PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek: Enhanced



Doodler
2006-Jun-26, 09:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9XHmj-dPEY&mode=related&search=star%20trek%20doomsday

I dunno about y'all, but that looks outright sexy to me.

GDwarf
2006-Jun-26, 09:25 PM
The segues annoy me, but yeah, that looks rather cool.

Ronald Brak
2006-Jun-26, 10:13 PM
I can't believe they didn't edit out some of the pointless blinking lights on the bridge.

Personally I've been tempted to do something similar to old Doctor Who episodes, not to improve on the special effects as they are frequently hilarious, but to pick up on the pace. I think I could often cram a ninety minute four part story into about fifty minutes, maybe less.

Ara Pacis
2006-Jun-26, 11:47 PM
They've got a lot of other vids there that look interesting. I've been wanting to do some music videos inspired by scifi.

Van Rijn
2006-Jun-27, 12:49 AM
Ah, that's interesting. I saw another version of that, but in the other one, the Doomsday Machine was a much cleaner design. This one looks more like the paper mache original.

There are a number of ST episodes I'd like to see redone with CGI. "Doomsday Machine" would be at the top of the list. But even when I was young, the breakaway sequence in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" annoyed me (the ship just wobbling back and forth a bit when doing the time travel jig was lame even for that era).


I can't believe they didn't edit out some of the pointless blinking lights on the bridge.


But you gotta have the Blinkenlights. (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/blinkenlights.html) It just wouldn't be Star Trek without the blinkenlights. Seriously. I'd like to see updated CGI as an option, as long as the original FX was still available, but if there were wholesale changes, I'd get seriously annoyed.

For those who don't remember blinkenlights:

ACHTUNG! ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS!

Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten.

That's an old, old joke, and there is a "turnabout is fair play" version in mixed up english on the page referenced. The fact is, though, you expected to see blinking lights in the old days. Come to think of it, there are still plenty of them, just not too many on the main panel.

Tog
2006-Jun-27, 06:27 AM
It looks really good but there is one thing I find really ironic...

I don't get the Origial Trek on any of my cable channels. WHen I do stumble across an episode it's a few years since the last one, usually in a hotel. Guess which Episode... For about 12 years I was convinced that they had to air The Doomsday Machine every other week under some odd contratual obligation.

Mellow
2006-Jul-04, 09:39 AM
I guess I quite like it, still undecided, but I think if it prolongs the appeal of TOS then it's a good thing.

parallaxicality
2006-Jul-04, 04:30 PM
So is this an official rework or just a fan redo?

Alasdhair
2006-Jul-04, 07:37 PM
But you gotta have the Blinkenlights. (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/blinkenlights.html) It just wouldn't be Star Trek without the blinkenlights.

Well exemplified by William Shatner's appearance in Airplane II

"These lights keep blinking on and off out of sequence Sir."

"Well, get them to blink on and off in sequence!"

hewhocaves
2006-Jul-05, 12:46 AM
at best I have mixed feelings about this. Yes, it does look much cleaner and there's eye candy. But they did this to Star Wars and Red Dwarf (the latter remastered versions were dubbed "remassacred").

On the other hand, we lose something in our desire to *update* them. There's a certain amount of not *political correctness* per se to it, but something parallel to it. Its hard to place, but I don't want to see old TV updated, any more than see shakespeare performed verbatim with modern scenery.

Gillianren
2006-Jul-06, 01:05 AM
On the other hand, we lose something in our desire to *update* them. There's a certain amount of not *political correctness* per se to it, but something parallel to it. Its hard to place, but I don't want to see old TV updated, any more than see shakespeare performed verbatim with modern scenery.

Actually, I think Shakespeare can be performed to good effect verbatim with modern scenery. I also think it's the wrong analogy, because Shakespeare, and indeed all play scripts, are necessarily fluid media. It's much closer to painting skyscrapers in the background of the Mona Lisa.

hewhocaves
2006-Jul-06, 01:07 AM
Actually, I think Shakespeare can be performed to good effect verbatim with modern scenery. I also think it's the wrong analogy, because Shakespeare, and indeed all play scripts, are necessarily fluid media. It's much closer to painting skyscrapers in the background of the Mona Lisa.

you're right... i like that better. or maybe the mona lisa in a bikini. on the cover of MAXIM. LOL

GDwarf
2006-Jul-06, 02:54 PM
Actually, I think Shakespeare can be performed to good effect verbatim with modern scenery. I also think it's the wrong analogy, because Shakespeare, and indeed all play scripts, are necessarily fluid media. It's much closer to painting skyscrapers in the background of the Mona Lisa.
Suspension of disbelief is somewhat harder when Shakespeare is set during modern times, I've seen it done, it's OK, but I find it that much harder to 'get into' the plot when the speech doesn't fit the time period. For example, in grade 10 we watched a modern version of Romeo and Juliet, it was set a couple of years in the future but used almost all the lines from the play. It was horrible, now, part of that was simply because the camera men seemed to have a lot of trouble actually staying focused on one shot and the view jumped around like mad, but I think a big part of it was because it just seemed wrong to have everyone talking in Shakespearian English.

Doodler
2006-Jul-06, 05:35 PM
Actually, I think Shakespeare can be performed to good effect verbatim with modern scenery. I also think it's the wrong analogy, because Shakespeare, and indeed all play scripts, are necessarily fluid media. It's much closer to painting skyscrapers in the background of the Mona Lisa.

Actually, I think Shakespeare HAS been done verbatim with modern scenery, and while it was a little surreallistic at times, Romeo and Juliet kicked a little butt.

GDwarf
2006-Jul-06, 07:30 PM
Actually, I think Shakespeare HAS been done verbatim with modern scenery, and while it was a little surreallistic at times, Romeo and Juliet kicked a little butt.
The director was clever at points, Sword brand guns, for example, but all the same, I didn't enjoy it all that much, as my previous post shows.

Glom
2006-Jul-06, 07:53 PM
It does look cool. I don't mind this kind of remastering personally though I can understand the ambivalence. I know the remastered RD was ill-received, but I think that's because the old model shots genuinely looked much better than the old CGI they used in the remastering. The purpose of remastering is to replace shots will something better, not just something made with more modern techniques. Keep the RD model shots.

Jason Thompson
2006-Jul-09, 08:24 PM
The purpose of remastering is to replace shots will something better, not just something made with more modern techniques.

I disagree. The purpose of remastering is to clean up the artefacts that come from years or decades of storage leading to deterioration of the original media. Film fades, gets scratched, even has fungal growth. Video suffers scratches and dropouts, tape stretch, etc. Remastering is solely to fix those and bring the original material at least up to and sometimes beyond the technical quality of the original broadcast. Replacing effects shots and re-editing is not remastering, that is something completely different. And frankly I have never found it any more than superficial and shallow.

I really do not understand the idea that seems to be prevalent these days that we must constantly update old stuff. Really, if you can't accept something was made in a certain way in a certain time, then why watch it at all? Doctor Who may have had ropey effects and sets, but they (usually) did their best with what they had to work with. And it's just that kind of improvising to find ways to make something appear to be real on a shoestring budget with limited resources that drove the FX industry to achieving high standards. Now we have CGI and it is so easy to make Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christiansen fight with lightsabers while floating down a river of lava, or create whole armies in battle scenes, or create fleets of starships, that someone now thinks we have to go back and 'improve' the stuff that was made with more limited and more pioneering techniques. Well I say that's crap.

It is precisely this that has made me hold out buying all the Star Wars special editions: When I go out to buy a film made in 1983, I actually want the film I saw in 1983, not the one that was tinkered with decades later just because the guy who made the film could and wanted to retroactively make it fit in with stuff he made later. I am very glad that the original trilogy is coming out in September at last.

The same holds for Star Trek and Doctor Who. Seriously, does tarting up the CGI make The Doomsday Machine a better episode?

[Edited to fix typos]

GDwarf
2006-Jul-09, 08:33 PM
The purpose of remastering is to replace shots will something better, not just something made with more modern techniques.

I disagree. The purpose of remastering is to clean up the artefacts that come from years or decades of storage leading to deterioration of the original media. Film fades, gets scratched, even has fungal growth. Video suffers scratches and dropouts, tape stretch, etc. Remastering is solely to fix those and bring the original material at least up to and sometimes beyond the technical quality of the original broadcast. Replacing effects shots and re-editing is not remastering, that is something completely different. And frankly I have never found it any more than superficial and shallow.
Really? You see no benefit in updating old special effects?


