It's official: Thank God for Remastered!

[evilnate]

evilnate is back!?!

I seem to recall you working on your own version of BoT many moons ago...

I can't believe that anyone remebers that...I barely remember that! That was around 10 years ago!

What was interesting to me was that despite 10 years of advances, a budget, and people with experience, they encountered the same problems, and Ed many of the same solutions that I had to. At the time I thought that some of the strange things that I was having to do was just down to my lack of experience, but I guess it's just a problem with projects like this in general.

 

[plynch]

It seems to REALLY bother some people that others don't embrace the new and prettier. It gets a visceral reaction that strikes me as interesting. Much moreso than people who like/dislike a particular episode, say.

It's as if people who don't automatically like what is clearly slicker or prettier are offending or insulting the worldview of those who do. Not EVERY "liker" of the new effects, mind you, but there are certainly some who seem to take it personally that some people could actually dislike such "obviously better" effects. Hmmm . . .

 

[Forbin]

Yeah.
I don't dislike the effects themselves at all (I very much enjoy both amateur attempts at TOS CGI, and things like New Voyage's effects, putting new spins on the old). What I don't like is the assertion that the old HAS to be replaced because it's crappier than the new, and if I don't like it I should sod off. That's bullshit.

 

[evilnate]

Yeah.
I don't dislike the effects themselves at all (I very much enjoy both amateur attempts at TOS CGI, and things like New Voyage's effects, putting new spins on the old). What I don't like is the assertion that the old HAS to be replaced because it's crappier than the new, and if I don't like it I should sod off. That's bullshit.

That's sort of what I was trying to say in my first post. If they were going to do it, that should have gone all out - budget and time permitting of course. It would have been more entertaining as an alternate look at TOS than what we got. More dynamic shots and compositions would have gone a long way in making up for a lack of realism in the CG.

For example, when Babylon 5 started, it represented a revolution in TV f/x. However, even at the time, the "realism" paled in comparison to what was being done on DS9. What the saving grace of the B5 f/x is, is the dynamic nature of their effects, their use of lighting, composition, and camera and object movement. If the producers of TOS-r had gone for something like that - simulating the movement and lighting of a "real" object, rather than the movement of a model on a motion control stand, I think that the results would have been far more entertaining.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It seems to REALLY bother some people that others don't embrace the new and prettier. It gets a visceral reaction that strikes me as interesting.

I see the same, and worse, from folks who reject it. Many are locked into the posture that their aesthetic tastes are a priori superior and even provable, but are unable to actually produce evidence or articulate what specifically makes them so.

To label CG effects, for example, as "cartoon-like" in no way constitutes an explanation or defense of the crudity of the original photographic composites when viewed at a resolution and size that exposes every one of their many flaws.

 

[RAMA]

Yeah.
I don't dislike the effects themselves at all (I very much enjoy both amateur attempts at TOS CGI, and things like New Voyage's effects, putting new spins on the old). What I don't like is the assertion that the old HAS to be replaced because it's crappier than the new, and if I don't like it I should sod off. That's bullshit.

That's sort of what I was trying to say in my first post. If they were going to do it, that should have gone all out - budget and time permitting of course. It would have been more entertaining as an alternate look at TOS than what we got. More dynamic shots and compositions would have gone a long way in making up for a lack of realism in the CG.

For example, when Babylon 5 started, it represented a revolution in TV f/x. However, even at the time, the "realism" paled in comparison to what was being done on DS9. What the saving grace of the B5 f/x is, is the dynamic nature of their effects, their use of lighting, composition, and camera and object movement. If the producers of TOS-r had gone for something like that - simulating the movement and lighting of a "real" object, rather than the movement of a model on a motion control stand, I think that the results would have been far more entertaining.

Oh I disagree...while the FX allowed B5 a wider array of angles and shots--and the writing was on the wall for the future-- the FX were NOT up to the standards on a small TV budget that DS9's were. Not only that, but by the time Voyager was on...the resolution of the CGI was better than the Jurassic Park dinosaurs...on TV(yes a fact)! B5 just couldn't match up.

