The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!

Frustrating attitude from Doug despite all his talent.

I also find it funny how anti-CGI this thread was until they actually SAW some

What was on screen a lot of the time was a compromise rather than the artistic vision it should be.

Now the technology makes such changes possible for cheap its logical to try and show what was SUPPOSED to be shown in the first place.
I don't mean stupid character changing stuff like Riker shooting first (hurr) but a change of stock shot here and there (like the battle from Redemption which is basically just reused footage from Yesterday's Enterprise mixed in with a couple of shots from TSFS (including ugly movie era warp trails too... )
This is then re-used AGAIN during Rascals, including basically the only reason the Ferengi are in Captures Birds of Prey in the first place, so they could re-use stock footage cheaply) isn't harming anything.
No-one is going to tell me that was what the writer/visual FX guys at the time wanted on the screen and if they had a chance they'd fix it.

The worst thing about it is when we get to Darmok he's going to re-create the Enterprise firing phasers out its torpedo tubes?
C'mon mannnnnn

 

I'm sure it's equally frustrating for a Star Trek vet to come into a project like this having been told one thing, only to find out CBS Digital went and did something different.

I don't think anyone is truly anti-CGI, it's more a matter of preserving the show "as it was" as Doug puts it...warts and all. I have no interest in seeing a bunch of CGI eye candy. I'm invested in buying these sets with HD versions of the episodes as they were, with CGI used to fill in any gaps and replace things that absolutely must be done in CGI. If I find out that they're going to start dropping CGI in all over the place, just because they can, this will be another set that I'll pass up. There is more than enough CGI laden shows out there. That dropping out of warp scene was completely not necessary though, and while it may be an improvement over the 4 foot model, it's certainly no better than the 6 foot model at the same angle...which could have easily been substituted and enhanced with some additional CGI tweaking had they wanted to.

This doesn't bode well if the two teams are going to be working against each other like this.

 

well I actually think the dropping out of warp shot looks HORRIBLE and since it was quoted further up in the thread that only the E-D/BOP shot was the only CGI shot to see if it "passed the test" would actually wager that's a CGI touch up of a model shot just done badly.

The deflector dish in particular looks all weird and not as it should...

 

Yeah, I feel the same way. As long as the shots as good as the ones we've seen so far, shots which are still pretty close to the original shots, I'll be happy.

That's not really the issue, though. Yes, the model work of the TOS movies are still there on the masters, but they need to exist as seperate elements, not part of the master. It may be that they couldn't find the original element and had no choice but to reproduce the shot.

 

The caption on that still uses the same typography as the stills TrekMovie.com had, so clearly they're all part of some press package and exist in HD. No idea why we're not yet being shown them, I guess due to NDAs, or maybe different outlets got different stills from the set to spread things around and StarTrek.com's content management system's image viewer is just not set up for HD.

 

That would fall under the heading of "errors", which he stated he is in favor of fixing.

 

Are you certain though? The final draft of "The Pegasus" teleplay dated October 18th, 1993 does not include the word "Cheyenne". In fact, the design or class of the ship isn't really described at all by Moore. The only thing that comes close is Pressman's dialogue. But it's vague and could be interpreted as applying only to internal systems, not outward appearance:

Code:

         PRESSMAN
The Pegasus was a prototype... 
experimental engine... new weapon             
systems... some of our designs             
were even used in constructing the            
Enterprise. There're a lot of             
things on board the Romulans would             
love to get their hands on.

Also, can anyone provide a screenshot of an Okudagram from that episode that definitively shows a Cheyenne class vessel? The TrekCore gallery doesn't seem to have one:

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=163&page=10

 

Its subtle but its crisper, brighter.

 

There's no MSD of the Pegasus in the episode, only an LCARS display aboard the ship, showing four nacelles:

 

So how many starships in the 24th Century have 4 nacelles? Is the Cheyenne the only one? Is that where this comes from?

 

Geez,

It's hardly Drexler's call as to the extent of episode revisionism. He's part of a team that's been hired to do a job-- part of which entails them staying as true to the source material as possible.

It also doesn't matter in the slightest what the screenwriter may or may not have envisioned for The Pegasus. The script is just one element of filmmaking, and it doesn't supersede the rest of the process.

 

Guys, I think you need to stop emailing Drexler and trying to second guess everything he's doing before you blacklists you. If you don't need to replace a well done model shot with last moment CG you shouldn't. I much rather see real spotlights reflecting off a real object than CGI any day. Especially well done, later day model work that had a lot of care put into it. It's the last of a dead breed and I'l like it preserved as well as possible.

Drexler is obviously not a big fan of TOS-R with good reason. The live action changes were mostly good, but the space stuff was across the board poorly done. Let him do what he wants. His "do no harm" approach is probably going to give us the best and least controversial end result.

 

I agree 100% with Mark 2000. The Pegasus shots are among the more stunning effects work done on TNG, and personally I'm excited to see the originals in HD. Sure it could be redone with CG, but I have no emotional ties to new CG shots, nor are new shots as interesting as seeing the old ones in their full glory. I also think the Oberth class is a much cooler design than the Cheyenne.

 

Seriously?

 

Just answering my own question here, but as far as other 24th Century 4-nacelled ships, there's the Constellation class (decommissioned in the 2370s), and the Prometheus class (commissioned in the 2370s).

So, if it's just based on a single Okudagram showing 4 nacelles in the background of a few shots, why is it assumed that it was supposed to be Cheyenne class? Is it based on a quote from one of the VFX Supervisors at the time?

 

Yes, seriously. I don't think the Oberth class is beautiful or elegant, no, but it's distinct design and expanded the range of Starfleet's design language when it appeared. The Cheyenne just feels like a halfassed kitbash where the nacelles don't fit the saucer stylistically. The Oberth is at least cohesive.

 

I know, but it feels like a kitbash because the saucer is reminiscent of the Galaxy at first glance, and the design language of the nacelles doesn't fit that of the saucer. It just comes across as improvised, unlike the Oberth, which feels clunky but more believable all the same.

 

Re: special features wishlist for TNG-R Blu-ray

Hmm unlike kitbashes, the Cheyenne shares nothing but shape with other starships, no parts are shared with other existing ships...it is a molded though undetailed model, with aesthetically pleasing lines..unlike other "chunky" kitbashes we've seen, it would only need to be detailed for closeups.

Something fully realized like this would be great, although of course this is not a polished studio CGI model:


RAMA

 

Huh, did you delete your previous post and make a new one? The order of our posts switched around.

 

Blu-ray.com review with 40 pics!

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Trek-The-Next-Generation-Blu-ray/30189/#Review

Here's the 4-footer: http://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/5450_29_1080p.jpg