Question re: Original f/x vs. TOS-R...

[GNDN]

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 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

OMG "they look way too fast"

THE SHIP IS MOVING HUNDREDS OF TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT, HOW THE HELL COULD IT LOOK TOO FAST?!? On the contrary, TOS-R barely has any sense of incredible speed to it at all. TOS and ST2009 are my two favorite visual renditions of the WARPING of space.

You do understand that this is a discussion board, right? People are here to discuss their differing views of things, not to be told they have poor vision or less critical taste than two year olds. EVERYBODY gets it already. You love the new effects. Again, I say awesome IDIC, run with it. But if your only response to others' opinions is that they must either be blind or biased, then why not stop replying at all, since obviously no one but you is able to perceive the awesome impeccable kewlness of the new visuals. State your opinion, but keep the hyperbole and insults to yourself, please.

Appreciating TOS or WNMHGB as whole works, conceived, crafted, created, and presented in the mid 1960's does not make one biased. Wholly rejecting that work and ONLY being able to appreciate mediocre CGI insertions however, is a very clear bias. Just because you find something newer to be superior doesn't mean that everyone else is required to. Taste and bias are not synonyms. Opinion is based on preference, and some here prefer different things than you do, get over it.

 

[BillJ]

I'll go ahead and post this here from the 'Revisiting TOS' about the revised D-7 as seen in TOS-R

I can see why people are saying the model of the D-7 from Elaan of Troyius is a low-poly model. All you have to do is look at the base of the neck...

The body of the digital model doesn't have the same curvature as the physical model.

You can also see a number of simple polygons in this shot here...

In this shot it's really evident...

It's also rather noticeable in this screencap from The Enterprise Incident:

Another shot:

Now in my opinion, the physical model of the D-7 is superior to the digital version. The digital version looks incomplete... or they simply didn't think tight shots of it would be used when it was built.

 

[BillJ]

OMG "they look way too fast"

THE SHIP IS MOVING HUNDREDS OF TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT, HOW THE HELL COULD IT LOOK TOO FAST?!?

State your opinion, but keep the hyperbole and insults to yourself, please.

For some reason RAMA seems to have his self-worth wrapped up in everyone thinking the same exact way he does.

 

[Warped9]

If you feel very strongly about something then it's all very well to state your opinion and your reasoning and stand by it. But I think it's often best that you not belabor it, not pound others over the head with it until you feel you've beaten acceptance of the convincing arguments into them.

I've seen friends (and others) argue and argue and argue (well, okay, animated discussion ) about something trivial each intent to convince the other. And it always led nowhere. No one likes to be told repeatedly that they're wrong.

On the other hand I've often found it more effectively to just make your point, stand by it, and let others mull over it themselves. Sometimes they eventually accept your point all on their own, and without a lot of futile effort from you. In the interim it doesn't hurt to ponder someone else's points because maybe they have one you hadn't been aware of or considered before.

But in the end it's a discussion, a sharing of viewpoints and opinions. There aren't any scores or awards for convincing others.

The same applies to my takes on the episodes I've been revisiting, be they TOS, TNG or whatever. If I like something and it works for me then no amount of dissenting viewpoint or argument will convince me otherwise. And the same goes for me as well. I'm just sharing what I see and experience and it's not my intent to convince anyone else.

 

[Doug Otte]

I'll go ahead and post this here from the 'Revisiting TOS' about the revised D-7 as seen in TOS-R...
(snipped images)

Thanks, Bill. The images in that post are the best examples I've yet seen that show how cartoonish the new effects look. They actually look slightly better in motion on the BDs, but those stills really show us how rushed they were in creating the models.

Doug

 

[Warped9]

I've grown up with and am quite accustomed to the original f/x, but there is one that has long bothered me: the extensive reuse of footage of the Enterprise as it appeared in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" when we should be seeing the series production version of the ship. Yes, there were other shots used occasionally of the 3ft. miniature as well as the high speed swoosh fly-bys where the differing detail is hard to make out so it isn't so noticeable.

There are three shots from WNMHGB that were used far too much for my liking and it boggles the mind that they couldn't have filmed a take or two of the same motion but with the updated filming miniature.

The first is the approach shot. In this case, yes, an updated version or two was shot of the updated 11 footer. So why did we keep seeing the WNMHGB shot popping up even into the third season? Arrgh!

