It's official: Thank God for Remastered!

[plynch]

I keep checking into this thread tho I tell myself not to. It's like a train wreck -- I can't not look.

Let me see if I get the recent logic:

axiom:Some or even many people don't notice the changes, thus the changes are "good."

So ... logically speaking here . . . if I take Shakespeare, take out a bunch of the harder words and replace them with easier words so that it's more accessible . . . and if most people don't notice the changes . . . that is "good"?

The new version would be easier to read and be more accessible. But I wouldn't make a blanket pronouncement like "good" or "better." Why do we have to generalize and say the new effects are cleaner, snazzier, whatever, thus . . . "BETTER." Or, conversely, the old effects are truer to the look and production values of the rest of the show, thus the "GOOD" version?

I can see "pros" for each style. I prefer the old, but they are not the "good" way or absolutely "better."

Wow, people. Be well. Thanks for the entertainment, though, seriously. I'm sure I'll check beck on this train wreck again.

 

[RAMA]

Let me see if I get the recent logic:

axiom:Some or even many people don't notice the changes, thus the changes are "good."

So ... logically speaking here . . . if I take Shakespeare, take out a bunch of the harder words and replace them with easier words so that it's more accessible . . . and if most people don't notice the changes . . . that is "good"?

Not exactly..if the topic is about the changes being about what "fits" into the footage. You can then make a comparison between how different groups of people view them...so in this case, it would be like taking an old copy of Shakespeare...taking out printing errors, or adding proper punctuation, making the txt more legible, and repairing damages... You do not make any story changes (like Lucas). Plus you still have an original copy. Purists would say bah humbug (or worse), and others would probably have a better time reading them.

Also you could quibble with "artistic" choices of shots, but again, the actual remastering is technically "better" in every measurable way. Older viewers will always bring preconceptions into it, while a newer viewer can actually judge the improvements more objectively.

RAMA

 

[Chrisisall]

I think you maybe referring to Professor Moriarty's work who has a thread running in the Fan Art forum about his ongoing project. I didn't like his new DDM either but I do think many of his shot compositions are better that the TOS-SE versions.

Yeah, I loved some of his stuff, just... redesigning...?
Ughhhhh

 

[JarodRussell]

So ... logically speaking here . . . if I take Shakespeare, take out a bunch of the harder words and replace them with easier words so that it's more accessible . . . and if most people don't notice the changes . . . that is "good"?

The new version would be easier to read and be more accessible. But I wouldn't make a blanket pronouncement like "good" or "better." Why do we have to generalize and say the new effects are cleaner, snazzier, whatever, thus . . . "BETTER." Or, conversely, the old effects are truer to the look and production values of the rest of the show, thus the "GOOD" version?

The more time passes, the more the Shakespeare texts (and generally all old texts) will turn into a "foreign" language, simply because language naturally evolves over time into something new and different. So eventually, at one point, there will be the need for a translation. So yes, it's "good".

 

[Chrisisall]

The more time passes, the more the Shakespeare texts (and generally all old texts) will turn into a "foreign" language, simply because language naturally evolves over time into something new and different. So eventually, at one point, there will be the need for a translation. So yes, it's "good".

That won't be for months, though.

 

[A beaker full of death]

So ... logically speaking here . . . if I take Shakespeare, take out a bunch of the harder words and replace them with easier words so that it's more accessible . . . and if most people don't notice the changes . . . that is "good"?

The new version would be easier to read and be more accessible. But I wouldn't make a blanket pronouncement like "good" or "better." Why do we have to generalize and say the new effects are cleaner, snazzier, whatever, thus . . . "BETTER." Or, conversely, the old effects are truer to the look and production values of the rest of the show, thus the "GOOD" version?

The more time passes, the more the Shakespeare texts (and generally all old texts) will turn into a "foreign" language, simply because language naturally evolves over time into something new and different. So eventually, at one point, there will be the need for a translation. So yes, it's "good".

Nothing foreign about it. Quite the contrary, the reason most Americans, including professionals, write so poorly today is because they have no understanding of the etymology and historical usage of words, without which the myriad shadings and implications of those terms are lost. This is a very recent trend.

