TOS original or Remastered, which is canon?

[Warped9]

Maybe it's the disturbing sense today that nothing has any real meaning or value and everything is replaceable.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think that idea has been with us for a long time. It only seems matters if the thing being replaced is something you like.

 

[MANT!]

Maybe it's the disturbing sense today that nothing has any real meaning or value and everything is replaceable.

Even you my friend..even me...

I'm sure if the budget was provided to make more than 1 type of Federation Ship..Matt Jefferies would've jumped at the chance...but Star Trek was mostly on a shoestring budget even if you adjust for inflation... Lost in Space had MUCH more money per episode and provided MANY different ships both from Earth and from other planets...


I'm sure that if Paramount had ponied up the same amount of money per episode that Fox did for LIS.. the near requirement of redoing the special effects for HDTV release wouldn't have been so dire..

 

[BK613]

^But it doesn't follow to conclude that the FX artists would choose to recycle an old element if they had the budget and time to create something new.

Sure it does. Why would you recreate, over and over again, a shot of the Enterprise flying through space when you already have a shot that will work just fine? Better to save that money and time for the one-off effects or for something else in the budget. If you are a producer or art director, you might even think that was being clever.

I'm not trying to dismiss the value of the original effects; I'm merely pointing out that there are flaws in the assumption that the FX artists would have the same kind of slavish loyalty to the existing shots that some purist fans do.

Well that kind of rhetoric is never helpful to a discussion. It is not slavish devotion to call bad bad and good good. The original stuff has major processing issues, as you have pointed out, but the part of me that is a photographer recognizes excellent visual arts techniques in the FX that they created. (The Enterprise herself seems designed to take advantage of the rule of thirds in the 4:3 format.)
OTOH, I find myself wondering sometimes, watching the new stuff, if the CBS Television guys have even heard of visual arts techniques.
And it is not purist to prefer the shot that you think best serves the storytelling. In post number 235 of this thread, Forbin mentions being dissatisfied with the part of the Ultimate Computer where Excalibur dies. I agree with him and while I can't say why he was disappointed, I know why I was. The new shot lessens the emotional impact of the scene. A scene that was about Kirk's helplessness -and resultant anguish and rage- as his ship decimates the crippled Excalibur gets interrupted by a bunch of meaningless maneuvering that adds nothing to the storytelling. A case of less is more works better here. Scenes like this make me wonder if they had a bonafide story editor onboard this project.

That's just misunderstanding how creators view their work. Nobody is a harsher critic of a given creation than the person who created it. So it just doesn't make sense to assume that the FX artists who created a shot -- let alone the editors who had to settle for reusing a previously created shot -- would be outraged to see it updated or replaced with something true to its intent but more advanced in technique. They might feel envy that they didn't have those techniques or budget available to them at the time, but they wouldn't resent the change. After all, their job was to make the show look as good as it could. So why would they begrudge an effort to make it look even better?

Hmm that brush is painted rather broadly don't you think? As someone who dabbles in the creative process, I can tell you that resentment and indignation are as equally likely as thumbs-up happiness...

 

[Warped9]

Maybe it's the disturbing sense today that nothing has any real meaning or value and everything is replaceable.

Even you my friend..even me...

I'm sure if the budget was provided to make more than 1 type of Federation Ship..Matt Jefferies would've jumped at the chance...but Star Trek was mostly on a shoestring budget even if you adjust for inflation... Lost in Space had MUCH more money per episode and provided MANY different ships both from Earth and from other planets...


I'm sure that if Paramount had ponied up the same amount of money per episode that Fox did for LIS.. the near requirement of redoing the special effects for HDTV release wouldn't have been so dire..

And it still wouldn't have looked like 21st century cgi.

 

[Christopher]

I'm injecting personal feelings into this, I suppose. As a graphic artist in a corporate art department, I'm supposed to be cranking out diagrams, illustrations and charts as part of the "graphics team." There have been a couple of occasions when something I've drawn didn't measure up to what the boss wanted, and she gave one of the other artists a crack at it, ultimately using his piece. I know I'm supposed to shrug and go about my business as part of the team, but (as I'm sure you know), we artists sometimes feel kinda possessive about our work. If it's something I put some heart into, something I thought was fine, you bet I'm going to feel a little slighted that I was replaced. This is the presumed feelings I'm projecting onto the old effects crew and model makers.

