FX/editing wishlist/technical/related discussion for STNG-R

[Dac]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Before we can even start salivating or FX editing, we need to find out if the materials are even there to pull off the project.

You kind of have to hope for a miracle to suppose that appropriate care was taken in storing and tracking these materials and that the materials are all in good enough shape to make the project possible.

I think this is a major concern. If you are going to the trouble of remastering the series, it is important to maintain a consistent look and quality.

I know its not fact, but considering the amount of time/consideration that will have gone into this project IF it gets a green light (which the latest rumors say seems likely) it would be safe to say they knew they could produce it to a quality standard.

At least, I bloody well hope so.

 

[Harvey]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Restoring Blade Runner was very difficult because film degraded, audio tracks were missing, pieces of film were missing, reels were mislabeled etc. This was a serious and expensive project to restore about 2 hours of film.

First of all, restoring the theatrical version of Blade Runner wasn't what made the project so difficult. Restoring the original director's cut meant finding various elements that had been cut from a variety of sources. Second of all, the film has been the subject of ownership disputes -- this hasn't happened with the TNG negatives. Lastly, considering everything that J. Michael Straczynski has made public about Warner Bros. treatment of the Babylon 5 negatives (i.e. that rats ate part of The Gathering), I'm not surprised another Warner Bros. production was also poorly stored.

If Paramount wants to restore deleted scenes, they might run into similar problems. But if they're not doing that, I don't anticipate much of a problem.

 

[YARN]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

First of all, restoring the theatrical version of Blade Runner wasn't what made the project so difficult. Restoring the original director's cut meant finding various elements that had been cut from a variety of sources.

There was no "original" director's cut to restore. There was a rough workprint which was shown in Dallas and Denver; that's it. The Director's Cut idea only came about 10 years later when the workprint resurfaced.

Second of all, the film has been the subject of ownership disputes -- this hasn't happened with the TNG negatives.

I didn't say that TNG had this specific problem. The problems I mentioned that the Blade Runner Final Cut project encountered, surfaced AFTER the necessary rights had been acquired and all parties signed off.

Lastly, considering everything that J. Michael Straczynski has made public about Warner Bros. treatment of the Babylon 5 negatives (i.e. that rats ate part of The Gathering), I'm not surprised another Warner Bros. production was also poorly stored.

But you do have to hope that the elements that were used to make SEVEN SEASONS of television are still intact. With BR you only needed the elements to restore the equivalent of 2 episodes of TNG.

I've already argued upthread that they had no particular motivation to carefully track, arrange, and preserve the original film stock. Again, from their POV the video edited version WAS the finished product.

Just how do you think this process is going to go down? What elements do you think they are going to use?

 

[Harvey]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Sure there was an original director's cut for Blade Runner. This doesn't mean that it existed in 1992 or 2007 (it didn't, since the studio vetoed that version and had it re-edited for the original theatrical release), but the general shape of both the 1992 "Director's Cut" and the 2007 "Final Cut" come from the way Scott originally had the film edited. The Unicorn Dream was not something that was thought up in the early 90s (despite rumor to the contrary, its not re-purposed footage from Legend).

As I noted up the thread, after scanning the printed negatives for editing on video, Paramount put the film in storage. You are operating under the assumption that this was done carelessly, without any particular effort to preserve the film or organize it. I find this incredibly unlikely. Nobody at the studio has indicated anything like this was the case.

Moreover, I'm reminded that the original negatives must have been found and re-scanned in 1994 when a number of shots were re-used for Star Trek: Generations. I assume the same can be said for the stock shots which were used for "These Are the Voyages...", which was broadcast in HD in 2005.

 

[ClayHefner]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

I'd like them to go all out. It made sense for TOS-R to keep it conservative most of the time and not add crazy ship maneuvers and stuff, but I'd like to think this is different.
Imagine what "Redemption, a good episode with mostly lousy FX (even some clumsy STIV reuses) could become?

The BoP's shattered to pieces by the solar eruption... the first battle redone...the Federation fleet!

