Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen displays?
- Thread starter Navaros
- Start date
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
I think you have a point. I submit this in your favor: http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/TOS/article/28095.html.
I think you have a point. I submit this in your favor: http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/TOS/article/28095.html.
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
I have indeed read absolutely every professional review regarding the Star Trek Remastered project.
Not a single one gives me the impression that dramatic overhauling of art design and props was being done on the TOS episodes through wholesale "replacement" of footage. All the reviews make clear that "replacing" of footage and other digital "enhancements" was going to be minimal. Most reviews went out of their way to drive this very point home so that purists wouldn't be alarmed by the project.
I think the reviews all say things like "completely remastered" and "totally remastered" and "breathes new life to the footage" and "spectacular visual clarity" and "film quality that looks like it was brand new and up-to-date and shot yesterday and the film quality looks as moderan as recent Trek shows instead of looking 40+ years old." I think it may have been just you who misunderstood what "remastering" means--and what it is and what it isn't. I don't know of anyone else who was surpised or disappointed at how very ittle footage was actually replaced or "enhanced." I think everyone realizes the quality of the "film" quality of the images was being brought up to date--not the art design for the entire series.
I'd be interested in seeing a cite for a professional review you thought was misleading.
I have indeed read absolutely every professional review regarding the Star Trek Remastered project.
Not a single one gives me the impression that dramatic overhauling of art design and props was being done on the TOS episodes through wholesale "replacement" of footage. All the reviews make clear that "replacing" of footage and other digital "enhancements" was going to be minimal. Most reviews went out of their way to drive this very point home so that purists wouldn't be alarmed by the project.I think the reviews all say things like "completely remastered" and "totally remastered" and "breathes new life to the footage" and "spectacular visual clarity" and "film quality that looks like it was brand new and up-to-date and shot yesterday and the film quality looks as moderan as recent Trek shows instead of looking 40+ years old." I think it may have been just you who misunderstood what "remastering" means--and what it is and what it isn't. I don't know of anyone else who was surpised or disappointed at how very ittle footage was actually replaced or "enhanced." I think everyone realizes the quality of the "film" quality of the images was being brought up to date--not the art design for the entire series.
I'd be interested in seeing a cite for a professional review you thought was misleading.
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
It's a shame that the term "re-mastering" has been so bastardized.
It's a shame that the term "re-mastering" has been so bastardized.
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
I think the restoration team had a certain scope in mind with what they did. However, since they changed certain things that were beyond the scope of "remastering" it opens the question for why didn't they change more (whether one think they should have done more or not). If they can change the chronometer from analog to digital why is it any less valid to ask why they didn't change the static displays?
I think the restoration team had a certain scope in mind with what they did. However, since they changed certain things that were beyond the scope of "remastering" it opens the question for why didn't they change more (whether one think they should have done more or not). If they can change the chronometer from analog to digital why is it any less valid to ask why they didn't change the static displays?
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
The chronometer display was a simple, static, insert shot. Simple to repalce. Replacing the displays around the bridge would've required movement tracking, matching the angle/size of the display and much more to "blend" them in with the scene.
The shot of the chronometer isn't the same as the shots of the displays.
The chronometer display was a simple, static, insert shot. Simple to repalce. Replacing the displays around the bridge would've required movement tracking, matching the angle/size of the display and much more to "blend" them in with the scene.
The shot of the chronometer isn't the same as the shots of the displays.
remastering from first-generation
first-generation material remastering (and remixing) see this:
IT WAS 31 YEARS: REMIXED IN 5.1 FOR YELLOW SUBMARINE
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_years_remixed_yellow/index.html
that was as good as it gets sonically.
Please listen to Yellow Submarine music-only ISO track on the DVD in 5.1 surround sound.
also see this for remastering
It is the same idea with Trek TOS. They are getting it as close to the original as possible not reimagining or remaking it.
I agree Navaros please read
first-generation material remastering (and remixing) see this:
IT WAS 31 YEARS: REMIXED IN 5.1 FOR YELLOW SUBMARINE
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_years_remixed_yellow/index.html
that was as good as it gets sonically.
Please listen to Yellow Submarine music-only ISO track on the DVD in 5.1 surround sound.
also see this for remastering
http://www.maccablog.co.uk/folders.php?d=5623
It is the same idea with Trek TOS. They are getting it as close to the original as possible not reimagining or remaking it.
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
Regarding the chronometer, they were originally not planning to change that either as it was not part of the visual effects. But I pleaded with them to change it and they did it to make me happy. Thanks again Mike Okuda!
http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/29/exc...okuda-talking-the-cage-tos-r-on-blu-ray-more/
Regarding the chronometer, they were originally not planning to change that either as it was not part of the visual effects. But I pleaded with them to change it and they did it to make me happy. Thanks again Mike Okuda!
http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/29/exc...okuda-talking-the-cage-tos-r-on-blu-ray-more/
A
Amaris
Guest
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
Yep. For me, the CGI updates only made it far more pleasing to watch, not just because of the exterior and planetside shots (plus the chrono fixes), but because in the process they cleaned up the images and boosted the audio. Overall, a terrific update and I want the Original Series on Blu-ray, well, once I can afford it.
J.
Yep. For me, the CGI updates only made it far more pleasing to watch, not just because of the exterior and planetside shots (plus the chrono fixes), but because in the process they cleaned up the images and boosted the audio. Overall, a terrific update and I want the Original Series on Blu-ray, well, once I can afford it.