But those artists' work has been seen and enjoyed by fans for over 40 years already, and it's still there on the BluRays alongside the new shots. And it was over 40 years ago, and I'm sure these artists' careers didn't begin and end with TOS.

^But it doesn't follow to conclude that the FX artists would choose to recycle an old element if they had the budget and time to create something new.

Sure it does. Why would you recreate, over and over again, a shot of the Enterprise flying through space when you already have a shot that will work just fine? Better to save that money and time for the one-off effects or for something else in the budget.

I'm not talking about routine shots of the ship, as I've already made very clear repeatedly. I'm talking about things like being stuck using pilot-era footage of the ship even though it's clearly not identical to the series-era ship you're intercutting it with. I'm talking about things like recycling the Rigel VII fortress painting instead of creating a new one. I'm talking about things like having to settle for a vague blob of light to represent an alien ship rather than getting to design a model. In those cases, it would obviously be preferable to create something new. Particularly in the first instance, the ship changing shape between one shot and the next, it can't be taken as anything other than a mistake. It's complete nonsense to suggest that the artists would've rather settled for that mistake than have the time and budget to create new shots of the miniature that would actually match.

Well that kind of rhetoric is never helpful to a discussion. It is not slavish devotion to call bad bad and good good.

Oh, be serious! You're casting individual opinions as absolute right and wrong, and that's just nonsense, as well as arrogant as hell. It's very clear that many people, including Bob Justman, for the Great Bird's sake, consider TOS-R to be in the "good" category. So your rhetoric is the one that's harmful to the discussion.

And it is not purist to prefer the shot that you think best serves the storytelling.

There is no way in hell that recycling a shot of the Rigel VII fortress is better storytelling than creating a gorgeous new design for Flint's mansion. There is no way that showing the ship intercutting between its pilot and series configurations is better storytelling than showing a single consistent design. I'm not claiming every single shot in TOS-R was better than the one it substituted for, but there are a lot of cases where the new ideas they brought were an improvement over the recycled stock elements or blob-of-light ships that the original show had to settle for.

Obviously different individuals will have different opinions of a given shot. But that's exactly why it's wrong to assume that the new shots are universally, automatically inferior or wrong just because they're not the originals. That is purism, by definition.

Hmm that brush is painted rather broadly don't you think? As someone who dabbles in the creative process, I can tell you that resentment and indignation are as equally likely as thumbs-up happiness...

You dabble in the creative process, I do it for a living. I can understand an amateur taking things that personally, but professionals, particularly in a field like television, have to develop thicker skins. People who create for TV and film often find their work getting left on the cutting room floor. They can spend weeks lovingly designing, building, and shooting some gorgeous miniature or set or costume or makeup or CG landscape and then have it cut out of the film completely because it slowed the pacing. It's just something that goes with the territory, and anyone who got resentful over such things wouldn't survive in the industry very long.

Heck, I've been through this myself just recently. I was supposed to have a new Star Trek novel out this month, a sequel to the Abrams movie. I spent months writing it, and then it got shelved, possibly cancelled forever, for all I know. I was disappointed, sure. But I didn't get furious or bitter, because I'd already moved on to new projects that were occupying my attention. This is what professionals do. You do a job and you move on to the next one. What happens to the work you did before just isn't as important as what you're doing now.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Christopher, what's your feeling on film colorization? Should a film that was originally black and white be colorized, potentially gaining a new audience? If a film is colorized should it only be done with the approval of the director? Producer? Owner?

I actually like most of the TOS-R work. I'm glad that both versions are on the Blu-Ray discs. I'm just wondering how long that will be the case.

 

[number6]

I don't think this is the same as colorizing B&W films. The only thing that's changed visually are some of the visual effects. Everything else is exactly the same as shot in the 60s.

Both versions are available and the people responsible for the new FX fought to have both versions available. I think people are getting all freaked out over nothing.

 

[number6]

as usual.

 

[kkozoriz1]

I don't think this is the same as colorizing B&W films. The only thing that's changed visually are some of the visual effects. Everything else is exactly the same as shot in the 60s.

Both versions are available and the people responsible for the new FX fought to have both versions available. I think people are getting all freaked out over nothing.

It;s not exactly the same but it's similar. In the case of colorization the film is still the same one that it was originally. Nothing has been cut and replaced.

How much can you change the presentation of a film or TV show? We could now put all the women in the same uniforms as men. That wouldn't change the story. Races could be changed. Would it still be Star Trek if Uhura & Sulu were white?

