Should Babylon 5 be remastered?

[Gotham Central]

As one of the first all CGI tv series created for American TV, it seems like it would be perfect for remastering.

It would be great to see what could be done with the show with modern CGI.

I'm sure that there are some technical difficulties in making a transition...or conversion to HD.

I suspect that like most of the modern Trek series, much of the CG work was added to the show in video...thus making it much more expensive to clean up.

 

[David cgc]

Well, to bring it in to HD and have it look decent, it'd require more than just remastering it. It'd need a whole set of new effects, as was done with TOS-R. And if that's the question, then yes.

A thousand times, yes. I've often thought of doing some scenes myself just as a personal project. Especially after The Lost Tales showed how damn pretty it would be (scroll down on this page for some HD screencaps)

There are two main problems: The first is money. Babylon 5 is not, and never will be, Star Trek. It's doubtful Warner will ever decide to pony up the money to have somewhere between 110 and 130 or so (depending on if they decide to do the movies and Crusade as well) get their CGI effects completely redone.

The second one is that, while they already have digital HD copies of the live-action footage that they made for the DVDs and Sci-Fi Channel reruns, they may not have it for any live-action shots that included special effects (from set extensions to CG aliens to PPG shots). Babylon 5 hasn't had the best luck with the archives (many of the original CG files were lost in storage only a few years after the show ended, and I believe rats got into the original film from "The Gathering"), and if those shots are unavailable, then the whole project would just be a waste of time, because you'd still be stuck with a massive quality loss in shots combining live action and visual effects even if anything that was pure live-action or pure CGI looked perfect.

 

[JarodRussell]

I am one who found the CGI in Babylon 5 already totally ugly when the show first aired, so yeah, it should be remastered.

 

[RandyS]

No. It's fine the way it is.

 

[Candlelight]

It would be great to do so but unless you can wave a magic wand and fix all the issues that David mentioned above I wouldn't bother. SD DVDs upscale just fine on my HD tv, and the original CGI works well with the era it was shot. It's not like the FX shots hampered the pacing of story telling that today's audiences demand, as some consider the case with TOS-R episodes.

 

[Harvey]

The original CGI, though intensely dated, would still work fine if it hadn't been cropped to fit in widescreen for the DVDs. "The Gathering" and "Crusade," which were released in their original 4:3 full screen, look fine.

 

[Aeon]

Recently JMS commented about this subject.

On Aug 9, 8:40=A0pm, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/08/2009 2:35 PM, Immortus45 wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0A long time ago I heard that the CGI files of B5 are missing and
> > that's why it can't be converted to high resolution. My assumption was
> > that they had been accidently erased or destroyed or something, but
> > somewhere online I read a message from someone who said something to
> > the effect that Warner Brothers has massive archives and it's possible
> > that they're still there somewhere perhaps misplaced in some forgotten
> > corner on zip drives or something. =A0Does anyone think that's possible=
,
> > or is that just wishful thinking ?
>
> I suppose anything is POSSIBLE. =A0It's also possible that they're sittin=
g
> on wiped disks or drives that are still recoverable.
>
> Whether anyone has the inclination to go looking, however...

Doesn't matter if any of them exist, they could never be upgraded to
HD or anything close to that. They were produced on antiquated
equipment at a resolution that's ridiculous in comparison to what's
currently being done now.

And honestly, what you'd pay to try (and fail) at up-resing them would
be nearly what you'd pay to render everything fresh.

(Haven't been around much because the ear infection which turned into
a throat infection which turned into a bronchial infection turned into
walking pneumonia, so I've been spending most of my time trying to get
better -- which I'm finally starting to achieve -- and any time at the
computer, which wasn't much, went to work. I want to be sure I'm well
and able to travel for the Toronto convention later this month. Last
time I had a bad ear infection it prevented me from getting on a
plane, and I had to take a train from LA to Vancouver. It was no
fun.)

jms

 

[resonator79]

I agree 100% with the 4:3 comment by Harvey. It would've looked just fine if they'd realeased it in it's broadcast form.
I'm wondering, is there still a place on earth where the series is still AIRING in 4:3 (and NTSC)? We could use a good clean capture for our personal archives. The DVDs are so inconsistent that every time an FX shot comes up it takes me right out of the story.

