It's official: Thank God for Remastered!

[BillJ]

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'm not so sure.

Think about the differences in whats available now versus the time you have to enjoy it. I know that between work (or school), family, the internet, new movies/tv and video games, I wouldn't was more than a few minutes on something I find off-putting. No matter how great I heard it was.

CBS thought they could open up a valuable property to a new group of consumers by reworking the effects. Which is a wise business choice. They created new product to sell for what it probably costs to make two or three episodes of CSI: Miami.

Whether or not one agrees with the choices made comes down to personal preference.

 

[Forbin]

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

Well, DS9 and Voyager were using physical models for most of its run while B5 was using all-CGI (I don't think DS9 went digital until its last 2 years?), and then when DS9 and Voyager went digital, it was that very same original B5 effects crew themselves who did DS9 and Voyager's effects!

So we can criticize early B5 vs Trek digital effects, but keep in mind it's the same people who did them both. Techniques and talent improved.

 

[RAMA]

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.

Of course I disagree...they were extremely respectful, especially in the very fact they didn't use Enterprise level FX, and Bob Justman is on record as loving the remastering. The handful of shots where they added totally new elements were welcome. If I had been producing the remastering, I would have changed A LOT MORE!! So kudos to the team for being so level headed.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

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

Well, DS9 and Voyager were using physical models for most of its run while B5 was using all-CGI (I don't think DS9 went digital until its last 2 years?), and then when DS9 and Voyager went digital, it was that very same original B5 effects crew themselves who did DS9 and Voyager's effects!

So we can criticize early B5 vs Trek digital effects, but keep in mind it's the same people who did them both. Techniques and talent improved.

I believe DS9 went 99% digital only in its last year..Voyager sooner. The CGI from the credits was already using resolutions higher than Jurassic Park by the time it premiered however. Also, I never said there was a lack of talent, only that the tech was not up to the standard of ST model FX just yet.

 

[doubleohfive]

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'm not so sure.

Think about the differences in whats available now versus the time you have to enjoy it. I know that between work (or school), family, the internet, new movies/tv and video games, I wouldn't was more than a few minutes on something I find off-putting. No matter how great I heard it was.

CBS thought they could open up a valuable property to a new group of consumers by reworking the effects. Which is a wise business choice. They created new product to sell for what it probably costs to make two or three episodes of CSI: Miami.

Whether or not one agrees with the choices made comes down to personal preference.

Further, speaking strictly from a pacing standpoint, movies and TV today are done at a much more accelerated, frenetic pace. This is the age of multimedia, ADD and every person out there has at least a thousand different types of media attempting to hold our attention. That was not an issue back in the 1960s, at least certainly not to the degree it has been in the last twenty years.

As such, a given TOS episode takes it's time unraveling as you watch it while something from the last ten years -- an episode of 24 or CSI perhaps, will move along the plot much more quickly.

I suspect this is also part of the issue RobertScorpio's kids may have with the original Trek as well, and just because some of us --youngin's like myself, or the more mature (and I use that word extremely hesitantly) purists are able to sit through "The City on the Edge of Forever" or "Assignment: Earth" doesn't necessarily mean that there is no value to TOS-R.

Additionally, (and this is for you, Warped9), I think it's rather unfair of you to assail RobertScorpio and his kids by saying they "can't" appreciate older films simply because they don't particularly like the old-school effects of TOS. Unless you know those kids personally, it's a rather small-minded thing to say and overall a low blow.

Again I'll say it: If you like the Remastered editions, rock on.

If not, no one is forcing you to watch them, and the original editions are still available both on Blu-Ray and DVD.

What's the point behind bitching about it? TOS-R exposes the show to a whole new audience who might otherwise not bother (see: RobertScorpio's kids). Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Hober Mallow]

Remastered does not = new FX.

The original versions with the original FX on blu-ray are still remastered.

I watch remastered Star Trek in HD all the time -- with the original FX. Again, remastered has nothing to do with the added FX.

Curse George Lucas for making people equate remastered with new digital FX.

And curse me for this being my biggest pet peeve on Trekbb that I will be cursed to post this again and again and again...

 

[Warped9]

What's the point behind bitching about it? TOS-R exposes the show to a whole new audience who might otherwise not bother (see: RobertScorpio's kids). Why is that a bad thing?

I'll bitch about it when people come in to make blanket statements about TOS "as is" being unbearable.

 

[doubleohfive]

Did you even read the rest of my post?

 

[Harvey]

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.

Aesthetically consistent? Not to my eyes. The visual effects on Babylon 5 take me out of the moment every time, especially during the first season and especially on the DVDs where they've been blown up and cropped to fit the widescreen frame.

 

[3D Master]

Remastered does not = new FX.

The original versions with the original FX on blu-ray are still remastered.

I watch remastered Star Trek in HD all the time -- with the original FX. Again, remastered has nothing to do with the added FX.

Curse George Lucas for making people equate remastered with new digital FX.

Actually George Lucas has got nothing to do with it. His remastered Star Wars, were just that: remastered.

The Star Wars with the new CGI effects are the Special Editions.

Somehow it's the noob fanboys that have started equating remastered with the special editions.