I really do not understand the idea that seems to be prevalent these days that we must constantly update old stuff. Really, if you can't accept something was made in a certain way in a certain time, then why watch it at all? Doctor Who may have had ropey effects and sets, but they (usually) did their best with what they had to work with. And it's just that kind of improvising to find ways to make something appear to be real on a shoestring budget with limited resources that drove the FX industry to achieving high standards. Now we have CGI and it is so easy to make Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christiansen fight with lightsabers while floating down a river of lava, or create whole armies in battle scenes, or create fleets of starships, that someone now thinks we have to go back and 'improve' the stuff that was made with more limited and more pioneering techniques. Well I say that's crap.
I have no 'need' to update stuff, however, the remastered SW disks look much, much better, there is a palpable benefit to having better special effects, and updating them doesn't adversely effect the SFX industry.


It is precisely this that has made me hold out buying all the Star Wars special editions: When I go out to buy a film made in 1983, I actually want the film I saw in 1983, not the one that was tinkered with decades later just because the guy who made the film could and wanted to retroactively make it fit in with stuff he made later. I am very glad that the original trilogy is coming out in September at last.
Actually, according to Lucas everything but Greedo shooting first and the extended dance sequence was done at the time and cut for various reasons. On top of that, it's really still the same film, it just looks better.

Actually, I'm very, very confused by the open hostility showed towards the remastered SW disks, I mean, the plot is the same, all of, like, 4 scenes have been added across all the disks, and it looks much, much better, yet this leads people to stage protests outside stores, am I missing something?


The same holds for Star Trek and Doctor Who. Seriously, does tarting up the CGI make The Doomsday Machine a better episode?
Yes, it does, unless you only care about plot and acting, in which case why are you watching TV and not simply listening to radio?


Edit: That's not to say that you have to go out and love all updates, but protesting against improvements to the SFX strikes me as silly.

Gillianren
2006-Jul-09, 08:59 PM
I have to agree that "new" and "better" are not necessarily the same thing. Frankly, the scene I found most irritating in the entire rerelease trilogy was neither--Han should not have survived stepping on Jabba. I understand that, when the scene was filmed, Jabba was a fat man in a fur suit. However, since Jabba could only be portrayed as the giant slug he was in the third movie, it meant that, if Han circled Jabba, he had to step on him. Ergo, I don't think the scene should've been added. (I also don't think it added anything to the plot.)

jt-3d
2006-Jul-09, 09:24 PM
I really do not understand the idea that seems to be prevalent these days that we must constantly update old stuff. Really, if you can't accept something was made in a certain way in a certain time, then why watch it at all? Doctor Who may have had ropey effects and sets, but they (usually) did their best with what they had to work with. And it's just that kind of improvising to find ways to make something appear to be real on a shoestring budget with limited resources that drove the FX industry to achieving high standards. Now we have CGI and it is so easy to make Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christiansen fight with lightsabers while floating down a river of lava, or create whole armies in battle scenes, or create fleets of starships, that someone now thinks we have to go back and 'improve' the stuff that was made with more limited and more pioneering techniques. Well I say that's crap.


I agree. use new techniques for new movies, not for replacing old classics. They don't need to be fixed. Hollyworld should concentrate on making it's own new classics rather than remaking stuff. At this rate, in 20 years the only thing that will be worth remaking will be the remakes. Although I do like most of what Herr Lucas did with Star Wars.

Jason Thompson
2006-Jul-09, 10:28 PM
You see no benefit in updating old special effects?

None whatsoever. They passed muster back in the day, so why change them now? Also, updating the visuals won't stop the rest of the material looking like a product of the decade it was made in.

the remastered SW disks look much, much better,

Than the old VHS? Of course they do. I'll draw my comparisons when I have seen the remastered original trilogy, thank you. frankly I see nothing wrong with the old SW visual effects, beyond the occasional matte shot that could do with neatening up (you can see the outline where the fighter was matted onto the background quite often).

there is a palpable benefit to having better special effects,

See, better is subjective.

and updating them doesn't adversely effect the SFX industry.

I never said it did. I just think it is a shame that people seem all too happy to forget the tremendous efforts that went in to making the SFX as good as they were in the day and are happy to rub them out and draw over them with new stuff just because it looks better. I guess I just appreciate things for what they are a bit more.

On top of that, it's really still the same film, it just looks better.

But I don't think it does. I really don't see anything wrong with the original versions.

Actually, I'm very, very confused by the open hostility showed towards the remastered SW disks, I mean, the plot is the same, all of, like, 4 scenes have been added across all the disks, and it looks much, much better, yet this leads people to stage protests outside stores, am I missing something?

Yes. It's still not the same film people saw in the cinema and fell in love with. When I watched the special edition SW films I could see which bits were added on because to me they jarred with the rest.

Yes, it does, unless you only care about plot and acting, in which case why are you watching TV and not simply listening to radio?

Well, firstly because shows like Star Trek, Doctor Who and Star Wars are not on radio, and secondly do you really think radio and TV/film acting are the same things?

Star Trek will always be a product of the 1960s. Doctor Who will always be a product of the various decades it was made in. Star Wars (the original trilogy) will always be a product of the late 70s and early 80s. No matter how much you update the SFX you won't be able to alter that, and I see little reason for trying to update something by drawing a few superficial visual improvements. I just don't see why people cannot accept things as products of the times they were made in and concentrate energies on making new things rather than trying to update old things.

GDwarf
2006-Jul-09, 11:20 PM
You see no benefit in updating old special effects?

None whatsoever. They passed muster back in the day, so why change them now? Also, updating the visuals won't stop the rest of the material looking like a product of the decade it was made in.
And the goal isn't to take it out of it's period.


I never said it did. I just think it is a shame that people seem all too happy to forget the tremendous efforts that went in to making the SFX as good as they were in the day and are happy to rub them out and draw over them with new stuff just because it looks better. I guess I just appreciate things for what they are a bit more.
I, personally, am amazed at what ILM managed to do on an incredibly small budget, but why should that stop me from enjoying it when it's updated?


But I don't think it does. I really don't see anything wrong with the original versions.
And there isn't anything wrong with them, I never said there was.


Actually, I'm very, very confused by the open hostility showed towards the remastered SW disks, I mean, the plot is the same, all of, like, 4 scenes have been added across all the disks, and it looks much, much better, yet this leads people to stage protests outside stores, am I missing something?

Yes. It's still not the same film people saw in the cinema and fell in love with. When I watched the special edition SW films I could see which bits were added on because to me they jarred with the rest.
I have the original SW on VHS, I must've watched it hundreds of times, and I agree that most of the added scenes are poorly done, at the same time the plot is the same, the actors are the same, the audio is better and the visuals are better, I fail to see why this invokes feelings of hatred in some people.


Star Trek will always be a product of the 1960s. Doctor Who will always be a product of the various decades it was made in. Star Wars (the original trilogy) will always be a product of the late 70s and early 80s. No matter how much you update the SFX you won't be able to alter that, and I see little reason for trying to update something by drawing a few superficial visual improvements. I just don't see why people cannot accept things as products of the times they were made in and concentrate energies on making new things rather than trying to update old things.
Of course I accept them as products of the 60s/70s/80s/whatever, the update to SFX is not an attempt to make them modern or tear them out of the period they were made, it's an attempt to make old classics look better, and, of course, a chance for Lucas to make more money.

You seem to see the update to SFX as an attempt to deny the history of these movies/TV shows and try and make them 'new' again, that's not the intention. As far as I know the entire point is to make something that's good even better by making it look better.

Who knows, maybe this difference is because I've never seen SW in theatres, I've only seen it on VHS, same with ST: TOS, I never saw an episode when it was on the air, I've only seen VHS versions of episodes.

Actually, I find this whole thing rather ironic, as when it comes to video games I tend to prefer older, retro ones over newer ones, because I value pretty much all aspects of the game over it's graphical quality.

Jason Thompson
2006-Jul-10, 02:57 PM
I can see we'll have to agree to disagree here, GDwarf. Personally, I do see remaking SFX as somehow denying the history of the things, or trying to pull them out of their period. They were made in a certain way at a certain time, and now the revision is almost saying 'sorry the effects were crap back then, maybe you'll enjoy this better now'. I just don't see it as anything that needs apologising for or fixing up. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If you were so worried about visuals back then, why make the film? If you weren't worried then, why worry now? Does the presence of virtual Imperial stormtroopers riding big beasts in the background of a few scenes really make it better?

To me, the visuals are as much a part of the whole experience of a film as every note that is played in a record. If someone gives me a new CD of an old Beatles record then I'd expect the scratches and clicks to be cleaned up so the sound was clearer, but I wouldn't expect to hear a synthesiser replacing some of the guitar riffs, or introduced as a new background sound, because the record producer was so impressed with the technology that he thinks he might have used in when the song was first recorded if he'd had it available. That's really the best way I can explain my feelings regarding updating visuals in films.

Salamandaa
2006-Jul-10, 04:33 PM
And yet a beatles song performed with a synthesiser could be cool. Maybe then it's better to think of a show or movie with updated effects as a remix and not a replacement. It's a different way to enjoy something you like. And hopefully future projects will do a better job than the existing ones have.