I'm not too fond of the idea to replace every single Excelsior and certainly not the Oberth (I liked when Jadzia and Julian arrived on DS9 with an Oberth science vessel).
On occason I'd like to see some background Akira or an Excelsior replaced by a steamrunner, but hopefully not some new ships. There's no need for that, and in the big fleet battles of DS9 there were lots and lots of Excelsiors and Mirandas anyway, so it does make sense there's a lot of them around.

I also think season 2 will benefit a lot from new FX. They tried to have a lot of them, but they were mostly terrible.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Isn't the film in 16:9, and they cropped it for the original release? Which means you'd add to the picture and not take away from it. I'd be fine with that.

The way they reframed TOS to 16:9 was okay, too.

I think it's shot 16:9, but as someone pointed out, the directors were thinking 4:3. There could be microphones hanging in the edges, or whoknows what. Or the extra stuff in the borders might not make for as good a composition as the tidier 4:3.
Then there's things like matte paintings that might have been square. (which I hope can be used again)

The detail in HD may be staggering (woe to the black cards masking the rear bridge monitors during S1 and S2 in HD )

Yeah, or makeup, and let's not even get started on the cameltoes.

I'd like them to go all out. It made sense for TOS-R to keep it conservative most of the time and not add crazy ship maneuvers and stuff, but I'd like to think this is different.
Imagine what "Redemption, a good episode with mostly lousy FX (even some clumsy STIV reuses) could become?

Yes I tend to agree, go all-out, and let the canon violations begin.
I too don't much care to see new ship designs when there are several TNG era ones to choose from already. No need to clutter up the already crowded fields of Galaxy, Akira, Steamrunner, as well as old Ambassador, Excelsior, Reliant, and whatever I'm forgetting. It might be cool to show a Defiant prototype somewhere in a shipyard background without calling attention to it.

 

[YARN]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Sure there was an original director's cut for Blade Runner.

The prudent thing to do when you make a mistake in dialogue is simply to admit the error and move on. Now that you've dug your heels in, you're married to this claim.

There was NO "original" director's cut of Blade Runner.

The work print is NOT the director's cut. Ridley Scott is on record saying that the workprint is not the director's cut and should not be referred to as such.

After the workprint ran into difficulties in its showings in Denver and Dallas, Scott also felt the need to make changes to the film. At that time, Scott also supported the idea of adding a voice-over to make things clearer to the audience.

This doesn't mean that it existed in 1992 or 2007

No, Director's Cuts of the film did indeed exist in both 1992 and 2007. The Director's Cut came out in 1992 (which was a way to cash in on the buzz of the workprint) and the Final Cut of 2007 is Scott's publicly declared preferred version of the film (if that isn't the Director's Cut, nothing is).

(it didn't, since the studio vetoed that version and had it re-edited for the original theatrical release), but the general shape of both the 1992 "Director's Cut" and the 2007 "Final Cut" come from the way Scott originally had the film edited.

What? So because there were aspects of the workprint and (at that time) unused materials that would become more prominent in later cuts, we should assume that some magical Director's Cut was floating in the void as an ideal form?

You have no physical artifact to point at which you can claim as a director's cut.

See below

The Unicorn Dream was not something that was thought up in the early 90s (despite rumor to the contrary, its not re-purposed footage from Legend).

There is NO unicorn footage in any cut of Blade Runner until the 1992 Director's Cut. It's not in the workprint, the US version, the international version, the San Diego sneak peak, or the broadcast version.

Your argument here trades upon the implied (unless this is simply a non-sequitur) relationship between the unicorn footage and the "director's cut." That is, the Director's Cut is associated with that footage AND THERE IS NO CUT OF BLADE RUNNER THAT INCLUDES THAT FOOTAGE UNTIL 1992.

This misplaced certitude that you have that there was some original Director's Cut of BR which was waiting to be saved and restored should, at least, give you pause in making similar claims about the availability and quality of the mountain of materials that would be involved in upgrading seven seasons of TNG.

As I noted up the thread, after scanning the printed negatives for editing on video, Paramount put the film in storage. You are operating under the assumption that this was done carelessly, without any particular effort to preserve the film or organize it. I find this incredibly unlikely. Nobody at the studio has indicated anything like this was the case.

