Remastered Shots vs. Original Shots

[trevanian]

And it would still look good in HD. Have you seen FP or 2001 on a nice big screen TV? Decades before cgi, it's rather impressive.

Your whole post is 'post of the month' from my perspective, but this part is especially important. Shoot, this 'won't look good in HD' argument falls apart anytime you really look at it. Not just FP or 2001, but even the Irwin Allen shows ... the really great stuff of the flying sub or the j2 cruising in real daylight pre-crash, those are superb shots and redoing THOSE with cg would be criminal ... so at what point do you decided an fx shot needs to be done over for CG? Maybe the actors with silver paint on their faces?

More and more, I'm seeing the TOS-r stuff as being akin to touching up THE WORLD AT WAR or VICTORY AT SEA with digital embellishments. TOS is in a way a 'historical document' and should be seen as such.

 

[Outpost4]

An "historical document"? Silly me. I thought it was just a TV show.

There's putting it on a pedestal, and then there is putting it on a pedestal.

Agreed with the quality of model shots from the '50s and '60s, though.

 

[trevanian]

An "historical document"? Silly me. I thought it was just a TV show.

There's putting it on a pedestal, and then there is putting it on a pedestal.
.

remember GALAXY QUEST?

 

[Warped9]

An "historical document"? Silly me. I thought it was just a TV show.

There's putting it on a pedestal, and then there is putting it on a pedestal.

Agreed with the quality of model shots from the '50s and '60s, though.

Many films since the earliest days are now considered "historical documents" for offering a glimpse into the past. And that can easily include television. I, for one, have grown to enjoy immensely watching classic film for their distinctiveness from today's works as well as for their glimpse into a time before mine.

In much the same way any "contemporary" film becomes a period piece as years go by. We might have a tendency to look at older films and television shows as dated yet they were contemporary in their day. The films and television shows we have now will soon enough become period pieces within 10-20 years. They will become historical documents of our current times.

It's quite easy to see how contemporary things can be seen as commonplace and disposable, yet many acquire a value with passing time because they cease to be commonplace and become rare.

Cars that were once seen as everyday transportation and seen all over the roads are now considered classics. And so it is as well with much of film and television. And considering how recognized TOS is I think it easily qualifies as a historical document of the '60s and that period's view of a future.

Film and television is an extension of literature. And just as literature can be become widely recognized and classic so too can film and television works.

 

[A beaker full of death]

I agree that it's a completed, integrated work that was finished 40 years ago. At least Lucas has the moral right to mess with his own old work; Okuda has no right to mess with work someone else did.

 

[ST-One]

I agree that it's a completed, integrated work that was finished 40 years ago. At least Lucas has the moral right to mess with his own old work; Okuda has no right to mess with work someone else did.

Those who own that work see it differently.

 

[Warped9]

To use an extreme as an analogy:

Imagine someone buying an original da Vinci painting and deciding it needs to be livened up for contemporary art lovers. "We just had to do something. It was soo out of date."

I recall seeing a colourized version of the 1943 Miracle On 34th Street. Mind you this was when colourizing a b&w film was in its infancy as opposed to what's possible today. Yikes! It was brutal and totally marred an otherwise wonderful film. Conversely I've seen a nicely colourized version of the 1940 Mark Of Zorro and it was fine, primarily because they made it look as if it had actually been filmed in colour in 1940 as opposed to how a colour film would look like today.

That said, colourizing a film is definitely not the same as remastering vfx. Because you're not replacing anything truly integral. The Mark Of Zorro could have been filmed in colour in 1940 (colour film has existed since the '30s--ie: The Wizard Of Oz and Gone With The Wind), but it wasn't and probably for budgetary reasons. Better f/x could theoretically have been done for TOS IF it had magically had access to feature film level f/x resources and budget. And so to properly enhance TOS' f/x they should have gone with that mindset. But to add average contemporary cgi f/x with a current aesthetic sensibility to a '60s era work is completely wrong-minded.