Gillianren
2006-Jul-10, 06:39 PM
And yet a beatles song performed with a synthesiser could be cool. Maybe then it's better to think of a show or movie with updated effects as a remix and not a replacement. It's a different way to enjoy something you like. And hopefully future projects will do a better job than the existing ones have.

But if the only version of, say, "A Hard Day's Night" available comes with synthesizer track, that's a replacement.

Nicholas_Bostaph
2006-Jul-10, 07:46 PM
To me, the visuals are as much a part of the whole experience of a film as every note that is played in a record. If someone gives me a new CD of an old Beatles record then I'd expect the scratches and clicks to be cleaned up so the sound was clearer, but I wouldn't expect to hear a synthesiser replacing some of the guitar riffs, or introduced as a new background sound, because the record producer was so impressed with the technology that he thinks he might have used in when the song was first recorded if he'd had it available. That's really the best way I can explain my feelings regarding updating visuals in films.
That's not quite a fair comparison. Perhaps if we change the hypothetical situation to the Beatles recording their music in midi at the time because the real instruments where not available or were too expensive. Then what if years later we decide to replace the track that was meant to (and trying to) sound like a guitar with an actual guitar. That doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the original, or that it wasn't worth composing and performing. it just means that now we can get closer to what some percieve was the artists original intent. If my midi music is 'discovered' someday 200 years from now and I'm considered the next Bach (I'm sure that will happen :P), I sure hope someone has a symphony play it and they sell that recording so people can hear it the way it was intended, instead of within the limitations of my time and budget.






I can see we'll have to agree to disagree here, GDwarf. Personally, I do see remaking SFX as somehow denying the history of the things, or trying to pull them out of their period.

Perhaps part of the disagreement comes from the different ways that different people enjoy cinema. Have you ever been watching a movie and thought to yourself "That guy's a really good actor" or "Those special effects are very impressive for their budget"? Is this the way you enjoy watching movies?

There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but if I found myself thinking those thoughts I would probably be halfway to the TV to turn whatever it was off. I personally watch TV and movies to become immersed in the story. Reality should be shoved into a corner in the back of my mind and I should feel like what I'm watching is really happenning to real people; and I'm somehow able to just float nearby watching. If a movie fails to immerse me so that I forget it is a movie, I generally consider it a bad movie.

Now, there's nothing wrong with TOS effects per-se. However, they're not perfectly realistic. Neither is what we have now, of course, but in some cases we have the ability to create more realistic effects. More realistic effects will draw us further into the movie, and that is the ultimate goal of the movie (in my opinion), so it should be done if possible. The great skill and work that went into the initial effects can still be appreciated and marvelled at, but in the middle of a movie is not the time to do it. That's what commentaries and interviews, that come with almost all DVDs anymore, are for.






just don't see why people cannot accept things as products of the times they were made in and concentrate energies on making new things rather than trying to update old things.

Just because one group decides to update old movies does not mean another part of the industry cannot continue to make new ones. However, considering the poor quality of many new movies these days, you're taking a risk with any money or time invested in a new film. Many viewers know ST episodes as classics, and repeated viewings do not diminish the enjoyment, so any money spent updating is being spent on a proven product. The original episodes are still available and, with the way the internet is going, will always be available. I do not see how it can be a bad thing to have multiple viewing options to suit the many different opinions of ST fans, rather than just a single one.

Jason Thompson
2006-Jul-10, 09:13 PM
I do not see how it can be a bad thing to have multiple viewing options to suit the many different opinions of ST fans

That was the point with regard to the Star Wars films. Up until later this year there was no option. The original versions were released on VHS in 1995 for the last time. They have not been available since in any form.

And to an extent that is the point with others as well. I have no objection to releases with updated visuals, provided the originals are available too. Otherwise you really are moving into the realms of re-writing history.

As far as your comments about the way you watch a movie, I watch a movie for many reasons, and I have to get taken into the story to enjoy it. But as for it being realistic, if that were true I could not enjoy animation films or TV shows. Yet I find I can lose myself in those stories too. I still want to see the original version.

If someone made a version of King Kong that used the whole original 1930s film and replaced the ape with a CGI construct, would you not expect some people to be a little aggravated? What about if someone decided that one of the actors was not convincing enough so replaced him with a virtual person? Redubbing lines with a different voice? What is acceptable revisionism and what is not?

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jul-12, 07:55 PM
Or ET and removed the guns from the cops.
Oh wait, they did that.

GDwarf
2006-Jul-12, 11:56 PM
Or ET and removed the guns from the cops.
Oh wait, they did that.
I don't see a problem with doing that, mind you, I don't see a problem with the cops having guns either, it just seems like a really stupid thing to get angry over.

Pip
2006-Jul-13, 12:39 AM
While that looks nifty and all, I'd have to say I'm against updating TOS. The models used in the 1960s were simply not deatailed enough to merit doing them in CGI. With the "unenhanced" special effects, you can tell that they're models, but in your mind you know that they are at least physical things. With such a relatively simple ship, the CGI version actually looks less realistic to me than the model.

SeanF
2006-Sep-01, 01:13 AM
Well, it's actually happening (http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/23775.html).

All 79 episodes, new CGI effects, starting next month.

Should be interesting...

Cookie
2006-Sep-01, 08:59 AM
I've seen a couple of the original episodes of ST:TOS.

While I did find the ones I've seen entertaining at times, the phrase "That looks so cheesy" popping into my head frequently diminished the enjoyability of the series, (in my opinion at least).

I'm sure it's because I'm young, and the effects in the ST series I grew up watching with my brother (TNG, DS9 & so on) looked to me to be more "natural" and "believable".

I also had no idea that there is Seventy-Nine episodes of TOS!
I was under the impression that there were only around 12!

That being said, I'm really looking forward to waching all 79 episodes of the "Enhanced" version, and I can imagine that a lot of younger viewers, like myself, are looking forward to it too.
:clap:

Oh, and oddly enough, I feel the same way about video games as the other poster ~ I too prefer "old school" 2-D games (such as RPGs and the Zeldas and what not) to 90% of today's "Polygon-fest" games.
:D

Tog
2006-Sep-01, 09:24 AM
I remeber when Star Wars came out. It had the best special effects I'd ever seen. I was 6. I'd see how the Star Trek stuff looked and it didn't even compare. Then the original Battlestar Galactica hit the TV, and it was just about as good as Star Wars.

Star Wars, set a new standard for space movie effects (for good or bad). Everything ends up in comparison with it.

Star Trek, the original, was never as much about the effects as it was the story. The enhanced versions aren't needed, but they do help to make the original effects less distracting from the stories. Now if only they could fix the fight scenes...

da da DA dada DA da dadaDAdadah dah dah DA. :p

SeanF
2006-Sep-01, 01:16 PM
Now if only they could fix the fight scenes...
There was a DS9 episode, "Trials and Tribble-ations," in which the Defiant goes back in time and some of the crew basically take part in the events of the original series' "The Trouble with Tribbles," including the infamous bar fight with the Klingons.

In a "Making of..." special, they talked about how they specifically choreographed the new fight scenes in an "old-school" way so that it would match the kind of fighting they did in the original episode. Good old roundhouse punches instead of martial-arts type moves. :D

Jason Thompson
2006-Sep-01, 02:19 PM
While I did find the ones I've seen entertaining at times, the phrase "That looks so cheesy" popping into my head frequently diminished the enjoyability of the series, (in my opinion at least).

See, whilst I can see where you are coming from on that, I can't see that updating the visuals is going to help much. Frankly there is very little wrong with most of the Enterprise exterior shots. Updating the visuals won't stop the sets looking cheesy with all their flashing bulbs and obviously painted on monitors with static pictures on. I was watching Space Seed the other day (for anyone who doesn't know, this is the episode that Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Khan is the sequel to). In the climax, Kirk has a fistfight with Khan, finally only besting him by beating him repeatedly with what is presumably supposed to be a heavy metal rod of some kind but which is very obviously a simple plastic tube that weighed next to nothing. That is the part of the episode which I find lets it down. I doubt the enhanced version wil correct that.

I'm sure it's because I'm young,

Aye, ye young whippersnappers just don't apreciate the times we had to make convincing scenes with sellotape and sticky-backed plastic, blood, sweat and tears. Now ye just press a few buttons and watch the computer do the work... ;)

and the effects in the ST series I grew up watching with my brother (TNG, DS9 & so on) looked to me to be more "natural" and "believable".

No offence, but I don't find them believable at all. To me CGI effects still look like CGI effects. In DS9 there were a few huge battle sequences with fleets of ships, and I just didn't look at a single shot and not think of it as a CGI shot. Yet the simple establishing shots of the station or the Defiant looked more convincing because they were models.

