Poll Do you prefer the digitally remastered Enterprise?

[Metryq]

I wish they had tried to replicate the original shot style and optical effects instead of trying to make it all look more "modern."

I agree with -SS- and disagree with Kor because with the current state of the art, computer artists have better tools for lighting and texturing than miniature modelers. In either case the artist can screw up with bad choices in texturing, lighting, blocking and framing, etc.

However, I'd change -SS-'s comment about "modern." I think CBS Digital was either rushed, or tried not to overwhelm the show with CGI shots that looked "too good." The flaw with that approach is that legacy 3D tends to look more plasticky and "fake." Today's rendering engines have radiosity, blur, depth of field and many other tools—provided the artist knows how to use them. If CGI looks bad (these days) it is not the fault of the technology, it is the failure of the artist.

I applaud the CGI effort—the new matte paintings look great—but I prefer the original VFX mostly because they "fit in." Too many of the new CGI "model" shots in space are jarring and push one out of the story.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't like the shade of grey they used on the CG model. I always imagined the Enterprise being near white, as the original effects on poor quality TV's made it seem. The colour of the reboot Enterprise is perfect, IMHO.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[J.T.B.]

Since "remastered" means enhancing material from an existing source, I do prefer the original filmed model shots cleaned up for HD. The new, inserted CG effects hold no interest for me whatsoever.

 

[Kor]

"Remastered" means whatever the marketing people want it to mean.

When TOS was first released in the individual two-episode DVDs (which cost upwards of $25 each), the packaging said the show had been remastered.

Kor

 

[Metryq]

I don't like the shade of grey they used on the CG model.

Lighting.
Lighting.
Lighting. And some texturing.

Look carefully at the comparison photo posted by spockboy. The practical model has more fill lighting because that helped control blue spill. So it became part of the "style" of the TOS effects. Despite that, the warp engine domes are more contrasty and darker—just the balance between the overall studio lighting and the lesser lights inside the model.

The CGI model has blacker shadows, but the lighting could have been set up to emulate the original work. Compared to the practical model, the CGI model has too much light and diffusion on the warp domes. Yet the dome on the bottom of the saucer section, despite being a self-luminous texture (or at least it should be), has a very dark shadow towards the back. What's going on there?

If TOS-R can grade the command shirts down our throats as avocado green, they could have taken the time to match the original Enterprise's color, too. (I know the command shirts "really" were green, but that's like trying to nail down the color of something that is iridescent. In full light, they always looked gold. In lower light, or on the shadowed side, they could show off their greenish hue.)

 

[urbandefault]

I'm still in awe of the restoration/conservation of the original 11' model, and I don't see that ever changing. I could look at it for hours.

 

[Kemaiku]

I don't like the shade of grey they used on the CG model. I always imagined the Enterprise being near white.

True. I have a little 20+ year old 1701 micro-machine that's faded over the years, and is still whiter than the remastered version.

I got a lightup one about the size of the Eaglemoss stuff coming out that's about the right shade, I'll get photos of them all at some point.

 

[Hippocrates Noah]

Don't care, I go back and forth between remastered and classic and find both very enjoyable.

 

[tomswift2002]

"Where so many threads have gone before"...I didn't vote because I did not see the option "I'll take any version I can get!" The grainyness, mix of pilot and series versions of the ship, and inconsistent quality of the original FX (bluesscreen bleed, Matt lines, whatever the hell was happening in that shot of the ship leaving Earth orbit in "tomorrow is yesterday") can be distracting. Then again so can the inconsistent quality of the remastered FX. The great thing is you can watch either on the latest video releases. I've heard people whine that it's only the remastered effects we can watch on broadcast TV these days, but those are so butchered to gain extra. commercial time as to be nearly pointless to watch anyway. Back to "tomorrow isyesterday" for example, the entire turbo lift conversation between Kirk and Christopher on the way to the bridge is typically excised when broadcast, ending with a near pointless "I've never believed in little green men" comment when the doors open. So watch on blue ray - however you like or whatever your mood.

