It's official: Thank God for Remastered!

[F. King Daniel]

The original TOS effects aren't rubbish. They're charming and add loads to the atmosphere of watching a late 1960's sci-fi TV show. Seeing the show cut to a cartoony, swooshy CG just seems wrong to me. Like watching half a show.

I think if they'd gone ape shit with the CG and made pointless changes everywhere (why not add CG aliens wandering about in the background of every scene? Arex! M'Ress! Naraht the Horta from the novels! Redesign the Enterprise! Redesign the D-7 cruiser! CG bumpy heads on the Klingons! Insane modern-style space battles!) it would have been interesting, and worthy of the amount of angst it's caused online.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

the real value is in the HD quality

Andrea is twice as lovely...
Just sayin'.

That alone is reason enough to go out and buy the Blu-Ray set and a brand spankin' new Blu-Ray player!

 

[I-Am-Zim]

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!

I agree. But the problem is that they left a bunch of those matte lines in the remastered edition. I was just watching "Mirror, Mirror" and you can clearly see the edge of the characters' boots on the transporter pad behind the transporter effect. In other scenes you can still see the black matte lines around the actors. If they were going to update the outer space scenes, they should have done the rest as well. The medical specs that Spock was reading in WNMHGB really should have been updated. As should the Romulan Neutral Zone map in "Balance of Terror". If they were going to do it, why not go all the way? I enjoy the new CGI, however mediocre it may be. But it was done half-a$$ed in my opinion.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

The original TOS effects aren't rubbish. They're charming and add loads to the atmosphere of watching a late 1960's sci-fi TV show. Seeing the show cut to a cartoony, swooshy CG just seems wrong to me. Like watching half a show.

I think if they'd gone ape shit with the CG and made pointless changes everywhere (why not add CG aliens wandering about in the background of every scene? Arex! M'Ress! Naraht the Horta from the novels! Redesign the Enterprise! Redesign the D-7 cruiser! CG bumpy heads on the Klingons! Insane modern-style space battles!) it would have been interesting, and worthy of the amount of angst it's caused online.

KingDaniel, I now we don't often agree, but on this I am right with ya! For the most part anyway. I like TOS-R and I have all three seasons on DVD. But I also like the original just as much. And I believe they did the new CGI stuff half-a$$ed. The differences between the CGI shots and the original footage is rather jarring. But I still like it. However, I really wish they had gone all the way with it and corrected everything. Except for redesigning the Enterprise. Update it, yes. Redesign it? Absolutely NOT!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I agree. But the problem is that they left a bunch of those matte lines in the remastered edition. I was just watching "Mirror, Mirror" and you can clearly see the edge of the characters' boots on the transporter pad behind the transporter effect. In other scenes you can still see the black matte lines around the actors. If they were going to update the outer space scenes, they should have done the rest as well. The medical specs that Spock was reading in WNMHGB really should have been updated. As should the Romulan Neutral Zone map in "Balance of Terror". If they were going to do it, why not go all the way? I enjoy the new CGI, however mediocre it may be. But it was done half-a$$ed in my opinion.

It's a matter of budget in terms of how much they could do on a given episode - fixing the space effects was first priority.

The transporter effect is a particularly tricky and potentially expensive one to do because it integrates so closely with the actors on the stage - to really do it right would often require having the original photographic elements to rematte. Spaceship exteriors on TOS, by constrast, are generally cutaways with no live action elements. Many, but not all, planetary mattes isolated the actors in an area clearly separated from the set extension.

An alternative would be to hide the mattes by adding a lot of new lighting/sparkle elements over the original effect, creating something like the matte-free fade-out/burn-in effect used in most of the Trek movies - but that would change the overall look of the thing so much that probably a lot of people would have been offended.

 

[Chrisisall]

I was just watching "Mirror, Mirror" and you can clearly see the edge of the characters' boots on the transporter pad behind the transporter effect. In other scenes you can still see the black matte lines around the actors.

What you see as imperfections in this particular effect, I see as just the way a transporter beam LOOKS. Indeed, I like the OS transporter FX better than in any other series or the movies.
Given more time & money, they could have delivered episodes with UNBELIEVABLY excellent & groundbreaking effects, but then it REALLY WOULD have been too jarring, even for ME!!!!
They were restrained, as they were when compiling new FX for the Donner Cut of Superman II. A fun tweak here & there (like the rock hitting the hull of Constellation, or a tracking shot 'round the Enterprise), but nothing ridiculous, like The Guardian Of Forever being on top of a mountain of mixed ruins from all corners of the galaxy, with blinding lights exploding out into space or some such.

