I refuse to watch Trek remastered
- Thread starter Surak
- Start date
Outpost4 , in all those cases, a significant portion of the population continues to believe that the original version is either superior or has distinctive merits that necessitate its availability.
Perhaps the "purists" fear that the superiority of the Remastered Trek will negate any need for the original?
Perhaps the "purists" fear that the superiority of the Remastered Trek will negate any need for the original?
pickard said:
Outpost4 , in all those cases, a significant portion of the population continues to believe that the original version is either superior or has distinctive merits that necessitate its availability.
Perhaps the "purists" fear that the superiority of the Remastered Trek will negate any need for the original?
Perhaps the "purists" have an appreciation for history, and not just the latest definition of what's "kewl."
I think the new footage looks great, and I'm all for the new versions of TOS episodes being available in the latest and greatest formats -- in addition to the original versions being available in the same formats.
If the original effects are as "kewl", then there's a need to keep them around.
If the history is worth keeping around for historical reference, if there's enough interest in purchasing the footage on the newest format, (which I'm certain there will be), those scammers at CBS will make them available for sale. Lucas did it. CBS will too.
I prefer the "kewl" new effects, but I have confidence there will be a demand for the originals to always be available. Some purists apparently don't have as much confidence in their own preferred version as I do in it.
By the way, "kewl" is one of the most obnoxious words in this discussion. (Though no more obnoxious than 10 years ago when Star Wars "purists" used it similarly.) If I think the original effects are best, that's an enlightened opinion, and I'm a viewer with refined tastes and historical perspective. If I prefer the new effects, it's because I was raised on Zelda games and Matrix movies. It's a not-so-subtle ad hominem attack which does a disservice to an otherwise valid viewpoint.
I respect both opinions in this discussion and see merit in both sides of the issue. (As with Star Wars movies, I can't help but think of the effects guys who are proud to have worked on the original versions of these great productions and have now had their work diminished or replaced in the new versions. That must suck.)
If the history is worth keeping around for historical reference, if there's enough interest in purchasing the footage on the newest format, (which I'm certain there will be), those scammers at CBS will make them available for sale. Lucas did it. CBS will too.
I prefer the "kewl" new effects, but I have confidence there will be a demand for the originals to always be available. Some purists apparently don't have as much confidence in their own preferred version as I do in it.
By the way, "kewl" is one of the most obnoxious words in this discussion. (Though no more obnoxious than 10 years ago when Star Wars "purists" used it similarly.) If I think the original effects are best, that's an enlightened opinion, and I'm a viewer with refined tastes and historical perspective. If I prefer the new effects, it's because I was raised on Zelda games and Matrix movies. It's a not-so-subtle ad hominem attack which does a disservice to an otherwise valid viewpoint.
I respect both opinions in this discussion and see merit in both sides of the issue. (As with Star Wars movies, I can't help but think of the effects guys who are proud to have worked on the original versions of these great productions and have now had their work diminished or replaced in the new versions. That must suck.)
A guy I knew here in Sydney (he died a few years ago) had the entire TOS catalogue on 35mm film. He collected them over many years, from various international sources, always replacing worn copies with better quality ones when he could find them - and he showed five episodes on the big screen every month (in two capital cities). All he had to do was have his cinema-quality projectors serviced regularly and he was set. Noone could change the SPFX on him.
If you are prepared to put in the time, $$$$ and effort, anything is possible. But for commercial purposes, it will depend on demand as to what CBS will supply.
I hesitate to post in threads like this because I think they perpetuate hate, which Star Trek was firmly against. But honestly, I can't fathom the negativity toward remastering Star Trek.
Doing so isn't destroying Trek, it's preserving it. As America & the world move toward HD broadcasting, networks are going to favor shows that are in this format.
Sure, we could leave Trek alone, untouched and perfectly preserved and allow it to slowly fade from memory as the world passes it by. Hoping that TV Land or somesuch might play it at midnight every few years. Or we can have the shows remastered in High Definition, broadcast on any station that wants them.
Star Trek was always about the stories, and not the effects. So why are we arguing about the effects now? The only reason the old effects don't work in HD is because of the film quality, not the artistry. Are the new effects perfect? No, but they're more appropriate for today's technology.
But the most important thing is, if this remastering exercise keeps these episodes out in front of people so the stories can be told again and again, then let them.
Guys, remastering Star Trek is a good thing. Take your geek glasses off for a second and look at the big picture. Star Trek isn't vanishing, it's being preserved for a whole new generation. Star Trek Lives!
Doing so isn't destroying Trek, it's preserving it. As America & the world move toward HD broadcasting, networks are going to favor shows that are in this format.
Sure, we could leave Trek alone, untouched and perfectly preserved and allow it to slowly fade from memory as the world passes it by. Hoping that TV Land or somesuch might play it at midnight every few years. Or we can have the shows remastered in High Definition, broadcast on any station that wants them.
Star Trek was always about the stories, and not the effects. So why are we arguing about the effects now? The only reason the old effects don't work in HD is because of the film quality, not the artistry. Are the new effects perfect? No, but they're more appropriate for today's technology.
But the most important thing is, if this remastering exercise keeps these episodes out in front of people so the stories can be told again and again, then let them.
Guys, remastering Star Trek is a good thing. Take your geek glasses off for a second and look at the big picture. Star Trek isn't vanishing, it's being preserved for a whole new generation. Star Trek Lives!
"Cheesy" is an unfortunate word with a very negative connotation that imples the original work wasn't taken seriously and was meant to look substandard, and that is a wholly inaccurate and unfair criticism of TOS' f/x. It would be far more fair to say things like "dated" or "limited" or even comparateively "simple" and "crude," but "cheesy" is downright insulting whether the user intends so or not. And there is certainly nothing "enbarassingly bad" about TOS' f/x except to someone with a small mind and an axe to grind.
There are always ways of transferring stuff from the old format to the new format, like you can do now with VHS to DVD.
It all depends on how many people are interested in it. Paramount/CBS will not pass an opportunity to make some more money. If the number of people interested is large enough they will offer it on the latest digital format. If not, they can still offer it via downloads.
They did go to the trouble of transferring the unaltered originals to HD video which was the hard part, offering it for download is the easy part. And those who like TOS at a lower non-HD resolution (since that's how it was originally broadcast) can use the other method I mentioned above.
But the 1939 version of "The Wizard of Oz" has never been improved with helpful, wonderful new CGI effects. The original "Oz" effects are so cheesey! We must remake those effects, if for no other reason than to attract the modern audience. In HD the shoddy effects are more evident than ever. And no fear -- the original will still be out there, somewhere.
(Pro TOS-Rs, please find fault with the above argument?)
(Pro TOS-Rs, please find fault with the above argument?)
Exactly, whereas ever since TNG started, young whippersnappers have been saying they "simply can't get into" TOS because the old-fashioned FX pull them out of a good story. And they've continued to resist through all 18 years of modern ST. So it's worth CBS's while to try to nab at least some of those ST fans into the TOS fold for the longterm and, at the same time, cause a little excitement for jaded TOS fans.
So correct, Therin. Sci-fi does have a tougher row to hoe than almost any other kind of drama. I've been working a lot with a 16 year old recently. The other day he said that the majority of his friends haven't even seen the original Star Wars movie (Episode 4). It doesn't interest them. While I also know an 8 year old who is a total Star Wars fanatic, with sci-fi, if it isn't up to date, it may not even be considered by a younger generation.
Did Paramount stormtroopers break into your house and defile (or at least forcibly remove) your personal DVD collection?
Or are you talking about a corporation exercising its rightful control over a property that it owns, into which it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few decades?
Similar threads
- Locked
