I would like to add, in the 1960's the FX on Star Trek were not cheesy; they were state of the art. Although, I'm in the camp for the cgi effect, I do think the original effects were very good for it's time.
do you think TOS should have been remastered?
- Thread starter Clym
- Start date
Of course, they were. My remark was meant as a reflection of how some characterize the original f/x today.
I know your remark was just that; I wanted to add some don't realized not too many shows looked like Star Trek. All one would have to do is compare the shows which were currently airing at the time when Star Trek aired and they'll see how expensive it was.
Actually, for an object as big as the Enterprise in order to get the whole ship in frame you'd have your lens focus dialed out to infinite distance, anyway. Depth of field is a factor an small scales and short distances, not generally when you at thousands of feet or miles away from an object.
Last edited:
..."yup, you sure needed thick lenses back then to keep the planet from looking blurry"......"yeah, the mattle lines are appropriately mattey like real life!".
Oh dear, oh dear...Here are actual Apollo photos of a sharply delineated Earh, not just from geo-stationary orbit but from the Moon.
RAMA
Do you see unicorns with your glasses? Unicorns might be awesome! Take selfies with them for me.
Politeness prevents me from stating what I really think.
I've never been a fan of CGI, I prefer the model work to be honest!
JB
JB
New CGI in a 50 year old show might be all that and a bag of non-GMO free-range gluten-free rainbow sea salt chips, but I still prefer the grainy old optical effects done with practical models on real film.
Now get off my lawn before I turn the hose on ya.
Now get off my lawn before I turn the hose on ya.
I really liked the new effects when I first saw them and wondered why was there complaining, but having read this thread, I fully empathize with the complainers having seen examples and read explanations of it. It's clearly not nostalgia or stubbornness exclusively, they may factor in but not as a main reason, and I would say they are negligible.
I believe my personal opinion hasn't changed, and I still enjoy them, but they are clearly not as good as they should have been.
Finally, when Star Trek was made, those people were doing their best they could to do accomplish what they set out to do, they were trying to create a masterpiece.
When the TOS-R project was done, they were doing it quick and cheap and trying to squeeze money out of something over 30 years old, even if at least some of the participants cared they still weren't invested, IMO, and it shows.
I believe my personal opinion hasn't changed, and I still enjoy them, but they are clearly not as good as they should have been.
Finally, when Star Trek was made, those people were doing their best they could to do accomplish what they set out to do, they were trying to create a masterpiece.
When the TOS-R project was done, they were doing it quick and cheap and trying to squeeze money out of something over 30 years old, even if at least some of the participants cared they still weren't invested, IMO, and it shows.
And it totally ignores the fact that in each one, the planet is the object being zoomed in on anyway, not an object between the camera and it.
Proving my point yet again. Win!New CGI in a 50 year old show might be all that and a bag of non-GMO free-range gluten-free rainbow sea salt chips, but I still prefer the grainy old optical effects done with practical models on real film.
Now get off my lawn before I turn the hose on ya.
Unlimited unicorns for everybody!
RAMA
The earth looks better on the CGI versions while the Enterprise looks like a cartoon! On the original shows the ship looks superb and it's only a few of the planets that don't look right, some of them are very good!
JB
JB
Self-abuse is the sincerest kind.Seems the only person you've proven the point to, is yourself. But, hey, nice win.
So...if we grant that the effects aren't as good as they possibly could have been...what are peoples' thoughts on whether we were really likely to get anything better?
Put another way, if we stipulate CBS was willing to spend X money and Y time and wanted the CGI by date Z, is this the best we could have realistically expected?
Put another way, if we stipulate CBS was willing to spend X money and Y time and wanted the CGI by date Z, is this the best we could have realistically expected?
Similar threads
