Star Trek TNG Remastered?

[Warped9]

^^ All the sig really means is that after '79 I stopped liking Trek on a consistent basis. The franchise gradually changed/evolved into something different. Some of it I liked and much of it I didn't. There are parts of the movies I liked and many parts I didn't. There are TNG and early DS9 episodes I liked and much more I didn't. Goes without saying I didn't like anything about VOY, ENT, the TNG era films or the recent Trek XI. If you really want to get picky there were even some parts of TOS and TAS I wish had been done differently, but such is life.

Presently I'm catching some TNG and DS9 episodes being rerun on SPACE here in Canada after I get off work. Some is a little better than I remember and some not.

 

[trevanian]

Both #1 and #5 are utterly despised by most fans.

So to you, is this some kind of contest? I don't base my preferences on other people's opinions, d'you?

1,2,&5 are the only films I really like and rewatch endlessly, in spite of their flaws (and each has tons wrong with them, though for me, not nearly as many flaws as the Nimoy-directed features.)

 

[jefferiestubes8]

thread title

So to you, is this some kind of contest?

There is another thread you can contribute to on that.
Rating all the films....
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=93138

Gentlemen, captrek wrote about Warped9's signature.
My settings have Visible Post Elements Signatures hidden. You may wish to also use this option under Thread Display Options.
If you are not contributing to this thread's topic then take it to PM.

 

[Butters]

For the love of god, NO!

Well I'm glad your type of reasoning didn't prevail when fire and the wheel made their debuts.

How about just leave it alone as is? TNG was presented in standard definition video. That's how it's SUPPOSED to look. That's how it DOES look. Why not just release full seasons on single Blu-Ray discs and let the Blu-Ray players do the upconverting? I know it's not the same as full HD (believe me, I'm a stickler for this) but that's how the show looks. That's how I remember it looking. Why re-do it? Would you want to re-do the special effects for 2001 simply because you can? What about the old Muppet Show? That was recorded and edited on video tape and it looks exactly like it should -- like it was MADE. Why spend the money?

Its not supposed to look like that, it just does, for now. The very best thing about TNGr is that it would have to go through post production again in its entirity. Every special effect devised from scratch. New angles, different timings, different emphasis, different score. Each episode really could feel brand new. Some errors and inconsistencies could be removed. Greater detail on the outside of the side, no more repetitive stock footage. Every missed opportunity could be taken. Why the objection? Why the fear?

Yes, I would re-do the shots of 2001 because some of them were shit. The inside of the space station for example. Part excellent, part odd set. I would augment the original piece with extended interiors and 'realistic' windows. If I was feeling flush I'd also edit out the habitat furniture too and replace it with Ikea.

Spending money is a key component of making money. Re-editing and upgrading TNG would be expensive, but it would only involve the post production element. No scripting, directing, filming, acting, set building, production crew etc to pay for. Just the raw film ready for the editor. I'd watch it. Might even buy it if they did to my flavour.

But as time goes on, and the diehard fans actually croak, the powers that be will have to decide between a Remastering or a wake, but as it stands, inlight of the new stuff coming along, TNG looks about as interesting as a big box marked 'Empty'. Personally, I'd love to watch it all again, as if it were new, not knowing everyline, every scene and musical note. A scene for scene remake would be boring and a wasted opportunity.

 

[FalTorPan]

Spending money is a key component of making money. Re-editing and upgrading TNG would be expensive, but it would only involve the post production element. No scripting, directing, filming, acting, set building, production crew etc to pay for. Just the raw film ready for the editor. I'd watch it. Might even buy it if they did to my flavour.

Spending money is only "a key component of making money" if the money that is later received represents a reasonable profit margin over what is spent. Completely overhauling 180 episodes of a television series is not likely to yield a sufficient rate of return to justify the expense -- or, more importantly, to justify spending the money on that project versus a project which would yield a higher rate of return.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

it would have to go through post production again in its entirity.

Correct .
Please see this post.

Every special effect devised from scratch. New angles, different timings, different emphasis, different score.

