Why should you be the only one?
TOS-R question...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Why should you be the only one?
Probably because it would cost lots of money and nobody would care. New Star Trek material is still being produced, particularly featuring the original characters, which means there is an audience for it.
People should enjoy things a certain way because you say so?
People enjoy what they like, how they like. Some people get enjoyment out of the enhanced effects? Great. That's what it was written for then, and what the creators would probably be thrilled that it's still doing now.
Way to misinterpret.
The only other way to interpret that is to suggest that the originals can't be viewed in their original form... which is wrong, because the BluRay discs have both.
[LouCostello]That's what I'm saaaayin'!!![/LouCostello]
I just like the pretty pictures!
i do have a tiny problem with this one though... (runs and hides)
In the scheme of things, what the Bussard collectors look like--and for Christ sake they looked different in EVERY episode of TOS, give it a rest--or a few minor details on the Enterprise in comparison to the better, cleaner imagery, the higher resolution, the greater realism, better lighting, lack of stuttering, lack of matte lines, et al, do not even come remotely close to an argument for the TOS FX being better than TOS-R in any way, shape or form.
You are still saying its a matter of taste, when in reality...by all measure in the advancement of FX the TOS-R is superior. No there won't ever be a consensus, but only because purists in any form are oblivious to evidence.
RAMA
I LOVVE this second shot, it looks 3D almost, like you could pass around it! Terrific work!
The first shot is a horrible matte...look how the back of the secondary hull and rear nacelle look like they were a 2D picture cut with an Xacto knife. Also very indistinct...one pass too many through a triple head printer methinks.
RAMA
number6
Vice Admiral
That much is certain.
I watched the original FX in HD and they look shitty. That takes me out of the story more than any quibble over what the nacelles look like. That said, the physical model does convey a sense of dimensionality that some of the CG stuff doesn't. They could have gone further, but didn't out of fear of alienating the purists who would reject this no matter what. I like that they did go ahead and redo the efx regardless. It gave me a new reason to watch the show again, and if new fans come aboard that would have thought the old effects looked cheesy and become fans of the show as a result of the new CG, who does it hurt really??
Your argument here is simply a dismissive one, lumping anyone who disagrees into a camp you're trying to discredit.
I can look at that picture above and, "Yes, it looks very nice and perfect." But the simple fact is even under the very best of conditions in the '60s it could never have looked like that. And THAT is the basis of my dissent, that the new f/x are so blatantly obvious and so blatantly jarring along the live action footage. I see here a show that no longer has any artistic or aesthetic integrity.
In very few instances of TOS-R have I seen something that actually did something for the better and maybe even looked like it belonged there.
You can argue and argue and argue and show example after example and for the most part every example you'll offer will simply reaffirm my point.
You see the original shot and angle could have been redone with a new cgi model and properly lit and corrected with blue phaser beams instead of the incorrect red ones and it would have maintained the integrity of what was originally done.
But it obvious you don't get that.
number6
Vice Admiral
That shot illustrated two things that were still important to the story.
1. They're in orbit around the planet
and
2. Apollo still has a hold on the ship.
There's not only no loss of integrity, but a fixed continuity error.
The original shot still looks crappy.
But it's obvious you don't get that.
1. They're in orbit around the planet
and
2. Apollo still has a hold on the ship.
There's not only no loss of integrity, but a fixed continuity error.
The original shot still looks crappy.
But it's obvious you don't get that.
I get plenty. And I get that you evidently don't give a damn for respecting original creativity nor do you display any artistic sense. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent with the original shot except the insistence to dismiss something you don't even understand.
number6
Vice Admiral
I can't be responsible for you drawing the wrong conclusion.
The team who did this approached the project with all due respect to the original creative team. Bob Justman himself praised this work done. Both versions are available for those who want to see the originals. They haven't been destroyed and in fact have been cleaned up as much as technology and time will allow.
