My biggest gripe is that the new effects don't match aesthetically to the original look of TOS.
Better Living Through CGI
- Thread starter ZapBrannigan
- Start date
My biggest gripe is that the new effects don't match aesthetically to the original look of TOS.
Fuck no.
What he said.
The CG 1701 and barrier in WNMHGB was a textbook lesson in how to be absolutely awful. Vignettes from video games are superior to that cartoony crap. The 1701 has not feel of being a massive ship as achieved in the original version; it just loks like something that's not an object with weight or size.
Moreover, the dull "metal" hull of the Romulan BOP, Klingon Battle Crusier and K-7 were trying to push that we need real detail" wrongheadedness that's still operating from the fumes of Star Wars design (when one would assume ship building tech in the late 23rd century would need to look like 20th century Navy vessels or roofing tiles).
Definitely sucks that the original optical effects elements no longer exist. Though I have found that the original effects hold up pretty well on my 50" 4K TV.
2001 was the first big film to use greebles on ships (followed by TV series UFO and Space: 1999) but Star Wars (1977) revolutionized it as being common for nearly every ship design to follow, and it makes no sense for an advanced, galaxy-spanning organization not to have the ability to design ships with no need for aztec patterns, greebles and other external details that do nothing in the way of the ship's function.
This +1.
Many of today's viewers think the TOS Enterprise looks "primitive" because of the smooth appearance. But I've always been of the opinion that the smooth, sleek design is more advanced and futuristic than something that has thousands of pieces of mechanical junk stuck to the exterior. Clean, efficient design allows the components of the ship to be serviceable from the interior.
Kor
I watched the new effects the first time or two, but I soon switched back to the originals. I agree that some things look good (some shots of the ships, the planet location enhancements, the phaser beams, etc.), but in addition to the numerous shots that just don't fit aesthetically, I don't like that they were forced to chop off some live-action shots sooner when there's a crossfade to an effects shot. Therefore, we're losing some of the actual footage when watching the new effects.
Okay don't get me started 
How about all of the little things that COULD have been fixed (in 12 minutes) but weren't?
CG Artist Madkoifish has (on his own) created far superior work to CBS Digital.
For starters, his Federation ship has perfect nacelles and proper green/grey Enterprise coloring...
I noticed ACTUAL polygons on the CBS D Shuttlecraft model!
and finally, Madkoifish's Klingon ship easily puts the CBS D one to shame. (Note that he maintained Matt Jefferies excellent two tone color scheme)
Spockboy
How about all of the little things that COULD have been fixed (in 12 minutes) but weren't?
CG Artist Madkoifish has (on his own) created far superior work to CBS Digital.
For starters, his Federation ship has perfect nacelles and proper green/grey Enterprise coloring...
I noticed ACTUAL polygons on the CBS D Shuttlecraft model!
and finally, Madkoifish's Klingon ship easily puts the CBS D one to shame. (Note that he maintained Matt Jefferies excellent two tone color scheme)
Spockboy
The visible, non-smoothed tessellation on the underside of the Klingon D-7 is amateur-level work. It looks like it was meant to be subdivided at render time and then everyone forgot. CBSD might as well have rendered the ships with flickering GI or visible aliasing in the texture maps.
It's unbelievable that anyone signed off on that.
It's unbelievable that anyone signed off on that.
There simply is no case where the 21st century FX aren't better than the originals. It's simply a question of taste that you can argue, or perhaps choices made with composition. There's really no point in debating the technical superiority.
As for the FX not matching...well poor CBS Digital simply can't win because they specifically set a goal to not make the FX state of the art, super crisp and Enterprise-like. So on one hand you have people coming in here and ridiculously posting fan art that's better when they don't understand the context with which they were made, and then you have those saying they're so good that they don't fit the rest of the scenes. I laugh every time I read these.
Now here's my latest experience. My wife and I are slowly going through the New Outer Limits Tv show, and we caught an episode that reminded me of "Immunity Syndrome" to a degree. So I showed it to her on Netflix, and what was the very first shot? A beautiful shot of a close up Enterprise on my 55" 4K TV, uprezzed to perfection. Awesome.
I wasn't debating the technical superiority.
I'm taking about aesthetics.
Aesthetically, the new effects are at odds with the overall style of the show. They are a mismatch with the way the original show was filmed.
In other words, the new effects don't mesh well with the live action cinematography.
Last edited:
Most of them simply aren't better. As Spockboy shows above.
RAMA doesn't care about any of that. He can't see past the "technical superiority."
Actually they are, the lighting, composition, compositing, clarity, motion are all better. The detailing was often very understated and I feel some of the models were left somewhat less detailed as an attempt to keep it similar to a 60s produced tone they were trying to achieve. Even a slightly less than perfectly detailed CGI model is better than the original FX, where a shuttle might look as if it were flying on a string or the analog compositing left it looking murky, or the matte was off. So yes the FX are always better.
The 60's effects look like real objects, not like they were ripped from a PlayStation 2 game.
I'm not against the idea of remastering TOS with new effects. I just don't want piss poor CGI like what we have currently.
They look like murky, badly lit models and don't move very well. Let's face it, they were state of the art in 1969, but less so in 1980, 90 or 2000.
Optimist: The glass is half full!
Pessimist: The glass is half empty!
Trekkie: The glass doesn't look exactly as I remember it from when I was six and watching on a grainy Black-and-white TV! DIE PARAMOUNT DIE!!!!
Pessimist: The glass is half empty!
Trekkie: The glass doesn't look exactly as I remember it from when I was six and watching on a grainy Black-and-white TV! DIE PARAMOUNT DIE!!!!
Similar threads