Wrong. Same angles, same timingsbut only done in CG and rendered in High Definition 1080p. Music would stay the same.

 

[Butters]

Spending money is a key component of making money. Re-editing and upgrading TNG would be expensive, but it would only involve the post production element. No scripting, directing, filming, acting, set building, production crew etc to pay for. Just the raw film ready for the editor. I'd watch it. Might even buy it if they did to my flavour.

Spending money is only "a key component of making money" if the money that is later received represents a reasonable profit margin over what is spent. Completely overhauling 180 episodes of a television series is not likely to yield a sufficient rate of return to justify the expense -- or, more importantly, to justify spending the money on that project versus a project which would yield a higher rate of return.

I'm not in the industry so I can't do the numbers, but it is solely the numbers that will decide whether the project goes ahead. No other factor will be accounted. On DVD sales alone, I can't see a profit, but TNG is on TV everyday of the year, the stations would buy it. Whether that is enough I cannot say, but I was primarilly challenging the medieval objections based on some loyalty to VHS, decrying any heretic that might enjoy their TNG differently.

Every special effect devised from scratch. New angles, different timings, different emphasis, different score.

Wrong. Same angles, same timingsbut only done in CG and rendered in High Definition 1080p. Music would stay the same.

But why keep the same shots? The same timings? Battle sequences could have more action. Engineering could be buzzing with energy. The outside shots reflecting what the story wants us to believe. 'External' shots filmed in the studio could have real depth. Data's cat could be one sex and species throughout. The NX01 could take its place on the riefing room wall. The whole thing could look like it was filmed yesterday, or tomorrow. Why do scene for scene when some of those scenes were compromises anyway? Treat it like a brand new show and get a brand new audience.

 

[trevanian]

I would re-do the shots of 2001 because some of them were shit. The inside of the space station for example. Part excellent, part odd set. I would augment the original piece with extended interiors and 'realistic' windows. If I was feeling flush I'd also edit out the habitat furniture too and replace it with Ikea.

Gee-zus. 'some of them were shit'

With all the people I've really disliked here down (LOTS!) through the years, I don't think I've ever bothered putting anyone on the IGNORE list before. But those five sentences are off-the-charts enough for me to set a precedent.

You get to go on the IGNORE list.

 

[Hober Mallow]

^^ All the sig really means is that after '79 I stopped liking Trek on a consistent basis. The franchise gradually changed/evolved into something different. Some of it I liked and much of it I didn't. There are parts of the movies I liked and many parts I didn't. There are TNG and early DS9 episodes I liked and much more I didn't. Goes without saying I didn't like anything about VOY, ENT, the TNG era films or the recent Trek XI. If you really want to get picky there were even some parts of TOS and TAS I wish had been done differently, but such is life.

Presently I'm catching some TNG and DS9 episodes being rerun on SPACE here in Canada after I get off work. Some is a little better than I remember and some not.

Dude, are you my clone? I feel exactly the same way. I'd buy a remastered TNG, probably wouldn't buy DS9, and definitely wouldn't buy Voyager or Enterprise no matter how good the resolution is.

As it is, I haven't bothered to buy the movies on blu-ray, and don't plan on doing so for some time.

 

[FalTorPan]

I would re-do the shots of 2001 because some of them were shit. The inside of the space station for example. Part excellent, part odd set. I would augment the original piece with extended interiors and 'realistic' windows. If I was feeling flush I'd also edit out the habitat furniture too and replace it with Ikea.

Gee-zus. 'some of them were shit'

With all the people I've really disliked here down (LOTS!) through the years, I don't think I've ever bothered putting anyone on the IGNORE list before. But those five sentences are off-the-charts enough for me to set a precedent.

You get to go on the IGNORE list.

The monoliths need to be enhanced in order to add the same density of greeblies which exist on the Discovery. In addition HAL's voice should be changed to one with the most statistically average accent, based on the distribution of accents around the globe.

And the Pan Am space plane should be changed into a Southwest or Jet Blue space plane. Duh!!!