I am speaking from common experience. Everyone knows there all the old records are until they actually have to find them. I am speaking from historical awareness of similar cases (like BR). Sure, the analogy breaks down in some aspects, but is relevantly similar in important aspects. After all, the BR people knew that the original footage was of some value or they wouldn't have stored it in the first place. Where the analogy breaks down, however, it is not always to the advantage of your argument. For example, film restorations always have the hope of finding one of MANY 35mm or 70mm prints of the film that were distributed during its run when the original stock elements are missing or damaged beyond repair. There were no mass produced film copies of TNG as it never showed in theaters. Finally, I have offered reasons why storage of the original film would not be a TOP priority. Why a certain amount of slop and chaos should not surprise in this case.

You, on the other hand, have offered your steadfast assurance that the powers that be at Paramount have everything taken care of. I am reminded of the scene at the beginning of Return of the Living Dead where the new employee is frightened that the corpse containers in the basement may not be safe. Of course it's safe! "these things were made by the US Army Corp of Engineers!"

Moreover, I'm reminded that the original negatives must have been found and re-scanned in 1994 when a number of shots were re-used for Star Trek: Generations. I assume the same can be said for the stock shots which were used for "These Are the Voyages...", which was broadcast in HD in 2005.

At most, this establishes that some stock shots were preserved.

 

[Harvey]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

No, Director's Cuts of the film did indeed exist in both 1992 and 2007. The Director's Cut came out in 1992 (which was a way to cash in on the buzz of the workprint) and the Final Cut of 2007 is Scott's publicly declared preferred version of the film (if that isn't the Director's Cut, nothing is).

Flipping through Paul Sammon's Future Noir, it's evident that you're totally right. The producers took away the film from Scott before a finished director's cut was ever produced. I had the understanding that Scott had edited a finished version of the film, which was subsequently dismantled by the producers, only to finally be (more or less) reassembled in 1992. This is simply not the case.

Don't know how we got onto this side track, except my own thickheaded nature. Back to TNG, I hope. You have my apologies.

On the subject of TNG, the footage used for Star Trek: Generations could suggest that only some stock shots were preserved, but I think the rather non-specific footage of Ten Forward that pops up in "These Are The Voyages..." suggests that a wider range of footage than simple stock shots remains intact. These shots also suggest that the negatives were well-organized enough in 2005 that the needed footage could be quickly located (it was not only found on a television schedule, but for the final episode of a season, when the schedule was probably tightest). Finally, the fact that the shots from TNG look great next to the shots from ENT in HD suggests that the footage has been well-preserved.

The possibility of the negatives being well-preserved seems likely to me, since they were used exactly once before being put into the Paramount vault, and with some exception (the occasional use for later Trek shows) have not been touched since. Secondly, when they have been touched, they've looked great. You've brought up the point several times that preserving the negatives may not have been Paramount's priority, but we know from The Making of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that the negatives were put into storage after being scanned to video.

Film restorations go to less preferable sources such as 35mm which were exhibited when the original negatives are incomplete or in poor shape. Again, I find it unlikely that the negatives are incomplete or in poor shape -- they simply weren't used enough for things to get damaged or misplaced.

But I'm repeating myself. The shape of the TNG negatives will almost certainly come to light if and when this project comes to fruition. I'd be pretty surprised if it wasn't brought up in a special feature like the one which discusses the restoration process of the original Star Trek.

 

[YARN]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Flipping through Paul Sammon's Future Noir, it's evident that you're totally right. The producers took away the film from Scott before a finished director's cut was ever produced. I had the understanding that Scott had edited a finished version of the film, which was subsequently dismantled by the producers, only to finally be (more or less) reassembled in 1992. This is simply not the case.

Don't know how we got onto this side track, except my own thickheaded nature. Back to TNG, I hope. You have my apologies.

No worries. It's refreshing to encounter intellectual honesty. Around these parts, I've noted that some folks will argue any point to the death rather concede any point.

Scott himself was confused when he saw the workprint after all those years (he mistakenly thought he saw unicorn footage in that print).