So, it should really be TOS-SE.

 

[Warped9]

Remastered does not = new FX.

The original versions with the original FX on blu-ray are still remastered.

I watch remastered Star Trek in HD all the time -- with the original FX. Again, remastered has nothing to do with the added FX.

Curse George Lucas for making people equate remastered with new digital FX.

Actually George Lucas has got nothing to do with it. His remastered Star Wars, were just that: remastered.

The Star Wars with the new CGI effects are the Special Editions.

Somehow it's the noob fanboys that have started equating remastered with the special editions.

So, it should really be TOS-SE.

Good point.


For a time I, too, supported the merits of remaking TOS' f/x, in concept at least. But when I saw what they did with it I was thoroughly put off. I can't get past it---it just looks so wrong.

 

[plynch]

My kids (age 11) grow up now. They loved Avatar. And they love Star Trek unremastered. To say kids couldn't watch the original is to shortchange their capabilities, selling them short, isn't it?

 

[Warped9]

My kids (age 11) grow up now. They loved Avatar. And they love Star Trek unremastered. To say kids couldn't watch the original is to shortchange their capabilities, selling them short, isn't it?

Actually I think you make my essential point. Some kids might not be able to get past TOS' original f/x, but kids don't stay kids forever. An adult should be able to see TOS as a whole and not dismiss it just because its f/x are the product of another time.

 

[BillJ]

My kids (age 11) grow up now. They loved Avatar. And they love Star Trek unremastered. To say kids couldn't watch the original is to shortchange their capabilities, selling them short, isn't it?

Actually I think you make my essential point. Some kids might not be able to get past TOS' original f/x, but kids don't stay kids forever. An adult should be able to see TOS as a whole and not dismiss it just because its f/x are the product of another time.

Which is the beauty of the whole damn project to begin with... both the new and original effects are available out there in multiple releases.

So the kiddies and the grown-ups can make their own decisions on what they want to watch.

As a grown-up, I've never been able to get into Babylon 5. Every effects shot throws me completely out of the episode I'm watching. Guess I'm shallow.

 

[Warped9]

B5's f/x don't bother me because I see them as of their time and quite an experiment in itself. Yes I could nitpick them, but they are what they are.

 

[WHF]

Remastered does not = new FX.

The original versions with the original FX on blu-ray are still remastered.

I watch remastered Star Trek in HD all the time -- with the original FX. Again, remastered has nothing to do with the added FX.

Curse George Lucas for making people equate remastered with new digital FX.

And curse me for this being my biggest pet peeve on Trekbb that I will be cursed to post this again and again and again...

Amen and keep posting brother. The very first TOS DVD released, over 10 years ago, (the ones with two episodes on a single disc) was remastered.

 

[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.

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

I still find this a specious argument. The crappy state of the FX might turn off some people, but I think most people willing to sit through a program as antiquated in overall look as TOS are already willing to forgive a lot just because it IS a dinosaur.

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.

Here's a fer instance: the Romulan ships in "The Enterprise Incident" are lit nothing like any photographic shot in the series, live action or VFX. They're dark and very gray. That's one example of how the new VFX don't conform to the look and style of the series as a whole. One can argue that the original FX might not be a style match the live action, either, but they have the benefit of having a real film look, grainy as it is, which is closer to the look of the show the majority of the new FX shots have.

I'm not saying all the new FX are bad, but the guys doing it didn't make choices that would have made the new shots fit into the style of the show. When most of the new FX appear, it's as if we've switched to another program.

 

[Warped9]

I'm not saying all the new FX are bad, but the guys doing it didn't make choices that would have made the new shots fit into the style of the show. When most of the new FX appear, it's as if we've switched to another program.

Bingo!

 

[Captain Rob]

My two cents:
I love them both. Granted the new effects don't look as good as Enterprise but I'm sure that's just a money issue. I didn't expect them to look as good as for a first run series. I loved some of the stuff they tried. Like the debris bouncing off of the hull in "Doomsday Machine" to the Enterprise chasing the Excalibur in "The Ultimate Computer". I love them both. And with the magic of DVD and BlueRay, I can own them both.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I'm not saying all the new FX are bad, but the guys doing it didn't make choices that would have made the new shots fit into the style of the show. When most of the new FX appear, it's as if we've switched to another program.

Bingo!

And I really don't buy the whole "they made it look a little cheesy intentionally to keep it in the spirit of the original series" argument. That's just a cover for "crappy CGI" because a lot of it is outstanding. Whether or not it's a good fit, some episodes look incredible, while others look cheesy. And there's a different kind of sharpness when you compare the enhanced live action and the CGI. The CGI is too sharp in many cases, with absolutely no film grain. Yet even the best live action will have film grain. This, above all else, is what reminds me that it's not an organic part of the episode.

The only time I prefer the Restored version is when the effects actually improve the story (like Tomorrow is Yesterday and, arguably, The Doomsday Machine). Most of the time, the old effects are good enough for me. But I like having the choice, cuz sometimes I'm in the mood for the new versions. But, no matter how bad the old effects can be, they will always look like they belong there. The new stuff always jumps out as new.