No one is stopping you from watching TOS on Betamax, VHS, Laserdisc, DVD or Blu-ray disc with the original effects...
How Far Should TOS-R Have Gone?
- Thread starter ZapBrannigan
- Start date
No one is stopping you from watching TOS on Betamax, VHS, Laserdisc, DVD or Blu-ray disc with the original effects...
Ahh yes the old "how far should they have gone thread"... to me there's no winner (except Paramount who rake in the bucks from putting BOTH versions on the Blu-Rays and charging a premium for the privilege) To me, on my HDTV, the new effects look great, the old effects are the ones that are jarring, but the fandamentalists will violently disagree
I disagree with some of the end results, they do look rushed in many cases (though not as rushed as the effects in "Space Above and Beyond" where many ships weren't even textured)
But as alluded to in other threads , CBS Digital was put between a rock and a hard place. the original effects were too poor for HD viewing so they almost had no choice but to redo the effects, and the effects they wanted to do wouldn't please the fanboys due to time, editorial decisions and cost constraints. What they did within the time and budget demanded is actually quite good, just as the original effects were for the time in which they were done (after all, they didn't have 2001's budget and they usually were very pressed for time)...
So my childhood or adulthood wasn't raped because they changed the effects..And for the most part I happen to enjoy the results, but as in all things, your mileage may vary.. Just remember, threads like these ALWAYS end up with pointless name calling...
I'm just waitin for the inevitable Godwining of the thread, after all we've had the triple K reference already...
I also applaud the RESTRAINT used in the creation of the new effects to which the Fanboys will also violently disagree
I disagree with some of the end results, they do look rushed in many cases (though not as rushed as the effects in "Space Above and Beyond" where many ships weren't even textured)
But as alluded to in other threads , CBS Digital was put between a rock and a hard place. the original effects were too poor for HD viewing so they almost had no choice but to redo the effects, and the effects they wanted to do wouldn't please the fanboys due to time, editorial decisions and cost constraints. What they did within the time and budget demanded is actually quite good, just as the original effects were for the time in which they were done (after all, they didn't have 2001's budget and they usually were very pressed for time)...
So my childhood or adulthood wasn't raped because they changed the effects..And for the most part I happen to enjoy the results, but as in all things, your mileage may vary.. Just remember, threads like these ALWAYS end up with pointless name calling...
I'm just waitin for the inevitable Godwining of the thread, after all we've had the triple K reference already...
trevanian
Rear Admiral
You guys keep going at it from the viewer point of view, like you're entitled to something different, that to keep your interest the product needs to be altered.
I ain't coming from that direction. Even as a dedicated viewer of TREK and BOND, I don't feel that I am entitled to demand alterations to what they've done (except maybe to put an apology on every Bond flick after Timothy Dalton's efforts and to sell a version of Trek09 that comes with Red Matter for easy self-immolation of feature film.)
(forgive me for being lighthearted , I'm in a pretty good mood right now, I just read a synopsis of the new Trek movie and my wife and I have been having a good laugh over it. To that other poster who was telling me I should take a stress pill or some other HAL-like bit of joyjoyspeak, I should say, See, you were right! I am happier now. When crap lives down to your expectations, you can only shrug or laugh or write a review.)
ANYWAYS ... I see the reworkings of TOS-r as trashing the work of the original artists, plain & simple. And just because the original remains as an option does NOTHING to address the fact that the work is being messed with. Just because Terry Gilliam's version of BRAZIL is available doesn't offset the damage done by the TV airings of Sid Sheinberg's version of the film, which is, to be polite, a total fucking disgrace.
A
Amaris
Guest
That's your opinion. Fortunately, since I also have a voice, and money, I can request to see something different, and the nice people who own the property can say "Sure! we can see how far this goes!"
Now, you don't have to like it, but it harms you in no way, and it does nothing to the original work. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see something from a different perspective. When you enshrine something, it becomes static, and over time it can become too sacred to touch, and when that happens, it's time to change things.
If art stays static, it begins to lose meaning. Updating it, refreshing it, showing it in a new light can bring others to enjoy it instead of passing it by and letting it fade into history. The original works are still available. There is nothing to fear. Change isn't always bad.
Quite frankly, Star Trek is a wonderful television show, but it is still a television show, and subject to reinterpretations and updates. It isn't the Mona Lisa, it's Kirk kissing a half naked green alien and ripping his shirt. Doesn't make it any less enjoyable and meaningful in it's way, but it doesn't make it the Christ of the Sacred Heart, either.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Yeah, CITIZEN KANE has certainly lost its meaning down through the years because Ted Turner wasn't able to colorize it.
Art just IS. Interpretation of art is what changes over time. If you change the art to suit the interpretter, it isn't art anymore, it is masturbation. And I'm through listening to you lovelies jerk off over this.
