I refuse to watch Trek remastered

[Therin of Andor]

Ward Fowler said:
I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but those two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Its possible to believe that TOS IS about the story and character and yet hold to the idea that we ought to respect the history of the show.

There is still a very large group of ST fans, who discovered ST via TOS reunion movies, or TNG and the later series, who loudly proclaim that TOS on TV is "unwatchable" to them because of the 60s SPFX. They thus have chosen to ignore 78 episodes of TOS that many of us feel are crucial to a well-rounded appreciation of the ST phenomenon.

Now, sure, the diehard TOS fans find that attitude strange and insulting but it's there. I see no problem with CBS experimenting with a way to make TOS more palatable to a new group of fans, and to produce a version of TOS that syndication networks will not be reluctant to buy and air in the upcoming days of HD TV. Left alone, TOS will slide into oblivion from free-to-air TV once general audiences are accustomed to HD TV, and their expectations rise.

I've heard that US free-to-air syndicators have, in the past, refused to air Season One "Lost in Space", Season One "Gilligan's Island" and Seasons One and Two of "Bewitched" because those episodes are in b/w and so even though they contain seminal episodes that set-up the series, they were rarely offered to general audiences. It's my understanding you often had to seek out cable and pay TV channels to see the b/w stuf, or waiot for video and DVD releases.

If the SPFX on TOS are the only thing that discourages those latter-day ST fans, it's a relatively easy fix. And if watching TOS CGI allows them to experience the stories at last, and pulls them into the TOS fold, they might get curious about seeing the show in its "original form". Even better.

And the diehard old TOS fans can always pretend that TOS CGI isn't out there.

 

[Outpost4]

Ward Fowler said:
I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but those two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

Exactly. While I certainly don't agree with Surak, and have stated so in this thread, I can understand his position. His is like buying a sports car for the handling and power but not liking the color. A bright pink Ferrari would go fast but I wouldn't drive it.

 

[Good Will Riker]

There are some people who just refuse to accept change.


These are the same type of people who refuse to upgrade from VHS to DVD, even when they can find the same exact films that are cheaper on DVD than VHS.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Good Will Riker said:
These are the same type of people who refuse to upgrade from VHS to DVD, even when they can find the same exact films that are cheaper on DVD than VHS.

When CDs first came out, I stubbornly kept buying LPs, telling myself that I couldn't tell any difference in sound quality - and I much preferred the large size of the cover art (still do), and the thin records take up much less room.

Movie soundtracks were one of the first categories to make the big switch. Suddenly I couldn't get "The Abyss" on LP. CD only. That broke the ice. Then, on a trip to the USA in December 1991, I picked up ST VI on CD... and went wild rebuying all my previous ST soundtrack LPs on CD for discount prices.

When my record player arm developed an intermittent fault, I found myself depending more and more on my growing CD collection. I moved house and the LPs got shunted to an out-of-the-way bookcase. I did finally buy a new record player, but now I get so irritated by the scratchy sounds of the stylus, and getting up half way through each album to flip sides.

A slow process usually, but conversion to better tech is inevitable.

 

[Ward Fowler]

Therin of Andor said:

There is still a very large group of ST fans, who discovered ST via TOS reunion movies, or TNG and the later series, who loudly proclaim that TOS on TV is "unwatchable" to them because of the 60s SPFX. They thus have chosen to ignore 78 episodes of TOS that many of us feel are crucial to a well-rounded appreciation of the ST phenomenon.

Now, sure, the diehard TOS fans find that attitude strange and insulting but it's there. I see no problem with CBS experimenting with a way to make TOS more palatable to a new group of fans, and to produce a version of TOS that syndication networks will not be reluctant to buy and air in the upcoming days of HD TV. Left alone, TOS will slide into oblivion from free-to-air TV once general audiences are accustomed to HD TV, and their expectations rise.

I've heard that US free-to-air syndicators have, in the past, refused to air Season One "Lost in Space", Season One "Gilligan's Island" and Seasons One and Two of "Bewitched" because those episodes are in b/w and so even though they contain seminal episodes that set-up the series, they were rarely offered to general audiences. It's my understanding you often had to seek out cable and pay TV channels to see the b/w stuf, or waiot for video and DVD releases.