And since I suspect that an enhanced TOS with f/x that look '60s era feature film state-of-the-art would have been more time intensive and thus more expensive than what they did with TOS-R then they just shouldn't have bothered. They should have just invested the money in doing a first-rate clean up of each episode and touched them up by just eliminating any obvious matte lines and the like.

 

[Shaw]

Imagine someone buying an original da Vinci painting and deciding it needs to be livened up for contemporary art lovers. "We just had to do something. It was soo out of date."

You mean like what was done to the Last Supper?

 

[number6]

To use an extreme as an analogy:

Imagine someone buying an original da Vinci painting and deciding it needs to be livened up for contemporary art lovers. "We just had to do something. It was soo out of date."

Let's take it one further.

The person who owns that Da Vinci painting was a close associate of those who were close to DaVinci, possibly knew DaVinci personally and had worked with him for several years before his death. And they conveyed to the owner that he wanted his own painting to have certain things that he couldn't do because he had limited time and resources.

The owner decides to restore the painting and retouch some of the brushmarks lost in the restoration process. He adds a few flourishes of his own to reflect what Da Vinci would have done had he had the time and resources under the supervision of those who were close to Da Vinci. He decides to show off his version of the painting, not claiming it to be an original work, but a restoration with some touching up to celebrate some significant anniversary of the original work.

Suppose he also found a way to preserve the original and has it in storage, so future generations can see the original as it was and can compare the two versions.

There will be people who will hail this new version as heresy no matter what.
There will be people who will appreciate it for what it is: a Tribute to the original done by someone under the supervision of Da Vinci's close associates.
Either way there have been plenty of replications of his original work and no one is saying that this tribute version is replacing the old one. Both can be enjoyed and compared.

The only difference here is that we are talking about a TV show. The original TOS is there for people who want them and the TOS-R is there too. In time people will appreciate both for what they are.

 

[A beaker full of death]

I agree that it's a completed, integrated work that was finished 40 years ago. At least Lucas has the moral right to mess with his own old work; Okuda has no right to mess with work someone else did.

Those who own that work see it differently.

Ownership of rights means nothing. That just means they get to make money off it. If I own a Picasso, I don't get to smear shit all over it and call it a new improved Picasso.

 

[ST-One]

I agree that it's a completed, integrated work that was finished 40 years ago. At least Lucas has the moral right to mess with his own old work; Okuda has no right to mess with work someone else did.

Those who own that work see it differently.

Ownership of rights means nothing. That just means they get to make money off it. If I own a Picasso, I don't get to smear shit all over it and call it a new improved Picasso.

Sure you can.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Those who own that work see it differently.

Ownership of rights means nothing. That just means they get to make money off it. If I own a Picasso, I don't get to smear shit all over it and call it a new improved Picasso.

Sure you can.

Perhaps not, but it sure would be funny. Especially if done as performance art.
A fat man wearing only a crown squats up on a throne, struggles for a while, and drops a crude one onto a silver platter, which is then picked up by a scantily clad nun, who brings it over to the artist, who then paints a smiley face in poop on the famous painting. Then he goes before the throne, and hurls the poop at the fat man, exclaiming, "Why do you hate America?"
Oh, and there should be two bassoonists playing through all of this.

 

[NCC621]

I agree that it's a completed, integrated work that was finished 40 years ago. At least Lucas has the moral right to mess with his own old work; Okuda has no right to mess with work someone else did.

Those who own that work see it differently.

Ownership of rights means nothing. That just means they get to make money off it. If I own a Picasso, I don't get to smear shit all over it and call it a new improved Picasso.

You have a point.

Assuming, of course, that you choose to change the definition of "rights" and "ownership" to support your particular grudge. "Ownership of rights means nothing" suggests you're operating in a rather different universe than those who work in the film industry.

 

[3D Master]

To use an extreme as an analogy:

Imagine someone buying an original da Vinci painting and deciding it needs to be livened up for contemporary art lovers. "We just had to do something. It was soo out of date."

Let's take it one further.

The person who owns that Da Vinci painting was a close associate of those who were close to DaVinci, possibly knew DaVinci personally and had worked with him for several years before his death. And they conveyed to the owner that he wanted his own painting to have certain things that he couldn't do because he had limited time and resources.

