I enjoy both versions, I like seeing what each show looked like while it was being film, but I also like seeing The Enterprise remastered too!!!
Original, or Remastered?
- Thread starter darkshadow0001
- Start date
I enjoy both versions, I like seeing what each show looked like while it was being film, but I also like seeing The Enterprise remastered too!!!
Are you saying that the way that the CGI was rendered reminds you of models on strings? If so, I disagree, but then it's an entirely personal interpretation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNeMNXQBzd8
Just watch the first few seconds. Nothing the sixe of the enterprise is going to jiggle back and forth like that. The ship has no mass at all. It's like something small on a string.
Move ahead to 1:41. They're going around the sun. The sun is made of midtones. The ship is barely lit. Its the SUN!!!
Now take a look at the extremely awkward movements at 2:21 where the ship and the camera movement don't even seem to be in synch with each other. What are they trying to get across with this terrible shot?
The entire project is filled with teeth grinding moments like this. I turned half the people hoping for new FX in TNG-R off the idea by showing them Elaan of Troyus where the D-7 looks like a game sprite from 1992 and turns as if it's kneck is the center of gravity. I swear, I'm going to do an article on all these problems one day.
Well, to be fair, the original effect shows the ship moving around, too. In fact, if I recall correctly, the original profile shot had the ship dipping considerably more downward with no pitch or yaw. It was tilted up about 20 degrees, moving generally upward, and then would dip the entire depth of the ship or more at one time. Repeatedly.
This is one of those moments where I might have done it differently. However, it's matching the intent of the original effect, and I can't really ding them too much on it, personally.
This is one of those episodes that has never had any scientific accuracy, from start to finish. The number of fannish arguments over how and why the time-travel works the way it does are legion. None of it makes sense -- particularly not beaming Captain Chistopher and the Airman back into their bodies before they left.
Realistically, anything that close to the sun would be utterly invisible against it. At best, the shot would look like ST2009: lens flares everywhere.
Also, the ship is moving at what, Warp 8 or 9 at that point? In reality, anything going around the sun at ~512C is going to be totally invisible to the human eye. It would be there and gone before one could even imagine registering it visually.
Indeed, calculating it, I find that a warp 8 trip from Earth to the Sun would take just under one second. 92,955,807.3 miles / (186,282 * 512) miles per second = 0.974620796 seconds.
A maneuver like that would be performed entirely by computer. First you'd back out a light-year or so: one measly AU doesn't even leave time for dialogue at warp 8. It would have to be a precise, computer-controlled maneuver begun far away from the Sun.
To be honest, the entire "slingshot effect" idea, while interesting, is a bit ludicrous. I'd've produced the episode as originally written: to occur immediately after "The Naked Time."
Rather than "colliding with a black star" to get to 1969, it was originally written to end "The Naked Time" with the Enterprise careening uncontrollably back in time. "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" would have opened with the ship finally stopping.
That would then mean that rather than slingshotting around the sun, they would return to the 23rd century via Spock and Scotty's new engine start-up routine -- the source of the original time travel.
As it stands, Remastered might have worked better if they attempted to mimic the same effects seen in Star Trek IV --without the funky ST4 acid trip, obviously.
Given that the original effect was little more than the ship shaking and a stock shot taken from "Where No Man Has Gone Before," I'm not really complaining. Your mileage may vary.
All I see on that one is the ship approaching the viewer, rotating slightly about its axis as it decelerates through time. Nothing about the shot particularly bothers me given the context.
I think they were going for "decelerating through time after having gone around the sun at 512C." As is clear from the ship interiors and camera shakes, it wasn't a smooth trip. It looks to me like extraneous movement as they regain control.
I assume the shot you're discussing is at 01:22 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdKGl5Y141A? If so, I'm in agreement. It's a jarring effect because of the extremely sudden turn. The D-7 looks like it's practically spinning, and there's nowhere for all that momentum to go. It's like the ship is made of paper for all that it seems to mass.
If it had been me, I'd've set it up to look like an flashy, intentional near-collision with the Enterprise on the part of the Klingons. Such a maneuver would have made sense in context: the Klingons were trying to goad Kirk into using the warp drive, at which point ... boom.
Instead of just seeing the nacelles on the viewscreen, I'd've also showed the rear of the primary hull -- as if we were viewing a camera mounted off the back of the bridge turboshaft. Then bring the D-7 in over not just the nacelles but also the primary hull. I'd've done it at an extremely low angle with no peel-off, and include shadows on the primary hull to show just how close a pass it was.
I'd've then completed the pass with a turn, as they did in the next shot -- but run the D-7 out farther in front of the Enterprise and bank to end up facing the Big E on the starboard.
