Star Trek 6: Remastered : what needs to be done ?

[Bones1864]

Star Trek 6 remastered. What changes woukd have to be made ? I think an extra shot of the Enterprise is dock after we see the shuttle and right before Captain kirk enters teh bride would be in order. A Few extra shots of the ship in space while it is sitting still waiting to hear if Mc'Coy and Kirk are safe is needed. A shot of the Enterprise going to warp is needed after Spock gets the reading from the patch on Kirk's back. At least one shot of the ship firing it's phasers at Christopher Plummer's ship would be acceptable and maybe a few more shots of the Bird of Prey firing would be aok too.
First Contact needs an overhaul too. It needs more battle footage with the Borg Ship at the start. The DS9 theme needs to be subsituted of rather blended in with the Klingon theme when Worf is attacking the Borg Cube.A few more Phaser shots from Picard's ship would be in order
It would be nice having a Full battle with the Borg instead of only a few chicken scratch shots taken.

 

[cardinal biggles]

There's nothing wrong with either film that your changes would "fix".

 

[Joker]

Shatner should have a cape digitally added at the end when he Supermans over to save the President.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Or maybe they could deflect the disruptor blast back up at the assassin with the giant mirrors Shatner glued to his ass for this mission.

 

[trevanian]

same concept, different script.

 

[Number_6]

When does Kirk enter the bride? That's not on my DVD.

 

[Sisu]

ha!

How many brides has he entered, anyway?

 

[Jon1701]

I'll say this for him, he's consistant...

 

[cardinal biggles]

He's also no longer among us.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Bones1864 said:
Star Trek 6 remastered. What changes woukd have to be made ?

When will people finally understand the meaning of "remastering"? It has absolutely nothing to do with adding new FX or changing the movie in any other way!

That being said, we already have three different versions of TUC ... why would we need a fourth one? What is this obsession about changing movies everytime they are being released on a different format?

 

[Christopher]

Oso Blanco said:

Bones1864 said:
Star Trek 6 remastered. What changes woukd have to be made ?

When will people finally understand the meaning of "remastering"? It has absolutely nothing to do with adding new FX or changing the movie in any other way!

Thank you! It's just inexcusable that people get this word wrong, considering that DVD re-releases of old movies and shows have been getting touted as "digitally remastered" for as long as there have been DVDs. It's absurd that people should suddenly forget the meaning of a word that's been in common parlance for a decade or two. By now, everyone should understand that remastering is a process of making new copies from the original master print for maximum quality. Replacing the original footage with entirely new footage is, in effect, the opposite of remastering.

 

[Kegek]

^
True enough. The Kino release of Metropolis is a textbook case of a 'remastering'.

However, the word has been confused ever since it was used as a euphemism for TOS Remastered, which is essentailly a CGI update of the SFX. With that context in mind, Bones1864's use of the term is applicable.

 

[Christopher]

^^I disagree that it's a valid shorthand, because it conflicts with a far more common, current, and accurate use of the word "remastered." If it were a word that had fallen out of common usage and weren't currently being used to mean anything else, then an inaccurate usage that was nonetheless commonly understood and agreed upon would be acceptable. (For instance, even though "decimate" means to kill only 1/10 of a population, it's acceptable today to use it to mean "devastate or destroy altogether" because you practically never come across a case where the word would be used literally.) But in this case, the term is used routinely and frequently in the audio/video industry to mean a specific thing, so using the same word to mean an entirely different thing that's also within the same general subject area is just confusing and should therefore be discouraged.

 

[Therin of Andor]

^ The tricky bit with the new TOS release for HD is that the episodes are being remastered (ie. new prints from original negatives), and they're having their SPFX shots replaced by CGI FX.

 

[Kegek]

Christopher said:
^^I disagree that it's a valid shorthand, because it conflicts with a far more common, current, and accurate use of the word "remastered."

Which isn't the point. As per TOS-R, it is now also a euphemism for what Bones1864 is proposing. This isn't the first or the last time a word has had two different, even contradictory, meanings. I'm not arguing that his use of the term is correct or incorrect: It is, however, a real term.

The same applies to 'quadrilogy.' The correct word is tetralogy. But this frankly stupid neologism has been coined, and thus is an applicable, if inadvisable, word.

If it were a word that had fallen out of common usage and weren't currently being used to mean anything else, then an inaccurate usage that was nonetheless commonly understood and agreed upon would be acceptable. (For instance, even though "decimate" means to kill only 1/10 of a population, it's acceptable today to use it to mean "devastate or destroy altogether" because you practically never come across a case where the word would be used literally.)

I mainly use decimate as in 'to destroy a tenth', actually. As in: 'While editing, I decimated my essay' or 'I have decimated your chess pieces.' I never use it in the sense of devastate. I wasn't aware that's now considered an archaic usage.

This is a good list of examples of words which have contradictory meanings. You may desire English to be some kind of lexically perfect language, but the facts do not support this assertion.

 

[Oso Blanco]

The fact remains that "remastering" does not equal "CGI-ing" or "re-editing" a movie. I think we should keep those things apart and use the accurate terms here.

Just because some people keep on using the word "remaster" as a synonym for everything that can be done with a movie doesn't mean that it's right.

It's escpecially confusing for someone who likes the movies/series' to be remastered but hates the idea of putting new FX into them. Those are two completely different pairs of shoes!

 

[A beaker full of death]

They need to fix port and starboard.

 

[Nebusj]

They need at a couple strategic points to have someone slap Chekov on the face.

 

[trevanian]

Kegek said:
As per TOS-R, it is now also a euphemism for what Bones1864 is proposing. This isn't the first or the last time a word has had two different, even contradictory, meanings. I'm not arguing that his use of the term is correct or incorrect: It is, however, a real term.

You say it is a real term. I just say it is a real WRONG term. Just cuz Paramount calls it something don't make it so.

You can keep calling it TOS-R though ... for me that'll stand for THE ORIGINAL SERIES - REDRUM

 

[Kegek]

You say it is a real term. I just say it is a real WRONG term.

As do I.

That is, if I was to take you more literally than I presume you intend to. It's a real term, but not one I'd concur with. To quote myself:

... and thus is an applicable, if inadvisable, word.

English is a fickle thing. As a living language - and one of the most largely spoken of such languages, just about anyone can change it.