I'm still dead set against it because I think it is a form of vandalism, however much you might think it improves the original work. I'm sure grafitti artists think they are improving the walls they spray their logos on. Star Trek TOS was made in the 60s with 60s style, 60s values, 60s technology. Why on earth can some people not get over that and instead insist that it must be updated because now we can do it better? I watched the sample enhanced clip, and I thought the new effects jarred horribly with the rest of the material.

Oh well, at least the unadulterated versions were cleaned up and released on DVD first.

ToSeek
2006-Sep-01, 02:42 PM
I've seen a couple of the original episodes of ST:TOS.

While I did find the ones I've seen entertaining at times, the phrase "That looks so cheesy" popping into my head frequently diminished the enjoyability of the series, (in my opinion at least).

I'm sure it's because I'm young, and the effects in the ST series I grew up watching with my brother (TNG, DS9 & so on) looked to me to be more "natural" and "believable".

I also had no idea that there is Seventy-Nine episodes of TOS!
I was under the impression that there were only around 12!


There are probably only about 12 really good ones! ;)

I've been catching the uncut episodes on G4. I don't have a problem with the special effects, but then I grew up with them. On the other hand, the sexism and the repeated climaxes with Captain Kirk having a torn-shirt fight in the engine room to save the ship before it explodes gets tiresome very quickly. As an old-school Trekkie I used to have a hard time understanding why people might prefer Picard, but I'm beginning to understand.

captain swoop
2006-Sep-01, 03:19 PM
BBC2 are showing a TOS and a Next gen back to back on Sat mornings. When u see them like that u soon knowwhy Kirk beats Picard. to be honest I dont notice the special effects when watching old ST or Dr Who, they are what they are. I prefer them to most 'modern' sci fi no matter how many effects they have.

Tog
2006-Sep-01, 03:27 PM
There was a DS9 episode, "Trials and Tribble-ations," in which the Defiant goes back in time and some of the crew basically take part in the events of the original series' "The Trouble with Tribbles," including the infamous bar fight with the Klingons.

In a "Making of..." special, they talked about how they specifically choreographed the new fight scenes in an "old-school" way so that it would match the kind of fighting they did in the original episode. Good old roundhouse punches instead of martial-arts type moves. :D

I liked that one. They cut it together really well.

We had a martial arts instructor teach us a new technique one night. You started with your feet about shoulder width apart (Horse Stance), then stepped back about one foot length with your right foot. You clasped your hands together to make a triangle about waist high in front of yourself, then ducked down to the left, swung your body over to the right, straigtened up and struck diagonally with both arms, then quickly reversed the motion of your body and hit the other way. We did this for a couple of minutes in the air, then he called me up to demonstrate. He had me throw a huge hooking puch. He ducked under and hit me across the back with his arms and said we had just learned the "Captain Kirk defense against Klingons".:p

R.A.F.
2006-Sep-01, 03:39 PM
I'm still dead set against it because I think it is a form of vandalism, however much you might think it improves the original work...snip...Star Trek TOS was made in the 60s with 60s style, 60s values, 60s technology. Why on earth can some people not get over that and instead insist that it must be updated because now we can do it better?

I must very loudly agree. I like the original effects. They are part of the "package" that is the original Star Trek. While it might be "interesting" to view enhanced effects for a few of the original episodes, IMO, it is a waste of time to enhance the effects of (for example) The Way to Eden.

Leave "history" alone is my opinion...there is no "need" for this enhancement except as an attempt to make a few "bucks".

Nicholas_Bostaph
2006-Sep-01, 04:17 PM
Leave "history" alone is my opinion...there is no "need" for this enhancement except as an attempt to make a few "bucks".

I still don't understand this reasoning. The originals are available on DVD and will be available (in one form or another) for the foreseeable future. Having the originals makes you happy. Having the enhanced versions makes me happy. So choosing to make the enhanced versions creates a situation in which we can both be happy, while not making them creates a situation where only one of us can be happy. Why would you choose someone's unhappiness when there is nothing of value to be gained from it?

R.A.F.
2006-Sep-01, 04:41 PM
Having the enhanced versions makes me happy.

The idea of "enhanced" versions makes me un-happy and I am aware that not everyone will understand the "why's" of that...so I'll try to explain by example...

Recently here, we have been discussing the 50's movie Forbidden Planet. Now while the FX for that movie were excellent for that time, we can "do it better" now if we chose to do so...

So why not "enhance" the FX for Forbidden Planet???

That's the way I feel about "enhancing" the original ST.
Once it is enhanced, it will no longer be Star Trek...

I can imagine watching enhanced Trek now..."Oh, there's a new effect", Ok, that's the old stuff...oh there's a new effect". I personally don't think it'll be that much fun to watch when I am continually reminded of the "upgrades".

captain swoop
2006-Sep-01, 04:57 PM
Yup thats how I feel. If you are only interested in watching something because of the quality of the effects then you are watching it for the wrong reasons. I watch things for stuff like plot and characterisation. Or am i just being old fashioned.

Maybe thats why I don't like many modern 'action' or sci fi movies!

Nicholas_Bostaph
2006-Sep-01, 05:33 PM
Yup thats how I feel. If you are only interested in watching something because of the quality of the effects then you are watching it for the wrong reasons. I watch things for stuff like plot and characterisation. Or am i just being old fashioned.

Maybe thats why I don't like many modern 'action' or sci fi movies!

But why can plot, characterization, and effects not all work together? While a movie could be excellently written and performed, just as Cookie said above a "that's so cheesy" moment can ruin your immersion in the fictional world. If a new movie was to be premiered and you had an option of watching it with world class effects from the best in the industry, or watching the exact same version with the $50 special from Willie's Model Emporium, do you not think the former would enhance the experience? While some may not feel that cgi effects are more realistic, others do. Being an opinion there is no ground to say one view is more valid than another, making the best option (if available) to offer both. That's exactly what appears to be happening.






The idea of "enhanced" versions makes me un-happy and I am aware that not everyone will understand the "why's" of that...so I'll try to explain by example...

Recently here, we have been discussing the 50's movie Forbidden Planet. Now while the FX for that movie were excellent for that time, we can "do it better" now if we chose to do so...

So why not "enhance" the FX for Forbidden Planet???

That's the way I feel about "enhancing" the original ST.
Once it is enhanced, it will no longer be Star Trek...

I can imagine watching enhanced Trek now..."Oh, there's a new effect", Ok, that's the old stuff...oh there's a new effect". I personally don't think it'll be that much fun to watch when I am continually reminded of the "upgrades".

I've never heard of Forbidden Planet, sorry. I'm only 25. ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying you don't care that you can watch it in whatever way that you enjoy it most; everybody else must watch it that way as well. Is that correct? Would that not be similar to me saying "I don't care that I can buy a Corvette; all these other cars are a nuisance. The Corvette must be the only car for sale."

In a way I can understand where you're coming from (I think), taking this situation as an attack on the artistic integrity of the original, although I don't really see ST as a piece of artwork. However, the point of any good art is to evoke emotion, communicate ideas and feelings, and allow others to enjoy something the artist has created. My view is that if a piece of artwork can do any of those better by certain changes, those changes should be allowed. If the original piece of work needed to be destroyed to do so then I would be fully against it, but it doesn't. The originals will be available right along with the enhanced versions.

As I have said before. If someone wants to take one of my midi compositions and have an orchestra play it, I would be nothing other than elated.

Gillianren
2006-Sep-01, 07:58 PM
But why can plot, characterization, and effects not all work together? While a movie could be excellently written and performed, just as Cookie said above a "that's so cheesy" moment can ruin your immersion in the fictional world. If a new movie was to be premiered and you had an option of watching it with world class effects from the best in the industry, or watching the exact same version with the $50 special from Willie's Model Emporium, do you not think the former would enhance the experience? While some may not feel that cgi effects are more realistic, others do. Being an opinion there is no ground to say one view is more valid than another, making the best option (if available) to offer both. That's exactly what appears to be happening.

That's a false analogy. The issue is that the show was made with the cheesy 60s-style special effects. It's part and parcel of the show. Changing it (I love you, George Lucas, but it's true) is changing, at least in part, what the feel of the whole thing is, and if it's out-of-place (as "enhanced" special effects pretty much inevitably will be), it's not going to change the feel for the better.


I've never heard of Forbidden Planet, sorry. I'm only 25. ;)

No excuse. My 25-year-old best friend just asked from the other room (I was using her as another data point) who hasn't heard of Forbidden Planet.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying you don't care that you can watch it in whatever way that you enjoy it most; everybody else must watch it that way as well. Is that correct? Would that not be similar to me saying "I don't care that I can buy a Corvette; all these other cars are a nuisance. The Corvette must be the only car for sale."