How far should we go when changing films & TV shows?

I say again, I like most of the new effects.

 

[number6]

But seriously, no one is trying to put women in pants or change Uhura's race or even suggest that it should be done, so why should this be part of a debate about redoing FX for Blu Ray?

 

[kkozoriz1]

No one was talking about replacing the TOS effects shots until a few years ago either.

We're talking about how replacing or modifying scenes in a 40 year old TV show can alter peoples perceptions of that show.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I'm sure that if Paramount had ponied up the same amount of money per episode that Fox did for LIS.. the near requirement of redoing the special effects for HDTV release wouldn't have been so dire..

Actually, Lost in Space had far fewer special effects than Trek did, particularly on an episode per episode basis. Most of the first season model effects were from the unaired pilot and reused in the first five episodes. A handful of episode specific effects were done, which where then reused over and over until the series ended (tinted blue for the color years). Each season brought out a batch of new model effects, some episode specific, but mostly to create a library of footage. So they had multiple shots of the Jupiter 2 in space, landing, taking off, crashing - the Space Pod launching, descending, ascending, and whatever. All done in one block at the start of the season. After that, very little money was spent on effects other than "burn in" laser bolts, and even those began to disappear. Sets and props were re-used and traded among the Irwin Allen shows. Some props were created on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea's budget and then used on LIS.

CBS was pretty cheap, not springing for color filming until 1966, not even for the pilot, except for certain effects shots, which could be and were used as stock.

The difference between Trek and LIS, effects wise, wasn't money - it was technique. Trek's effects artists used blue screen and the like, while LIS, and the other Fox shows, hung models against practical backgrounds. All they had to hide were the wires holding them, and for thre most part, that work still stands up to HD. There was very lettle layering of footage over fottage, which made the Trek work look so dirty. Most of the effects of the Lydecker Brothers were done in camera.

Such a long response to a short comment, but that's what I do. ;-)

 

[number6]

The reasons the FX were replaced has been discussed at great length and the creative team responsible have stated at length their position about respecting the original material. The rest of the discussion at hand is purely philosophical and hypothetical. There is no reason to believe or consider the options you're suggesting because that doesn't even seem to be a reasonable possibilty. It's kinda like people who oppose same sex marriage suggesting that if that should be allowed than so should marriage to a goat. It just makes your argument sound unreasonable and implausible

 

[kkozoriz1]

The technical reasons for replacing the FX shots was for the HD release. There were also changes made at the same time for artistic reasons. Can you not consider that if some changes were made for artistic, rather than technical reasons, that at some point additional changes could be made for strictly artistic reasons?

When I brought up putting women in pants or changing the race of characters it was to point out that such a thing is now possible. We've always been able to simple shoot new FX sequences and insert them into TOS. With CGI it's now possible to make changes on a scale that wasn't even considered until a few years ago.

You could take parts of Trials and Tribbleations and insert them into The Trouble with Tribbles to make the two episodes look like they actually happened together. I'm not saying such a thing should be done. I'm asking if it were done, would it change the original episode? The story would stay the same. Nothing from the DS9 story would be added. We would see Sisko & Dax in the background while Kirk was speaking on the intercom. We'd see O'brien and Odo in the trading post bar fight.

Just because nobody is suggesting it right now doesn't mean we can't speculate on how much can or should be changed in the original shows.

 

[number6]

I'm not suggesting that you can't ponder the possibilities. It's not realistic to draw the conclusion that since TOS-R was done for a specific purpose that CBS/Paramount is just going to change everything because it can. The artistic reasons behind some of those changes were also discussed at length and it seems the creative team took great care to respect the original artistic intent of the original material. What you suggest doesn't.
It sounds more like a youtube fan experiment than something that would be released through official channels

 

[kkozoriz1]

I don't recall saying that CBS was planning on changing anything at all.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Nineteen pages of this and not one person has explained why the new FX are even an issue at all when the original FX are still there on the blu-ray release.

 

[Forbin]

It sounds more like a youtube fan experiment than something that would be released through official channels

...which is exactly where new effects in TOS should have begun and ended.

Nineteen pages of this and not one person has explained why the new FX are even an issue at all when the original FX are still there on the blu-ray release.

That actually did address my most major concern back in the beginning. I was very happy they did the release that way.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Nineteen pages of this and not one person has explained why the new FX are even an issue at all when the original FX are still there on the blu-ray release.

Yeah, some people will find a way to bitch no matter what.