RAMA

 

[Warped9]

I am currently in the process of rewatching Babylon 5 after picking up the whole series in boxed sets. The cgi f/x are still pretty good for the most part, but cgi has advanced quickly since B5 first aired. The problem is roughly similar to that faced by TOS in that the f/x weren't enough for the resolution of today's televisions. The old CRTs could veil that which was less than perfect.

That said though I find some of B5's f/x superior to that of TOS-R particularly in regard to depicting some of the spaceships. The thing is, though, that B5's f/x are aesthetically consistent with the live-action footage because it was intended that way from the beginning. In that respect it is far superior to what TOS-R did.

 

[evilnate]

Yeah.
I don't dislike the effects themselves at all (I very much enjoy both amateur attempts at TOS CGI, and things like New Voyage's effects, putting new spins on the old). What I don't like is the assertion that the old HAS to be replaced because it's crappier than the new, and if I don't like it I should sod off. That's bullshit.

That's sort of what I was trying to say in my first post. If they were going to do it, that should have gone all out - budget and time permitting of course. It would have been more entertaining as an alternate look at TOS than what we got. More dynamic shots and compositions would have gone a long way in making up for a lack of realism in the CG.

For example, when Babylon 5 started, it represented a revolution in TV f/x. However, even at the time, the "realism" paled in comparison to what was being done on DS9. What the saving grace of the B5 f/x is, is the dynamic nature of their effects, their use of lighting, composition, and camera and object movement. If the producers of TOS-r had gone for something like that - simulating the movement and lighting of a "real" object, rather than the movement of a model on a motion control stand, I think that the results would have been far more entertaining.

Oh I disagree...while the FX allowed B5 a wider array of angles and shots--and the writing was on the wall for the future-- the FX were NOT up to the standards on a small TV budget that DS9's were. Not only that, but by the time Voyager was on...the resolution of the CGI was better than the Jurassic Park dinosaurs...on TV(yes a fact)! B5 just couldn't match up.

RAMA

That's my point though. B5's f/x worked because it was dynamic. Of course it has been surpassed because that's the nature of things. TOS-R's effects aren't state of the art now, and frankly they don't even hold up to what VOY was doing 10 years ago. Like B5, TOS-R's effects could have been improve by making them more dynamic.

 

[maryh]

FWIW, when I show the episodes to my son, he is able to overlook the older clothes, hair styles etc and focus on the story content and character interaction. However, I am glad that I don't have to apologize even more than I would if I was showing the unremastered ones.

 

[Warped9]

. However, I am glad that I don't have to apologize even more than I would if I was showing the unremastered ones.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I am glad that I don't have to apologize even more than I would if I was showing the unremastered ones.

Would your son have these issues watching on Blu-ray too?
Pindar wrote:

I am staring at zippers in costumes instead officers in uniforms.

Instead of concentrating on the episode I was being pulled out of it by seeing zips and fasteners.

http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3270441&postcount=8

 

[Warped9]

For crying out loud, what is there to apologize for?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

TOS' f/x was as good as you could get on '60s television within time and budget. But, of course, it wasn't the then state-of-the-art. That would be found in feature films. And if you check the feature films of the era then you can see what could have been possible. It sure as hell doesn't look like second rate cgi,

Neither does TOS-R.

but it would be more aesthetically consistent with the rest of TOS' live-action footage.

Which TOS-R IS.

TOS-R has some okay shots judged in their own right. But they look wholly out of place spliced into TOS.

No they don't. They took great care to maintain the "feel" of the footage.

People keep going on about how the new f/x look better. And every single one of those raves conveys a lack of sense of artistry. We will go round and round with this because it's like trying to describe a particular colour to someone who happens to be colour blind to the said colour.

Yes, it is...and those stubbornly clinging to unusable FX footage out of a sense of *whatever*are the ones who are "blind".

 

[Warped9]

TOS' f/x was as good as you could get on '60s television within time and budget. But, of course, it wasn't the then state-of-the-art. That would be found in feature films. And if you check the feature films of the era then you can see what could have been possible. It sure as hell doesn't look like second rate cgi,

Neither does TOS-R.

but it would be more aesthetically consistent with the rest of TOS' live-action footage.