The next was the orbital shot as the ship pans across the screen. Again a newer version was shot and seen in "The Doomsday Machine." So again why couldn't we have gotten a proper new orbital shot?

The final shot is probably the most familiar and it's the receding shot seen at the end of many if not most of the episodes. Now we know they filmed orbital shots of the updated 11 footer so would it have been so hard and time consuming to have filmed one more sequence of the ship just receding away? Arrgh!

Mind you in some later episodes they reused a shot from "Balance Of Terror" where the Enterprise peels away towards the distance at the end of the episode, and that shot is of the updated 11 footer. And I absolutely love that sequence and it's one of my favourite sequences of the original f/x of the Enterprise.


Okay, my rant is over now.

 

[Vance]

(Runs away to avoid hail of eggs and rotten tomatoes)

Actually, if you'll notice, they split the difference. Still looks like the exiting crewman is going out the door into raw space, though.

 

[HarryM]

I've grown up with and am quite accustomed to the original f/x, but there is one that has long bothered me: the extensive reuse of footage of the Enterprise as it appeared in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" when we should be seeing the series production version of the ship. Yes, there were other shots used occasionally of the 3ft. miniature as well as the high speed swoosh fly-bys where the differing detail is hard to make out so it isn't so noticeable.

There are three shots from WNMHGB that were used far too much for my liking and it boggles the mind that they couldn't have filmed a take or two of the same motion but with the updated filming miniature.

The first is the approach shot. In this case, yes, an updated version or two was shot of the updated 11 footer. So why did we keep seeing the WNMHGB shot popping up even into the third season? Arrgh!

The next was the orbital shot as the ship pans across the screen. Again a newer version was shot and seen in "The Doomsday Machine." So again why couldn't we have gotten a proper new orbital shot?

The final shot is probably the most familiar and it's the receding shot seen at the end of many if not most of the episodes. Now we know they filmed orbital shots of the updated 11 footer so would it have been so hard and time consuming to have filmed one more sequence of the ship just receding away? Arrgh!

Mind you in some later episodes they reused a shot from "Balance Of Terror" where the Enterprise peels away towards the distance at the end of the episode, and that shot is of the updated 11 footer. And I absolutely love that sequence and it's one of my favourite sequences of the original f/x of the Enterprise.


Okay, my rant is over now.

Yes, always noticed this also. A perfect example of where the TOS-R can be used to "correct" certain deficiencies of the original. The other one is re-use of matte paintings.

 

[Warped9]

I'm a little torn over the mattes. The originals are stylish and fit the era when the series was made. That said the new ones for the most part are impressive. There are one or two instances, though, when I think the new image went too far or didn't quite get it right. Earlier I mentioned the shot from "Spock's Brain" when the landing party beams down to the planet. The new image is a long shot with a new landscape added in. But the problem is the angle isn't right. In the original shot the horizon line is about mid screen level and we're not quite on eye level with the characters. In the new image the horizon line of the new landscape is much higher and thus we should be looking down somewhat toward the characters. It just doesn't mesh right.

 

[HarryM]

I agree on that one, the scale of the terrain looks off, the mountains appear a few hundred feet tall and not the thousands they are supposed to be.

I think my favorite new matte painting is the Tantalus exterior.

 

[Noname Given]

For myself, I think TOS-R improved on space shots for:

The Corbomite Manuever

The Doomsday Machine

and some shots for The Ultimate Computer (although I think they copped out in not showing a closer shot of the destroyed U.S.S. Excalibur.

Also the TOS-R shots of the interceptor jet and the 1701 in Earth's atmosphere were well done in Tomorrow Is Yesterday.

I also like what they did for the Cestus III ground shot in Arena

I agree with others that artistically, I like the Galactic Barrier from the original (Non-TOS-R) version of Where No Man Has Gone Before and the change to a foggy energy cloud was uninspired.

Also, I find I prefer the origional TOS Klingon D-7 and ship Disruptor bolt animation in Elan Of Troyius; and the Romulan D-7's in The Enterprise Indident.

For me, all the rest is kind of a wash. In other words while I'll acknoledge here and there that TOS-R improved overall series effect consistency, and di decent work across other episodes; the original effects don't detract from my enjoyment; nor do the TOS-R effects add to it either. It's a wash for the rest (Including episodes like Balance of Terror.)

