I refuse to watch Trek remastered

[Outpost4]

And as for respecting the work of the ORIGINAL artists, either Star Trek is in a glass case in the Smithsonian, a museum piece, appreciated by a few, or it is a living, growing, vibrant thing. There is no middle ground. Would I have read "Great Expectations" if it hadn't be required in school? No. Most people wouldn't. But if a new movie version was made, you can be guaranteed that sales of Charles Dickens' 100+ year old work would go up dramatically. Who knows? After watching the redone version of "Balance of Terror", maybe a kid will then start watching Star Trek regularly on Nickelodeon and be turned onto the work of his forefathers.

The stories and lessons of Star Trek should be appreciated by a new generation. If that means updating the effects, so be it. Star Trek will not only survive the change but thrive. Viewership of TOS-R has gone up since the broadcasts were begun. That's a good thing.

 

[Vance]

Well, Remastered Star Trek refuses to watch you, too!

 

[Outpost4]

But I like to watch...

Oops, sorry, off topic.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

Outpost4 said:
I have heard nobody say that the work of the old effects experts was "cheesy, bad [and] deosn't (sic) hold up."

Well, current sci-fi fans to new fans to studio heads to television critics are ALL saying this. No matter that some of these were state-of-the-art in their day, they're criticised now in the same way Shatner's overacting has been for years.

It's completely unnecessary to update the effects on the show. End of story. The shows gain nothing by this, except prettying them up.

Having said that, I watch. Why wouldn't I? Do I not eat a hamburger because someone put cheese on it, or onions, or mushrooms? No, but a good hamburger needs no extras. But I still eat it.

This gives the suits at Paramount a cash stream while they try and repair all the damage done to the cow in the last 5 years. It's only about money. They can say it's about updating the show, but if it were only about updating the show, they'd have done a better job.

So, it's about making money, while updating the show. And the best way to tell Paramount anything is with your wallet. If you don't like it: don't buy it. Call your syndicator and tell them that, because STrek has been 'raped' along with your childhood, you're not watching them, anymore.

Call the local sponsors who advertise during the show: tell them, I won't buy your stuff, you advertised during STrek TOS-R. You'll be amazed how terrified they get at negative customer reactions.

If all you actually do is come in here and complain, and take no external action: you're a Denebian Slime Devil - spineless.

 

[Outpost4]

Steven Of Nine said:
Call the local sponsors who advertise during the show: tell them, I won't buy your stuff, you advertised during STrek TOS-R. You'll be amazed how terrified they get at negative customer reactions.

Heck of an idea. Let's make sure Paramount loses all interest in the Trek franchise. I think we should make Star Trek as viable to today's audiences as I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffith Show or The Honeymooners, all quality shows from the 1950s and 60s. Great thinking.

Not that your plan will do any good, or bad for that matter. TV stations are used to getting crank calls like this. They receive them daily. Ask any station manager. They are accustomed to the little old lady who calls up every week complaining that she doesn't like Jack McCoy's wrinkled face and that she'll never buy anything from the show's sponsors again. You call a TV station with your above comments on TOS-R and you'll get a polite, "Ooo kaaaay." An organized boycott by a special interest group can have an effect but you call with your "r***d my childhood" remark and you'll be treated as a loon.

 

[Forbin]

Outpost4 said:
^ 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.

Yes, indeed!

I have heard nobody say that the work of the old effects experts was "cheesy, bad [and] deosn't (sic) hold up."

Where the hell have you BEEN!?!?

 

[Outpost4]

^ Yeah, maybe not the best line in my post. I never said it. You never said it. Nobody who loves Star Trek ever said it.

 

[trevanian]

Steven Of Nine said:
Do I not eat a hamburger because someone put cheese on it, or onions, or mushrooms? No, but a good hamburger needs no extras. But I still eat it.

You should be more careful, you can't tell when Tyler Durden is the one adding 'extras' to your burger.

The 'extras' being jammed into TOS orifices are equally appalling.

 

[skylark]

I'm pretty sure that no one connected with Star Trek Remastered has described the original TOS effects as "cheesy" or "bad." I've only seen them quoted as speaking with great admiration for the original artists and their work.

 

[Forbin]

skylark said:
I'm pretty sure that no one connected with Star Trek Remastered has described the original TOS effects as "cheesy" or "bad." I've only seen them quoted as speaking with great admiration for the original artists and their work.

http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat....0&fpart=all

"Embarassingly Bad" - David Gerrold.

But I never mentioned people "connected with Trek," I'm mainly speaking of people who post on these boards who crow about the new "kewl" effects and knock the old ones. "Cheesy" and "Bad" being words thrown about with abandon here.

 

[LavianoTS386]

Outpost4 said:

Steven Of Nine said:
Call the local sponsors who advertise during the show: tell them, I won't buy your stuff, you advertised during STrek TOS-R. You'll be amazed how terrified they get at negative customer reactions.

Heck of an idea. Let's make sure Paramount loses all interest in the Trek franchise. I think we should make Star Trek as viable to today's audiences as I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffith Show or The Honeymooners, all quality shows from the 1950s and 60s. Great thinking.

