Discussion in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' started by JJ-R, Sep 5, 2012.
I think the point was it'd be decent CGI since they wouldn't have to worry too much about all the crap they have to go through (and it seems, mess up) with the model shots.
CGI gets such a bad rap here but it's not just a black and white "model good, CGI bad" situation.
There's good and bad of both kinds and seeing some of the poor work on this disk, (and even the good stuff making the 2ft model look downright awful, for example in the wormhole of Time Squared) I'm beginning to think they should've just CGI'd the whole lot.
Couldn't have been any WORSE, could it?
Sure it could. Much of the TOS-R CGI was pretty poor and done by the same effects house that would be doing TNG-R.
Why would anyone who doesn't like HTV's compositing want to trust them with replacing stuff with CGI?
Maybe they'd have to outsource?
Hello foundation imaging or eden FX or anyone who did good work on later series DS9/Voyager
(Assuming those two companies aren't still going, but the people behind them still are somewhere.....)
Not knowing that the theorem would eventually be solved is not the #1 issue I have with the Royale. The problem with this episode is that it was written by someone who didn't do any research into... well, anything. Even the way the story mocks the actual book "Hotel Royale" for being filled with shallow characters and riddled with clichés is ironic because that's exactly what real story is full of.
What I find odd is Picard being so bored and dismissive of the presumably poorly written book as being filled with cliches and one-dimensional characters. This is a man who enjoys being a detective from 1930s pulp-fiction, which I don't think is quite known for having deep characters or writing styles either.
You mean like some of us are bored and dismissive of certain Trek shows while enjoying others?
From memory Foundation Imaging went bust during Enterprise's run. I think that was the last thing they worked on. I'm sure the people are still around though, think some of them worked on nuBSG.
I understand why the writers had Captain Jean-Luc Picard enjoy the Dixon Hill series, for that is what late 20th century people do. I am, however, doubtful that a person of the 24th century would be interested in these books, and, much more, there is a market for these type of holoprograms.
If DS9 is released on blu-ray, I think they might have to redo the effects. At the rate they are progressing, I don't think we will see DS9 any earlier than 2014.
Much of the early episodes of DS9 relied on model work and likely those elements are there to be recomposited like TNG. I don't think DS9 began to rely heavily on CGI until season four or five.
Anyone bump into any Standard Definition moments in Season 2 yet? I think I've stumbled across some in the Samaritan Snare when Troi enters the bridge to warn the crew, and some of the view screen's footage of the Pakleds.
Nope, those are just zoomed in pan and scan shots, explaining the heavy grain.
Someone mentioned the test-screen images in Schizoid Man, and it is quite blurry, but we haven't had anything confirmed yet.
I don't think there are any, in the s1 set the menu would indicate if there was even 1 sd uprezzed shot.
Most likely a combination of a pan and scan shot and the nasty use of DNR in VFX shots.
Am I the only person who like The Royale? I always found it to be a fun episode.
When I watch old shows, I notice sometimes that the video footage itself just looks old. Now I notice it occassionally with TNG...it's just something I never expected to happen I guess.
No, you're not the only one. There's a thread about The Royale.
I think it's one of the best episodes of TNG. It very much has a Twilight Zone vibe going.
Given some of the responses I've seen recently on Trekcore, where people are saying they would like to encourage CBS to fix the problems with Season 2, I've decided to start a petition. Can't hurt to try right?
I'm not the greatest writer, so any suggestions on how to improve the text included with the petition would be welcome.
Separate names with a comma.