Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen displays?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

What you propose wouldn't have cost a little more - it would have been massively expensive, taken an enormous amount of time, and probably could not have been done perfectly in any respect.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

And I disagree that the displays were meaningless details. they actually had far more relavent detail than was actually necessary or visible, under ordinary conditions. It's only in the occasional close up that the extraordinary detail is seen!

 

[GSchnitzer]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

And I disagree that the displays were meaningless details. they actually had far more relavent detail than was actually necessary or visible, under ordinary conditions. It's only in the occasional close up that the extraordinary detail is seen!

You know, interface design and data displays--from an ergonomic standpoint and from an aesthetic standpoint--are always changing. I think trying to predict what they will "really" look like in the mid-23rd century is a fool's errand. You take a stab at it in 1964 and a couple years later, the gooseneck viewers look dated. You re-do it in 1966 and a few years later, the readouts look dated. You redo the interface design in 1979 and a few years later, they look dated. You design high-gloss flat panel interfaces with "Okudagrams" for TNG, and a few years later, they look dated. You do a reboot and make the interfaces look like an Apple store. It already looks dated--and it's been less than a month.

So you could go back and somehow CGI every bridge panel/interface in every scene (what a monumental task) though 79 hours of Trek, but it would only look "modern" and it would only look like a plausible prediction of mid-23rd century interface design for a couple of years. Then it, too, would look dated and completely implausible. You'd just end up chasing your tail. It's not like 2009 has the corner on the market of accurate predictions of 23rd century interfaces. Why go through all of the trouble of re-working it? It's not like your 2009 prediction is going to stand the test of time any better.

So, best to leave it alone, probably. Let it reflect the time in which it was made. And let it reflect television and cinematic needs and aesthetics--bright colors for the viewer and movement that provides a bit of visual activity but not so much that it becomes a distraction to the viewer.

The interfaces are designed to be seen by us through a camera lens; they aren't really designed to be used by 23rd century people. They don't really work, you know.

 

[Mike Farley]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

There's nothing they can do with CGI enhancements to make the show not look like it was made in the 60's. And why would we want them to? It's a piece of history. It should (and does) reflect the time it was made in.

How are they supposed to replace Kirk's phaser rifle--a physical prop he carried around? Hit the "replace gun with cooler gun" button?

 

[Navaros]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

How are they supposed to replace Kirk's phaser rifle--a physical prop he carried around? Hit the "replace gun with cooler gun" button?

I'm just a layman so I have no knowhow about how this works, but it would have been nice if they digitally removed his babyish phaser rifle and then digitially replaced it with a cool CGI one that they made.

 

[RAMA]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

Benefit-to-cost and time ratio.

RAMA

 

[GSchnitzer]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

How are they supposed to replace Kirk's phaser rifle--a physical prop he carried around? Hit the "replace gun with cooler gun" button?

I'm just a layman so I have no knowhow about how this works, but it would have been nice if they digitally removed his babyish phaser rifle and then digitially replaced it with a cool CGI one that they made.

After all, cool guns is what Star Trek is all about.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

How are they supposed to replace Kirk's phaser rifle--a physical prop he carried around? Hit the "replace gun with cooler gun" button?

I'm just a layman so I have no knowhow about how this works, but it would have been nice if they digitally removed his babyish phaser rifle and then digitially replaced it with a cool CGI one that they made.

That would have been completely retarded. You are missing the point of what this set is, friend. The point of TOS remastered is to make TOS look as nicely as possible on an HD 1080P TV made in 2009.

Not to remake the series. It would be a complete waste of money. They'd be better off filming brand new remakes from the old scripts to achieve what you propose.

 

[Captrek]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

This is an interesting game. If you could go in and fix mistakes in TOS, which ones would you fix?

We have already identified “James R. Kirk” on the tombstone.

Another one I’d like to fix is dubbing some of the dialog in “Squire of Gothos” to change “nine hundred years” to “five hundred years.” I’m not sure it would be possible to do this without creating a noticeable lips-don’t-follow-the-words effect, but I think it might be doable.

What are some other irritating mistakes that you would fix if you could?

 

[Sparky]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

I don't hate all the episodes.

However, I resent being sold a bill of goods so to speak by professional reviews, and often times viewers themselves, making the TOS-R seem much to be drastically more of an improvement than it actually is, and never pointing out anything like the complaints I've made in this thread.

What the professional reviewers should have warned me about is that the CGI improves only very small portions of the show, and the vast majority of it is left looking as antiquated as ever.

Since making this thread I have also watched "Where No Man Has Gone Before"...they didn't even fix James R. Kirk (ridiculous!), nor the uber fake-looking rocks, nor the extremely babyish & silly-looking phaser rifle Kirk has at the end.

The professional reviewers are quite obviously talking about picture quality in terms of clarity, color, detail etc. You obviously have a misunderstanding of what the words "restoration" and "remastered" mean. With current technology it would be a monumental if not impossible task to redo every episode in the manner you were expecting and have it look seamless. You were not sold a bill of goods so to speak, you just couldn't understand what items were on the bill.

