do you think TOS should have been remastered?
- Thread starter Clym
- Start date
What I find hilarious are comments that they couldn't do some of those effects in the 60s so they shouldn't be in this. So wrongheaded it a joke.
RAMA
I don't want to drag this thread too far off-topic, but this does touch on a core issue regarding the STC series.
From the beginning STC asserted they wanted to recreate the feeling of TOS episodes produced in the late 1960s. They wanted their episodes to look, sound and feel as authentic as possible. To really do that would mean having an incomplete Enterprise model and limited f/x shots. It would also mean avoid references to productions made after TOS ceased production.
Now in fairness we know the TOS production crew would have loved to do more, but were constrained by limited time and money. But if they had had that extra time and money we can see examples of the era to give us an idea of what was possible given the resources of the period. Flash forward fifty years and a fan production has the resources to realize things that were out of TOS' reach in terms of time and money but not necessarily resources. So they can show us things that could have been done under ideal conditions.
From the beginning productions like STC have not faithfully adhered to the idea of being a totally faithful recreation of TOS. The most obvious example is the inability to resist inserting references to post TOS productions. The producers of these productions are, after all, just as much devoted fans as any of us and it's understandable they cannot resist the temptation to express some fannish aspects.
Fan productions can also blur the line between what might have been possible and what could have looked "cool." I don't think I've seen any fan production not cross that line at some point and to some extent. But that said we must recognize that TOS could have done a lot more than what we saw if we allow the conceit of added available time and money.
And this is where a production like STC comes in who often try to show us something new and usually try to remain faithful to the idea of what could have been possible in some fashion back in the late 1960s. It might not have looked quite as seamless or quite as polished as today's f/x, but it could have realized a similar end result.
They changed the color of the Klingon ship even more drastically than that of the Enterprise itself. What was with these extreme color changes? (Yeah, it's a rhetorical question at this point, but still...)
Please. That CGI atrocity is a low-poly, visibly segmented, murkily textured, poorly lit, badly animated eyesore so cheaply done the neck doesn't even cast a shadow on the fuselage. The original model has complex compound curves, is nicely lit, and actually has shadows. If that's shyte to you we have absolutely no common frame of reference.Different shyte.
Maybe not shyte then, (depending on each person's personal scale) but I don't think it was their best work by a long shot. Just to be clear though, I'm not saying the CG one is good by any measure. It ain't.If that's shyte to you we have absolutely no common frame of reference.
How do you get shadows in deep space anyway? Where's the light coming from?
Most SF films and television cheat on this issue simply because they have to or else you would see nothing of the ship except external lights and windows. So you add a light source to show off the ship--hence you get shadows.
The light is coming from one of the Filming Ships. They always use a Camera Ship, a Lighting Ship, and a Craft Services ship when they are filming space scenes.
A 1930s tv show would have been on radio. Just sayin'.
And it's a good thing, too. I don't care for the darkness and seeing only the ship's lights in TOS-R "The Immunity Syndrome."
I know it's your opinion, and I respect that. You have every right to it.
But dude, please.
Can't not see the ultra-low-poly face the neck connects to. Other than that, it's a great Klingon Battlecruiser.
It's got a rubbish texturing job and it's got visible polys from behind, too. It's a mess. I built a better D7 mesh on my Atari ST 28 years ago.
And I was responding to RAMA's post regarding people objecting to things in a fan film believing they couldn't have been done originally during the 1960s.I know it's your opinion, and I respect that. You have every right to it.
But dude, please.
There were things done on Lost In Space as well as other shows and in film that might have been cool to see in TOS.
I never took a good look at the new D7 before now, I wasn't impressed at the time. But they seem to have changed a lot of the proportions of the ship, the shape of most of the stardrive, and the entire scale of the front windows.
And there is a sickly green tinge to the grey of the hull without the glow of the weapons. Given how much the D7 turned up, I thought they'd rendered it better. Maybe it just doesn't show as much in motion.
The new one is still better composited, more dynamic and a better overall effect...the old D7 still looks like a plain and obvious balsa wood model(but surprisingly well matted!!). Though I will agree the early CGI D7 wasn't a perfect model. In working to the stated goal of making the models smooth and 60s-like, I think they went too far with the Klingons, but if I recall correctly (and I haven't watched these much lately) they improved it later on.
I'm currently trying to watch a few TOS-R episodes over the next few weeks for the 50th anniversary (sort of a fan duty), because I've only watched maybe a half dozen in the last couple of years. I plan on taking a look at the D7 models.
RAMA
I'm currently trying to watch a few TOS-R episodes over the next few weeks for the 50th anniversary (sort of a fan duty), because I've only watched maybe a half dozen in the last couple of years. I plan on taking a look at the D7 models.
RAMA
Not. Always.
^^^Utter shyte.
^^^Not shyte.
Similar threads