I can see what they were going for in "Elaan of Troyius": make the battle a bit more fluid. Unfortunately, they had to do it a couple of seconds at a time, matching original timing, dialogue, music, and sound effects. The D-7 pass is one of those moments where it stumbles.
However, I like the rest of the footage from that episode. I'll forgive the stumble under the circumstances.
Dakota Smith
Last edited:
A.V.I.A.F.
Captain
The problem seems to be that the remastered effects are intended to enrich the experience without appearing to completely overhaul the originals (and consequently tick off the die-hard fans).
The result is really cool ideas for new effects that could have been developed so much better.
Nevertheless, I like the remastered versions because they add a little zest!
The result is really cool ideas for new effects that could have been developed so much better.
Nevertheless, I like the remastered versions because they add a little zest!
Agreed. I was watching the BD and my friend was stunned that they had SFX that good back then. I was laughing pretty hard.
I think they could have went a bit farther and done console monitors, etc but I love seeing some of the little tidbits like people behind windows or the shuttle scenes or launching probes.
I have seen this reaction from non-fans as well..which tells me the new FX are rather seamlessly integrated. Success!!
My wife, who knows about as much about Star Trek as she did in 1975, walked in on me watching a remastered episode on Netflix and immediately asked "What is that, some new computer animation they put in?" and then was able to accurately call out "New!" for the rest of the episode. The CGI shots look very distinct from the rest of the production. I find the jumps from the CGI shots to the plywood sets and fake rocks very off-putting, personally.
--Justin
I have seen this reaction from non-fans as well..which tells me the new FX are rather seamlessly integrated. Success!!
My wife, who knows about as much about Star Trek as she did in 1975, walked in on me watching a remastered episode on Netflix and immediately asked "What is that, some new computer animation they put in?" and then was able to accurately call out "New!" for the rest of the episode. The CGI shots look very distinct from the rest of the production. I find the jumps from the CGI shots to the plywood sets and fake rocks very off-putting, personally.
--Justin
This is not the reaction I have seen...not only that, but the purists here go out of their way to criticize the FX which were designed to look like seamless 1960s FX rather than Enterprise(circa 2005) FX. I also find this to be a measure of the TOS-R's success.
PS Its not hard to call out "new" when only the FX were re-done....
When it comes down to it, this is the raison d'être of the HD versions...and since most people have switched to HD for their main TV/theater systems and all future viewing will only expand on this, the remastered FX are really the way to go for future viewing.
RAMA
I think there's some truth to this. No matter how hard you try, Vaal looks like paper mache in HD.
Give it another 20 years. Given the direction of computer animation, I have absolutely no doubt that the next time around, they'll only retain the original dialogue track. Everything else -- characters, music, direction, etc, will be brand new.
Remastered is what it is as a nod to old-school fans like me. In 20 years, my generation will by dead and dying -- we'll be the least important market.
I also expect to see new TOS episodes starring the likenesses of the original cast and using sound-alike voice actors or computer-generated voices.
I might be wrong about that last, as ST2009 is essentially just that. However, 20 years from now, there will be absolutely no problems with a fully CGI 35-year-old Shatner emoting new material all over the screen.
Dakota Smith
Let's not forget the 2050 holographic versions, which will have the characters as avatars that you can interact with...
(an abomination to be sure)There is still one monumental difference between the processed visual FX and the mechanical/production FX...the on-set production, shoddy as much of it was...was not passed through analog optical printers that reduced resolution, or used models that weren't lit or matted correctly. Those FX need a lot more work--and are albeit easier to perform--than the on-set production design.
RAMA
Anyone who can't tell that the new FX are CGI needs to get their eyes checked. I say that as someone who enjoys both versions.
Then again I have met people who think the apes in the new planet of the apes movie were real and not CGI. Some people just don't have an eye for detail.
Then again I have met people who think the apes in the new planet of the apes movie were real and not CGI. Some people just don't have an eye for detail.
Some people (namely like ones who start threads about distinct differences in the computer voices..or who can't stand one version of pilot Enterprise compared to the series Enterprise) have too much an eye for detail.
The uninitiated or non-trekkers may not be that familiar with TOS...recollections are from the 80s or possibly the 70s. My oldest sister for example, turned me on to Trek, and watched the show in the 60s and re-watched in the late 70s. She is not a trekker by most standards, but even she thought the transition was seamless...I had to point out to her exactly what was changed and how and why.
RAMA
It's not a matter of knowing Trek. It's a matter of recognizing obvious and in some cases, rather cheap looking CGI. Even huge budget CGI is usually easy to spot. This stuff isn't even close to that. Once again, I want to point out that I like both versions. But I'm not going to fool myself into thinking the CGI doesn't look like CGI. Just like the original FX look like models. They are both fake looking in their own way.
