do you think TOS should have been remastered?

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yes - but you're not the target audience. It was done to make younger folks go - "Okay they did a bit more here then just put a guys in a foam rubber suit."

At the time of TOS-R, the series was a decades-old property that still stood as the most culturally relevant/popular part of the franchise, even after TNG - VOY and Berman's terrible films, all with FX allegedly "better" than that created for TOS. That TOS still reigns as the most popular part of the franchise through several generations of varying tastes (1960s FX included) says much about how exclusively targeting a younger audience was largely pointless.

The point was to make it compatible for HD broadcast format but also to try and get younger viewers to have more interest and not immediately dismiss it because they can see the matte lines or see through areas in travelling matte shots, etc.

That would poor reasoning on the part of CBS. For example, by the 1970s, miniature, costume and matte work was "better" than that used in the 1930s, but did anyone suggest going back and "fixing" the original King Kong's FX, substituting it with the kind of work seen in the De Laurentis version? Of course not. Innumerable younger film goers discovered films made decades before their birth, and loved it. Why? No one forced them to, so how is it that they appreciated all of what they were watching, yet today's younger viewers cannot?

You are saying that today's young audiences are so brainwashed--creatures of their moment, that none can discover and/or like/love/appreciate productions from older periods. Valuable works of the past should not be picked apart to shoehorn (in TOS-R's case) video game-level, sub-par work in some cynical attempt to appeal to a part of today's audiences.

 

[Kemaiku]

Yup, and that was so lazy given how much work went into the Orion vessel and a couple of the other ships in other episodes that featured for seconds of time.

Less eyelids and more texturing then we might have been given a better look at it on the viewscreen.

 

[Maurice]

Yup, and that was so lazy given how much work went into the Orion vessel and a couple of the other ships in other episodes that featured for seconds of time.

Less eyelids and more texturing then we might have been given a better look at it on the viewscreen.

I prefer we didn't get a good look at it.

 

[Trekkin]

At the time of TOS-R, the series was a decades-old property that still stood as the most culturally relevant/popular part of the franchise.

Which is important to people that study media. Not so much to the vast majority of the human population, who will choose a DVD based on 'Do I think this looks enjoyable?'.

You know- the people using entertainment in exactly the way it's designed to be used.

You are saying that today's young audiences are so brainwashed--creatures of their moment, that none can discover and/or like/love/appreciate productions from older periods.

And yet this entire discussion is prompted by people feeling the quality and choice of SFX work detracts from an episodes overall quality (regardless of the rest of the eps 'cultural relevance' etc) to the point that they'd rather the 'bad SFX' didn't exist. It's the exact same stance, just applied to different SFX.

I actually do find the newer effects a little distracting, which is why I shelled out and brought the Blurays. But let's be real - Im a person who was prepared to pay a substantial amount of extra money, just so that I had the option to avoid something that looks bad. I'm in no position to shit on people who (wisely) have chosen to simply not watch something that doesn't 'look good' to them.

 

[DonIago]

I'd be curious to hear more in this thread from either casual or first-time TOS viewers, who would, I think, be less inclined to draw comparisons to the original material and more inclined to speak to how TOS-R struck them with no previous exposure.

I think for people used to experiencing material in a particular manner, different takes on it are always going to be a hard sell. Remakes of movies, different recordings of music, etc...to me the changes often, though not always, beg the question of "Why on Earth did they change that?" even if frequently my only defense is, "I liked it the way it was!"

 

[uniderth]

I tend to think that the original Gorn ship was fine, too. It seemed to have worked for the past fifty years.

The blinking eyes look less realistic to me because where in nature do eyelids cover compound eyes. It's just looks ridiculous to have an eyelid scraping down and up over those multifaceted eyes. If they were so intent on making eyelids they should have replaced the entirety of both eyes

Granted, compound eyes seem less likely for more complex organisms anyway. But, accepting that Gorn could have compound eyes, it would seem less likely that they would have eyelids. They probably clean them with their tongues.