Which TOS-R IS.

TOS-R has some okay shots judged in their own right. But they look wholly out of place spliced into TOS.

No they don't. They took great care to maintain the "feel" of the footage.

People keep going on about how the new f/x look better. And every single one of those raves conveys a lack of sense of artistry. We will go round and round with this because it's like trying to describe a particular colour to someone who happens to be colour blind to the said colour.

Yes, it is...and those stubbornly clinging to unusable FX footage out of a sense of *whatever*are the ones who are "blind".

You can disagree as much as you want, but it doesn't change a damned thing.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

You can disagree as much as you want, but it doesn't change a damned thing.

That is true. Disagree OR agree, nothing will change the fact that the original FX shots were unusable after conversion and new FX were needed.

 

[Maurice]

The original VFX were not "unusable". It's just that the quality difference from the live action elements were much more apparent when rendered at higher resolutions.

My biggest gripe remains that the FX team, well-intentioned as they were, created shots that frequently were an ill-fit with the style of the show and the look of filmed elements. That wasn't a matter of budget. That was a matter of shot design.

 

[RobertScorpio]

The remasters work because my kids would never watch TOS because of the 'aged' looked of the FX (which I still love). If it gets more people to watch, who might not have watched before, then it has succeeded. At least, IMO.

Rob

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The original VFX were not "unusable". It's just that the quality difference from the live action elements were much more apparent when rendered at higher resolutions.

And thus unusable. People would have been turned away by the vast difference in image quality.

My biggest gripe remains that the FX team, well-intentioned as they were, created shots that frequently were an ill-fit with the style of the show and the look of filmed elements. That wasn't a matter of budget. That was a matter of shot design.

In what way? Nothing they did seemed out of "type" to me. Just a little more elaborate. The original guys could have done similar shot setups if they'd had more time and money to do it.

 

[ST-One]

I am currently in the process of rewatching Babylon 5 after picking up the whole series in boxed sets. The cgi f/x are still pretty good for the most part, but cgi has advanced quickly since B5 first aired. The problem is roughly similar to that faced by TOS in that the f/x weren't enough for the resolution of today's televisions. The old CRTs could veil that which was less than perfect.

That said though I find some of B5's f/x superior to that of TOS-R particularly in regard to depicting some of the spaceships. The thing is, though, that B5's f/x are aesthetically consistent with the live-action footage because it was intended that way from the beginning. In that respect it is far superior to what TOS-R did.

The biggest problem that the B5 VFX have (and which would prevent a HD-release on BluRay), is that they were rendered at the really low NTSC-resolution. And they don't look all that good compared to the live-action footage that has no VFX in them.

 

[Warped9]

The remasters work because my kids would never watch TOS because of the 'aged' looked of the FX (which I still love). If it gets more people to watch, who might not have watched before, then it has succeeded. At least, IMO.

Rob

Well then I suppose your children will never have the patience to watch anything more than a few years old. Things like the original King Kong and all those classic sci-fi and like films from the 1930s through to the '80s will just be unbearable to watch. They won't be able to endure it.

People bring up this argument all the time and it is one of the most hollow.


I will say that I'd rather watch TOS on DVD than BluRay because then it's the live-action footage that starts to suffer. On BluRay you start to see so many things that can no longer be hidden. And lets not kid ourselves that TOS is the only show to illustrate this. With the advent of HD resolution film and TV production, f/x and costuming and makeup have to step up their game because nothing is veiled anymore. Now we also get to see how ordinary looking actors really are because every blemish, every mole, every freckle is now visible.

TOS-R is ultimately a disrespectful cheat. Like it if you will and admit you don't care about the aesthetic difference. But TOS-R should have respected the integrity of the show and the intent of the original creative team. There is way too much in TOS-R that is there just because they could do it.

No one can dispute the difference in technical quality between the f/x of TOS and TOS-R. But how the team behind TOS-R used the resources shows very questionable judgement.