Now that the Remastered Series has been around a while

[Kemaiku]

I only ever watch with the new effects now, and I do watch it regularly. Going back to the old shots gives me a headache.

But I'd love to see someone have a go at a much better funded, longer term remaster that has more of a chance to really go to town on it.

 

[Hober Mallow]

The OP is absolutely correct in using the word - he even capitalized it. You can blame Paramount for the misuse of the term, but it is what it is.

The OP made a distinction which doesn't exist, "remastered" vs. "the original." The remastered version is the original show, just, you know... remastered.

However, in principle, it's a pet peeve of mine as well.

I blame George Lucas for making people think "remastered" means changing things.

 

[Indysolo]

What DID bug me was that they used a cross-dissolve to go from one FX shot back into a live-action shot, instead of using a straight cut. Normally that wouldn't bother me but TREK as a rule did not use X-dissolves back then...

Star Trek used plenty of dissolves. It's a problem the remastered effects had to deal with. They have to start their new dissolves earlier and end them later to fully cover the original effects. They did it as well as they could since the dissolves were built into the original negative (you can also see a slight dip in quality in HD whenever an optical is going to happen).

 

[Kronos]

The originals, maybe when they redo-do the FX they will get it right, they failed more then not this time, looks like a bad video game.