If the SPFX on TOS are the only thing that discourages those latter-day ST fans, it's a relatively easy fix. And if watching TOS CGI allows them to experience the stories at last, and pulls them into the TOS fold, they might get curious about seeing the show in its "original form". Even better.

And the diehard old TOS fans can always pretend that TOS CGI isn't out there.

I can certainly understand what you are saying and to a large extent, I know that you are correct. If people that would have never been attracted to the show start watching and fall in love with the characters and the stories, then I think that's fantastic. However, we are living in a time when media is becoming increasingly disposable. From reality shows to the latest pop songs on the radio, increasingly quantity wins out over quality and product is just thrown out there to mindlessly consume, and then its gone. Star Trek is not disposable entertainment to me, or at least not TOS, so its difficult for me to see parts of it be cut out and replaced. Especially when they are replaced with f/x that are sometimes inferior to what has come before. Sure the f/x are clearer and the resolution is higher, but sometimes the cgi can look cartoony. Anyhow, if there is a market for Remastered Trek, so be it. If it brings new fans to TOS, fantastic. I'll watch my dvd's and everybody wins.

By the way, there have been some people in this thread and indeed in the forum, that have been pretty dismissive of those of us who don't like the idea of Remastered Trek. There's been name calling and people saying that we can't abide change. What you need to understand is that our (or at least my) opinion stems from a love of the show and a respect for what the cast and crew created back in the 60's. I don't judge the people who enjoy Remastered Trek and I would like it if they didn't judge me.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Ward Fowler said:
I don't judge the people who enjoy Remastered Trek and I would like it if they didn't judge me.

Sure, but I'd also add that I wish fans would be more open-minded about TOS CGI (and all future ST projects). There's so much negativity being a ST fan these days.

Many fans just dismiss the artisans working on TOS CGI as hacks. The SPFX people are doing what they believe is the best job possible with the budget and timeframes they have to work with, and they are obviously injecting much love and passsion into the project - and are even correcting mistakes already made as they go. I find I get very twitchy on their behalf when people just dismiss their contributions as unworthy or amateurish, because I find it very nice work indeed - and I've only seen little bits of it so far.

 

[Ward Fowler]

Therin of Andor said:


The SPFX people are doing what they believe is the best job possible with the budget and timeframes they have to work with, and they are obviously injecting much love and passsion into the project - and are even correcting mistakes already made as they go.

I agree.

I find I get very twitchy on their behalf when people just dismiss their contributions as unworthy or amateurish, because I find it very nice work indeed - and I've only seen little bits of it so far.

I'll admit that I have only seen two of the early episodes and one of the more recent ones, but I wasn't very impressed with the Enterprise model. To me it looks insubstantial and cartoonish compared to the original. That's not to say that f/x artists aren't talented. I know that they are doing the best they can with the budget they have, but it still doesn't change how the cgi looks to my eyes.

 

[Smiley]

While the effects shots may look better, the costumes, make-up, lighting, and a dozen other aspects of TOS-R still loudly proclaim that the show was made in the 1960s. I doubt that this new version of the series is making a lot of converts of viewers who thought that TOS looked too cheesy.

There's also the issue of being able to watch the show. From what I've heard, it does not come on at a decent hour in most regions. I have seen no advertising for it except on Trek websites, so the casual viewer is most likely unaware that TOS-R even exists. As far as I'm concerned, it should have been a straight-to-DVD release.

 

[Neroon]

Therin of Andor said:
I find I get very twitchy on their behalf when people just dismiss their contributions as unworthy or amateurish, because I find it very nice work indeed - and I've only seen little bits of it so far.

I'm pretty much of the same mind. You aren't Vulcan are you?

