Would a TOS remaster job work for the Trek movies?

[EliyahuQeoni]

Emperor-Tiberius said:

EliyahuQeoni said:

Emperor-Tiberius said:
Not to mention the horribly dated font in the retinal scan scene in TWOK.

If you dislike dated effects I would recommend not watching 25 year old movies.

Thats a stupid comment. It has nothing to do with my liking the film - I love TWOK, and watch it twice a year. But that doesn't stop from being rational. Somes FX in TWOK need improvement. Particularly Kirk's ratinal scan.

No, its a perfectly rational and logical statement. If you're bothered by out of date effects then don't watch old movies. Enjoy them for what they are. They don't "need" anything. You may want it to look different, but the film is perfectly fine the way it is. Expecting a film from 1982 to look like a film made in 2008 is just silly. Thinking it should be changed to look like a film from 2008 is akin to airbrushing the Sistine Chapel ceiling because the techniques Michelangelo used are so out of date...

*sigh* and I thought it was bad when people were merely colorizing B&W movies...

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Okay, guys, just remember that you are having a difference of opinion on the state of movie updating.

 

[Kinnison]

I don't really care about the FX shots in ST II-X; they were rather cheap even for the time they were made. I'd prefer for them to be left alone, but I won't cry one way or the other. The FX in TMP, however, are gorgeous and carefully-made, and should not be replaced.

 

[Furlong]

I've never had any problem with the effects in any of the original series movies. Like the original Star Wars films, which I still have on VHS, the effects are still good even by today's standards.

 

[Johnny Rico]

Tomalak said:
TOS was redone because the effects wouldn't stand up to high definition. The movies were explicitly designed to be seen on a cinema screen - higher resolution than HD video. I don't really see the point.

Well, if I can see the bad compositing from an up-converted DVD on a HD set, then the films do need a remastered job like TOS got. I think the facts, and my eyes speak for themselves. I don't care if the films were meant to be seen on a movie screen through a projector. The point is that the model composite shots are dated. They have that grain crawl on them that just screams bad model compositing.

Even the original Star Wars films (before the SE treatment) didn't have this problem. Their only problem was the blue screen boxes that moved along with them.

 

[Johnny Rico]

Kinnison said:
I don't really care about the FX shots in ST II-X; they were rather cheap even for the time they were made. I'd prefer for them to be left alone, but I won't cry one way or the other. The FX in TMP, however, are gorgeous and carefully-made, and should not be replaced.

But they were...in the V-Ger sequence. When the Enterprise came up to the hexogonal blocks. That whole sequence was redone with CG for the DC DVD.

 

[Johnny Rico]

EliyahuQeoni said:

Emperor-Tiberius said:

EliyahuQeoni said:

Emperor-Tiberius said:
Not to mention the horribly dated font in the retinal scan scene in TWOK.

If you dislike dated effects I would recommend not watching 25 year old movies.

Thats a stupid comment. It has nothing to do with my liking the film - I love TWOK, and watch it twice a year. But that doesn't stop from being rational. Somes FX in TWOK need improvement. Particularly Kirk's ratinal scan.

No, its a perfectly rational and logical statement. If you're bothered by out of date effects then don't watch old movies.

No again, that's a stupid comment.

If the movie is a stand-alone movie, then yeah...one can accept the dated effects, but when a movie is a part of a franchise, such as Trek or Star Wars, it'd be nice if all movies of said franchise would have similar or near similar level of effects.

So if the technology is there to improve aged effects, why not do it for continuity sakes, if nothing else?

Enjoy them for what they are. They don't "need" anything. You may want it to look different, but the film is perfectly fine the way it is.

Sounds like you need your eyes checked. Like I said, the nebula battle looked just fine...at least for the model compositing. But the initial confrontation looked bad.

Actually what looks bad is the battle damage effects. The blowing up of Reliant's photon launcher wasn't probably filmed at the right speed to give it the sense of size it needed.

Expecting a film from 1982 to look like a film made in 2008 is just silly.

Why not? Following your logic, no movie should ever undergo remastering/restoration, 'cause we shouldn't expect old movies to look as good as modern movies. MGM and Lowry Digital should have never restored the Bond films, 'cause we're all used to seeing them in their washed out and aging versions typical of the film stock used during those days.

I just don't understand thinking like this... we as human beings should never attempt to improve upon/restore old things. We should also just let all of our ancient heritages fall to ruin, 'cause we should never need our history preserved.

Thinking it should be changed to look like a film from 2008 is akin to airbrushing the Sistine Chapel ceiling because the techniques Michelangelo used are so out of date...

Not even close to a good comparison. That's like saying an old movie should be redone by a different director or studio. Or a song should be recorded by a different band and change the arrangement...oh wait...covers....

*sigh* and I thought it was bad when people were merely colorizing B&W movies...

There's always the color knob. Or in some modern TVs a "monochrome" setting which removes the color.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Johnny Rico said:

No again, that's a stupid comment.

Charming.

If the movie is a stand-alone movie, then yeah...one can accept the dated effects, but when a movie is a part of a franchise, such as Trek or Star Wars, it'd be nice if all movies of said franchise would have similar or near similar level of effects.

That's totally a matter of opinion. I personally have no problem with the effects in the Trek series evolving over time. And I much prefer the original non-fiddled with versions of the original Star Wars films despite the effects in them not matching those in the prequel trilogy

So if the technology is there to improve aged effects, why not do it for continuity sakes, if nothing else?

Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be, or needs to be, done.

Sounds like you need your eyes checked.

Of course, since I disagree with you I must be blind. Nice.

Why not? Following your logic, no movie should ever undergo remastering/restoration, 'cause we shouldn't expect old movies to look as good as modern movies.

There is a huge difference between remastering/restoring a film and redoing the special effects in it. One is restoring the picture quality to its original standard, the other is modifying it from its original form merely because some are distracted by "outdated effects."

I just don't understand thinking like this... we as human beings should never attempt to improve upon/restore old things. We should also just let all of our ancient heritages fall to ruin, 'cause we should never need our history preserved.

Again, there is a huge difference between preservation and modification. Splashing CGI effects all over old movies is hardly "preserving" them. Much the opposite in fact.

Not even close to a good comparison. That's like saying an old movie should be redone by a different director or studio. Or a song should be recorded by a different band and change the arrangement...oh wait...covers....

Again, a totally different thing. Remaking old movies & doing covers of old songs are the creation of something new. Redoing the effects in a movie is modifying the original.

There's always the color knob. Or in some modern TVs a "monochrome" setting which removes the color.

Or better yet, there's always just accepting things for what they are & not screwing with them.

 

[Kinnison]

Johnny Rico said:

Kinnison said:
I don't really care about the FX shots in ST II-X; they were rather cheap even for the time they were made. I'd prefer for them to be left alone, but I won't cry one way or the other. The FX in TMP, however, are gorgeous and carefully-made, and should not be replaced.

But they were...in the V-Ger sequence. When the Enterprise came up to the hexogonal blocks. That whole sequence was redone with CG for the DC DVD.

I know. And I don't approve.