You're wrong. What we are saying is that these things are crystallizations in time. Basically, it's closer to saying, "It's wrong to redo a (okay, I don't know cars, so I can't come up with one that would be the right analogy) so that it has a modern chassis." You can drive whatever you want, but if you're driving a classic car, you can't change the chassis so it resembles a modern car, especially given that the inner workings will still be the same.


In a way I can understand where you're coming from (I think), taking this situation as an attack on the artistic integrity of the original, although I don't really see ST as a piece of artwork. However, the point of any good art is to evoke emotion, communicate ideas and feelings, and allow others to enjoy something the artist has created. My view is that if a piece of artwork can do any of those better by certain changes, those changes should be allowed. If the original piece of work needed to be destroyed to do so then I would be fully against it, but it doesn't. The originals will be available right along with the enhanced versions.

As I have said before. If someone wants to take one of my midi compositions and have an orchestra play it, I would be nothing other than elated.

But that's still, as I pointed out before, a false analogy. You may not see Star Trek as artwork, but in the purest sense, it is, since--like all TV--it is essentially created for no other purpose (leaving out advertising, which is not its purpose but its inevitable companion) than entertainment. Oh, it may be bad art; that's a matter of interpretation.

The issue, here, is that TV is, despite its appearance, a static artform, which music is not. The point of music is to be performed, whereas the point of television is to be replayed. A closer analogy to your music would be if someone decided that a four-bar section somewhere in the middle was cheesy and replaced it with four bars that they liked better. Are you saying you wouldn't be opposed to that?

Van Rijn
2006-Sep-01, 08:33 PM
The idea of "enhanced" versions makes me un-happy and I am aware that not everyone will understand the "why's" of that...so I'll try to explain by example...

Recently here, we have been discussing the 50's movie Forbidden Planet. Now while the FX for that movie were excellent for that time, we can "do it better" now if we chose to do so...

So why not "enhance" the FX for Forbidden Planet???

That's the way I feel about "enhancing" the original ST.
Once it is enhanced, it will no longer be Star Trek...


It's not just a question of enhancing the effects, but effects that left a lot to be desired even at the time: Alien spacecraft that were never more than blips of light, close passes to the sun that was nothing more than the Enterprise wobbling in a black background, size issues (compare the size of a shuttlecraft, the Enterprise and the Doomsday Machine for instance - the Enterprise and especially the shuttlecraft are too large), and so on. I've been aware of these things for as long as I've watched the show, long, long before CGI or even Star Wars. Primarily, this was due to budget constraints, not just a question of available FX technology.

Anyway, I would never support the addition of new FX unless the old FX was also available. If on DVD, both versions should be on the same disk. But I would like to see episodes with upgraded FX.

ToSeek
2006-Sep-01, 08:41 PM
I'm fine with spruced up versions so long as (unlike with Star Wars) the originals remain available. But, yes, if I'm going to buy a set, I'll buy the originals - because they are the originals.

SeanF
2006-Sep-01, 08:45 PM
I'm fine with spruced up versions so long as (unlike with Star Wars) the originals remain available.
The original Star Wars movies are being released on DVD this month. :)

R.A.F.
2006-Sep-01, 09:00 PM
The issue is that the show was made with the cheesy 60s-style special effects. It's part and parcel of the show. Changing it...snip...is changing, at least in part, what the feel of the whole thing is, and if it's out-of-place (as "enhanced" special effects pretty much inevitably will be), it's not going to change the feel for the better.

Exactly my point...

The entire purpose of this "enhancement" is to "supposedly" celebrate the 40 years that have passed since it's first airing. I can understand the "temptation" to use (for example) CGI to modernize it, but IMO, It's senseless to drastically change something in the name of celebrating it...

Van Rijn
2006-Sep-01, 09:09 PM
Exactly my point...

The entire purpose of this "enhancement" is to "supposedly" celebrate the 40 years that have passed since it's first airing. I can understand the "temptation" to use (for example) CGI to modernize it, but IMO, It's senseless to drastically change something in the name of celebrating it...

Except, as I noted, it isn't just about modernization. You could do a lot better with FX technology available at the time. And for me, it isn't a question of changing or replacement, but another option for those who want it. It would give me a new reason to watch the series again (I know it very, very well).

GDwarf
2006-Sep-02, 12:12 AM
I think I'm seeing a bit of culture gap here. The younger people, those who didn't watch ToS growing up, seem to be either indifferent or like the changes, those that did see the originals are indifferent or dislike them.

I, being one of the ones who have only seen ToS on VHS from the local movie rental place, am mostly indifferent, the CGI is pretty low quality, so in this case I think it makes it look a bit more cheesy (Bad CGI looks much, much worse then a bad model.)

However, in general I see nothing wrong with it. Just like I own the re-done Star Wars, the added scenes annoy me, but I remember seeing the Jawa sand crawler and thinking "Woah, now that's what it should've always looked like!". Yet people have rioted in the streets over it.

I guess the people who grew up with it are seeing it as an...attack, I suppose, a claim that it just wasn't good enough the first time. While those who didn't see it as an improvement, no different then putting a new coat of paint on a cupboard.

R.A.F.
2006-Sep-02, 12:47 AM
I guess the people who grew up with it are seeing it as an...attack, I suppose, a claim that it just wasn't good enough the first time.

Along that line of reasoning, just imagine being one of the original FX creators, and you've just been informed that this new version will be "better" because all the hard work you had done was being eliminated...

Van Rijn
2006-Sep-02, 12:58 AM
I think I'm seeing a bit of culture gap here. The younger people, those who didn't watch ToS growing up, seem to be either indifferent or like the changes, those that did see the originals are indifferent or dislike them.


I watched them when they originally aired, and I would like a version with CGI for space scenes (and space scenes on the main bridge viewer). I don't want additional or modified FX around the characters themselves.



I guess the people who grew up with it are seeing it as an...attack, I suppose, a claim that it just wasn't good enough the first time. While those who didn't see it as an improvement, no different then putting a new coat of paint on a cupboard.

I would only see it as an attack if the originals were made unavailable. That would be completely unacceptable. I am very familiar with Star Trek, and I was familiar with the faults in the FX many years ago. I wouldn't want to see an enhanced "2001" because they did a great job, and nothing would be gained. But ST just didn't have the budget, so you see a lot of reused scenes, as well as blips on the screen and many other examples of poor or limited FX.

The "Doomsday Machine" episode is one of my favorites. But it does suffer with the wobbly Constellation model, the paper mache planet killer, and the bad relative scaling seen in any shots with the ships and the planet killer together. This episode could be really enhanced with good FX, whether model based or CGI. Of course, I could easily see someone doing a bad job, and I wouldn't want to see anything that even hinted at revising the story.

Van Rijn
2006-Sep-02, 12:59 AM
Along that line of reasoning, just imagine being one of the original FX creators, and you've just been informed that this new version will be "better" because all the hard work you had done was being eliminated...

I'm sure they were aware of the budget limitations they faced. I do not say they did badly with what they had available. I do say far better FX was possible even then given a larger budget.

Cookie
2006-Sep-02, 03:36 AM
I would only see it as an attack if the originals were made unavailable. That would be completely unacceptable. I agree. My bro and I think of the upcoming Enhanced Version kind of like an extended 'Bonus Feature'.

The "Doomsday Machine" episode is one of my favorites. But it does suffer with the wobbly Constellation model, the paper mache planet killer, and the bad relative scaling seen in any shots with the ships and the planet killer together. This episode could be really enhanced with good FX, whether model based or CGI.I looked up that episode title, and it is one of the episodes that I've seen before in it's original form. I, too found myself distracted by the effects in that episode, and I think the Enhanced Version will be more enjoyable (that is, if they don't mess it up).
Of course, I could easily see someone doing a bad job, and I wouldn't want to see anything that even hinted at revising the story.Yeah, if they do a bad job or revise the story, my brother and I feel that it'd be pointless to watch the Enhanced Version.

For example, the bludgeoning a klingon with Silver PVC (Oh man, I've got to see this), or the hand-to hand combat, or the Cast's Clichés (like Kirk always ripping his shirt), that kind of stuff should not be altered, as it's at the heart of the style of the series.

As for who was the better Captian between (Kirk or Picard) I'd choose Kirk.
No contest.

Oh, one more thing...
After re-reading my post, it sort of implies that Van Rijn is my Brother, when, in fact, he is not.
:lol:

Gillianren
2006-Sep-02, 06:54 PM
I'm 29. I don't want them to alter it. How does that throw off your demographic?

When I was a child, one of our local channels showed 'em at 11 at night on Saturday, or maybe it was Friday. Either way, I could only watch it if I were spending the night away from home, because my mother wouldn't let me stay up that late. I have very fond memories (my sister had a huge crush on Spock, for one), though even then, I didn't much like Captain Kirk and have always preferred Picard--who appeared when I was in junior high, I think, and still considered too young to stay up for the pilot, which was on a school night. (My sister could!)