 

[Chrisisall]

Why do we have to generalize and say the new effects are cleaner, snazzier, whatever, thus . . . "BETTER." Or, conversely, the old effects are truer to the look and production values of the rest of the show, thus the "GOOD" version?

Labels. People love 'em. They make the outer world easier to identify, and turn gray areas into neat divisions of black & white.

Personally, I just love the new FX 'cause of the detail I can see on Enterprise that was there all along yet invisible due to imperfect optical processes of the day, as well as extra shots not possible back then that move the story along in a more coherent or visually dynamic way (like the already mentioned examples of Tomorrow is Yesterday & Doomsday Machine).

I'd be APPAULED if the new FX were a permanent replacement on all existing DVD versions. There are certain shots that are vastly and plainly inferior to the originals (IMO, at least), like the star 'build-up' during the time-warp in Naked Time, for example. How magical it looked in the original, and how paint-by-the-numbers it appeared in the new FX. Yet the new planet spiral-down was excellent.

So, it's all perception. And who's is really better than anyone else's?

Bottom line: available choice is almost always a good thing.

 

[Doug Otte]

I keep checking into this thread tho I tell myself not to. It's like a train wreck -- I can't not look.

Me too! I look between my fingers.

Let me see if I get the recent logic:

axiom:Some or even many people don't notice the changes, thus the changes are "good."

There's something even more wrong with the post you paraphrased. If it was presented as justification for the new effects, then it failed. If casual viewers couldn't tell the difference, then why do it?

That was probably not the intent of the post, though.

Doug

 

[plynch]

The more time passes, the more the Shakespeare texts (and generally all old texts) will turn into a "foreign" language, simply because language naturally evolves over time into something new and different. So eventually, at one point, there will be the need for a translation. So yes, it's "good".

Ho boy, I SO disagree with you, but that's fine! You be you! But -- I would still quibble that "good" is too generic a word. It would be "good" in some sense, I'll give ya that. Getting people acquainted with the plots maybe? But Shakespeare IS his words.

Older viewers will always bring preconceptions into it, while a newer viewer can actually judge the improvements more objectively.
RAMA

I would argue that we ALL have on blinders and bring preconditions. I THINK I like the old because it is artistically true-er. Perhaps, though, it is subconsciously just what I like cuz I grew up with that version. I'll certainly concede that I come to the table with preconditions, some I'm conscious of, some not.

However, the "objective" new viewers are not blank slates or robots. They might be predisposed to preferring technologically snazzier things, or preferring effects that remind them of a major medium the've been immersed in: videogames. I think it's wrong to assume that one class of people is automatically less biased, thus free-er in some sense, than another.

There's something even more wrong with the post you paraphrased. If it was presented as justification for the new effects, then it failed. If casual viewers couldn't tell the difference, then why do it?

That was probably not the intent of the post, though.
Doug

No; I assume the poster was comparing his viewers' experience to what he/she thinks they WOULD have gotten with the old effects, i.e. they WOULD have noticed the old, less snazzy effects. So NOT noticing the new was a good thing compared to the alternative. At least that's how I interpreted it.

 

[Char Aznable]

However, the "objective" new viewers are not blank slates or robots. They might be predisposed to preferring technologically snazzier things, or preferring effects that remind them of a major medium the've been immersed in: videogames. I think it's wrong to assume that one class of people is automatically less biased, thus free-er in some sense, than another.

True, we all have our biases. However, newcomers will always give a more objective outlook than people who have entire episodes memorized.

No; I assume the poster was comparing his viewers' experience to what he/she thinks they WOULD have gotten with the old effects, i.e. they WOULD have noticed the old, less snazzy effects. So NOT noticing the new was a good thing compared to the alternative. At least that's how I interpreted it.

The point of my post was to respond to the assertions that the new FX clash with the old '60s footage so that it becomes distracting. I pointed out that, for every noob to Trek I showed the episodes to, not one of them realized the effects did not match the show. Ergo, the effects must blend in just fine.

 

[Gojira]

I know there is dissenting opinions about the new effects clashing with the old live action shots so I will add my voice to the choir that says the new effects shots are a vast improvement over the old and are in spirit with the original live action shots.