The owner decides to restore the painting and retouch some of the brushmarks lost in the restoration process. He adds a few flourishes of his own to reflect what Da Vinci would have done had he had the time and resources under the supervision of those who were close to Da Vinci. He decides to show off his version of the painting, not claiming it to be an original work, but a restoration with some touching up to celebrate some significant anniversary of the original work.

Suppose he also found a way to preserve the original and has it in storage, so future generations can see the original as it was and can compare the two versions.

There will be people who will hail this new version as heresy no matter what.
There will be people who will appreciate it for what it is: a Tribute to the original done by someone under the supervision of Da Vinci's close associates.
Either way there have been plenty of replications of his original work and no one is saying that this tribute version is replacing the old one. Both can be enjoyed and compared.

The only difference here is that we are talking about a TV show. The original TOS is there for people who want them and the TOS-R is there too. In time people will appreciate both for what they are.

Except that the guy has no connection with Da Vinci and then he claims the original is no more fit for viewing because it was "too degraded" and keeps it locked away so no one gets to see it ever again.

Aka, the end-result is the same as if he had painted over the original, destroying it.

 

[Warped9]

It must be said that classic paintings have indeed been restored, but only to the extent to bring them as close as possible to original condition.

The only other example I can think of is the TMP-DE. They went back and added things that were always meant to be there, but weren't because of lack of time. They didn't add anything that couldn't have been done originally with a little more time. And they took the pains to make certain the new shots fit seamlessly (stylistically and aesthetically) with the original footage.

TOS-R has many things they likely couldn't have been done originally even with feature film level resources. And the new sequences are so obviously not stylistically and aesthetically consistent with the remaining live action footage.

This is an issue that is likely never to reach universal consensus. You either think it's wrong or not. And to that end we're likely to simply go endlessly round and round on it.

I think the issue is made even murkier with the advent these last few years of DE versions of films on DVD as opposed to the original theatrically released versions released only some months prior. You can debate which is the most definitive or authentic version, because the DE versions often do result in a different viewing experience than the theatrical release. Often enough the DE's new editing and added footage result in a better experience than the original (but not always).But two cases in point in my opinion: both the extended version of Peter Jackson's King Kong and the director's cut of Daredevil are better than the original teatrical releases.

In a broader sense we're not experiencing anything new. Abridged editions of books have been published. Older books have been rewritten to cater to new tastes and agendas--the Bible possibly being the most well known example.

 

[trevanian]

The only other example I can think of is the TMP-DE. They went back and added things that were always meant to be there, but weren't because of lack of time. They didn't add anything that couldn't have been done originally with a little more time.

TOS-R has many things they likely couldn't have been done originally even with feature film level resources. And the new sequences are so obviously not stylistically and aesthetically consistent with the remaining live action footage.

Agree totally with respect to what I've seen of TOS-r (lower case preferred), but in spite of all the comments about DE only having stuff that was representative of the past era and boards ... dunno 'bout that.

The DE's full vger reveal doesn't look anything like the McCall illustration or the concept Mead has talked about doing. Putting the whole vger model together and getting far enough back to shoot it would have been a huge undertaking, and limiting since they only built one slice, essentially something like a sixth of the diameter.

In the case of the wormhole rock explosion, while they COULD have done a fireball back then, they were CHOOSING not to, because it flew in the face of the film's science angle (even the unused pyro blast by Apogee that can be seen partly in the long trailer is a light and debris blast, not a fireball.)

There are TONS of boards and concept art for San Francisco from the 70s, yet the SF of the DE doesn't really look like those so much as it reminds me of some alien city from Lil ENTERPRISE season 1. (That might have to do with the tech that was used on the DE as well.)

Even the argument that animation was done 'on twos' back then to support the way the DE has the hex bridge built doesn't hold water; look at the graceful insanely dimensional animation of the Decker/Ilia transcendence and tell me that was shot 'on twos' ... I just don't think so. The hex bridge animation has that showy unreal animation look that I associate with the PROMOS for TMP, not the film itself.

