It's not.
It's official: Thank God for Remastered!
- Thread starter darkwing_duck1
- Start date
My kid will be too old....But, but.......
...
Guards! Seize him!
"This type of thinking?" You mean like, uh, common sense?
Yep. When I look at 2001 on my 32" LCD I can't help but wonder what TOS' f/x could have looked like. Of course, I'm not referring to 2001's sense of design, but rather the quality of the f/x. Actually you don't have to look far because TMP wasn't that much more advanced in terms of resources, but they had the time and money. The late '70s with the advent of Star Wars, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, Superman: The Movie, Alien and TMP were the beginnings of the visually spectacular blockbuster of contemporary times.I bet the FX crew of Trek drooled at what they could have accomplished with the resources of Kubrick's 2001....
It's not.
nvm misread post, lol. ignore this post
To quote a famous Klingon, it would have be glorious.
What post?
I know that you can watch them with the original SFX on the Blu-rays. Since the first post pretty much stats that the original FX were "utter crap" and it was a good decision to redo them, I was under the impression that the thread was talking about the SFX being replaced on the remastered versions of the episodes and thats what I was commenting on. If I've misunderstood what the thread was about then I'm sorry.
Which is sad because they invented alot of the technics that became industry standards for making SFX before CGI took over.
You've just proved my point.Agreed. Well, except for Doomsday Machine... & Tomorrow Is Yesterday...& Ultimate Computer... & Enterprise Incident...
BUT,
and here's the 'but,'
High-def matte line distractions in the form of 60's limited opticals on a TV-shoestring budget DETRACT from the excellent stories!!!!!
NOW, I can feel Matt Decker's pain without having to suspend my disbelief at the AMT model burned with matches & painted very hastily in the Trek/Mission Impossible dumpster area of 60's era Paramount!
People are paying attention to the wrong parts of the show. The story is what is important not the SFX.How is it common sense to diddle with something that was fine in the first place? Just because you can't handle or appreciate the original SFX and the time and energy that went into making them doesn't mean you should go replacing them just because you can. It's kind of like altering the original Mona Lisa by giving her blonde hair, 36DDD's and an insane looking toothy smile because you thought she looked frumpy.
Okay, I just got season 1 Blu-Rays today and popped in Errand of Mercy.
Yeah, I gotta agree with Warped 9 that the stunningly sharp CGI transitioning to the orginal footage is a bit jarring.
It's definitely beautiful CGI! Maybe they should have run it through a softening routine or added more grain. The shots don't really look like they belong there. To me.
Yeah, I gotta agree with Warped 9 that the stunningly sharp CGI transitioning to the orginal footage is a bit jarring.
It's definitely beautiful CGI! Maybe they should have run it through a softening routine or added more grain. The shots don't really look like they belong there. To me.
ENNNHHHHHH, wrong answer Hans!You've just proved my point.
If you were watching Seinfeld & the top of Kramer's hair was disappearing because of a bad blue-screen process shot, you'd be distracted from the content of the funny.
Last edited:
Maybe you should have an archaic old 720p LED like I do. It's all good here!
[Bad Austrian accent] I am Hans and this is Franzs and we are here to pump (claps hands) you up! [/Bad Austrian accent]ENNNHHHHHH, wrong answer Hans!You've just proved my point.
If you were watching Seinfeld & the top of Kramer's hair was disappearing because of a bad blue-screen process hot, you'd be distracted from the content of the funny.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway.
Seinfeld?
Okey dokey, go read Shakespeare off a bunch of torn pages in a worn textbook & tell me that it doesn't distract you from the story.
Or watch an episode of Trek in black & white & tell me that it's just as good as in colour.
Huh.
I have watched Trek in black and white and had no problem with it. It was just as good. The story didn't change just because the color disappeared. I guess I'm one of those weird types who doesn't mind black and white and wonky SFX. I'm a Doctor Who fan aswell and my top four favorite episodes are The Edge of Destruction, The Chase, Tomb of the Cyberman, and The Mind Robber and guess what? (GASP!) They're black and white and have wonky SFX and I don't have a problem whatsoever with them. It's sad how people automatically dismiss great old movies and tv shows just because there in black and white or have what is by todays standards "crappy" SFX. You should be happy all the episodes exist in the first place instead of bitching about the cheesy looking 1960's SFX as some shows from the time period no longer exist.
Last edited:
You've just proved my point.
Then it doesn't matter if the FX are original, CGI, or a paper plate doubling as a spaceship. So which is it? Matter or not?
While the original versions still feel like the "real" versions (by "real" I mean the versions I'm used to) I prefer the remasters. Not so much for the quality of the FX, but for some of the little things that seemed to broaden or make the world of ST seem more alive.
A perfect example is in "Court Martial"....one of the exterior shots of Starbase 11 has the silohuette of a shuttle flying above the base. (so simple, I was surprised they never did that originally) Or in "Menagerie" the added base in the window behind Pike at the begining. Or adding stars to Pike's window in "The Cage".
Stuff like that I loved.
But at the same time, there's a lot I'd have done differently with Remastered. Certain classic angles I missed seeing, or shot composition that had no where near the awe of the original (I'm looking at you tiny Enterprise approaching the Fesarius shot...god they took the magic out of that one), or the way they couldn't figure out how to get the classic orbit shot without the secondary hull being just above the center point of our tv screens....god that just drove me nuts...too high!
Or how they didn't do jack with any of the few times we got maps, or solar system maps or computer screen shots....
I like the idea of certain shots, like expanded planetary backgrounds on far shots.....too bad those kinda worked, but then the close ups looked like we were on a cheap set. One day I hope they can place the actors in an environment that more matches those panoramic shots.
All in all, I prefer the new versions for just making that world seem more alive for me.
EXACTLY!!!!!Then it doesn't matter if the FX are original, CGI, or a paper plate doubling as a spaceship. So which is it? Matter or not?You've just proved my point.
Excuse me if I prefer a slightly sweeter frosting on my cake even if it doesn't change the cake itself!!! Since Captain Crow has no taste buds, he shouldn't care either way.
Until age 11 I watched Trek (and everything else) in black and white. Trek is better in colour. Yeah, the stories are the same, but it LOOKS nicer.
Does make up CHANGE a woman?
Do a few extra pounds of muscle CHANGE a man?
Why have flowers in front of your house- weeds are plants as well!
Similar threads