 

[number6]

I know there is dissenting opinions about the new effects clashing with the old live action shots so I will add my voice to the choir that says the new effects shots are a vast improvement over the old and are in spirit with the original live action shots.

They are.. Even Bob Justman gave his thumbs up on the project, and he worked on the original show.
There will always be those who refuse and resist any change to Star Trek and will go kicking and screaming about how right they are and how everyone else is wrong. That's not my problem.

 

[JarodRussell]

So ... logically speaking here . . . if I take Shakespeare, take out a bunch of the harder words and replace them with easier words so that it's more accessible . . . and if most people don't notice the changes . . . that is "good"?

The new version would be easier to read and be more accessible. But I wouldn't make a blanket pronouncement like "good" or "better." Why do we have to generalize and say the new effects are cleaner, snazzier, whatever, thus . . . "BETTER." Or, conversely, the old effects are truer to the look and production values of the rest of the show, thus the "GOOD" version?

The more time passes, the more the Shakespeare texts (and generally all old texts) will turn into a "foreign" language, simply because language naturally evolves over time into something new and different. So eventually, at one point, there will be the need for a translation. So yes, it's "good".

Nothing foreign about it. Quite the contrary, the reason most Americans, including professionals, write so poorly today is because they have no understanding of the etymology and historical usage of words, without which the myriad shadings and implications of those terms are lost. This is a very recent trend.

It's not. French is a bastardization of Latin, if you will, for example. This happens to every language over a longer period of time, because people lose understanding of the etymology and historical usage of the original words, invent new words or adapt words from different languages and so forth.

And TOS has been out for over 40 years now. You have two options. Leave it as it is, never remaster it and wait until it's forgotten, or remaster it properly and make it accessible to younger generations.

Guess why the Abramsprise looks different than the TOS Enterprise. Same reasoning. I don't agree with HOW they redesigned it, but I do agree with THAT they redesigned it.

 

[plynch]

I know there is dissenting opinions about the new effects clashing with the old live action shots so I will add my voice to the choir that says the new effects shots are a vast improvement over the old and are in spirit with the original live action shots.

They are.. Even Bob Justman gave his thumbs up on the project, and he worked on the original show.
There will always be those who refuse and resist any change to Star Trek and will go kicking and screaming about how right they are and how everyone else is wrong. That's not my problem.

Yup, everyone who prefers the old is a reactionary moron. Thanks a lot for the generalization. A rnumber of us have said our preference for the original, but have also been fine with people who like the new. Really.

 

[Chrisisall]

Guess why the Abramsprise looks different than the TOS Enterprise.

Uh, because Ryan Church, though very talented, is not quite the artistic genius some believe he is?

Or because JJ Abrams' need for cool trumps respectful artistic re-interpretation?

Or a combination-?

 

[Chrisisall]

Yup, everyone who prefers the old is a reactionary moron.

He didn't quite say that...

 

[JarodRussell]

Guess why the Abramsprise looks different than the TOS Enterprise.

Uh, because Ryan Church, though very talented, is not quite the artistic genius some believe he is?

Or because JJ Abrams' need for cool trumps respectful artistic re-interpretation?

Or a combination-?

I did say I don't like how they redesigned it, but I understand the need for a redesign. The TMP refit was created for the very same reason. Only that the TMP refit is an excellent piece of design, while the Abramsprise is basically a trainwreck. IMO. Even if Jefferies himself had redesigned it, in 1979 and 2009, it would have looked different.

 

[Chrisisall]

I understand the need for a redesign.

I *really* didn't back then, and I don't now. Tweaking? Yeah. TMP Refit went too far IMO. So did AbramsPrise.
Whatever, to quote Buffy.

 

[Warped9]

^^ I will say that I have always liked the TMP refit design better than the Phase II design. The Phase II design looked odd and incomplete to me.

 

[Chrisisall]

^^ I will say that I have always liked the TMP refit design better than the Phase II design. The Phase II design looked odd and incomplete to me.

Yes, it was rather...er, bulky. Like Shatner on his fat days.