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

 

[Butters]

I would re-do the shots of 2001 because some of them were shit. The inside of the space station for example. Part excellent, part odd set. I would augment the original piece with extended interiors and 'realistic' windows. If I was feeling flush I'd also edit out the habitat furniture too and replace it with Ikea.

Gee-zus. 'some of them were shit'

With all the people I've really disliked here down (LOTS!) through the years, I don't think I've ever bothered putting anyone on the IGNORE list before. But those five sentences are off-the-charts enough for me to set a precedent.

You get to go on the IGNORE list.

So because a perfectly valid opinion, (that rotating moon shot in the phone booth being an especially convincing shot ) offends your misguided pretentions, and despite the jestful tone toward the end, yes I'd really go for Ikea furniture in a 21st Century lounge, you feel the need to tell everyone that you're ignoring me. Are your arms folded too? You must be a real blast at parties. Sanctimony is highly regarded these days you know.

I won't expect a reply though, cos you're ignoring me

 

[FalTorPan]

I agree that some shots from 2001 don't hold up as well today as they did in 1968, but the film remains a classic, and in my mind, no remastering could improve upon Kubrick's vision.

 

[USS Mariner]

I agree that some shots from 2001 don't hold up as well today as they did in 1968, but the film remains a classic, and in my mind, no remastering could improve upon Kubrick's vision.

The only shots that don't really "hold up" in 2001 are the acid trip shots between the "Star Gate" sequence and the bedroom sequence. Those are shit.

Everything else, including the Moon-having-Earth-gravity-which-they-really-couldn't-avoid-without-twice-the-budget shots, hold up really well, and shine like a star in most HD broadcasts I've seen as of late.

 

[USS Mariner]

Every special effect devised from scratch. New angles, different timings, different emphasis, different score.

Wrong. Same angles, same timingsbut only done in CG and rendered in High Definition 1080p. Music would stay the same.

But why keep the same shots? The same timings? Battle sequences could have more action. Engineering could be buzzing with energy...

We're not talking about a Lucasian "special edition;" we're talking about remastering the series to be watchable in HD.

Besides, stuff like reworking the effects shot composition and timings would be next to impossible without a motion-picture effects budget, and even then, you'd run into problems like trying to cut and time the effect sequences before the music score changes or the frame dissolves (the latter of which remains a huge problem for TOSR, and they're only solution is to jump to the new VFX sooner, which kills the presentation.)

 

[Butters]

I agree that some shots from 2001 don't hold up as well today as they did in 1968, but the film remains a classic, and in my mind, no remastering could improve upon Kubrick's vision.

The only shots that don't really "hold up" in 2001 are the acid trip shots between the "Star Gate" sequence and the bedroom sequence. Those are shit.

Everything else, including the Moon-having-Earth-gravity-which-they-really-couldn't-avoid-without-twice-the-budget shots, hold up really well, and shine like a star in most HD broadcasts I've seen as of late.

It is a classic from beginning to end, and theres no question of remastering the kubrick's vision but there are the occasional scenes that just standout as the best of 150 bad takes. The whole video phone sequence in particular gets my goat with the disinterested daughter and the 2D rotating vista drag me right out of the film everytime.

We're off topic anyway. This was meant to be about remastering TNG. Other than the cost, which isn't really the concern of any us, why shouldn't it be done? Why the strops and tantrums whenever its suggested that something is changed or, dare I say it, Improved?

TNG is not sacred, its not evperfect the way it is. I can think of a thousand subtle modifications that could be done to improve the appearance and flow of the series. Whatever the series might be, its not supposed to be a static record of what 80s/90s popular TV was like. If its left as it is it will be forgotten in ten years by everyone except the members here.

But why keep the same shots? The same timings? Battle sequences could have more action. Engineering could be buzzing with energy...

We're not talking about a Lucasian "special edition;" we're talking about remastering the series to be watchable in HD.

Besides, stuff like reworking the effects shot composition and timings would be next to impossible without a motion-picture effects budget, and even then, you'd run into problems like trying to cut and time the effect sequences before the music score changes or the frame dissolves (the latter of which remains a huge problem for TOSR, and they're only solution is to jump to the new VFX sooner, which kills the presentation.)