Art just IS. Interpretation of art is what changes over time. If you change the art to suit the interpretter, it isn't art anymore, it is masturbation. And I'm through listening to you lovelies jerk off over this.
Or you could act like a grown up and realize not everyone thinks the same way you do? Just a thought.
A
Amaris
Guest
That isn't a logical stance. Art is, by it's very nature, subjective.
If I look at a blue painting and say "this must represent the guise of the mind," and you look at that same blue painting and say "those nacelles are hideous," neither of us is incorrect in our interpretations of that work. What the artist conveys is not always what the viewer will receive, and even if they receive that specific message, it may not be one that suits their own ideas of what the work represents, and they will reinterpret it thusly.
You can post here all day until you're blue in the face saying that I can't change a work of art, but will continue to be wrong. I can change a work of art. I can perceive it differently, I can find a new message in it, or I can modify the existing message to mean something else. It is art; it is pliable; it is something that can and will always be subjective to change, and no amount of frenzies protestation will change that. That is the nature of art, and it's the nature of humanity to see what we wish to see, to say what we wish to say, and to hear it how we wish to hear it.
Citizen Kane, in color, may be a travesty to you, but if it touches someone else and they find something meaningful in it, then all you have is your sturm and drang, and feelings of hue and whinge. It doesn't change the fact that someone derived meaning from something you dislike, and that makes your bone of contention completely irrelevant to that person.
Which is as it should be.
Here.. Here... see the fandamentalist at work..
Star Trek TOS is equated to
.. so in some opinions, a TV show designed to make MONEY first and foremost is equated as not just art, but HIGH art..
One can only think since Paramount's show competed with "Gomer Pyle USMC" and ended up battered in the ratings..to the point of cancellation, the point could be made that "Gomer Pyle USMC" was better art than Star Trek! After all, "Gomer Pyle USMC" was a success and made a LOT of money and Star Trek a failure...
but heck it's not like some can accept dissent (or Heresy if one prefers), as at that point those folks fit the very definition of fandamentalists..
Remember, someone started the name calling, and let it degenerate from there..right down to references to the KKK and now masturbation
..Such witty comebacks..
A
Amaris
Guest
Which is the best way to look at it if you don't like the changes. No matter what is done to the series, no matter how many revisions and incarnations it gets, you will always have your preferred versions.
you know, I agree with you about the remasterings. the cgi versions are not nearly as good (or historically relevant) as the original versions with the original sfx. but IMO the blu rays are worth buying for the increase in quality of the original footage, and you don't need to watch the cgi versions. Original versions in HD is greatness!
One could argue that TOS in HD is against the original intent, just as making changes with new exterior shots is. They never intended or expected such detail to be visible when they made the show. They never even expected the clarity we get with standard DVDs!
There is that. And the fact that presently the season sets are still pricey.
Regarding the original intention, this guy...
http://brightlightsfilm.com/68/68startrek.php
...argues that Star Trek's simple, smooth, often almost-featureles visual minimalism was an artistic choice and not just a reflection of the show's low budget.
And he's got a point. Lot's of cheap shows cluttered up their sets and backdrops like crazy. The author makes some mistakes (overgeneralizations and absolute statements that in fact have several exceptions in the series), but overall he makes a good point.
This reminds me of an article in Voyage 16 (dated 7802) of the Star Trek Giant Poster Book. It was titled "Lights... Cameras... STAR TREK" by Allan Asherman.
http://brightlightsfilm.com/68/68startrek.php
...argues that Star Trek's simple, smooth, often almost-featureles visual minimalism was an artistic choice and not just a reflection of the show's low budget.
And he's got a point. Lot's of cheap shows cluttered up their sets and backdrops like crazy. The author makes some mistakes (overgeneralizations and absolute statements that in fact have several exceptions in the series), but overall he makes a good point.
This reminds me of an article in Voyage 16 (dated 7802) of the Star Trek Giant Poster Book. It was titled "Lights... Cameras... STAR TREK" by Allan Asherman.
A
Amaris
Guest
I've mentioned it before, but I would have been fine with a simple cleaning of the film and reissue in HD. Still, I do like what we have, and I think it will make the series accessible to people who would have otherwise passed it over. Bring them in with the pretty shinies; get them to stay with the terrific stories.
A
Amaris
Guest
The only TOS-R episode I have is Enterprise Incident (which is one of my faves) simply because it visually makes more sense. I can live with the 60s fx for the other ones. But maybe I'm missing something.
Well, it's more to do with the technical aspects of things. The special effects were very low resolution compared to the film stock, so when they cleaned and prepped the series for HD, the special effects had to be reshot. In the process, CBS Digital decided to update them for a more modern audience.
I think TOS-R was just fine as it is. Now what they really need to do is a TAS-R. Full CGI. Get rid of the crappy 70's animation and go all-out.