 

[A beaker full of death]

The visible tractor beams and that one phaser were disappointing. That scene where Scotty is cutting through a bulkhead, and there's NO visible ray between the phaser and the line burning into the wall was one of the coolest things I ever saw.

 

[Warped9]

The visible tractor beams and that one phaser were disappointing. That scene where Scotty is cutting through a bulkhead, and there's NO visible ray between the phaser and the line burning into the wall was one of the coolest things I ever saw.

Sometimes limitations result in very good choices. In reality we are surrounded by energies we cannot actually see themselves even though we see the results and effects of their presence.

Not being able to see ships that are supposed to be hundreds to thousands to millions of kilometers away is a very realistic depiction of what such a scenario would be like.

TOS in its limitations often enough got somethings right or more right than later productions with greater time, money and resources who could indulge in visuals that were actually less realistic.

 

[Tosk]

The blinking eyes look less realistic to me because where in nature do eyelids cover compound eyes. It's just looks ridiculous to have an eyelid scraping down and up over those multifaceted eyes. If they were so intent on making eyelids they should have replaced the entirety of both eyes

Granted, compound eyes seem less likely for more complex organisms anyway. But, accepting that Gorn could have compound eyes, it would seem less likely that they would have eyelids. They probably clean them with their tongues.

If they are actually compound eyes at all. Every time we see a Gorn they seem to be different (TAS and ENT had more repltilian eyes, ENT had a different taxonomy), so who knows what's truly going on with the eyes?

...I don't disagree that it just feels somehow wrong though. I thought the same thing when I saw a fan edit of Star Wars that made Greedo blink with the same big cartoon eyelids. I feel like the Gorn blink would have looked better with an angled, non-human blink.

 

[RAMA]

At the time of TOS-R, the series was a decades-old property that still stood as the most culturally relevant/popular part of the franchise, even after TNG - VOY and Berman's terrible films, all with FX allegedly "better" than that created for TOS. That TOS still reigns as the most popular part of the franchise through several generations of varying tastes (1960s FX included) says much about how exclusively targeting a younger audience was largely pointless.



That would poor reasoning on the part of CBS. For example, by the 1970s, miniature, costume and matte work was "better" than that used in the 1930s, but did anyone suggest going back and "fixing" the original King Kong's FX, substituting it with the kind of work seen in the De Laurentis version? Of course not. Innumerable younger film goers discovered films made decades before their birth, and loved it. Why? No one forced them to, so how is it that they appreciated all of what they were watching, yet today's younger viewers cannot?

You are saying that today's young audiences are so brainwashed--creatures of their moment, that none can discover and/or like/love/appreciate productions from older periods. Valuable works of the past should not be picked apart to shoehorn (in TOS-R's case) video game-level, sub-par work in some cynical attempt to appeal to a part of today's audiences.

The fact you said "allegedly better" FX after decades of technical improvements automatically makes your post laughable, but I pressed onwards.

I know lots (well some) of you are so inextricably brainwashed by nostalgia that even changing a wall to make it look real instead of like plasterboard is a terrible sin, and that you'd rather watch something that's familiar and comfortable over something that's new and different (or better) but come on now...arguing the technical superiority of a cheap 60s show over what came in the 70s or 80s (much less the 90 or 2000s) is patently ridiculous. You might as well be a flat Earther at this point.

So just one more time, I'll point out the remastering took place to help it fit the new bluray and 1080p HD standard, one that needed both the live footage and FX to be pristine enough to show within that format. The unfathomable fact some of you still don't get this (and still think they should have shot physical models) is really beyond me. The CGI works with 1080p--the old stuff doesn't-- and still fits into the original image without looking glaring...a minor miracle that they took pains to achieve.

RAMA

 

[BillJ]

The fact you said "allegedly better" FX after decades of technical improvements automatically makes your post laughable, but I pressed onwards.