You can often times see the polygons that make up the cgi models in the new fx. If someone can't recognize that as CGI, then they either have bad eye sight or they don't have the most basic knowledge of what CGI is or how it works.
I think the remastered effects look pretty good. They did not make everything TNG-style (like warp jumps and other effects) which might've been going too far, in my mind.
I just watched "A Private Little War" on netflix and the ship shots look fantastic.
I just watched "A Private Little War" on netflix and the ship shots look fantastic.
A lot of people think it's easy to animate rigid objects like spaceships...and it is, if you're flying them in a straight line or having them follow a gentle curve. The moment you start making the objects accelerate or decelerate or what-have-you, the level of complexity skyrockets. Big objects don't move like small objects. You can justify it all you want with warp fields and so forth, but we're earthbound creatures who know what big objects move like, and when I supposedly huge starship waggles its wingtips like a wood and canvas biplane it destroys the illusion.
The TOS-R team was for whatever reason loathe to light the models in anything but this medium toned, bland fashion, with the result that it makes the ships feel smaller visually.
The TOS-R team was for whatever reason loathe to light the models in anything but this medium toned, bland fashion, with the result that it makes the ships feel smaller visually.
QTF. They lit the things strongly from one side and let various parts fall into really heavy black shadows, which sells the scale.
The best approach to lighting hard-edged, angular spacecraft does not work particularly well for the rounder, "sculptural" sorts of ships Star Trek uses. Hard shadows and little fill will reduce the Enterprise in motion to jigsaw puzzle pieces that barely appear connected to one another. ILM didn't really try to carry over the Star Wars style to Trek even on features like ST III where they had a lot of influence.
Once the Remastered folks got the second of the two Enterprise meshes that were used in the Remastering project the look of the ship improved somewhat (the first was apparently complex enough to negatively affect rendering times and delivery dates). The space shots were most successful in the earlier episodes where they attempted to reproduce the original model shots but with more subtle lighting and greater detail; they were less successful when they took liberties with the motion and the composition of shots.
Once the Remastered folks got the second of the two Enterprise meshes that were used in the Remastering project the look of the ship improved somewhat (the first was apparently complex enough to negatively affect rendering times and delivery dates). The space shots were most successful in the earlier episodes where they attempted to reproduce the original model shots but with more subtle lighting and greater detail; they were less successful when they took liberties with the motion and the composition of shots.
Gonna have to disagree with you on that, Dennis. There's a shot in TMP of the mostly-dark Enterprise zipping past the camera and it works completely. I never got the impression ILM was ever trying to light the Enterprise to look particularly big. YMMV.
That aside, the fact remains that the TOS-R folks tended to favor mid-tones in a bland gray range. They were weirdly shy of bright light, which is actually something common in CG modeling even in the videogame biz (where I used to refer to things being all in the "beige part of the spectrum").
That aside, the fact remains that the TOS-R folks tended to favor mid-tones in a bland gray range. They were weirdly shy of bright light, which is actually something common in CG modeling even in the videogame biz (where I used to refer to things being all in the "beige part of the spectrum").
Last edited:
Lots of people aren't into the tech/FX side as we are. They're not going to notice that...add to that that the subtle FX of TOS-R are probably underrated by you...they often cannot be distinguished fully from physical models by most people...especially if they haven't been seen in years. I recall a story from the ST:Voyager production team where they could not tell the difference between some of the first high poly models of the Voyager model and the real thing. It even happens to pros. Granted, TOS-R models are more stylized, but that perception still holds. Add to this that some people who haven't seen the shows in years forget how truly grainy, fuzzy and horrible the old FX look, so they have idealized it in their mind to look like the superior FX in TOS-R.
RAMA
You say "we" as if we have the same interest in FX/tech. I have a very basic knowledge of CGI and how it works. I couldn't tell you much more than that it has something to do with polygons, skins/textures, and lighting sources. Yet I can easily spot CGI just from the experience of having seen many movies that use it. One does not need to know how CGI works in order to spot it. That's just silly.
I don't know why you are bringing voyager into this discussion as if it is at all relevant to the TOS remastered FX.
I'm not even talking about which is "superior", as I think that's a stupid discussion to even have. Both have pros and cons. I'm simply saying that anyone who isn't blind or even has the most rudimentary understanding of what CGI is or what it looks like can easily tell that the new FX are indeed CGI.
Sorry, but you are never going to convince me that stuff like this doesn't look CGI:
http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z387/BillJ66/theenterpriseincidenthd0300a.jpg
Like I said before, that doesn't make it inferior. The old FX looked fake too. It's all about which kind of fakeness you prefer. Both are cool with me.
Similar threads