On the subject of TNG, the footage used for Star Trek: Generations could suggest that only some stock shots were preserved, but I think the rather non-specific footage of Ten Forward that pops up in "These Are The Voyages..." suggests that a wider range of footage than simple stock shots remains intact.

I don't know. It would be nice to think that they were on the ball and preserved everything. Seeing as how the main project was Generations, however, it does not seem likely that a comprehensive preservation would have top billing. I would guess that they would take just those shots that they needed and move on to get the rest of the film done.

That they were making a TNG film suggests doing away with the old TV show. Thematically, this was a film in which they were doing away with the old - killing off Kirk and the Enterprise D.

These shots also suggest that the negatives were well-organized enough in 2005 that the needed footage could be quickly located (it was not only found on a television schedule, but for the final episode of a season, when the schedule was probably tightest). Finally, the fact that the shots from TNG look great next to the shots from ENT in HD suggests that the footage has been well-preserved.

This sounds like a point in your favor. I am, nevertheless, skeptical that that the material for all seven seasons is "on tap."

The possibility of the negatives being well-preserved seems likely to me, since they were used exactly once before being put into the Paramount vault, and with some exception (the occasional use for later Trek shows) have not been touched since. Secondly, when they have been touched, they've looked great. You've brought up the point several times that preserving the negatives may not have been Paramount's priority, but we know from The Making of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that the negatives were put into storage after being scanned to video.

A lot depends on what being "put into storage" entails. Again, I tend to think that a certain amount of slop and decay is inevitable. And again, I don't know what you do when you find 30 minutes of an episode is degraded or missing. Would the project be TNG-(Mostly)-R?

Film restorations go to less preferable sources such as 35mm which were exhibited when the original negatives are incomplete or in poor shape. Again, I find it unlikely that the negatives are incomplete or in poor shape -- they simply weren't used enough for things to get damaged or misplaced.

Well, here's to hoping that you're right.

The TOS project was interesting, but uneven. It was rushed - it may have been a labor of love for Okuda and Co., but the schedule he was on indicates that the powers that be simply wanted it done ASAP. An uneven TNG restoration would be enough to keep us going (as in giving us something to do) in these lean years when there is no Trek on TV and films are on a once so many years schedule, but it would be disappointing to see this thing forced or rushed simply to exploit an aging TV property.

 

[Harvey]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

When it came to the actual remastering, I didn't think the Star Trek project was rushed. A great job was done with the available elements when it came to the actual clean-up work. In that sense, Star Trek has never looked better.

Now, the visual effects, especially the space shots -- those were definitely a mixed bag. CBS could have done well to devote more time and budget there. The new matte painting work often looked fantastic, though.

 

[RAMA]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

15. Pen Pals: The miniature FX of the planet surface are ok but could be improved with some good cgi mattes.

16. Q Who: Good FX, but in redoing the Borg FX, they could probably make it look a little more like the Voyager ships, regeneration scenes may look better than the miniatures.

17. Samaritan Snare: New Pakled ship

 

[Sean Aaron]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Scott himself was confused when he saw the workprint after all those years (he mistakenly thought he saw unicorn footage in that print).

I don't know if it's technically the workprint or not, but I saw the alternate cut that played in the Castro in San Francisco in the early 90s and the unicorn footage was definitely there. It had the trailer opening, without the full credits and had voiceover only over the alternate death scene for Roy Batty.

More on-topic I have Star Trek Remastered series one and hope to pick up the other two and TAS next month. I'm rather keen to see what's been changed. I cannot imagine anything they do with TNG will be as dramatic.

 

[GNDN]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

I don't know if it's technically the workprint or not, but I saw the alternate cut that played in the Castro in San Francisco in the early 90s and the unicorn footage was definitely there. It had the trailer opening, without the full credits and had voiceover only over the alternate death scene for Roy Batty.

Very cool. That definitely sounds like the workprint.

More on-topic I have Star Trek Remastered series one and hope to pick up the other two and TAS next month. I'm rather keen to see what's been changed. I cannot imagine anything they do with TNG will be as dramatic.

