Question re: Original f/x vs. TOS-R...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
And this is something I've rather disliked about a lot of contemporary Trek (and contemporary sci-fi) because it seems like so much had to be spelled out rather than relying on the audience to grasp something of subtext, something that isn't being said directly.
I've watched a lot of the the TOS-R and I just don't get it. The new FX are just wrong somehow and detract from the spirit of the series. This is just my opinion but I think the original series should be loved for what it is (original fx and all) and not be messed about with.
I'm happy with the visual quality of the VFX for the most part. And although the starship phasers of "DDM" leave me cold in the visual quality sense (as the thin blue lines don't track the target at all, but rather slide uselessly along its surface), they are still better than the hack job we originally got for the episode.
The redone effects do a disservice to some plots, though, even when their visual quality is excellent. Having a mighty and clearly seen battle cruiser effect a cowardly retreat in "Friday's Child" makes less sense than having a small indistinct blob of a scout do so. And having the SAR shuttle physically return to the mothership after completing a search pattern in "The Galileo Seven", rather than simply reporting back and starting a new pattern, is a misguided take on the events there.
Agreed that the shuttles could have looked better in almost every instance. But I always found them even worse in the original incarnations, with unconvincing motion control work that failed to convey either scale or movement. Decker's final flight in "DDM" is truly superb in terms of the vectors and angles chosen, without going against the spirit of the rest of the episode, and only suffers from less than perfect lighting or texture choices.
Also, while the blue starship phasers generally look pretty good (except in "DDM" where we see unconvincing aiming and end effect), I regret losing the original spectrum of possible colors, and the fun we could have in finding explanations for the changes in color.
Timo Saloniemi
The redone effects do a disservice to some plots, though, even when their visual quality is excellent. Having a mighty and clearly seen battle cruiser effect a cowardly retreat in "Friday's Child" makes less sense than having a small indistinct blob of a scout do so. And having the SAR shuttle physically return to the mothership after completing a search pattern in "The Galileo Seven", rather than simply reporting back and starting a new pattern, is a misguided take on the events there.
Agreed that the shuttles could have looked better in almost every instance. But I always found them even worse in the original incarnations, with unconvincing motion control work that failed to convey either scale or movement. Decker's final flight in "DDM" is truly superb in terms of the vectors and angles chosen, without going against the spirit of the rest of the episode, and only suffers from less than perfect lighting or texture choices.
Also, while the blue starship phasers generally look pretty good (except in "DDM" where we see unconvincing aiming and end effect), I regret losing the original spectrum of possible colors, and the fun we could have in finding explanations for the changes in color.
Timo Saloniemi
To be fair to the original effects, there was no motion control work done on TOS. True motion control didn't come along until the 70s. Everything on TOS had to be filmed and lined up manually.
Right. All miniature bluescreen work in Trek TOS was done with a single camera pass for each shot. Motion control was invented by John Dykstra for the original Star Wars in 1977.
I generally liked the remastered episodes. Many of the enhancements were well thought out and usually helped the episodes. My main problem -- and it was nearly always there -- was that no one seemed to know how to light a 3D scene. There was so much 128-128-128 gray visible it drove me to distraction. You could find perfectly balanced neutral gray even in scenes with other outrageously strong colors. When the clouds of a planet are florescent orange, exactly what color does the land actually have to be to reflect back orange backfill as utterly neutral gray? At least in the original series where they had to work with real artifacts, such things simply couldn't happen.
Another beef I have with the lighting is with ships like the Doomsday Machine or the Tholian Webspinners: The original colored gels these were lit with gave them an almost crystalline appearance. They almost screamed "exotic materials" when you saw them. At least in the case of the DM, this exotic look was replaced by -- wait for it -- utterly neutral gray! Woo-hoo! As much as this episode benefited from the CGI upgrade, it could have been so much better if they knew what they were doing with CGI lighting.
If you haven't seen the images of a CGI Enterprise that Doug Drexler posted on DrexFiles, you should go take a look. Yes, they are BW (in order to mimic the original TMOST pix) but just look at the subtlety of the lighting and the almost scarey fidelity to the original model. These were prepared for his team's pitch to do the remastered effects. CBS declined their offer. It makes me misty eyed...
M.
Another beef I have with the lighting is with ships like the Doomsday Machine or the Tholian Webspinners: The original colored gels these were lit with gave them an almost crystalline appearance. They almost screamed "exotic materials" when you saw them. At least in the case of the DM, this exotic look was replaced by -- wait for it -- utterly neutral gray! Woo-hoo! As much as this episode benefited from the CGI upgrade, it could have been so much better if they knew what they were doing with CGI lighting.
If you haven't seen the images of a CGI Enterprise that Doug Drexler posted on DrexFiles, you should go take a look. Yes, they are BW (in order to mimic the original TMOST pix) but just look at the subtlety of the lighting and the almost scarey fidelity to the original model. These were prepared for his team's pitch to do the remastered effects. CBS declined their offer. It makes me misty eyed...
M.