...arguing the technical superiority of a cheap 60s show over what came in the 70s or 80s (much less the 90 or 2000s) is patently ridiculous.

The fact that you don't even know that Star Trek was one of the most expensive shows on TV when it was produced, makes your claims of "nostalgia" laughable. You like new regardless of the quality of material. Seems like you are just as brainwashed by the "it's new, so it must be better" train of thought.

 

[RAMA]

The fact that you don't even know that Star Trek was one of the most expensive shows on TV when it was produced, makes your claims of "nostalgia" laughable. You like new regardless of the quality of material. Seems like you are just as brainwashed by the "it's new, so it must be better" train of thought.

Actually I know how much The Cage cost: $600,000+ and the series cost $186,000 per episode in 1966. In 1987 dollars, it would have been half the budget of STNG ($652,000 adjusted for inflation), and almost $200,000 LESS than the "cheap" Babylon 5. In 2016 dollars, it cost $1,380,000. The Expanse costs $5.4 million per episode and Game of Thrones over $8 million per episode.

New is not always better...unless it's something we are judging on a technical level, with decades of technological progression. As in this case...

RAMA

 

[Kemaiku]

The visible tractor beams and that one phaser were disappointing. That scene where Scotty is cutting through a bulkhead, and there's NO visible ray between the phaser and the line burning into the wall was one of the coolest things I ever saw.

The weird thing is, the original is more accurate in this case. A tightly concentrated beam of high energy infrared (just assuming there) or some equivalent wouldn't be visible to the human eye. The phaser emitter glowing just a little and some heat shimmer should have been the only thing seen (and cost less?).

Plus it would only have heated what it contacted with (the bulkhead) whereas the beam looks like it's going to keep cutting and go right into the curcuits behind. But then I think *everyone* criticised that shot back in the day.

I prefer we didn't get a good look at it.

I guess so. It was the teasing of them potentially showing us the full ship then just blurring an untextured model that I found irritating.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The fact you said "allegedly better" FX after decades of technical improvements automatically makes your post laughable, but I pressed onwards.

Yes, we understand you have a need to defend the inferior, video-game FX of TOS-R, which failed to pass even casual observation when released. Not top shelf work.

I know lots (well some) of you are so inextricably brainwashed by nostalgia that even changing a wall to make it look real instead of like plasterboard is a terrible sin, and that you'd rather watch something that's familiar and comfortable over something that's new and different (or better) but come on now...arguing the technical superiority of a cheap 60s show over what came in the 70s or 80s (much less the 90 or 2000s) is patently ridiculous.

...and you failed to address the Kong / audience reference in your rant. Expected.

You might as well be a flat Earther at this point.

Always the sign of one without a sound argument: attacking board members.

So just one more time, I'll point out the remastering took place to help it fit the new bluray and 1080p HD standard, one that needed both the live footage and FX to be pristine enough to show within that format. The unfathomable fact some of you still don't get this (and still think they should have shot physical models) is really beyond me. The CGI works with 1080p--the old stuff doesn't-- and still fits into the original image without looking glaring...a minor miracle that they took pains to achieve.

RAMA

To humor you, if "pristine enough" was the case, why are films with FX work over 80 years old (e.g. The Most Dangerous Game) and not nearly as well preserved, or a 65 year old film like The Day the Earth Stood Still deemed fit for bluray format with no FX replacement?

At the end of it all, your "argument" is that inferior, 1990s video game level CG is "better" than TOS' original work. A preference based on ideology, not a necessity.

 

[Maurice]

Actually I know how much The Cage cost: $600,000+ and the series cost $186,000 per episode in 1966. In 1987 dollars, it would have been half the budget of STNG ($652,000 adjusted for inflation), and almost $200,000 LESS than the "cheap" Babylon 5. In 2016 dollars, it cost $1,380,000. The Expanse costs $5.4 million per episode and Game of Thrones over $8 million per episode.

