Sorry if this has been a topic before, but I just saw this, and can't believe how piss-poor the Enterprise looked. I know it was CGI, but it actually looked like a small plastic model zipping and zooming into the galactic barrier.
WNMHGB remastered
- Thread starter A beaker full of death
- Start date
An episode that pleases neither those who desire the newer CGI and those who prefer the original SFX? 
I didn't have an issue with the 'Galactic Barrier' shots at all (and I like the we see the bulk of the Milky Way galaxy behind the ship as the ARE supposed to be at its very rim.
The shot that REALLY looked bad to me was the long distance view looking top down as the 1701 was heading back on impulse power only as Kirk did the log entry. That shot looked WAY WORSE than ANY of the opticals from 1966; or any of the other shots CBS Digital themselves have done. I know it was CGI; but it looked like '3 inch plastic model pulled across a table by a string'. (imo).
The shot that REALLY looked bad to me was the long distance view looking top down as the 1701 was heading back on impulse power only as Kirk did the log entry. That shot looked WAY WORSE than ANY of the opticals from 1966; or any of the other shots CBS Digital themselves have done. I know it was CGI; but it looked like '3 inch plastic model pulled across a table by a string'. (imo).
The new Barrier shots looked pretty damn awesome considering the limited time and budget Mike Okuda and his CGI team have to remaster these episodes and update the space opticals. It was a little reminiscent of a more purple Briar Patch from INSURRECTION, but retained the original "strip/belt" horizontal look of the original 1965 effects. All in all, it was a big improvement over the old opticals.
Do note, that model is based on the older, original Enterprise model. Note the dark nacelles, larger deflector dish, and higher bridge. Not to mention the impulse engine looks different and the rear of the nacelles are a grill instead of the familiar dome.
I do agree there is a cartoony quality to it, but I think it works more or less. When juxtaposing CGI with a 40 year old show I think dead realism wouldn't work.
^
Well, it was a little XBox "video gamey" and not entirely organic and smooth...but it's a fair sight more textured and interesting to look at than the old 1965 opticals. They used to be amazing when I was a kid, but let's face it. They no longer hold up. And even imperfect Mike Okuda CGI beats it.
Well, it was a little XBox "video gamey" and not entirely organic and smooth...but it's a fair sight more textured and interesting to look at than the old 1965 opticals. They used to be amazing when I was a kid, but let's face it. They no longer hold up. And even imperfect Mike Okuda CGI beats it.
I didn't have a problem with it. The original effects were OK for the time, but they don't hold up real well in certain places. The new shots are nice, and anyway the show is about the characters, not the special effects.
Actually, if they wanted to sell the dire situation of the barrier-damaged Enterprise, they shoud have backed the camera waaaay off so we'd see the ship, tiny and alone, crawling through space. As was, they backed off just enough so there was no sense of scale in any way, either big or small.
I LOVED IT! I watched it again on tape after I had to re-tape it recently, and my mouth literally dropped at seeing such a classic episode infused with new life! The 3D movement of the Enterprise escaping the energy barrier was breathtaking. I think the quibbles people are having are only because the Enterprise was so brightly, and colorfully lit, so they're misunderstanding how it was supposed to look.
Yeah, we're none too intelligent, those of us who see it as crap.
^^^
Come on, that's not fair. I'm sure he didn't mean to be insulting. We've all made our criticisms of the CGI and defended it in just such ways.
Not saying you don't "get" it, just that you don't "see" it... or rather, what you see just isn't what you think works.
Come on, that's not fair. I'm sure he didn't mean to be insulting. We've all made our criticisms of the CGI and defended it in just such ways.
Not saying you don't "get" it, just that you don't "see" it... or rather, what you see just isn't what you think works.
I think that we can have views on both sides and still remain civil.