 

[Chrisisall]

And anyone who thinks the original FX look like crap probably thinks the effects in ANY filmed sci-fi before Star Wars look like crap.

Certain original Trek effects were (and ARE) masterful. L. B. Abbott's miniature work for Twentieth Century Fox shows & movies was impeccable. 2001 was and is phenomenal. The matte paintings in Logan's Run are to die for.
I could go on.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Two words: "Forbidden Planet"

 

[plynch]

Or watch an episode of Trek in black & white & tell me that it's just as good as in colour.

It's just as good as in colour.

Less colorful, true.

Looks ≠ "good"-ness.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The effects on TOS do not compare favorably with the effects in a number of pre-Star Wars - or even pre-Star Trek - movies, notably the aforementioned Forbidden Planet.

The "criticism of TOS effects is based on ignorance of their context or disrespect for classic sci-fi in general" dog does not hunt.

 

[Chrisisall]

The effects on TOS do not compare favorably with the effects in a number of pre-Star Wars - or even pre-Star Trek - movies, notably the aforementioned Forbidden Planet.

The "criticism of TOS effects is based on ignorance of their context or disrespect for classic sci-fi in general" dog does not hunt.

Thank you.

 

[Mr_Homn]

The effects on TOS do not compare favorably with the effects in a number of pre-Star Wars - or even pre-Star Trek - movies, notably the aforementioned Forbidden Planet.

The "criticism of TOS effects is based on ignorance of their context or disrespect for classic sci-fi in general" dog does not hunt.

Definitely True.

I love old FX, as long as it doesn't look so damaged and worn that it obviously isn't how it was intended to be seen. Which isn't true for all of the TOS original FX. Only some. A lot of it looks okay still. But a lot of it is just damaged and worn out. The HD just makes it look worse.

But I still enjoy both. I don't get the people who hate one or the other.

 

[Chrisisall]

I love old FX, as long as it doesn't look so damaged and worn that it obviously isn't how it was intended to be seen. Which isn't true for all of the TOS original FX. Only some. A lot of it looks okay still.

What we have here is HD-quality live action with cinema-wannabe-FX designed to be eye-popping at 420p on the CRT's of the day (on a budget), and they WERE!
Hence, the perceived need (which I agree with) to make the FX work with the new HD displays & players.

But I still enjoy both. I don't get the people who hate one or the other.

Me either.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But I still enjoy both. I don't get the people who hate one or the other.

As I'm forever saying, I own TOS on DVD and have no interest right now in buying the Remastered version; the effects I've been watching for four decades are sufficient.

I do like watching the new versions, though, as I like watching the various fan and one-off versions of episodes done by Professor Moriarity or Daren Dochterman.

 

[Chrisisall]

I own TOS on DVD and have no interest right now in buying the Remastered version; the effects I've been watching for four decades are sufficient.

In strict terms of narrative, TOS holds up in any venue. It's REALLY all good. Really.

 

[Kirk1980]

While I still tend to think of the classic effects as the "real" version, TOSR is a lot of fun. I particularly love the places where they were able to replace reused mattes, planets or stock shots with something more distinctive and complementary to the episode.

Once more, I find myself in complete agreement with you.

 

[ST-One]

As for the TOS Enterprise. Can anyone name another fictional spacecraft that's so important that it's in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC?

And in the gift-shop no less.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

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.

Absolutely, wholeheartedly agree!
As for the TOS Enterprise. Can anyone name another fictional spacecraft that's so important that it's in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC?

I so agree! Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Forbin]

Watched "City..." on the Blu-ray last night. Wasn't much for the CGI guys to do but the ship in the opening, and a couple of planet shots.

But I have to comment on Nimoy's makeup. I guess the remastering process spikes the colors a bit. In a couple of early scenes Spock actually looked GREEN, and I could clearly see the makeup line around his neck. I guess this falls under the heading of "things they didn't think would show on 60s TV that hi-def doesn't do any favors for."

 

[ST-One]

Watched "City..." on the Blu-ray last night. Wasn't much for the CGI guys to do but the ship in the opening, and a couple of planet shots.

But I have to comment on Nimoy's makeup. I guess the remastering process spikes the colors a bit. In a couple of early scenes Spock actually looked GREEN, and I could clearly see the makeup line around his neck. I guess this falls under the heading of "things they didn't think would show on 60s TV that hi-def doesn't do any favors for."

He's a Vulcan. He's supposed to look slightly green.