You are dismissing it purely on principle, which is what you do, so I am not surprised at all that you not only need to disagree with me but also need to insult my intelligence by presuming to tell me what I know or don't know about "artistic sense."
All of which is unsurprising and yet entertaining in a train wreck going off a cliff sort of way. Keep 'em coming.
Well there we have an impasse...to me the CGI looks like objects, the originals look like toys, sometimes even like they are on strings (which I know they weren't). I can see shot after shot where the new CGI model is more brightly lit than reality or movies, but not the brightly lit, washed out look of the original. Too me the new shadowing looks real and makes the ship look more like an object, though yes, not to the extent of a movie ship or even ENT...and rightly so based on the stated objectives.
RAMA
They correct a continuity error..you'd think that would make them happy...but noooo...
number6
Vice Admiral
Some look great and some don't.. Growing up watching the show, it's easy to overlook the flaws of the original effects, mostly because there were few other shows that had space shots like that on TV and it fired the imagination...and the resolution of a 19" picture tube hides quite a bit!! There is no question that most of the remade shots look better.
No, I'm not dismissing it on principle, but because I don't agree with how they did it. And there was no initial continuity error because they shot the original sequence as viewing the ship from below and thus you wouldn't see the planet below in the same frame.
I might as well since you go out of your way to harp on me whenever you get the chance.
number6
Vice Admiral
Dismissing it because you disagree about how it was done is dismissing it on principle; that principle being that you disagree how it's done, which is your only MO when it comes to anything involving Star Trek as a whole.
I don't need to go out of my way to point that out. It is pretty obvious.
I don't need to go out of my way to point that out. It is pretty obvious.
You are hopeless. Absolutely hopeless.
Well I got what they were trying to do, I don't disagree with the effort and do enjoy many of the "improvements".
That said, there are still shots of TOS-R that I don't agree with, or where I simply prefer what was done originally and that certainly hold up well enough to visually tell the story of a 1960's TV show.
Of course the re-mastered effects are going to be technical improvements, they'd better be!!
Which means they get judged primarily on two things: how well do they tell the story and how well do they integrate into the rest of the episode. Expectations are raised specifically because the effects were made to "improve" upon what was done before. Many times, this was achieved. Other times, what was done originally was more than adequate.Labeling of some here as "purists" or objecting on "principal" seems a bit simplistic, especially considering that most here acknowledge that at least some of the CGI shots do improve the look of the show.
Mandate 1 of the new effects was to technically update the quality of the images (improve resolution for HD, fix problems like matte lines, and compositing errors). This was accomplished.
Mandate 2 seems to be to add variety and expand upon the limited number of stock shots of the Enterprise, the planets and other ships. This was largely successful as well. Planet-scapes were created "more believably", designs from TAS were incorporated, and we were treated to new and various shots of the Enterprise.
It is the third apparent goal of the "remastering" that starts to trip people up, and that's where stylistic choices of framing, compositing, and change just for the sake of change seem to creep in. This is where we arrive at unnecessary alteration to the look of the Tholian ships, or the wonky framing from Adnonais that Warped9 brought up. One and two from above are clearly satisfied: no matte lines, nice color, great detail, etc. So it all comes down to angle and taste. Doesn't mean any of us have blurry vision or are opposed to the idea of new effects on a vague principal, just that sometimes the new team "got it" and sometimes they didn't.
I'm not sitting here trying to convince anyone that one shot looks better than another, merely pointing out that there are some that tend to elevate the telling of the story and some that detract from it. And even then, I'm not trying to convince, so much as express an opinion. What I won't accept is that EVERY choice and EVERY shot that CBS Digital produced is BETTER, on every level, than what they were replacing. Others feel exactly that, and while I don't agree, I really don't care since I can pick and choose what I watch and what I like.
There are those who dismiss entire EPISODES, so forgive those of us who dismiss the occasional misstep by an understaffed, underfunded FX team who presented the audience with a CHOICE of how they view the visual effects of a 45 year old television show.
Similar threads