But I also feel that way when folks get a little overzealous in their criticism and / or mocking of the special effects work on the show's original incarnation. Unfortunately, when you see the series through today's paradigm, the effects don't seem to stand up terribly well. I submit that may in part be the storytelling of the series being so good that it momentarily takes you out of the mindset of "well this was made in the 1960's". To the point where seeing something that can't be missed as being from that era (some costumes for example), it gets noticed all the more.

 

[Good Will Riker]

Therin of Andor said:

Good Will Riker said:
These are the same type of people who refuse to upgrade from VHS to DVD, even when they can find the same exact films that are cheaper on DVD than VHS.

When CDs first came out, I stubbornly kept buying LPs, telling myself that I couldn't tell any difference in sound quality - and I much preferred the large size of the cover art (still do), and the thin records take up much less room.

Movie soundtracks were one of the first categories to make the big switch. Suddenly I couldn't get "The Abyss" on LP. CD only. That broke the ice. Then, on a trip to the USA in December 1991, I picked up ST VI on CD... and went wild rebuying all my previous ST soundtrack LPs on CD for discount prices.

When my record player arm developed an intermittent fault, I found myself depending more and more on my growing CD collection. I moved house and the LPs got shunted to an out-of-the-way bookcase. I did finally buy a new record player, but now I get so irritated by the scratchy sounds of the stylus, and getting up half way through each album to flip sides.

A slow process usually, but conversion to better tech is inevitable.

It's just that my Dad purchased a CD player, speakers, and a full entertainment center (that also featured a radio and a cassette player) back in the summer of 1984; he also had a camcorder by the Christmas of 1983, so we had a lot of people curious about my Dad filming the family out in public because "They were wowed by it!"

No we were not rich, and never were, but on a middle class income my Dad decided to be an "early adopter" of these 2 technologies that people now take for granted.

So, I was used to CDs and amassing a CD collection since 1984. When I see 80's retro shows (Such as the quickly cancelled "That 80's Show!") having a record store without any CDs in sight, that is completely false. "The Wherehouse" (A once thriving videostore franchise.) where my Dad purchased his CDs from back in the 80's was stocked with them, comparable to HD-DVD's availability in today's predominantly DVD market.

It is interesting how you mention the soundtrack CD to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. That was the first one I owned, and I was very impressed by it.

 

[Brundledan]

Good Will Riker said:
There are some people who just refuse to accept change.

That's what Ted Turner said.

These are the same type of people who refuse to upgrade from VHS to DVD, even when they can find the same exact films that are cheaper on DVD than VHS.

A straw-man comparison -- and an invalid one besides, since you're comparing a question of format preference with one of artistic ethics.

-Dan

 

[Therin of Andor]

Smiley said:
As far as I'm concerned, it should have been a straight-to-DVD release.

How? Not financially possible. The way this project has been budgeted is that the enhanced episodes are being readied and aired weekly, as if the project was an all-new series, taking into account viewer reactions to monitor how best to proceed. Do they get braver with the changes, alter the nacelles, tweak matt paintings with movement, etc? As they've been doing.

They are also getting well over 78 weeks of free word-of-mouth publicity.

To simply ready a DVD boxed set of altered Season One episodes, with no viewer feedback until the job was finished, then just let them hit the market would perhaps have been met with a dull thud, and lots of fan disinterest, especially from those who already own TOS in boxed set DVD form. Then, until sales figures stabilized, there'd be months of the CGI team's inactivity, with no one at CBS willing to greenlight proceeding on Season Two changes.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Neroon said:
I'm pretty much of the same mind. You aren't Vulcan are you?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ V
Nope. Andorian.

Unfortunately, when you see the series through today's paradigm, the effects don't seem to stand up terribly well.

Exactly, but us older fans have nostalgia to outweigh it. Someone who comes to TOS after only having seen TNG (and beyond) often sees Kirk & co as the interlopers.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Good Will Riker said:
So, I was used to CDs and amassing a CD collection since 1984. When I see 80's retro shows (Such as the quickly cancelled "That 80's Show!") having a record store without any CDs in sight, that is completely false.

Ah, but they didn't look like CDs on the racks, either.