 

[Cyrus]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

The goal of TOS-R was to make a version that looks decent on HDTVs and I think they accomplished that just fine (I do wish they had done something about the obvious stunt doubles).

What the OP is asking would have required more money and a heck of lot more time which they obviously didn't have. But it would be an interesting thing to do some day (as long as they continue to preserve the original versions). Seems like someone has tried doing something like that for Space 1999:

http://www.space2099.tv/video/03_futurepast_f8.htm

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

How are they supposed to replace Kirk's phaser rifle--a physical prop he carried around? Hit the "replace gun with cooler gun" button?

I'm just a layman so I have no knowhow about how this works,

Clearly.

...but it would have been nice if they digitally removed his babyish phaser rifle and then digitially replaced it with a cool CGI one that they made.

They couldn't. Not for any reasonable amount of money in any reasonable length of time.

It would really be easier to go back and remake the shows.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

I remember reading somewhere - can't recall where - when they first announced the Remasters project that they were going to remaster TOS in four phases, each with a focus on updating different aspects of the series. I have no idea whether this is or was ever true or not, and I'd be thankful if someone here can shed light on what I'm talking about, but if it is true, then you just have to wait for the 4th pass, Navaros. This was the first.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

then you just have to wait for the 4th pass, Navaros. This was the first.

"TOS: The Holodeck Adventure"

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

It seems to me like the Remastering people didn't remaster a whole heck of a lot? Why didn't they?

None of what you mentioned is actually remastering at all. Remastering refers to enhancing the sound/picture quality - or at least trying to. Adding new effects and altering the elements of the program are not remastering.

Are you just arguing semantics or are you saying the newly "reworked" TOS episodes didn't in fact add new effects (including shots, angles, elements, etc. that were not in the original)?

 

[GSchnitzer]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

It seems to me like the Remastering people didn't remaster a whole heck of a lot? Why didn't they?

None of what you mentioned is actually remastering at all. Remastering refers to enhancing the sound/picture quality - or at least trying to. Adding new effects and altering the elements of the program are not remastering.

Are you just arguing semantics or are you saying the newly "reworked" TOS episodes didn't in fact add new effects (including shots, angles, elements, etc. that were not in the original)?

If I can put words in his mouth, I think EliyahuQeoni is arguing the strict definition of "remastering"--going to the earliest available generation of footage, cleaning up all the nicks and scratches, balancing the color, improving the sound, and creating a new digital master copy from the original analog source. Of course, in addition to doing all this remastering, CBS Digital also added some new effects footage to replace the old visual effects. But strictly speaking, "adding new 'improved' visual effects" isn't inherent to a remastering process. Even if no new footage had been created at all, the episodes could nevertheless be considered to have been "remastered."

So, I think he's saying that every episode was remastered 100%--and, in addition to being completely remastered, some small percentage of each episode also had the old visual effects replaced with new CGI footage. So when Navaros says that the remastering team "didn't remaster a whole heck of a lot" when, in fact, the episodes were remastered 100%, it seems to reflect a misunderstanding between "remastering" and "adding some new visual effects." He appears to be conflating the the two different concepts.

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

I tried watching a Remastered episode and I noticed that it appears the Remastering people did nothing to fix the many silly, meaningless screen displays all over the bridge.

Ie: Tons of screens of flashing red/green/yellow rectangles with no descriptors on any of them. The swirly black-and-white circle thing etc. etc.

Additionally, why didn't they Remaster the 'tapes' (both visually, and audio-ly [you know what I mean, LOL]), and the ludicrously bulky buttons everywhere that jut out to the roof?

It seems to me like the Remastering people didn't remaster a whole heck of a lot? Why didn't they?

Time, complexity, and money mostly.

Secondly their "goal" seemed to be to "preserve" the show in its originality as much as possible.

 

[Iowagirl]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

I tried watching a Remastered episode and I noticed that it appears the Remastering people did nothing to fix the many silly, meaningless screen displays all over the bridge.

Ie: Tons of screens of flashing red/green/yellow rectangles with no descriptors on any of them. The swirly black-and-white circle thing etc. etc.

Because they're cool, they're fun, and they're ORIGINAL!

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

So, I think he's saying that every episode was remastered 100%--and, in addition to being completely remastered, some small percentage of each episode also had the old visual effects replaced with new CGI footage. So when Navaros says that the remastering team "didn't remaster a whole heck of a lot" when, in fact, the episodes were remastered 100%, it seems to reflect a misunderstanding between "remastering" and "adding some new visual effects." He appears to be conflating the the two different concepts.

BINGO!

 

[Navaros]

Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display

it seems to reflect a misunderstanding between "remastering" and "adding some new visual effects." He appears to be conflating the the two different concepts.

Would you say it's fair to say that the professional reviews of TOS-R guide the reader into having an opinion that conflates the two different concepts?

IMO they most certainly do. They do not distinguish between the definitions given in this thread by the members on this site.

Rather, they create the false impression in the reader's mind that almost everything that looks out-dated has been replaced by new CGI effects.