Poll Do you prefer the digitally remastered Enterprise?
- Thread starter Mountie1988
- Start date
I don't tend to favor digitally rendered anything over physical practical effects. Sure we've come a loooooooooooooong way since the bad old days of The Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns, where the CGI was so embryonic in form that it was literally laughable, even at the time. 
But I still find that oftentimes, even our advanced CG effects of today will take me out of a movie, because no matter how good they are, they can never quite make me suspend disbelief long enough to believe they're occupying the same physical space as the actors and/or sets.
In terms of TOS, even though the physical model shots are essentially unrestored (ah, but if only they'd had access to the SFX trims when doing TOS-R, we might've had something to the quality of the TNG-R remasters!), I still find I prefer them to the CGI models, not just because the CGI used for TOS-R was very basic, but also for the reasons I outline above. I find the physical model Enterprise easier to 'buy' as existing in a real physical space precisely because it was real. It looks it and it feels it, and no matter how good it could have been, the CG just can't quite capture that same tangibility as the physical model.
But I still find that oftentimes, even our advanced CG effects of today will take me out of a movie, because no matter how good they are, they can never quite make me suspend disbelief long enough to believe they're occupying the same physical space as the actors and/or sets.In terms of TOS, even though the physical model shots are essentially unrestored (ah, but if only they'd had access to the SFX trims when doing TOS-R, we might've had something to the quality of the TNG-R remasters!), I still find I prefer them to the CGI models, not just because the CGI used for TOS-R was very basic, but also for the reasons I outline above. I find the physical model Enterprise easier to 'buy' as existing in a real physical space precisely because it was real. It looks it and it feels it, and no matter how good it could have been, the CG just can't quite capture that same tangibility as the physical model.
No, and as the years go by I find myself sticking with the original effects more and more. The CGI Enterprise can look nice in still shots - not always, but sometimes - but she never looks real while moving, much too cartoony for a live-action show. Also, sometimes the way she moves doesn't really capture the ship's size and scale. She's a grand old lady, and watching her banking and weaving like a small fighter just doesn't seem right - although the Klingon and Romulan ships seemed to have little 'weight' to them either.
Generally though I find the changes unnecessary at best, and kind of disrespectful at worst, though I don't doubt that everyone involved in the upgrade did this out of love for the original. It's great that the originals are still made available on the blu-rays but it's not right that the work of the original model crew will never be broadcast again just because "We haz computerz now and computerz is betterer!", or to cater for the audience's perceived lack of imagination. The models were of their time, like the rest of the show - why try to pretend otherwise, especially when the CGI seems to be aging even faster?
There's a bit in the Spacelift feature on the blu-rays where one of the CGI crew said something like "They did the best that they could at the time, but we can do it so much better now!" Instantly that made me think no, you can do it differently now. It's up to the individual viewer to decide whether or not it's better.
The one positive about the CGI shots over the original is that very occasionally you get one that better fits the action (such as the slingshot in Tomorrow is Yesterday), but that's very rare. Otherwise the CGI seems to have created just as many problems as it 'solves'; having to extend the CGI ship shots over frames of live-action material, for instance, really should have been avoided at all costs.
Also some of the framing is wildly off, like this shot from The Ultimate Computer at 07.28:
Even if Sickbay is located in the 'neck', which I'm pretty sure it isn't, that's an awful shot.
Generally though I find the changes unnecessary at best, and kind of disrespectful at worst, though I don't doubt that everyone involved in the upgrade did this out of love for the original. It's great that the originals are still made available on the blu-rays but it's not right that the work of the original model crew will never be broadcast again just because "We haz computerz now and computerz is betterer!", or to cater for the audience's perceived lack of imagination. The models were of their time, like the rest of the show - why try to pretend otherwise, especially when the CGI seems to be aging even faster?
There's a bit in the Spacelift feature on the blu-rays where one of the CGI crew said something like "They did the best that they could at the time, but we can do it so much better now!" Instantly that made me think no, you can do it differently now. It's up to the individual viewer to decide whether or not it's better.
The one positive about the CGI shots over the original is that very occasionally you get one that better fits the action (such as the slingshot in Tomorrow is Yesterday), but that's very rare. Otherwise the CGI seems to have created just as many problems as it 'solves'; having to extend the CGI ship shots over frames of live-action material, for instance, really should have been avoided at all costs.
Also some of the framing is wildly off, like this shot from The Ultimate Computer at 07.28:
Even if Sickbay is located in the 'neck', which I'm pretty sure it isn't, that's an awful shot.
I was never impressed the the CGI. Its okay but I prefer the originals. The originals are the way it was seen for years and everyone loved it so there's no reason to change it.
For some reason TOS-R went with a much more TNG (i.e. darker) lighting style. To me this kills it. OTOH, the matte paintings in TOS-R are fantastic! The windows in Mendez / Stone's office are astonishing. (The Klingon cruiser is a crime against humanity.)
As to anyone saying CG can't compare to physical models, I give you the Star Destroyers in Rogue One. BAD CG can't compare with physical models. They're both tools.
As to anyone saying CG can't compare to physical models, I give you the Star Destroyers in Rogue One. BAD CG can't compare with physical models. They're both tools.
If they have the original effects in the Roddenberry Vaault they should just use those to recreate ship shots in HD. As for the matte paintings I would have preferred a more subtle touch ups: Bump up the contrast, Smooth some of the lines, maybe add some subtle details. Essentially it should have still been the same effects, just with a gentle nudge in the HD direction.