While here in Australia, the early CD cases were displayed next to the audiocassette cases, in the USA I was amazed to see that most CDs were packaged into tall thin cardboard boxes, about 14" x 6", as if the (pre electronically-guarded) shops were scared people would slip the tinier CDs into a pocket.

Many of these boxes extended the cover art of the CD - my ST VI one is beautiful! - but others were more generic, perhaps promoting only the name of the distributor or recording company.

Drat. Must be a slow evening over there (morning here). Now I've posted three-in-a-row. Sorry mods.

 

[Good Will Riker]

Therin of Andor said:

Good Will Riker said:
So, I was used to CDs and amassing a CD collection since 1984. When I see 80's retro shows (Such as the quickly cancelled "That 80's Show!") having a record store without any CDs in sight, that is completely false.

Ah, but they didn't look like CDs on the racks, either.

Sure they did. The CDs came inside rectangular anti-theft boxes, but inside were the square CD jewel cases with the artwork covers and list of tracks that have always been used since the early-80's to date.

As you have mentioned below.

While here in Australia, the early CD cases were displayed next to the audiocassette cases, in the USA I was amazed to see that most CDs were packaged into tall thin cardboard boxes, about 14" x 6", as if the (pre electronically-guarded) shops were scared people would slip the tinier CDs into a pocket.

Those boxes were a pain in the ass, weren't they?

 

[JBElliott]

Surak said:
I refuse. I really don't see why people would want to even watch this. Just wait, they'll probabally release this on DVD to try and scam more money from us.

I refuse to read threads about refusing to watch. I refuse to post in threads about refusing to watch.

Oh wait a minute . . .

 

[Kryton]

I thought there were *79* episodes of TOS.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Cryton said:
I thought there were *79* episodes of TOS.

Depends on how you count them. Some people count "The Menagerie" as one adventure, making 78 episodes, but 79 hours of ST. Others include "The Cage", making a total of 80 episodes.

 

[Forbin]

Therin of Andor said:

Ward Fowler said:
I don't judge the people who enjoy Remastered Trek and I would like it if they didn't judge me.

Sure, but I'd also add that I wish fans would be more open-minded about TOS CGI (and all future ST projects). There's so much negativity being a ST fan these days.

Many fans just dismiss the artisans working on TOS CGI as hacks. The SPFX people are doing what they believe is the best job possible with the budget and timeframes they have to work with, and they are obviously injecting much love and passsion into the project - and are even correcting mistakes already made as they go. I find I get very twitchy on their behalf when people just dismiss their contributions as unworthy or amateurish, because I find it very nice work indeed - and I've only seen little bits of it so far.

Understood, and I don't disagree. But what about the ORIGINAL effects arists who created the ORIGINAL effects, who put their all into their work, who are now (if they're alive) being told their work was cheesy, bad, deosn't hold up, and needs replacing? That's just not right.

 

[Outpost4]

^ I agree. This has gone too far, and not just with Star Trek:

- The St. Louis Cardinals should never have built a new ball park. Iron workers put their blood and sweat into building old Busch Stadium. How dare they tear it down!

- If a crystal radio was good enough for Marconi it's good enough for me.

- Battlestar Galactica should not have been remade. We don't want to piss off Loren Greene. Oh, wait. He's dead. Never mind. This one's OK.



I have heard nobody say that the work of the old effects experts was "cheesy, bad [and] deosn't (sic) hold up." Nobody is denying the work of the old effects artists wasn't revolutionary for its day. They would be hung by their pointed ears in this forum if they did. Paramount's motivation is simply that new effects can be done, breathing life into a 40 year old product. This has totally to do with Paramount making money, not the suits at the studio saying Star Trek's effects were bad. Do you think they could have possibly talked local stations into showing Star Trek in syndication after all these years without the new effects? No frickin' way. The new effects are all about selling Star Trek one more time on DVD, not an artistic decision.

Like the new effects or not, that is your choice. But don't confuse art with commerce. Forbin, you don't need to be jazzed all over again by Star Trek to appreciate it but others do. Such is the way people are wired. I worked in retail for 30 years. I never had anyone come into my store asking me, "What's old?"