I’m pretty sure that some of you guys have already heard about the rumors regarding TNG on Blu Ray and according to the people from thedigitalbits is a first disc coming around end of this year.
Nothing concrete is known right now and there is going on some speculation what CBS will do with TNG. Rumors spreading from ‘complete new F/X ala TOS-R’ to ‘simple upscaling’.
I personally think that CBS will use the available 35mm film from both live action and effect shots for the Blu-Ray release, even if this means that they have to re-edit the complete series again. Regarding this topic I found a very interesting article here.
I was curious what the result would be and I recalled a fact that I heard a few years ago: That there is a scene in ‘Generations’ where they used the original film negative from the TNG series. I believe that this scene was mentioned (picture only in SD)
I think this would be marvelous update in picture quality and I’m eager to look what this would mean for TNG.
This boost in picture quality would – without a doubt – help to solve some problems with starship regs we have. For example, we would be finally able to read the reg on the USS Biko.
But on the other hand, I’m afraid that this would also lead to a complete new set of problems, considering the re-use of the USS Hood shots throughout the series.
What do you think, do we need / do we want TNG on Blu-Ray?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Let me clarify a few misconceptions with your post.
1. From what I've heard, the "first disk coming around the end of this year" is simply a test disk with four episodes chosen for whatever attributes they might have for the HD process (i.e. VFX-heavy eps, etc.). And I have no idea if it's coming at the end of the year or not.
2. If TNG-HD happens at all, every VFX shot will most likely be replaced with updated effects. This includes model shots, space shots, phaser/transporter/etc. effects, even effects in normal scenes such as computer displays, beams fired from hand phasers/disruptors, etc. This will be a nightmare to remaster, which is why it hasn't been done yet.
3. That link from dvdtown is three years old. At the time, the OP seemed to think remastering TNG would be "easy." Obviously he was wrong.
4. The registry of the Biko is the same registry as the Cochrane from "The Drumhead," since it's the same shot reused, but with a planet in the background instead.
5. Because of time constraints, don't be surprised to see one or two new shots of a CGI Enterprise-D alongside a CGI Excelsior being reused in every shot just like it was originally done with the models.
[ August 15, 2011, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
6. I remember reading somewhere that TNG was shot on film but edited directly on video. So not only would they have to convert every effects scene, but they'd also have to re-edit the entire episode to put it in HD.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Him I feeling Paramount might be overreaching here. I remember reading on Trek Movie that remastering all of TNG would be difficult because of the format the show was filmed in. TOS was apparently easier to update. I have a feeling a total HD upgrade of all episodes won't happen anytime soon.
Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
If memory serves, some 35mm TNG footage was transfered digitally to be reused in composite shots for the Enterprise finale, and it only looked superficially better.
Further more, while some shows like Stargate that shot in 35m had the foresight to accommodate the 16:9 aspect ratio even though they were for 4:3 (initially) broadcast, there is no guarantee that a show filmed in 1987 would. I'd wager there's crew and equipment standing just outside of the regular frame.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Josh: Further more, while some shows like Stargate that shot in 35m had the foresight to accommodate the 16:9 aspect ratio even though they were for 4:3 (initially) broadcast, there is no guarantee that a show filmed in 1987 would.
Why does it have to be converted to 16:9? They didn't do that for TOS.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: 1. From what I've heard, the "first disk coming around the end of this year" is simply a test disk with four episodes chosen for whatever attributes they might have for the HD process (i.e. VFX-heavy eps, etc.). And I have no idea if it's coming at the end of the year or not.
You are right, the first disc is only for test purposed, mayby similar to this HD-DVD sample disc they produced three or four years ago. I'm pretty sure that this test disc will not be VFX-heavy out of budget reasons.
2. If TNG-HD happens at all, every VFX shot will most likely be replaced with updated effects. This includes model shots, space shots, phaser/transporter/etc. effects, even effects in normal scenes such as computer displays, beams fired from hand phasers/disruptors, etc. This will be a nightmare to remaster, which is why it hasn't been done yet.
My point is: They don't have to do all the space shots again, because they are already available in goog quality. Regarding the laser beams, etc. this has to be done again.