J.
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
Then again, if you haven't seen the blu-ray version, then you really haven't seen the new transfer. You're seeing it in standard definition, so most of the picture improvement isn't going to be visible to you. Check it out on blu-ray in true HD and you'll finally see what the whole point of the remastering was. TOS is now the clearest ST series aside from ENT (which was filmed in HD, but not shown in HD in its original run), with far greater resolution than TNG, DS9, or VOY.
Oh, and as far as looking more like the later ST series, TOS isn't supposed to look like them. TOS is supposed to look like TOS.
No, I'd say you still don't know what remastering means. The statement "They didn't remaster a whole lot," proves it. They remastered every single frame of the entire series in high-definition. It was never about the new FX. It was never about "fixing" anything. It was about preserving the series in high-definition. Hell, they left in the phaser/photon torpedo goof in "Balance of Terror" for us purists.
Then again, if you haven't seen the blu-ray version, then you really haven't seen the new transfer. You're seeing it in standard definition, so most of the picture improvement isn't going to be visible to you. Check it out on blu-ray in true HD and you'll finally see what the whole point of the remastering was. TOS is now the clearest ST series aside from ENT (which was filmed in HD, but not shown in HD in its original run), with far greater resolution than TNG, DS9, or VOY.
Oh, and as far as looking more like the later ST series, TOS isn't supposed to look like them. TOS is supposed to look like TOS.
Navaros, Jefferiestubes hit it on the head. What you seem to have been wanting was the exact opposite of this.
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
If they wanted it to be 'as close to the original as possible', and fixing things prevents this, then why did they fix some of the effects? The fact that they fixed some of the effects seems to indicate that they were indeed trying update it to not look so ludicrously antiquated, albeit did a half-assed job of it by not fixing most things.
If they wanted it to be as close to the original as possible, there is no reason why they had to touch any of the effects.
And unlike what some posters have said, I certainly am not proposing a remake or reimagining or anything like that. What I am proposing is simply to make the show not look ludicrously antiquated (as a Remastered show shouldn't). That has absolutely nothing to do with remaking or reimagining the show.
If they wanted it to be 'as close to the original as possible', and fixing things prevents this, then why did they fix some of the effects? The fact that they fixed some of the effects seems to indicate that they were indeed trying update it to not look so ludicrously antiquated, albeit did a half-assed job of it by not fixing most things.
If they wanted it to be as close to the original as possible, there is no reason why they had to touch any of the effects.
And unlike what some posters have said, I certainly am not proposing a remake or reimagining or anything like that. What I am proposing is simply to make the show not look ludicrously antiquated (as a Remastered show shouldn't). That has absolutely nothing to do with remaking or reimagining the show.
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
That's so silly. Stop being silly.
Joe, anti-silly
You're an adult, and you seriously expected them to CGI a different, kewler phaser rifle into every scene in "Where No Man" that it appears?
That's so silly. Stop being silly.
Joe, anti-silly
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
Navaros, are you playing with us? I'm serious; are you? Some of the stuff you are suggesting is just so out there that I don't know if you are being ironic or not.
And iconic!
Last year, I directed a play that featured a control room of a spaceship and the set designer and myself purposely created several panels and displays with red/green/yellow rectangles, triangles, etc. as a nod to Trek (we also had a pipe that read "GNDN"). When taking to some audience members after the show, the instantly picked up on design reference.
Navaros, are you playing with us? I'm serious; are you? Some of the stuff you are suggesting is just so out there that I don't know if you are being ironic or not.
And iconic!
Last year, I directed a play that featured a control room of a spaceship and the set designer and myself purposely created several panels and displays with red/green/yellow rectangles, triangles, etc. as a nod to Trek (we also had a pipe that read "GNDN"). When taking to some audience members after the show, the instantly picked up on design reference.
Re: Why didn't the Remastered fix the silly meaningless screen display
And once again, remember that you haven't actually seen the remastered transfer. If you haven't seen the blu-ray (or HD-DVD) version, you're only seeing the episodes slightly cleaned up in standard definition. That might be why you're having trouble understanding the point of the remastered Star Trek. It's like watching a color movie on your black and white TV, then saying, "God, that didn't look any better! This color thing is all hype!"
Again, they weren't trying to make Star Trek look like something it isn't. They were trying to add high-definition FX to complement the new high-definition transfer. Obviously different fans are going to have differing opinions about the FX, but we're talking about a minute or two of new FX in each episode. It isn't about the FX. It's about the new high-definition transfer.
And indeed the new blu-ray release allows you to pick between two different versions: the remastered episodes with new FX, or the remastered episodes with the original FX for purists like me.
And once again, remember that you haven't actually seen the remastered transfer. If you haven't seen the blu-ray (or HD-DVD) version, you're only seeing the episodes slightly cleaned up in standard definition. That might be why you're having trouble understanding the point of the remastered Star Trek. It's like watching a color movie on your black and white TV, then saying, "God, that didn't look any better! This color thing is all hype!"
It's a show that was made in the 60s and it will always look that way.
Believe me, Navaros, I'm not trying to be a d*ck, but you still haven't a tenuous grasp of what the word "remastered" means. A "remastered" show should look exactly the same, only crisper and clearer. A "remastered" song should sound exactly the same as the original, only clearer. "Remastering" has nothing -- nothing whatsoever -- to do with adding any new material.