And while they COULD have shown a single nacelle out the lounge window, back then, they probably wouldn't have been stupid enough to do so, because it looks awkward and they'd've probably chosen to do it with the spectacular symmetrical view that Probert painted, instead of trying to retcon a new 'correct?' spot for the lounge. Geez, they could've cut the spock shuttle dock lounge shot if they felt they needed to eliminate a conflict over the lounge view; the shots don't do anything special for the show in any version.

 

[Noname Given]

And so to properly enhance TOS' f/x they should have gone with that mindset. But to add average contemporary cgi f/x with a current aesthetic sensibility to a '60s era work is completely wrong-minded.

Problem is, they were also on a tight budget and under an imposed time constraint (the latter I agree makes little sense to me); so to redo with physical models would be much more expensive.

BTW I have also watch the original TOS DVDs on my 73" DLP; and while I don't mind the SFX shots myself; the majority of them from seasons one and two (not so much the new shots made during season three) look incredibly grainy, have visible matte lines and a lot of visible scratches. Thus, given that the live action looks so clean (and looks even cleaner in actual HD) - I can see why CBS did what they did to keep Star Trek as a viable syndication package TV and cable stations want as HDTV format becomes the standard in a few more years.

We here are not the target audience since CBS probably figurees that the majority of fhard core fans who want the originals have them; and can watch them at their leisure. TOS-R was made for the younger and casual viewer who might start watching in a few years as this HDTV TOS package is made more widely available.

But bottom line: The SFX redo was done because CBS has faith in the viability of the series to continue to generate income for them even though it's 40+ years old. In a sense, one would think you might be happy that CBS recognizes the original Star Trek as a classic/quality TV series (regardless of when it was produced); since what they did to it cost money - and they wouldn't bother to spend that kind of money if they didn't believe they'd get a good return on that investment down the road.

 

[ST-One]

And while they COULD have shown a single nacelle out the lounge window, back then, they probably wouldn't have been stupid enough to do so, because it looks awkward and they'd've probably chosen to do it with the spectacular symmetrical view that Probert painted, instead of trying to retcon a new 'correct?' spot for the lounge. Geez, they could've cut the spock shuttle dock lounge shot if they felt they needed to eliminate a conflict over the lounge view; the shots don't do anything special for the show in any version.

Well, who wouldn't kill to see the Probert version of that shot?

I too think it looks... less good the way it was presented. But it is still better than to show a blank starfield, when we know that there should be one of the nacelles visible.

If it should ever come to pass, the same thing should be done for TNG; finally showing the back of the ship from the observation lounge windows.

 

[trevanian]

If it should ever come to pass, the same thing should be done for TNG; finally showing the back of the ship from the observation lounge windows.

I hadn't ever thought about what you'd see out the -d's windows ... are the nacelles too low relative the saucer to see unless you're up at the roof of the lounge?

I suppose you'd see an expanse of saucer back at the very least, and I'd welcome even seeing that much.

They were very cost-sensitive on the TNG movies about this kind of thing ... the original approved design for the INS holoship had the bridge at the back, so you'd see a big expanse of ship when you looked out its front windows (which they do in the movie for what, maybe two seconds?) Unfortunately, Berman and/or Lauritson didn't want to pay for more than just stars outside, so Eaves had to redesign it with the bridge up front and a stars-only view.

 

[ST-One]

If it should ever come to pass, the same thing should be done for TNG; finally showing the back of the ship from the observation lounge windows.

I hadn't ever thought about what you'd see out the -d's windows ... are the nacelles too low relative the saucer to see unless you're up at the roof of the lounge?

I suppose you'd see an expanse of saucer back at the very least, and I'd welcome even seeing that much.

They were very cost-sensitive on the TNG movies about this kind of thing ... the original approved design for the INS holoship had the bridge at the back, so you'd see a big expanse of ship when you looked out its front windows (which they do in the movie for what, maybe two seconds?) Unfortunately, Berman and/or Lauritson didn't want to pay for more than just stars outside, so Eaves had to redesign it with the bridge up front and a stars-only view.

Those are missed visual opportunities...
Yes, the nacelles would be visible from the lounge of the D and even more visible from the E's lounge.