But it's not "no different than a new coat of paint on a cupboard." It's much closer to a new coat of paint on an Andy Warhol. Sure, the new coat of paint still isn't going to be great art, but it will make changes to the original that probably won't be for the better.

Jason Thompson
2006-Sep-02, 09:10 PM
So choosing to make the enhanced versions creates a situation in which we can both be happy, while not making them creates a situation where only one of us can be happy.

I can't believe you're actually saying that an unenhanced Star Trek TOS is enough to make you unhappy. You can't be that superficial, surely?

While a movie could be excellently written and performed, just as Cookie said above a "that's so cheesy" moment can ruin your immersion in the fictional world.

But seriously, in absolute terms, how much will improving the visuals help that? The Way To Eden will still be full of crap hippies singing stupid songs, the Tellarite ambassador will still be a man in a pig mask, Kirk will still beat Khan up with a flimsy piece of plastic, and the plant in the botany lab in The Man Trap will still be a very obvious frilly glove being operated by someone hiding under the table. I just can't see the point of filling a show made in the 60s with visuals made 40 years later when the rest of the material will still be a very obvious product of its time and budget.

If on DVD, both versions should be on the same disk. But I would like to see episodes with upgraded FX.

That is unlikely, I suspect, the whole TOS already having been released on DVD.

I think I'm seeing a bit of culture gap here. The younger people, those who didn't watch ToS growing up, seem to be either indifferent or like the changes, those that did see the originals are indifferent or dislike them.

Bzzzt. Wrong. I am 26. I am too young even to have seen the original Star Wars trilogy in the cinema.

My disagreement comes from a simple appreciation of the limits and the products. The original Star Trek is and will always be a product of American 1960s TV. Doctor Who was made over the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s and each era has its distinctive looks because of the way it was made in those times. I don't want to see any of these things upgraded, for various reasons. For one thing I think it shows a worrying lack of originality and a degree of arrogance. 'Yes, Star Trek was great, but I think I could do it better now, so maybe I'll have a go. What? No, why should I bother thinking up something new and original when there's all this stuff sitting in the vault waiting to be improved?'

I do not say they did badly with what they had available. I do say far better FX was possible even then given a larger budget.

But that's the whole point: they didn't have the larger budget. They did what they could with what they could get, and now someone has the cheek to say 'well, you did OK guys, but let's face it it looks a bit crap now, so we'll just go over all that stuff and make it right for you, OK?'

For example, the bludgeoning a klingon with Silver PVC (Oh man, I've got to see this), or the hand-to hand combat, or the Cast's Clichés (like Kirk always ripping his shirt), that kind of stuff should not be altered, as it's at the heart of the style of the series.

But why is the visual effects work not included in that? What is it about the visuals that makes them an OK thing to excise and replace? As far as I can see nothing, except that they can be excised and replaced. So, how long before editing technology means we can paper over little tings like slight line fluffs that stayed in because there was no time to retake at the time, or poorly delivered lines being digitally altered? As far as I can see the only thing keeping these intact is that the technology to fix them on a large scale is not up to the task yet. When it is, will we see every little thing being adapted to make the new team's ideal episode?

In case anyone thinks I am being paranoid, I would direct you to the Doctor Who: The Beginning DVD box set. Included on this is a version of the very first pilot episode (like Star Trek, Doctor Who was given a second chance after its original pilot was rejected by those at the top, but unlike Trek they simply altered the original pilot episode slightly and re-recorded the same story). In one scene Barbara walks into a room and gets her stiletto heel snagged while making her entrance, and later on another actress fluffs her line, saying a pop group has gone 'from two to nineteen, er, nineteen to two' in the charts. In this final version that they have generously restored for DVD the heel snagging is excised completely and the line fluff is papered over by editing the audio and the video, then using digital techniques to make the actress's mouth match the words. That was a one off. How long before that sort of thing becomes commonplace?

Now, as long as the originals remain available I suppose that's fine (this was my biggest problem with the Star Wars upgrades until I heard they were coming to DVD this month). I just genuinely fail to comprehend why some people seem incapable of accepting the limitations of things made forty years ago and clamour for improvements, or start to change them while claiming to love the originals. Yes, the visuals were limted, but that was always the case from the very moment the episodes were made. Why not just live with that and focus your creative energies into making new better things rather than trying to rewrite history?

captain swoop
2006-Sep-03, 12:36 AM
The point is the Effects are unimportant to the story, its the Srory and the characters that are important. Ar ewe so superficial now that the effects are what has taken over?. Its like Colourising Laurel and Hardy!! whats the point? It's just a marketing dodge!!!

Doodler
2006-Sep-05, 07:07 PM
So why not "enhance" the FX for Forbidden Planet???


Indeed, why not? :)

The revamped Krell machine looked great in Babylon 5. :p

And CGI on the id monster? *drool*

captain swoop
2006-Sep-05, 10:33 PM
Why CGI on the ID monster tho? why would it be an improvement?

Doodler
2006-Sep-06, 04:37 AM
Why CGI on the ID monster tho? why would it be an improvement?

Honestly, that's one I sincerely doubt modern computing could improve on. WAY ahead of its time, and very well executed. (Mostly added for ribbing purposes) :)

Maksutov
2006-Sep-06, 07:00 AM
The purpose of remastering is to replace shots will something better, not just something made with more modern techniques.

I disagree. The purpose of remastering is to clean up the artefacts that come from years or decades of storage leading to deterioration of the original media. Film fades, gets scratched, even has fungal growth. Video suffers scratches and dropouts, tape stretch, etc. Remastering is solely to fix those and bring the original material at least up to and sometimes beyond the technical quality of the original broadcast. Replacing effects shots and re-editing is not remastering, that is something completely different. And frankly I have never found it any more than superficial and shallow.

I really do not understand the idea that seems to be prevalent these days that we must constantly update old stuff. Really, if you can't accept something was made in a certain way in a certain time, then why watch it at all? Doctor Who may have had ropey effects and sets, but they (usually) did their best with what they had to work with. And it's just that kind of improvising to find ways to make something appear to be real on a shoestring budget with limited resources that drove the FX industry to achieving high standards. Now we have CGI and it is so easy to make Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christiansen fight with lightsabers while floating down a river of lava, or create whole armies in battle scenes, or create fleets of starships, that someone now thinks we have to go back and 'improve' the stuff that was made with more limited and more pioneering techniques. Well I say that's crap.

It is precisely this that has made me hold out buying all the Star Wars special editions: When I go out to buy a film made in 1983, I actually want the film I saw in 1983, not the one that was tinkered with decades later just because the guy who made the film could and wanted to retroactively make it fit in with stuff he made later. I am very glad that the original trilogy is coming out in September at last.

The same holds for Star Trek and Doctor Who. Seriously, does tarting up the CGI make The Doomsday Machine a better episode?

[Edited to fix typos]Here, here! Bravo! Bravo!

Excellent post!

And the really pathetic thing is that these "cutting-edge improvements" will look (like what ever passes for) obsolete 20 years from now.

:rolleyes:

captain swoop
2006-Sep-06, 10:47 AM
Its like most films now have to have all the effects in them because they can, not because they need them.

Watching an old James Bond movie you know that if someone jumps out of an aircraft and fights another guy for a Parachute then real stuntmen did it by jumping out of a rail aircraft or if a car does a barrel role as it jumps a river then a real car witha real driver did it. Watch one now and we know its all doe with computers and blue screens. Theres no excitement any more

Doodler
2006-Sep-06, 01:32 PM
Some of the old stories centered around the ships in space could dramatically improve on the originals by cleaning up the visual exposition. Some of the old episodes were very primitive when it came to anything that had to do with ships in space. The planet killer being one, but the first intended enhanced episode, Balance of Terror, could REALLY stand to have its space shots redone. The tech at the time wasn't there to do it justice. Now, to be fair, the storytelling in the episode covered nicely, but to have it become a truly complete work, visually and orally, that would be an improvement.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Sep-06, 01:37 PM
Some of the old stories centered around the ships in space could dramatically improve on the originals by cleaning up the visual exposition. Some of the old episodes were very primitive when it came to anything that had to do with ships in space. The planet killer being one, but the first intended enhanced episode, Balance of Terror, could REALLY stand to have its space shots redone. The tech at the time wasn't there to do it justice. Now, to be fair, the storytelling in the episode covered nicely, but to have it become a truly complete work, visually and orally, that would be an improvement.
But ...

NO Sound in Space!

Unliike Some Creators, Who Can't Opperate Without it ...

Roddenberry Could, and Did!

Doodler
2006-Sep-06, 01:39 PM
But ...