Every effect shot would need to be reworked to meet the HD standard. New HD CGI ships, planets, replicator, transporter, phasers, photon torpedo, shields. Everything, from scratch. The original film, edited and composited and composted and whatever else they have to do, from scratch. To stand any chance of being effective, each episode would be a new cut. It would be expensive but I don't see how a motion picture effects budget would be required.

It would have to be treated as a brand new series, but with principle photography completed 20 odd years earlier. Theres an opportunity here, and it would serve no-one to do a scene for scene update when each fx shot has to be recreated from the bottom up anyway.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

To stand any chance of being effective, each episode would be a new cut.

Respectfully disagree. If they were to do TNG-R like TOS-R it would be to replace the visual effects only with CGI.

It would have to be treated as a brand new series, but with principle photography completed 20 odd years earlier.

CBS & Paramount will not do this due to costs and R.O.I. as a business decision.

 

[GalaxyX]

Hum...the early score was mostly orchestral with some synthesizer for flavor...And it was hardly awful, the early years *had* the best scores. Dennis McCarthy and Ron Jones in full strenght before they were neutered and eventually fired in the case of Jones...
There are *some* scores were Jones used more synthesizer than usual (specially in late Season 1 and early Season 3), but we are talking about the man which delivered masterpiece after masterpiece...
You didn't like stuff like the "Borg Voice Chorus" in Best of Both Worlds?
McCarthy rarely used synthesizer, the only cues I remember are from Encounter at Farpoint...
Jay Chattaway would also use synthesizer during all the years of his work so it wasn't a "early TNG thing" only...
Dennis Bell too I think.
And of course the master of them all, Jerry Goldsmith was quite fond of using synthesizer and if there's a man that defined Star Trek music it was him...
By the way, the only season of Star Trek that really used synthesizer scores, i.e. full blown synthesizer scores, was Enterprise's Fourth due to budgetary cuts. And it wasn't that bad...
I admit I tend to prefer fully orchestral scores, and some of those Jones' scores were borderline but I thought it was good nonetheless.
Just curious, which season of TNG (and/or Modern Trek) you consider had the best scores?

You read my mind word for word. I still cannot understand why people hate the synthesizer bits. Like you said, they had a full orchestra supplemented by synthesized parts. Most of the synthesis wasn't even hard synthesis, more like ethereal bell and pad sounds that complimented the series astoundingly. I missed the synth scores when they went away.
Funny how people give credit to a movie like "Forbidden Planet" for having a full synth score (which was basically a Theremin going "wooo wooo wooo wooo wooo" the entire movie), and TNG gets blasted for its minor use of synths. It IS a Sci-Fi series people, sciency instruments should be allowed (or do you want the Berman wallpaper themes all throughout the series?)

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

The only episode where I thought the synths were shit was The Outrageous Okona. But everything else in that episode was shit too, so it sort of fits the tone.

 

[Doug Otte]

You read my mind word for word. I still cannot understand why people hate the synthesizer bits. Like you said, they had a full orchestra supplemented by synthesized parts. Most of the synthesis wasn't even hard synthesis, more like ethereal bell and pad sounds that complimented the series astoundingly. I missed the synth scores when they went away.
Funny how people give credit to a movie like "Forbidden Planet" for having a full synth score (which was basically a Theremin going "wooo wooo wooo wooo wooo" the entire movie), and TNG gets blasted for its minor use of synths. It IS a Sci-Fi series people, sciency instruments should be allowed (or do you want the Berman wallpaper themes all throughout the series?)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The early season cues always stood out, while the later seasons were generally bland.

I just have a small nitpick: I don't know if a Theremin was used at all in Forbidden Planet. The husband/wife team that composed the score used mostly, if not all, primitive oscillators with various filters etc.

Doug

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The only episode where I thought the synths were shit was The Outrageous Okona.

I love that phrase, "the synths were shit".