THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TOS original or Remastered, which is canon?
- Thread starter Drewmax
- Start date
- Status
Well, if you don't have a Blu-ray player, it might be an issue...
Hence my dvd's in the weird clamshell cases. You'll pry them from my cold dead fingers . . .
A
Amaris
Guest
I have the TOS-R editions. I love them. Yes, the effects have been changed, but in the process, I get a squeaky clean, vibrant image so that I can enjoy the show in all it's glory. That said, special effects could be terrible and I'd love the show. For me, it was all in the stories and characters, oh, and that gorgeous starship.
Well one can find affordable Blu-Ray players now and the low end players are below $100.00
So take heart...
the loveable old effects are not going away...
Here is what is canon regarding Star Trek,the original series,and Star Trek Remastered.Star Trek the original series is,of course ,canon ,and the original source.Star Trek Remastered is canon,except for at least,4 episodes.I haven't viewed all of the Star Trek Remastered episodes,but I say this.They are canon,except for at least 4 episodes which violate the original source material,or original episodes.1,Amok Time Remastered.The original Vulcan battle arena is at ground level.In the James Blish novelization,it says that the arena is at ground level,with the mountains in the far distant horizon.In Amok Time Remastered,the battle arena is around 100 to 100's of feet into the air.This violates the source material.This makes it not canon.2,Spock's Brain Remastered.In the novelization by Blish,it says the Eymorg ship is a silver,elegant splinter,or on the show,simply a silver rocketship.In the new Remastered episode the ship is entirely different.This shows that it isn't canon.3,The Tholian Web Remastered.The Tholian ships are different and new.This is different from the original show's built and filmed miniatures.Why change that?!!This makes it non canon.4,The Way to Eden Remastered.The Aurora space cruiser is changed.That is incorrect.The original looks better,also.The original Aurora is simply a Federation/Tholian hybrid.The same is shown later in the new Is There in Truth No Beauty?Remastered episode.The Medusan vessel is Medusan,with Federation warp nacelles,also.So the Star Trek original series,and most of Star Trek Remastered is official canon.Minus at least 4 episodes,for the most part,of Star Trek Remastered.Thank You.
Wow, I seriously have major troubles reading that post.
None of TOS "remastered" is actually remastered. Remastered means using all the original elements for a new mix. What we call "remastered" is an imposition. It introduces all new elements. Some love it -- swell.
I reject and resent any change to any filmed work, whether TOS or Captain Kangaroo. We need to understand the time and the context in which the original filmmakers worked.
Or is everyone in favor of colorizing "Casablanca" and "It's a Wonderful Life"?
AFI is very actively working to undo such changes to classic films from 70 years ago.
I reject and resent any change to any filmed work, whether TOS or Captain Kangaroo. We need to understand the time and the context in which the original filmmakers worked.
Or is everyone in favor of colorizing "Casablanca" and "It's a Wonderful Life"?
AFI is very actively working to undo such changes to classic films from 70 years ago.
Not sure I see a problem as long as fans can also access the original versions. I mean Star Trek with the original effects exists on Betamax, VHS, LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray.
In regards to robt.'s post (hmm Robot?)...
According to the definition of Canon...
According to the definition of Canon...
Per David Gerrold
And THAT'S my stance
It's silly and counterproductive to argue such points over an enjoyable work of fiction, and provides more ammunition against fans of the assorted shows...
It's silly and counterproductive to argue such points over an enjoyable work of fiction, and provides more ammunition against fans of the assorted shows...
And Gerrold's comments are exactly what I've said all along as well.
Actually all of it was remastered, except for the new visual effects. They went back to the original film masters, digitally scanned them, and created these new prints from that digital information, for maximum image quality. That is why it's called Star Trek Remastered. However, the new FX shots got more attention, leading to the perception among many that "remastering" meant "creating new visual effects." That perception is entirely wrong; however, it is overcorrecting to say that no remastering was done at all. Since the new FX shots constitute only a minute or two of each episode, it therefore follows that almost all of ST Remastered does indeed consist of remastered footage.
Novelizations are never canon. Canon is what's onscreen -- why do people insist on trying to overcomplicate something that really is that simple?
And also every other hour of filmed Trek ever made. Yes, Trek XI contradicts all that, but as Christopher has pointed out elsewhere, "canon" does not equal "consistent."
(At least, I hope it's Christopher I'm remembering.)
Or not, depending upon what you're writing for. That's the bitch of it. Star Trek has not now, nor has ever really had, a 'canon' like Star Wars now has, and certainly not in the Biblical sense.
Currently, 'canon' consists of the active franchise and upon what it relies.. which consists of only the material present within the 2009 movie.
If I'm writing a DS9 novel, however, 'canon' gets more interesting, as I'm going to pay attention primarily to the DS9 show. Etc.
Yup, that's what I said. A canon is a set of fictional works that maintain the pretense of representing a consistent reality. In practice, they almost never do, but since they're fiction, and we're only pretending they're real at all, we also pretend they're consistent.
Leaving aside, of course, that it's an alternate timeline, ST'09 doesn't contradict prior Trek any worse than prior Trek works contradict each other. It's just that over time, we get used to the inconsistencies and find ways to gloss them over, so when something new comes along, its inconsistencies seem to stand out more because we've constructed the illusion in our minds that what came before actually was consistent.
- Status
Similar threads