3. That link from dvdtown is three years old. At the time, the OP seemed to think remastering TNG would be "easy." Obviously he was wrong.
Time will see...
4. The registry of the Biko is the same registry as the Cochrane from "The Drumhead," since it's the same shot reused, but with a planet in the background instead.
Where is this name 'Cochrane' comming from? It was not mentioned on the any episode. But yes, it is the same shoot. Would be nice to see the reg finally clear and crisp.
5. Because of time constraints, don't be surprised to see one or two new shots of a CGI Enterprise-D alongside a CGI Excelsior being reused in every shot just like it was originally done with the models.
Until the official announcement of CBS we can only speculate if they use CGI or remaster the original film material.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
I wonder if the DVD will be on general sale, or only for in-house use. IIRC Trekmovie had a list of the four episodes and it looked like they were picked based on the range of effects and editing that might need to be reworked, rather than being a list of "fan favourites", for instance.
When it comes to CG recreations of what was originally physical model work, there are some very well made fan attempts*, so I'm sure whatever CBS made would be adequate, but it would be a pity to have such good model work replaced when it's not even that old. It's not like we're talking about rocket ships on wire. The only real improvement that CG animation will add besides having a clearer pictures is that the ships will actually be animated, rather sitting still as their opponents' torpedoes inexplicably miss them.
I'm pretty sure that this test disc will not be VFX-heavy out of budget reasons.
Why? The whole point of the test would be to determine if the HD upconversion and updated VFX effects are worth doing.
quote:My point is: They don't have to do all the space shots again, because they are already available in good quality. Regarding the laser beams, etc. this has to be done again.
But they're not "good quality." You and the OP of that three-year-old article seem to think that HD will make all those original space shots clear, crisp, and beautiful. It won't. As with any VFX scene in TNG, it will make them look like crap. Matte lines will be even more visible than ever, and all other VFX oddities that were fine for a SD broadcast on old 13-inch tube TV's will look horrendous on a 65-inch plasma HDTV. That's why the VFX shots were all redone in TOS-R.
quote:Where is this name 'Cochrane' comming from? It was not mentioned on the any episode.
The Cochrane was the name of that Oberth class ship in "The Drumhead," per the ST Encyclopedia. No, it wasn't mentioned onscreen, and no, I have no idea if the model was labeled as such, but it definitely has the same registry as what's listed in the Encyclopedia. Besides "A Fistful of Datas," the scene was also reused in "The Game."
quote:Until the official announcement of CBS we can only speculate if they use CGI or remaster the original film material.
Or if this even happens at all.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
double post
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
My starting point was that this scene from Generations
If you watch closely you can see that the lighted window arrangement is the same. I also have the picture from Generations in HD and it is clear and crisp (shame flare upload is not working...).
Therefore: If my assumption is right and they will remasterd TNG in that way then the quality would be great!
Regarding the USS Cochrane: If the ship from 'A fistful of Datas is the same as the one from 'The Drumhead' (and both have the same visible reg) and we know that the first one is the USS Biko than the letter on has to be the USS Biko as well and not the USS Cochrane. I guess the Encyclopedia is wrong in this particular detail.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okuda is presumably the one who made the labels, so if he says the name on it was Cochrane I believe him even if we can only see the registry from the angle shown. That name and number combination also appeared on the casualties list from "In The Pale Moonlight" and IIRC a few other DS9 episodes, so it's confirmed elsewhere in canon.
And obviously the reuse of stock footage is not meant to imply that it's the same ship every time. (I don't even think you can reliably infer that from new footage shot of a model without changing the labeling.) The model was labeled as the Cochrane for "The Drumhead" and that footage was later reused to represent other vessels such as the Biko.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: shame flare upload is not working..
But it is. Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
Between my 75 Posts and the required 250 lies a problem.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:Originally posted by o2:
I'm pretty sure that this test disc will not be VFX-heavy out of budget reasons.
Why? The whole point of the test would be to determine if the HD upconversion and updated VFX effects are worth doing.