Hard to say. As the work on TOS continued the CBS Digital team started taking more chances, changing shots entirely, which is understandable given how many shots of the Enterprise were the same stock shots repeated over and over.

TNG did have more variety, but also more than twice the number of episodes and a good number of repeated stock shots as well. The fact that TNG had more visual diversity in the first place may convince the FX artists to look for even more variety in a remastering context.

Also, due to the number of episodes, TNG reused matte paintings, secondary spacecraft, and even certain anomalies on many occasions, which again may be enough to convince the remastering team to make more and more changes to avoid repetition.

Looking at ENT's TATV may be some indication of how a remastered TNG may appear.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Looking at ENT's TATV may be some indication of how a remastered TNG may appear.

I intend to watch the entirety of Trek this year (minus Final Frontier and the TNG films) so I'll hopefully get to that eventually. How long is this TNG remaster expected to take?

 

[RAMA]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

Looking at ENT's TATV may be some indication of how a remastered TNG may appear.

I intend to watch the entirety of Trek this year (minus Final Frontier and the TNG films) so I'll hopefully get to that eventually. How long is this TNG remaster expected to take?

In all likelihood, the rumors abound because they've been working on the series already. Much as they did with TOS-R before they announced it. When they did, the series was already sold and scheduled in syndication. It took 3 years to do 80 episodes. For STNG the work will most likely take longer (hopefully the scanning of film technology will continue to improve and gain speed) for more than double the episodes...say anywhere from 6-7 years. The first episodes...maybe a series of 5-10 at a time may be available for Netflix in the fall.

RAMA

 

[GNDN]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

In all likelihood, the rumors abound because they've been working on the series already. Much as they did with TOS-R before they announced it. When they did, the series was already sold and scheduled in syndication.

To be fair, there is only one rumor right now, reported by The Digital Bits, and every other report stems from that post. I hope this is true, and yes, TrekMovie had previously reported that tests had been done, but that is hardly surprising given the popularity and potential inherent in TNG. I'll be waiting until an official announcement to get officially excited about any of this.

 

[RAMA]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

In all likelihood, the rumors abound because they've been working on the series already. Much as they did with TOS-R before they announced it. When they did, the series was already sold and scheduled in syndication.

To be fair, there is only one rumor right now, reported by The Digital Bits, and every other report stems from that post. I hope this is true, and yes, TrekMovie had previously reported that tests had been done, but that is hardly surprising given the popularity and potential inherent in TNG. I'll be waiting until an official announcement to get officially excited about any of this.

I won't commit to extreme excitement either till there is an announcement.

BTW, I don't mind an 5.8% stretch in the picture, it looks somehow more movie-like. I feel there is more valuable information shot horizontally than vertically. I won't quibble if they can find away to make it exactly like the original, but I don't want an up-rezzing of any kind.

RAMA

 

[YARN]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

I don't know if it's technically the workprint or not, but I saw the alternate cut that played in the Castro in San Francisco in the early 90s and the unicorn footage was definitely there. It had the trailer opening, without the full credits and had voiceover only over the alternate death scene for Roy Batty.

Memory is a fickle thing:

http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/workprint/

31. Back at Deckard’s apartment, when the ol’ Blade himself is drunkenly hitting a key on his piano, there is no background music score from Vangelis. We only hear Deckard’s fidget-y tune on the piano, which is different in this audio mix. Also, there is no unicorn "vision".

The earliest you would have seen the Unicorn is 1992.

 

[Squiggy]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

...It took 3 years to do 80 episodes. ...for more than double the episodes...say anywhere from 6-7 years.

So...about as long as it originally took?

 

[Butters]

Re: What new FX/editing do you want to see in the STNG-R?

I want any new HD edition of Trek to be superior to the original. Every episode should be approached with a fresh story board. So long as the new interpretation of each episode is entertaining, it doesn't have to be a slave to the original, what would be the point?

When I see the new episodes, I don't want to see the same episodes I know and love, but with more detail, I want a new viewing experience. I want to be wowed again, like I was in the 80s/90s, and a scene for scene "warm thru" just won't deliver that.