 

[Hambone]

"Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is the one where I think they hit it out of the park. Not just because of the "replacement" FX, but because the last act now shows what was actually happening during the "slingshot effect" scenes. The "atmosphere chase" sequence is also more exciting in my opinion.

 

[evilnate]

"Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is the one where I think they hit it out of the park. Not just because of the "replacement" FX, but because the last act now shows what was actually happening during the "slingshot effect" scenes. The "atmosphere chase" sequence is also more exciting in my opinion.

I can agree with this. I wouldn't say that it improved the story, but I do remember as a kid being disappointed in the slingshot effect, especially after seeing TVH. They way it's presented in TOS-R is very exciting. The atmospheric shots are good, especially of the USAF fighter, but I hated the way they tried to replicate the jerky motion of the original.

 

[RAMA]

OMG "they look way too fast"

THE SHIP IS MOVING HUNDREDS OF TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT, HOW THE HELL COULD IT LOOK TOO FAST?!?

State your opinion, but keep the hyperbole and insults to yourself, please.

For some reason RAMA seems to have his self-worth wrapped up in everyone thinking the same exact way he does.

I have no interest in this whatsoever. The only interest I have other than accuracy is that the self-reinforcing, almost incestuous purist nonsense does not become spread unabated.

RAMA

 

[BillJ]

I have no interest in this whatsoever. The only interest I have other than accuracy is that the self-reinforcing, almost incestuous purist nonsense does not become spread unabated.

Now whose spreading the non-sense? Most everyone in here says that there are some things that TOS-R did better than the original.

They just don't have the unabashed love for TOS-R that you do. And quite frankly you seem pissed and petty about it, insulting those that don't agree with you.

 

[Maurice]

Also of note is something the CG version is missing...parts of the ship fail to cast shadows on each other. Looks like they're rendering these without shadow casting. Note how on the physical model the neck casts a shadow across the front of the main hull, and the nacelle on the left is partly in the shadow of the hull. The CG version misses that part of how real light works. Call that superior? Cause I don't.

 

[BillJ]

Also of note is something the CG version is missing...parts of the ship fail to cast shadows on each other. Looks like they're rendering these without shadow casting. Note how on the physical model the neck casts a shadow across the front of the main hull, and the nacelle on the left is partly in the shadow of the hull. The CG version misses that part of how real light works. Call that superior? Cause I don't.

I noticed the lack of shadows too, but I just figured at this point it was just piling on. The TOS-R gang did some things right (mainly the matte extensions) and did some things wrong (made changes to shots that didn't need them, some low-poly models, some lighting issues).

I think the mattes worked because they had to match the new elements with the old in the same shot, with the space shots they were essentially working with a blank canvas.

Cue RAMA to tell me how wrong I am in 9... 8... 7...

 

[RAMA]

Also of note is something the CG version is missing...parts of the ship fail to cast shadows on each other. Looks like they're rendering these without shadow casting. Note how on the physical model the neck casts a shadow across the front of the main hull, and the nacelle on the left is partly in the shadow of the hull. The CG version misses that part of how real light works. Call that superior? Cause I don't.

Obviously the expert CGI artist is missing how the glow from the new FX is much brighter AND coming from below the right side of the ship.

Most of the FX commentaries are starting to sound like the conspiracy theories about the shadows from the moon landing photos being wrong.

 

[BillJ]

Obviously the expert CGI artist is missing how the glow from the new FX is much brighter.

Most of the FX commentaries are starting to sound like the conspiracy theories about the shadows from the moon landing photos being wrong.

The shadows make it look more like a real object. And the pulses are not so bright they would drown out every other light source. Plus wouldn't the light pulses create momentary shadows as well?

 

[RAMA]

I have no interest in this whatsoever. The only interest I have other than accuracy is that the self-reinforcing, almost incestuous purist nonsense does not become spread unabated.

Now whose spreading the non-sense? Most everyone in here says that there are some things that TOS-R did better than the original.

They just don't have the unabashed love for TOS-R that you do. And quite frankly you seem pissed and petty about it, insulting those that don't agree with you.

Who said I counted everyone in the thread amongst the purists?