Because this project is driven by marketing people and not by technicians. They will most probably choose episodes which cover all technical aspects as space shots, beaming effects, matte paintings, laser fire in both life action and space scenes and ‘Data sitting in front of the view screen’, but they will not choose very effect heavy episodes in order to keep the budget low. There is still a chance that the outcome is superb however not enough people are buying it. This 4-episode blu ray is a test balloon to see if people are willing to pay again for TNG. And unless they know the answer they will not spend too much money on it. My assumption is that they will focus on ‘good’ TNG episodes with great stories.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Maybe if they didn't make the seasons so bloody expensive they'd sell more. I mean, TNG on DVD has been out for how many years and they're still $60+ a season. WTF
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: 6. I remember reading somewhere that TNG was shot on film but edited directly on video. So not only would they have to convert every effects scene, but they'd also have to re-edit the entire episode to put it in HD.
Actually I think having all the footage on film is a good thing in his case. Any attempt to replace VFX and not have it look crap would require the best possible print to be scanned into a digital editing suit. Needless to say, film stock is is probably going to be much easier to blow up for HD than a second or third gen video transfer. Plus of course you'd need the raw footage to re-composite any new VFX regardless. Re-editing and re-scoring the entire episode is, I think a given in this case.
I think TOS-R got away with it because the limitations of 60's technology on a shoestring budget meant the shots they were replacing were pretty straight forward and took up relatively little screen time. TNG had a *LOT* more VFX elements per episode.
I'd be surprised if it goes ahead, but if any franchise can afford to have this much money thrown at it, it's Star Trek. Shows like Babylon 5 on the other hand don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the HD treatment. Building a whole new stable of HD quality assets and textures, re-rendering all that footage on it's own would be prohibitively expensive, never mind all the video and audio remastering legwork.
I wonder if it might be a better idea for them to work backwards. Start with Enterprise (assuming it's not already HD quality) then tackling Voyager and DS9. The digital assents are more likely to be around and a lot of the original model builders and animators are still in the business.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charles Capps: And if it isn't, http://imgur.com/
Thanks for the hint. Is there anything to consider before I post copyrighted material?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Also, the first three seasons of Enterprise are already in HD. You can get 'em on iTunes. (Dunno why season 4 is only SD.)
But I'm still highly skeptical of any of the other shows in HD. Upgrading TOS made sense because the effects were so old and so low-res, it was a major improvement. But you're going to get diminishing returns on TNG, and even less from DS9 and VOY. And each one of those shows went for 7 seasons. It took more than two years to remaster the 3 seasons of TOS. Unless they could massively speed up the process, you're talking a 7-year project to remaster TNG, DS9, and VOY. And for what?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
^BluRay sales? It's a simple equation; if the cost of doing it (all expenditures included) is less than the expected sales revenue then they'll do it. If anything stretching it out over a decade is a bonus.
The reason the recent shows will be easier is that there's a good chance the digital assets still exist. Not just the models and textures (at least some of which may still be serviceable) but the scene and animation files too. Once you have those you just need to re-render the same scenes at a higher resolution.
...Probably not nearly that simple, but a hell of a lot more straight forward and less labour intensive than starting from scratch. Plus the live action footage shouldn't need remastering. The early seasons of TNG on the other hand looks decidedly VHS in quality.
This was exactly what the plan with Babylon 5. It was anticipated from the get-go that widescreen HD TV wasn't too far off so the whole show was shot in widescreen, with the intention to be able to come back latter and re-render and re-composite all the CG elements once the technology was available.
The reasons it didn't work are threefold. Firstly because Netter (and possibly someone else who's name escapes me) didn't want to spend a couple extra grand on a special monitor that'd allow Foundation Imaging to frame their shots for anything other than 4:3. Secondly when Netter Digital took over from FI, they basically trashed the digital assets because they didn't know what they were doing (IIRC they were mostly the least experienced team members at FI that were poached to run Netter's new company.) And thirdly, WB who were entrusted with all the assets after the show ended (at their insistence) promptly lost them and let rats eat the live action footage (no joke!)
With a bit of luck Paramount and it's employees have taken a bit more care with their property and such a project would at least be possible. I have no idea if it'd be profitable; that's for the bean counters to decide.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Possibly we'll see some "greatest Hits" package for an anniversary with updated effects- as a test of viability...
But I sorta doubt it.
Man, I'd kill to see First Contact in 3D on an IMAX screen though!
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
That's a good point!