The high speed flybys are a problem. Y'see, the original versions were filmed using the three-foot model, which does a lot for the scale speed and depth of field of the shot, all of which helps the apparent speed at which the ship is zooming past the camera. If the CGI bunch had cooked up a smaller model, they would've stood a much better chance of capturing that same sense of "holy shit, that ship is going incredibly fast!"
I'm also in the camp with those who prefer the original effects in "Where No Man Has Gone Before", not just for the appearance of the barrier, but the shot composition. The original version is just way more dramatic.
The revamped version of "Tomorrow Is Yesterday", however, kicked major ass.
I'm also in the camp with those who prefer the original effects in "Where No Man Has Gone Before", not just for the appearance of the barrier, but the shot composition. The original version is just way more dramatic.
The revamped version of "Tomorrow Is Yesterday", however, kicked major ass.
Well, I do this kind of thing for a living and he doesn't so he can suck it.
Well I have been trained as a commercial artist, and have been paid for professional work, though it has never been my main source of income, and I haven't done any in some years now since I started doing personal training as a side business. I'd never presume to suggest my 3D CGI abilities are the equal of a pro, even though I possess a newer version of Lightwave, and have used Maya. I've never done anything more than dabble with it because of lack of time and interest. However, there are lots of points brought up here that can be countered or speculated over. Some of these have to do with intent. Others have to do with things I'd like to ask the artists at CBS Digital about, but that I can only surmise about on my own. So I'm not really going to venture into it at this time.
The DM looks a lot more realistic to me than the original, which looks much like papier-mache. If I'd have to guess, the fictional alien designers must have found a way to solidify the liquid center of a neutron star, and shaped it into this machine, and its far more likely to look like gray (or white if it were still in its original form) than papier-mache. Also Norman Spinrad and Bob Justman both agree with me on this point, trumping your CGI professionalism.
I also think the lighting of the Tholian webspinners looks decidedly 60s in nature and was due for an update. I love the shape, I just didn't think they passed muster to look like "real" ships.RAMA
I dislike the original high speed flybys, they look way too fast, much like the the way the first few episodes of "New Voyages" looked...very unrealistic motions. I think a lot of people thought the original flybys were comical. The new CGI has a fast but more tempered look to it, and much more satisfying.
Again with the WNMHGB complaints! I will continue to say the new CGI based on award winning FX are far better in every single solitary way to the inaccurately portrayed originals.RAMA
RAMA seems to be getting lost at the "oooh, pretty" stage, and forgetting about the cinematographic component.
With the original version of the ship entering the barrier, the ship is flying away from us towards the barrier, while we're sitting back away from the danger. Coming right on the heels of Kelso's "Whatever it is, contact in twelve seconds," the sequence carries major dramatic impact, especially with the complete absence of any stars in the shot. There she goes, hope she makes it...
In the new version, however, we're already in the barrier, watching the ship approach. That kind of lessens the dramatic impact. Come on in, guys, the water's fine...
And that oft used banking maneuver is just flat out a hundred times more dramatic than just about any other sequence ever done with that model. That's why they used it so damn much. Fast, slow, it's just an incredibly good element.
With the original version of the ship entering the barrier, the ship is flying away from us towards the barrier, while we're sitting back away from the danger. Coming right on the heels of Kelso's "Whatever it is, contact in twelve seconds," the sequence carries major dramatic impact, especially with the complete absence of any stars in the shot. There she goes, hope she makes it...
In the new version, however, we're already in the barrier, watching the ship approach. That kind of lessens the dramatic impact. Come on in, guys, the water's fine...
And that oft used banking maneuver is just flat out a hundred times more dramatic than just about any other sequence ever done with that model. That's why they used it so damn much. Fast, slow, it's just an incredibly good element.
The original TOS second and third season opening theme initial Enterprise flyby is orgasmic. It's perfectly in sync with the music. I look forward to it every time. The recede is just beautiful.
Too fast? Hah! Real FTL would be faster.
My heart races every time it happens.
I really don't care whether there are some people who just don't get that.
To the TOS-R flyby: Go home. Just go home. You ruin the moment. And get off my TV screen.
Too fast? Hah! Real FTL would be faster.
My heart races every time it happens.
I really don't care whether there are some people who just don't get that.
To the TOS-R flyby: Go home. Just go home. You ruin the moment. And get off my TV screen.
And just how is it possible to judge the “accuracy” of a portrayal of something completely fictitious, e.g. an energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy?
The original flyby for the win.The original TOS second and third season opening theme initial Enterprise flyby is orgasmic. It's perfectly in sync with the music. I look forward to it every time. The recede is just beautiful.
Too fast? Hah! Real FTL would be faster.
My heart races every time it happens.
I really don't care whether there are some people who just don't get that.
To the TOS-R flyby: Go home. Just go home. You ruin the moment. And get off my TV screen.
^^^Except that it's not papier mache nor a windsock dipped in concrete. The best and most logical suggestion I've seen for the DDM model's construction was posted over at the Replica Prop Forum, where Daren Dochterman has suggested it was made of the kind of foil (ergo metal) used to shape stage lights, and that was then wrapped in lighting gel material, which would have allowed the model to contain a practical small stage light inside. That theory is consistent with both the look of the DDM and the practical nature of making such a miniature.
Similar threads