NO Sound in Space!

Unliike Some Creators, Who Can't Opperate Without it ...

Roddenberry Could, and Did!

I seem to recall being able to hear the shots in some episodes. Now, if they change it so there isn't, so much the better.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Sep-06, 01:46 PM
I seem to recall being able to hear the shots in some episodes. Now, if they change it so there isn't, so much the better.
Stating in The 2nd Season, The CBS Execs Made him ...

Claimed it Was Confusing The Viewers ...

Balance of Terror Was 1st Season Though, So Muuch Scarier Because of it Too!

:evil:

R.A.F.
2006-Sep-06, 02:02 PM
...The CBS Execs Made him ...

That is interesting, since Star Trek aired on NBC.

captain swoop
2006-Sep-06, 03:50 PM
I think u hit it there with the story telling. it didn't 'cover up' the effects, the story was the point of the prog!

Doodler
2006-Sep-06, 04:03 PM
I think u hit it there with the story telling. it didn't 'cover up' the effects, the story was the point of the prog!

True, but there's nothing wrong with a story having appropriate visuals. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is NOT a movie that could have been done justice with 1960's technology, and Balance of Terror is a ship vs ship story in the same vein that I believe could stand toe to toe with its big screen cousin with appropriately placed updates.

captain swoop
2006-Sep-06, 10:51 PM
But the Ship V Ship bit wasnt important it was about Kirk, it could have been 2 sailing ships or 2 whatevers, it was the people in them!

People now go to the cinema or watch TV for the effects first, well thats what the prog makers seem to think or so it seems.

Doodler
2006-Sep-06, 11:02 PM
Is there really something wrong with wanting it all? Great story, great visuals, the works?

Gillianren
2006-Sep-06, 11:03 PM
No, but I don't hear people demanding that they go back and put plot in movies that don't have any. If you can't stand the lack of plot, you don't watch it.

Humots
2006-Sep-06, 11:48 PM
But the Ship V Ship bit wasnt important it was about Kirk, it could have been 2 sailing ships or 2 whatevers, it was the people in them!

Yes, it was.

BOT pretty closely followed the plot of the movie "The Enemy Below" about a single destroyer going after a U-boat. It was a very good movie. Also a pretty good book.

The primary focus of the movie and book was the battle of wits between the two captains. Sound familiar?

But I agree about better effects improving BOT. The original effects were always poor, even for the time. This was entirely due to insufficient funding, not to any failures on the part of Gene and his gang.

I saw the show from the beginning, and I remember when the Klingons had to pilot funny lights instead of star ships. Then the Klingon battle cruiser was introduced, and it was sinisterly cool.

If the Klingon ships were never more than funny lights, and they were replaced with battle cruisers, wouldn't that be an improvement?

Doodler
2006-Sep-07, 02:30 AM
No, but I don't hear people demanding that they go back and put plot in movies that don't have any. If you can't stand the lack of plot, you don't watch it.

Au contraire. They do have extended special editions which add acting material back into movies on quite a regular basis.

Gillianren
2006-Sep-07, 05:30 AM
Au contraire. They do have extended special editions which add acting material back into movies on quite a regular basis.

But they aren't replacing the plotless moments, and the extended special editions include things filmed at the same time as the rest of it, not plot developed later and added in.

Jim
2006-Sep-07, 01:13 PM
No, but I don't hear people demanding that they go back and put plot in movies that don't have any. If you can't stand the lack of plot, you don't watch it.

One of the (IMO) best movies ever is the original Twelve Angry Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/) (Henry Fonda, Lee Cobb, EG Marshall...). It used writing, direction, and acting to tell its story; the only SFX would be the rain outside the window. It is as strong today as when it was made because it is story-driven, and well-made.

The same holds true for Forbidden Planet; and I'll offer another classic, The Day the Earth Stood Still. Both movies used SFX, sure, but the effects were part of the story. It's the story and the way it's told that drives both movies, and why they both hold up so well after 50 years.

Doodler
2006-Sep-07, 01:49 PM
But they aren't replacing the plotless moments, and the extended special editions include things filmed at the same time as the rest of it, not plot developed later and added in.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Additional scenes were filmed years after the original to expand several points in the story not emphasised fully in the original.

Star Wars Special Edition

No scenes dropped, several scenes added which were filmed later, and only one was altered substantially (Vader's contact with the Emperor on the Executor), only one was trimmed (the closing celebration on Endor). All others were either replaced one for one (the Battle of Yavin), or were modified to better establish continuity (the change of Darth Vader's eyes from brown to blue and the removal of his eyebrows in Return of the Jedi). I'm still in absolute denial over the encounter with Greedo.

Nicholas_Bostaph
2006-Sep-07, 05:39 PM
I can't believe you're actually saying that an unenhanced Star Trek TOS is enough to make you unhappy. You can't be that superficial, surely?

An ad-hominem does not invalidate the argument. And I did not say it made me unhappy, but that it did not make me as happy as the enhanced; there is a difference. In any case, I don't see how increasing the visual realism in what is essentially a visual medium is an issue that would appeal only to the superficial.

I also would like to point out that I feel my opinion as to which is better is irrelevant to this conversation. Whether I want the special effects or not only affects the decision in an ego-centric ethics system. The point is that someone somewhere will prefer the new effects. To be honest I haven't even viewed the examples out there to make my own decision yet, and would rather not do so until finished with this conversation to attempt to preserve my objectiveness.





No excuse. My 25-year-old best friend just asked from the other room (I was using her as another data point) who hasn't heard of Forbidden Planet.

First, I apologize for the typo. I'm actually 26. Though I understand (hope) this comment wasn't meant completely seriously, I must point out that there are a huge number of books and movies from many eras available. There is no reason to expect any given person to have watched any given one.

Honestly, I'm not as well versed on movies or books as most my age; I often simply don't have the time. I worked full time while going to school full time. Over the past four years I've spent well over 30 hours/week writing video games among other things. Between various hobbies I have (horticulture, programming, music composition, 3D art, writing fiction, etc) I could retire now and still keep myself overly busy every day for the next couple centuries. Many of the classics will just have to wait until I can finally get to them over the next few decades...





You're wrong. What we are saying is that these things are crystallizations in time. Basically, it's closer to saying, "It's wrong to redo a (okay, I don't know cars, so I can't come up with one that would be the right analogy) so that it has a modern chassis." You can drive whatever you want, but if you're driving a classic car, you can't change the chassis so it resembles a modern car, especially given that the inner workings will still be the same.

I'm not sure I completely understand, but if I'm correct then I disagree with you here too. I am aware of the disdain a large portion of the public has for aftermarket components on cars, especially classics. I think these people are doing a disservice to themselves and others by limiting the variety and personalization we could realize in our vehicles, and not appreciating the creativity and personal pride the modders apply to their upgrades. If I build something that looks like a Stingray (Corvette) on a cheap Fiero frame because I want to mod the body slightly I see no problem with that. So long as Stingrays are still available, and I don't claim that mine truly is a Stingray, how does allowing my mod do anything other than increase creative opportunities?





The issue, here, is that TV is, despite its appearance, a static artform, which music is not. The point of music is to be performed, whereas the point of television is to be replayed. A closer analogy to your music would be if someone decided that a four-bar section somewhere in the middle was cheesy and replaced it with four bars that they liked better. Are you saying you wouldn't be opposed to that?

Hmm...this is a good point, and I thought on it all morning. My first instinct was to answer that I would probably not be in favor of that, but I don't make decisions on instinct.

After some though I think that I would be okay with this provided my permission was given (or this is after my death), that my work was still available, and that the derivative work was clearly labeled as such. Although it may not be the most personally gratifying decision for me, I consider it the best way that my work could bring the greatest level of enjoyment to the greatest number of people, and when making any decision efficiency is my #1 criteria.

Of course, I'm not nearly so conceited to believe that anything I do could not be improved, be it scientific or artistic. And that's ignoring any changes that could be made that would not make it better, but would allow others to enjoy it in a new way.





But seriously, in absolute terms, how much will improving the visuals help that? The Way To Eden will still be full of crap hippies singing stupid songs, the Tellarite ambassador will still be a man in a pig mask, Kirk will still beat Khan up with a flimsy piece of plastic, and the plant in the botany lab in The Man Trap will still be a very obvious frilly glove being operated by someone hiding under the table. I just can't see the point of filling a show made in the 60s with visuals made 40 years later when the rest of the material will still be a very obvious product of its time and budget.