That's an unfair comparison. I love Lucy & The Honeymooners used a much different approach to their comedy than the wholesome yawn fest that is/was the Andy Griffith Show.

 

[Mallory]

It's just a TV show. Albeit the one that brought us all here. Maybe this would be a good time to remember that we're all fans.

 

[number6]

Some of us are "fans."

 

[Spider]

I watched my first "remastered" episode last night, Wink of an Eye, and I barely noticed the difference. A couple of redone planet shots and a blue beam for a phaser. Quite frankly, if I wasn't looking for it, I probably wouldn't have noticed anything except for the phaser beams.

You know, I don't see where this is such a big deal, for either the pro or con side. If you wash a car, it might look a bit better until it rains again, but it's still the same car.

 

[pickard]

Ward Fowler said:
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.

Ward, you are correct. People should be tolerant of people who don't appreciate Trek Remastered.

However, even in this thread, there are posts from people who insult those who are appreciating Trek Remastered. From my perspective, and probably solely because of it, it seems like the "purists" are much more insulting.

There are implications that fans of the new version must not be long-time fans. We all grew up on video games. Or we're just TNG/DS9/VOY fans. As if most of us haven't been watching for longer than this thread's starter has been alive. I think there was even an annoying comment that people who like it must prefer comic books to novels, or something along those lines.

So, both sides of the debate should be tolerant.

If you like it, continue to watch. If you don't like it, at least you gave it a chance. It wasn't your thing, but at least you didn't base your opinion on ignorance or on the opinions of others.

New Trek doesn't make old Trek disappear. We've all got the original version on DVD (or access to them.) They're not going anywhere.

I love most of the new effects (especially lately) and hate the edits for TV, so I usually just fast-forward to the updated bits. I will be getting these on DVD.

 

[Forbin]

pickard said:
New Trek doesn't make old Trek disappear. We've all got the original version on DVD (or access to them.) They're not going anywhere.

Again!? God, I'm tired of hearing (reading) that. Short term, you're right. But think long term. How long until the format changes and you can't get a DVD player any more? Come back in 10 or 20 years, when (if TOS is still being broadcast) the only version available is the remastered version. Your DVDs may not have deteriorated yet, but you'll have nothing to play them on.

I stared buying TOS episodes when they were first released on Betamax. I continued buying them on VHS, and I finished buying them on DVD. I finally had to get them all on DVD.

Don't count of the unaltered versions EVER being available on whatever digital format is popular in 20 years.

 

[Ghel]

Forbin said:

pickard said:
New Trek doesn't make old Trek disappear. We've all got the original version on DVD (or access to them.) They're not going anywhere.

Again!? God, I'm tired of hearing (reading) that. Short term, you're right. But think long term. How long until the format changes and you can't get a DVD player any more? Come back in 10 or 20 years, when (if TOS is still being broadcast) the only version available is the remastered version. Your DVDs may not have deteriorated yet, but you'll have nothing to play them on.

I stared buying TOS episodes when they were first released on Betamax. I continued buying them on VHS, and I finished buying them on DVD. I finally had to get them all on DVD.

Don't count of the unaltered versions EVER being available on whatever digital format is popular in 20 years.

Of course the unaltered versions will be available on new formats. If people still want them, Paramount will be happy to sell two different editions of the same TV show and make twice the money.

Look at Star Wars as an example. George Lucas sold the original trilogy in theaters and VHS. Then he "updated" it, and sold that version as a film and VHS. THEN he sold only the updated version on DVD. THEN he waited a couple years, and now you can get the original theatrical cuts on DVD as well. He sold the same product six times.

From a money standpoint, Paramount would be very smart continue to sell multiple "editions" of the same show. We may whine about it, but most of us will end up owning both the unaltered and altered editions of the same TV show.

 

[pickard]

Presumably, just like with Star Wars, there'll be enough TOS "purists" to make it worth CBS's while to make the unaltered versions available on HD-DVD or its successor(s).

If there's a demand, the product will be there. If not, then you'll be in the minority and that'll be unfortunate for you. I'll just transfer my DVDs to whatever new media is around at the time. Just like I transferred my VHS to DVD.

 

[TuklaRatte]

TOS Remastered will finally give me a reason to buy TOS on DVD. I've never seen the point of replacing my VHS tapes with DVDs before now.

 

[Outpost4]

Forbin said:
Don't count of the unaltered versions EVER being available on whatever digital format is popular in 20 years.

What is your reference here? As pointed out, fans and the Almighty Buck forced Lucas to release Star Wars in its unaltered state. Colorized movies have gone bye-bye. Re-issued books where "not one word has been changed" are the standard. There are new translations of the Bible released almost yearly and yet the King James Edition remains popular and available. Neither the new Beatles Love record or the release of Let It Be Naked caused the older versions to go away. You sound like you're old enough, Forbin, to remember the disaster that was New Coke. How many examples do you want?

Beyond your paranoia, what examples can you cite of older versions of a classic product being permanently replaced by new versions? I'm not saying this has never happened but when it does, it is the exception, not the rule. Barbie dolls, Crest toothpaste and the 1939 movie version of The Wizard of Oz have stayed the same for half a century or more. Yes, new versions may be released along side of older ones, but more folks than just you are attached to their older classics and the market responds, keeping them available.