as usual.