Personal opinions of how good the episodes were are also irrelevant. While I agree with some of your descriptions, the point is still that someone somewhere may have enjoyed those episodes and that a subgroup of those people would enjoy them more with new effects. Saying that there is no need to improve something simply because we can't improve everything doesn't seem reasonable to me. If I buy a beat-up Camaro should I decide not to repaint it just because I cannot also afford new chrome wheels? The repainting may still help to some degree whether I have shiny chrome wheels or not. Granted, painting only half the car if I couldn't afford to paint the whole thing would just look comical, but that's why these things need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Whether the new versions look better or worse is completely 100% subjective. So any argument stemming from it not being better is nothing more than tyranny of a popular opinion.





That is unlikely, I suspect, the whole TOS already having been released on DVD.

I don't think access to the originals will really be a concern. Anything that has been released on DVD, even if pulled and never released again, will always be available. There is a slight possibility that there will be no way to attain a legal copy, but so long as it is in digital format I can guarantee you that many many copies will be in existence around the world and accessible to almost anyone. I'm not sure the studio would care that much if you made a copy of your friend's DVD of a product that was completely discontinued. So accessibility should never be a concern, and even the case outlined above is highly unlikely. If I understand correctly the problem with Star Wars was that the original was never released on DVD.





'Yes, Star Trek was great, but I think I could do it better now, so maybe I'll have a go. What? No, why should I bother thinking up something new and original when there's all this stuff sitting in the vault waiting to be improved?'

Perhaps it comes more from reverence for the originals than you think. I started watching Star Trek before I could talk; it was a favorite of my father's. When the TNG came out I was in the middle school age range, and watched most as they were premiered. The one thing that always bothered me about the original ST was that the space effects were relatively non-existent. They would fire weapons and you'd see two balls of light, one close to the screen and one far away, come toward each other and slightly across the plane of the bridge screen as they grew, then disappear. I cannot see how that could even be symbolic for any kind of weapons fire.

Many viewers loved the show, even with all its cheesy cliche's and weak plots, but the effects were just too much. I could live with everything else. If your attention was focused on the characters it was easy to miss the cheap sets and consoles. As for the scripting, who's to say how humans will talk or act in 200 years? I'm perfectly willing to accept any kind of personally or communication on the assumption that society has simply changed that much. I may not like the characters' personalities, but I can accept them.

Many also wondered 'what's really out there?' Star Trek became a vehicle for our own musings and curiosity, showing us what our distant descendants might have the ability to see and do for real. As we matured and learned we realized that many of the things in the ST universe simply weren't possible, but that curiosity lingered. What did we learn about the First Federation? Where are they from? What is their society like? What kind of technology do they have? What adventures have their ships been on? What about the Tholians? Or any of the hundreds of other one-off races we meet in the various shows.

I personally would prefer to delve into a deep understanding of a single universe rather than splashing out two hour movies barely scratching the surface of a different universe every time. Perhaps that was one of the reasons the LotR is so popular. The entire fantasy world is fleshed out in detail, and you can learn and learn and learn and seemingly never reach the end. This is probably why I had such a problem with Firefly being cancelled. Sure Joss (sp?) may create something just as good next, but it's not the same! I don't want a superficial understanding of some character I'll never see again. I want depth and detail. Why is it a problem for that to be done in the ST universe so long as there are others out there making new movies to your liking?

Sure, the enhanced version won't show much of that, editting only the effects. But it's still the same idea. What does the First Federation ship really look like? I have spent twenty years being curious. I'd love to see someone's vision of it. "To create something new" is not a good reason to ignore something that could be made even more enjoyable. After all, I can only watch so many shows in my life. As such, I'd rather have 5 times as many as I can possibly watch that are really good, than 50 times as many as I can possibly watch that are mediocre.





Now, as long as the originals remain available I suppose that's fine (this was my biggest problem with the Star Wars upgrades until I heard they were coming to DVD this month). I just genuinely fail to comprehend why some people seem incapable of accepting the limitations of things made forty years ago and clamour for improvements, or start to change them while claiming to love the originals. Yes, the visuals were limted, but that was always the case from the very moment the episodes were made. Why not just live with that and focus your creative energies into making new better things rather than trying to rewrite history?

I hope my previous entry helped answer that a bit, but when it comes down to it there may simply not be any way to communicate the rationale. It's simply an opinion. The only point I am trying to make is that it's important to respect those opinions, even if we don't agree with them, if we expect the same respect in return when we want something done that others cannot fathom.





The point is the Effects are unimportant to the story, its the Srory and the characters that are important. Ar ewe so superficial now that the effects are what has taken over?. Its like Colourising Laurel and Hardy!! whats the point? It's just a marketing dodge!!!

TV is a visual medium. Effects can and will draw attention away from the characters and story if poorly done. If the enterprise fires phasers and I see the streak lance out and cut through a Klingon ship I may think "Cool!" and feel that much more immersed in the fantasy. If, on the other hand, I see a couple white blobs bounce around the screen I may first think "What in the world was that?" and then think "well, I guess they didn't have the budget to do that" or "they probably just did this or that to create the effects, it doesn't look real" or something similar. Meanwhile, my attention is distracted by these thoughts while the characters are going through their next scene. So due to the effects the effect of the characters and story have been lessened for me.





And the really pathetic thing is that these "cutting-edge improvements" will look (like what ever passes for) obsolete 20 years from now.

Since that would indicate that our technology has improved a great deal and we can now provide better realism, would that not be a good thing?





Watching an old James Bond movie you know that if someone jumps out of an aircraft and fights another guy for a Parachute then real stuntmen did it by jumping out of a rail aircraft or if a car does a barrel role as it jumps a river then a real car witha real driver did it. Watch one now and we know its all doe with computers and blue screens. Theres no excitement any more

I think this is the heart of the disagreement. If you're thinking about how a real stuntman is performing some action, then your attention is away from the characters and plot and you are no longer immersed in a fantasy world. To me, that would be the ultimate thing to avoid, and I sometimes find myself distracted when a scene is done poorly and you can tell they are using a stuntman for something.





Is there really something wrong with wanting it all? Great story, great visuals, the works?

Well said.





No, but I don't hear people demanding that they go back and put plot in movies that don't have any. If you can't stand the lack of plot, you don't watch it.

Was modification to the plot ever proposed for these Star Trek remakes? I was under the impression only the space effects were to be improved.

Doodler
2006-Sep-07, 05:48 PM
Was modification to the plot ever proposed for these Star Trek remakes? I was under the impression only the space effects were to be improved.

Some of the planetside scenes are being touched up as well, a la Empire Strikes Back's Cloud City scenes. Improved atmospheric effects, some background stills replaced by rendered environments modelled after them.

SAMU
2006-Sep-07, 08:19 PM
The premises of old writings such as Shakespere are used in new stories all the time. "West Side Story" is "Romeo And Juliet" "Forbiden Planet" is "The Tempest" even Star Trek used the premise of the WW2 submarine vs destroyer drama "The Enemy Below" for "Balance Of Terror" and "The Tempest" for "Requem For Methusela".

I look forward to seeing the premises of Star Trek updated with more eye candy. I think the battle scene at the beginning of "Arena" could be spectacular. "The Trouble With Tribbles" is ripe for showing more federation ships. "Bable" could show a bunch of really bizzare CG aliens wandering about the ship. "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" could show the destruction of Loki and Beal's advanced civilization better than the old black and white WW2 stock footage That was used in the original, and it would mean more because it would show that they had lost so much because of hate and that even an advanced civilization has to be wary that it can destroy itself because of hate.

Gillianren
2006-Sep-07, 08:42 PM
First, I apologize for the typo. I'm actually 26. Though I understand (hope) this comment wasn't meant completely seriously, I must point out that there are a huge number of books and movies from many eras available. There is no reason to expect any given person to have watched any given one.

The assumption was not that you'd watched it but that you'd heard of it. Yes. It was meant entirely seriously. I haven't watched it, either--it's only now I have access to a library card and the budget for a Netflix account that I'm getting around to watching a lot of things, but it's still not unreasonable to expect someone to have heard of it.

I had heard of it by the time I graduated from high school, and you don't want to know how busy I was in high school. Busy is not the issue.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Sep-08, 11:34 PM
That is interesting, since Star Trek aired on NBC.
:doh:

I KNEW it Was One or The Other, Simply Too Lazy to Look it Up ...

Scratch What I Said, Replace it With NBC Execs Made him and Call it a Day, ok?

:think:

Pip
2006-Sep-09, 11:37 PM
I know I posted months ago saying that I was against updating TOS, but in retrospect, it may actually be a good idea. I recently watched the Director's Edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and I think that the changes could be implemented without destroying the overall product. And if I'm proven wrong, I've still got my DVDs of the original versions.

Makgraf
2006-Sep-18, 08:21 PM
Are they going to digitally remaster Shatner's acting as well? :P


I haven't watched it, either
Don't! Of course, I'm apperently the only person on this board who hates it (other than one other who gave what I assumed to be a pity vote so it wouldn't just be a zillionty people vs. me on the poll results.)