 

[Harvey]

Is Babylon 5 still airing anywhere in the United States? It seems like a series mainly seen on home video to me. That's where I saw it for the first time.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Should it be remastered? Yes.
Will it be remastered? No.

 

[G2309]

Many of the shots looked worse than first season TNG. ut i can't see them getting the money for it.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Many of the shots looked worse than first season TNG. ut i can't see them getting the money for it.

Probably because TNG was all model work. However, the video quality of TNG generally is appalling, and yet there's talk of releasing it on Blu-ray.

 

[Forbin]

When the show premiered, nobody said "wow, that's bad CGI!" They said "WOW! You can do that with computers!?!? That looks GREAT!"

When I watch a TV show I put my head into the time it was made. B5 is an archeological gem of early TV CGI, and I love every minute of it, no matter how much better CGI has gotten over the intervening years. I'll expect current-quality CGI in any NEW B5 productions that may happen, but I'm perfectly happy with the originals as they are.

 

[Pingfah]

The second one is that, while they already have digital HD copies of the live-action footage that they made for the DVDs and Sci-Fi Channel reruns, they may not have it for any live-action shots that included special effects (from set extensions to CG aliens to PPG shots). Babylon 5 hasn't had the best luck with the archives (many of the original CG files were lost in storage only a few years after the show ended, and I believe rats got into the original film from "The Gathering"), and if those shots are unavailable, then the whole project would just be a waste of time, because you'd still be stuck with a massive quality loss in shots combining live action and visual effects even if anything that was pure live-action or pure CGI looked perfect.

That is my understanding. As far as I know the original footage that was combined with CGI, and also live action leading into and out of CGI shots is also missing. Although there are a few B5 experts around here who might know better.

 

[Sindatur]

The DVDs are so inconsistent that every time an FX shot comes up it takes me right out of the story.

I've never understood this comment. Can you not watch Classic SciFi like Forbidden Planet or War of the Worlds? Can you not enjoy Blake's 7 or Space 1999?

The only thing that takes me out of a good story, is subtitles and Silent Films, where you have to concentrate on reading the text (And I realize this is my own failing)

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The second one is that, while they already have digital HD copies of the live-action footage that they made for the DVDs and Sci-Fi Channel reruns, they may not have it for any live-action shots that included special effects (from set extensions to CG aliens to PPG shots). Babylon 5 hasn't had the best luck with the archives (many of the original CG files were lost in storage only a few years after the show ended, and I believe rats got into the original film from "The Gathering"), and if those shots are unavailable, then the whole project would just be a waste of time, because you'd still be stuck with a massive quality loss in shots combining live action and visual effects even if anything that was pure live-action or pure CGI looked perfect.

That is my understanding. As far as I know the original footage that was combined with CGI, and also live action leading into and out of CGI shots is also missing. Although there are a few B5 experts around here who might know better.

How about using CGI models of the actors as with Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy? Even more expensive, but hey, we're talking silly money anyway.

 

[Triple-F]

When the show premiered, nobody said "wow, that's bad CGI!" They said "WOW! You can do that with computers!?!? That looks GREAT!"

When I watch a TV show I put my head into the time it was made. B5 is an archeological gem of early TV CGI, and I love every minute of it, no matter how much better CGI has gotten over the intervening years. I'll expect current-quality CGI in any NEW B5 productions that may happen, but I'm perfectly happy with the originals as they are.

Totally agree with that.

BAck in the day B5 was groundbreaking for a number of reasons - in the US that included the story arc idea. But another of the bigger more well know areas is the extensive use of CGI. If it wasn’t for that the thing would never have been made in the first place. (The whole 5 years trying to find a home because of trek is a bit of a red herring – it was FX costs that scared off the execs)

It sounds a little weird saying it but it is kind of historical and what would actually be achieved by replacing it!? Besides if you modernised the CGI then many of the sets, alien prosthetics and even dialog would then seem really out of place.