Adjusted for inflation isn't an accurate barometer for relative cost here because film production costs have not tracked with inflation, but escalated faster than it for a variety of reasons.

 

[RAMA]

Adjusted for inflation isn't an accurate barometer for relative cost here because film production costs have not tracked with inflation, but escalated faster than it for a variety of reasons.

It's a good enough barometer to demonstrate the argument and one that is used for movies on major movie sites, so I am satisfied with my conclusions.

In fact, if production costs have exceeded inflation then it only makes my point more valid.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Yes, we understand you have a need to defend the inferior, video-game FX of TOS-R, which failed to pass even casual observation when released. Not top shelf work.



...and you failed to address the Kong / audience reference in your rant. Expected.




Always the sign of one without a sound argument: attacking board members.



To humor you, if "pristine enough" was the case, why are films with FX work over 80 years old (e.g. The Most Dangerous Game) and not nearly as well preserved, or a 65 year old film like The Day the Earth Stood Still deemed fit for bluray format with no FX replacement?

At the end of it all, your "argument" is that inferior, 1990s video game level CG is "better" than TOS' original work. A preference based on ideology, not a necessity.

I've proven my argument over and over again it's 100% sound. There are obvious reasons even you should understand why movies and Tv are not the same animal, and not good for comparisons, so I don't feel the need to delve into this point.

I've attacked no one, just stating the obvious. If you don't get it by now then don't bother responding. :-)

Bob Justman on TOS-R:

TM: Speaking of computers, have you had a chance to see the new remastered Star Trek.

RJ: I have seen it and I’m thrilled. Because for the first time since its first release, the film, the individual cells look the way we envisioned them when we first shot the show. It is the closest thing to the original dailies, because they are fresh and pristine. I had this discussion with Jerry Finnerman that I wanted a strong key light. I said ‘Jerry ever been to any of these planets and who knows what it is like, I don’t want to be like it is in this room…I want to see color where you least expect it’.

TM: How do you feel about the new CGI shots, some of which are different than the originals, are you concerned they are making changes?

RJ: No, as long as it makes the show better I would be happy. It is like it was with Next Gen. We were able to do things we couldn’t do before and I was all for it. It is like being in a candy store. So if you are not harming the show it is OK. I guess some might say "you are harming the show for me." Well I can’t help that. Anything that makes the show better is better for the show and is better for the viewer.

You on TOS-R: Pointless

Bob Justman for the win.

RAMA

 

[Ssosmcin]

Justman's comments on the actual film cells are much more definitive than his opinion on the new effects, where he clearly was playing it safe.

Film restoration: "oh my god like watching the dailies! Love it!"

CGI: "As long as they don't ruin the show, it's fine."

Certainly not the same enthusiastic seal of approval you're using it for. Especially in that interview, it's obvious he hadn't seen them yet.

Sorry. Not that clear a win based on that.

It's all a matter of preference, but of course if it increases the value of the series to new generations, Justman wouldn't dismiss it.

 

[uniderth]

So just one more time, I'll point out the remastering took place to help it fit the new bluray and 1080p HD standard, one that needed both the live footage and FX to be pristine enough to show within that format.

I agree with this. What is disagree on is that the FX shots needed to be different than the original shots. They didn't need to be. The objective of upgrading to HD format could have been accomplished while still maintaining the integrity, creativity, and hard work of the original creators. The Remastered version as it exists now is like that fresco of Christ that that old lady tried to "restore" in Borja, Spain.

The unfathomable fact some of you still don't get this (and still think they should have shot physical models) is really beyond me.

Physical models can still look good/better in HD (see Interstellar).

 

[Vance]

Well, only one thing to do now..

"Haters" on one side.
"Lovers" on the other.

Pistols at dawn. One ball each.

Holy crap, guys, aren't some of you taking this stuff way - way - way too seriously and too personally?