Just a little while ago I saw on the French version of the AMI channel here in Canada, a broadcast of the Original 1960's version of Mudd's Women. For those who don't know, AMI is an English and French service here in Canada that airs programming with Descriptive Video recorded right into the broadcast, so every so often you'll hear an unknown narrator say "Kirk picks up the glass, brings it to his lips and takes a drink". So in this case, I don't know whether CBS did the additional recording or if AMI did the additional recording.

 

[johnnybear]

I prefer the originals. The cgi ship looks like a cartoon like much of the new f/x shots.

That's what I've always said as well!
JB

 

[TheAdmiralty]

The CG looks cheap and fake. I'll take 60's FX over it.

 

[Terok Nor]

In general yes but it did look crappy in a few episodes.

 

[StarLore]

As a relatively new Star Trek fan, I watched the Original Series on Netflix, and all the episodes are remastered there(except one episode, curiously enough). Generally, I thought it was fine, except in the episode "The Doomsday Machine", where the Machine looked plain awful.

 

[Seven of Five]

Back when CGI was becoming more prevalent during DS9 and VOY (and other film and TV for that matter), I used to think that it never looked as 'real' as using models.

Times certainly change and I can appreciate both. TOS is a hard one as the CGI was added years after it aired. I think the regular scenes of TOS in HD look stunning, and I love a lot of the CGI work done. The ship looks lovely, in particular. It certainly is a tribute to the old effects, even if it's not the same.

I feel like I want to mention the Director's Edition of TMP. I know it's limited to DVD, and thus not a proper HD conversion exists. I think there the CGI is glaringly obvious when compared to the amazing model work they already had, though I suppose they were concentrating on doing a new cut, and were trying to introduce one or two elements that they either didn't have time or money for. It's a shame the elements don't mesh for me, a bit like some of George Lucas's inserts into the Star Wars trilogy.

CGI aside though, the new cut was very good.

 

[Mytran]

The original effects (defects and all) are a product of it's time, just like the acting style, stories, and so on.

The new matte paintings are generally integrated much better than the ship scenes

 

[CrazyMatt]

Let me qualify my preference... While I'll always pick the actual model, now so lovingly restored, I can live with a CGI version IF it's done with high quality.

The CGI Defiant from Enterprise's "In a Mirror, Darkly" was done very well. Conversely, the remastered CBS versions, while mostly well conceived, were poorly executed. Hence my snarky but accurate comment earlier in the thread.

Quality always wins out.

 

[spockboy]

This is exactly what Star Trek looked like on TV in it's original TV broadcast.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Almost incomparable to today's HD standards.
The bottom line is that the original effects were perfectly suited for this level of television detail.

It will be interesting when the new Roddenberry Vault Blu-ray is finally released. I read that there were some original blue screen film elements included on the blu-ray. That means guys like me could theoretically re-composite some shots to truly demonstrate how good the original effects could look if updated properly.

Spockboy

 

[BillJ]

This is exactly what Star Trek looked like on TV in it's original TV broadcast.



Almost incomparable to today's HD standards.
The bottom line is that the original effects were perfectly suited for this level of television detail.

Bu that doesn't tell us anything of what the film elements actually looked like.

 

[spockboy]

Bu that doesn't tell us anything of what the film elements actually looked like.

I didn't claim to KNOW what they look like. (???)
Nobody but Roddenberry and team know the state of the film clips.
When the Blu-ray is released (as I mentioned) we will all know.

They should look perfect if they were left alone and stored properly. What made the original effects shots look poor was damage and degradation from being run through the optical printer repeatedly, and primitive blue-screen compositing.

With today's technology and some original blue screen footage, we could create some spectacular shots.

(Not to repeat myself) but I was able to do these shots with only a 3 foot model in my living room and an office chair for a dolly.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Imagine how good the 11 footer could look?

Spockboy

 

[TheSubCommander]

I prefer the remastered version, but that is what is so great about the Blurays. You get BOTH! It doesn't have to choose.

George Lucas should have been taking notes when he remastered Star Wars.