Odd that I've never heard anyone mention the CG people's having taken it upon themselves to narrow the nacelles. This makes the Ent in various shots give an impression of being silly and "lightweight", especially in shots from the front or back. In some other shots, though, I can see why they did it. Seen from the side, from the side mainly, the original's nacelles appear a little... "awkward", sometimes. Just a bit too big. Maybe the original models used in different shots varied.
I'm just glad I have DVD box sets. CGI or practical. There's a definite charm to practical effects though and always will be.
I've never heard this claim before. Say what you will about lighting, texturing, and animation, but I thought the geometry was spot on.
It's always been the accuracy of the proportions that were the problem for me. The nacelles look very wrong in shots from the back as well as the front. I'd thought that was because, while you can't get proportions wrong using a physical model, it's all too easy with CGI. Then I saw all the episodes and realized it's not inconsistent proportions, but the fact that they actually made the nacelles thinner throughout.
I think they'd be okay with it. I made 2 videos already with new shots of the restored Big E.
Andrew Probert kindly sent me a thank you note.
I think they appreciate the positive feedback for the fantastic job they did restoring her.
Spockboy
So beautiful, man! I would love to see someone do a full-on photogrammetry render of the restored 11 footer, so they could change the lighting for many different scenes. It would be- I think- the best of both worlds.
You must be mistaken. The CBS Digital Enterprise is proportioned as essentially an exact match for the physical 11-footer. When you see proportions that look different, it's a matter of camera angle and what type of (real or digital) lens was being used. Lenses make a huge difference, and TOS original fx used them brilliantly.
These are the only differences between the ships that might stand out to a casual viewer:
- The 11-footer's lower saucer came of of the mold imperfectly in 1964 and is slightly out of round. The CBS Digital model corrects that to perfectly circular.
- The CBS ship has no risk of misaligned nacelles, a difficult feat for such a large practical model to achieve all the time.
- The CBS ship (2nd, refined version) adds a window to complete the broken row of windows on the forward side of the lower saucer. The digital ship has seven windows in a row, all lit, instead of six with a gap, two of which are dark. I personally disapprove of this change a lot; the original looked more real (internal structures mean you can't put a window everywhere).
- The CBS Digital ship uses the wrong font for "U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701" on the upper saucer.
- The CBS Digital ship appears to be a darker gray, but most of this difference is due to more "realistic" lighting choices. Also, the main deflector dish is a metallic copper color on the original, and somewhat grayish on the CBS version.
- The CBS ship's upper saucer has all four square panels lit, while the 11-footer had lighting in three of them, while the portside aft panel was just painted on the saucer.
I'm sure there are other differences in the detailing, but again, the CBS overall proportions are right.
I generally don't mind old effects (I'm a fan of Doctor Who as well as Trek, and Classic Who had a lot worse effects then TOS generally did). That said, I really enjoy the TOS remastered episodes and wouldn't go back to the non CG stuff unless it was the only option.
Thanks for all that, and for taking time to type it all.
-----------------
Going by my eyes, the thing that finally decided this for me was comparing images from a distance, smaller models I suppose, shot directly from the side. In original TOS they can look a bit too large, at least sometimes, because it appears .. I can't thing of a real or good adjective, so I'll just say "clunky". Then I noticed straight-from-the-side Remastered shots with thinner nacelles which avoided this effect. I waited until it was more than a vague impression to be certain. It explained all my previous impressions of Remastered's nacelle shots from the front and back, which always made the nacelles skinny and go off at somewhat crazy, exaggerated angles from the bottom section. From the side, it seems like an improvement. From front and back, very much not. Before I noticed the side shots, I thought it must be errors in proportion, which can be a problem with CGI, but not with physical models.
I prefer the digitally remastered version.
I'm not one of those people who find the charm in "bad" special effects (I love Doctor Who and Blake's 7, but I find nothing charming about some of the atrocious special effects). I can tolerate them, try to look past them, but at the end of the day they won't have as positive effect as better and/or more modern special effects.
To be honest, I kind of wish they did this:-
Though I realise that'd be insane budget wise.
I'm not one of those people who find the charm in "bad" special effects (I love Doctor Who and Blake's 7, but I find nothing charming about some of the atrocious special effects). I can tolerate them, try to look past them, but at the end of the day they won't have as positive effect as better and/or more modern special effects.
To be honest, I kind of wish they did this:-
Though I realise that'd be insane budget wise.
Nailed it, sir.
Blamo said:
The question of debate, of course, is whether or not new and modern automatically means "better". In the case of TOS-R in particular, as much love as there undoubtedly was that went into creating the new effects, there are definitely times when the end result might as well be replacing a bad physical effect with a bad modern CGI one. The end result is still Cheese Factor 9 either way.
Whoever did that lost me by redesigning the captain's chair.
Just to go back to this, it's not a fair comparison because the Enterprise never actually looked like that in the show. A screencap of the model would be a better comparison.Sure,
The top picture says CBS Digital.That's the CBS Digital Enterprise with the original 11 footer on top. I believe it was their "first version" which was quickly altered after much complaining from Trek fandom.
The second picture says Star Trek Continues.
The point of the side by side was to demonstrate how flat, colorless and cartoony the digital versions look next to the real deal.
Similar threads
