While that may technically be correct, 'remastering' has been used to mean new effects for ages now. The re-released Star Wars films were often called remastered at the time, as were the (awful) Red Dwarf: Remastered episodes, which also had new cgi. Words do change, and now remastering a film can include new special effects.
No, Christopher is right. The term is being grossly misused. Now it's true that the original episodes are being remastered but they are also being re-thought. That's the difference. Neil
But the closeup (#60) shows the adult eel puppet emerging and the long shot (#61) shows a blob on a nylon string and it keeps coming out. But perhaps by this time the creature has reached a fold of the ear, and blood has pooled on the lower rim. We'd already seen it coming out of the earhole in the closeup. I really see no error in the sequence, except perhaps the hairy sideburn of the giant ear looked phoney.
If they remaster TWOK, I hope they do two things to the Reliant: 1: get rid of that silly roll-bar that the torpedo banks are mounted on (makes the ship's design look too busy) 2: put a deflector dish somewhere on/near the front of the thing. Those are just my pet peeves.
Uh, NO. The re-released SW films were called "special editions" -- NOT remastered. This Trek-Remastered designation applying to cg 'embellishments' (and believe me, I don't consider them embellishments, just wasted effort) is Paramount MIS-using the language in a downright stupid way, and fans apparently falling right into line with it. It is probably even more imbecilic than using TOS to indicate STAR TREK, which still seems dumb to me, given the other shows always have some letters to distinguish them to start with. The only reason I can think that they hit on remastered was that it sounds a lot more elegant than to say, "messed with" or "shat upon" "this decade's revisionist spin on STAR TREK" ... or perhaps they couldn't spell "enhanced" or find a way to justify that designation, given that the stuff seems to look pretty cartoony, which ain't an enhancement in my book, it is a reason to turn the channel.
If y'all have so much trouble with the matte errors that allow stars to show through the ships, why not be satified with a little digital magic to erase the bleed-through rather than replacing the shots wholesale? That's more akin to recomping the original elements (remastering) than replacing. <sarcasm> Hmmm, the Enterprise model's paintjob has a nick on it...let's replace the shot with CG! </sarcasm>
That would be fine in my book I have nothing against the 1982 shots except the 'bleed through'. I think it would be interesting to see what Meyer's idea for the the 'TMP re-use shots' would be if he had a chance to redo those. For me in 1982, seeing the iconic shots from TMP of Ent leaving spacedock being reused was a real letdown. Meyer wanted his spacedock exit to be so different in tone and pace and musically from TMP and then he had to use the exact shots from the first movie to accomplish it.
I don't think they have to redo the FX. Just get rid of stuff like the matte boxes (which are very noticeable on the Reliant) and stuff like matte lines and clean up the film a little.
I wouldn't mind remastering sound and picture to clean it up and make the quality a little more crisp, but as for the FX, nothing needs to be done. Why tamper with something that is already perfect? Cleanup is fine. But tamper and alter, no.