The only bit I wouldn’t mind seeing ‘fixed’ is the live action/cgi composited shots as some of them can be pretty rough on the eyes, but that’s highly unlikely.

 

[Aeon]

BAck in the day B5 was groundbreaking for a number of reasons - in the US that included the story arc idea. But another of the bigger more well know areas is the extensive use of CGI. If it wasn’t for that the thing would never have been made in the first place. (The whole 5 years trying to find a home because of trek is a bit of a red herring – it was FX costs that scared off the execs)

I've been recently reading JMS's numerous posts and as far as I've understood the story, Babylon 5 was a hard sell because at the time most of the high profile science fiction shows went way over budget. For instance V nearly destroyed Warner Bros. so they were understandably very cautious. Also the sad fact is that Trek did pretty much monopolize the so called "space adventure" area of science fiction in television and no one thought that smaller shows could compete against Paramount's success. That's just business.

I would say that CGI actually helped to sell the show because using computers was a lot cheaper than making traditional models. To directly quote JMS: "On a cost-per-shot basis you can get a lot more bang for your buck with CGI than models."

 

[Deckerd]

I would say that CGI actually helped to sell the show because using computers was a lot cheaper than making traditional models. To directly quote JMS: "On a cost-per-shot basis you can get a lot more bang for your buck with CGI than models."

Yeah I wonder how much more expensive Avatar would have been using some models.

 

[Triple-F]

A while back I found some (on-line) press releases from around 1996/7 which put some meat on the bones of the subject for me – at the time I was looking for information on the show.

Cost was the big factor.
http://www.midwinter.com/b5/Releases/96pr_pioneering

The problem was, Netter recalls, that "the networks had had science fiction pitched to them before, along with the caveat, 'We can do this for a reasonable price.' Of course, that was one of the great lies in Hollywood. And even though John and I had an excellent reputation for bringing shows in under budget and on time, as soon as they heard about big effects, red flags would go up in their minds. They were afraid that any attempt to do a science fiction show on a tight budget might result in inferior production values."

And like everyone else, Warner Bros. didn't see how a high-quality show could be done on a cut-rate budget. "They said, 'Well, if you are going to do it for that, this stuff will look terrible.' And we said, 'No, it won't," Netter remembers. To prove their point, Straczynski, Netter, and Copeland had Ron Thornton -- who had worked with them on "Captain Power" and subsequently pioneered the use of CGI effects on an Amiga computer -- produce a startling 50-second sequence featuring a computer-generated space ship being tracked from far in the distance to its arrival at the space station's docking bay, all in one shot.

Another highlights who’s idea it was for going the CGI route (the demo he showed them is the one they showed Warner) – Thornton was originally approached to hopefully do the miniatures on the cheap as he was a friend of Copeland and they had worked with him before.
http://www.midwinter.com/b5/Releases/96pr_production

It was mid-1991 when Thornton was approached by the producers of "Captain Power" to bid on miniatures for a sci-fi project they were developing, Babylon 5. At that time, Thornton had been working with innovative rock music and multimedia artist Todd Rundgren on a short computer-animated film. The work with Rundgren led Thornton to suggest using computers for the effects on Babylon 5.

Thornton and Beigle-Bryant created a one minute video of proposed visual effects for Babylon 5, which would become instrumental in selling the show to Warner Bros. television in July 1992. Upon pick-up of the new series, Thornton and Beigle-Bryant formed Foundation Imaging to continue creating the visuals for Babylon 5.

I’ve always had a teeny bit of a problem seeing how Trek could have been a big hurdle for them at the time of pitching the show. (later, keeping it on air, and the whole DS9 hoo-ha is a different story I suppose). According to jms posts he’d been trying to sell B5 since 1988, or there abouts, but back then the only trek was the long finished original that had been cancelled after the third season and the next generation which had only just started.

Anyway, the above is another reason why I'm none to fond of the idea of the CGI being given a modern face lift.