[irony on]
They have to release TNG on BluRay 2011/12 so they can sell us all seven seasons in 3D again afterwards.
[irony off]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
THey need to release TNG in HD with new effects to hype Abrams' dismantling of everything cerebral and non- Hollywood about Trek.
MORE EXPLOSIONS! MORE SEX! BIGGER STARSHIPS!
Fuck's sake.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
There is some new street talk about the release of TNG on blu-ray over at thedigitalbits.com:
They expect 'Encounter at Farpoint' to be one of the episodes that will be on the sample disc.
I love to see the Hood fly by the Enterprise!
[ September 03, 2011, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: o2 ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: that will be on the sample disc.
I love to see the Hood fly by the Enterprise!
Maybe they'll scale it correctly this time- which would be a great way to showcase how frickin huge the Galaxy class is.
And maybe we can get an actress to redo all of Marina Sirtis' godawful lines...(shudder)
And in later episodes, they could scale the Warbird correctly! And Spacedock! And everything!
But mostly, BOBW- we need clear shots of the destroyed ships as the Enterprise weaves it's way through the wreckage.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: THey need to release TNG in HD with new effects to hype Abrams' dismantling of everything cerebral and non- Hollywood about Trek.
MORE EXPLOSIONS! MORE SEX! BIGGER STARSHIPS!
Fuck's sake.
Throwing boring diplomacy out of the window, Picard refers to all his enemies as "cupcake".
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Here is a list of the supposed first four episodes:
Encounter at Faipint (Part 1 + 2) The inner Light Sins of the Father
No comments right now...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Good list. I don't blame them for choosing non-blowy-uppy episodes, HD embellishes more than phasers.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
To be honest. Season 1 has the poorest quality effects out of the entire series.
There's nothing really wrong with TIL and SOTF. Just HD it and that's it.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Only EaF is from season 1, the others are S5 (TIL) and S3 (SotF).
There are not much Starfleet ships in those episodes, just a few seconds of the Hood in EaF and the computer screen mentioning the USS Intrepid. Ok, and of course the USS Enterprise...
The release date for Germany was given with 11/15/12, maybe we get soon a first picutre of the remastered Enterprise - and the answer if they have redone the F/X or reused the existing 35mm film material.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
IF they were smart they'd crowd-source this. Think of the power of harvesting the geek-verse's obsession with updated VFX.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
There's about a dozen reasons why that'd never happen. Legal and union reasons aside, just trying meeting any kind of meaningful deadlines would be like herding cats and quality control would be and utter nightmare in and of itself. No studio in it's right mind would ever throw money away like that.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
The released cover art features the USS Enterprise - in my opinium not a CG one. But this does not prove anything...
Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
You've heard the rumors, and now StarTrek.com can officially confirm it: Star Trek: The Next Generation will be released in high-definition Blu-ray, starting in January with a sampler of several popular episodes, followed by a season-one set to be released later on in 2012, and subsequent seasons beaming down after that. Each of the 178 episodes spanning The Next Generation's seven seasons will be transferred to true high-definition 1080p for release in the Blu-ray format and, eventually, for runs on television and digital platforms in the U.S. and across the world. Star Trek: The Next Generation will, as fans know, be celebrating its 25th anniversary in 2012.
“Fans have been clamoring for a high-definition release of Star Trek: The Next Generation," Ken Ross, Executive Vice President and General Manager of CBS Entertainment, said in a statement. “Transferring the series to high-definition presented difficult technical challenges, but our team has come up with a process to create true 1080p HD masters with true HD visual effects. We can’t wait to show fans how pristine the series looks and sounds with our upcoming Blu-ray releases.”
CBS is, in fact, returning to the original film negatives, a mother lode of material encompassing 25,000-plus reels of footage, and editing the episodes together precisely as they were when they originally aired between 1987 and 1994. Visual effects will not be upconverted from videotape, but instead will be recompositioned. The freshly cut film will ultimately be transferred to high definition with 7.1 DTS Master Audio. And all of the work is being done in conjunction with respected, longtime Star Trek figures Denise and Michael Okuda, who are on board as consultants.
As for that sampler, it will be called Star Trek: The Next Generation -- The Next Level. CBS Home Entertainment has set a January 31, 2012, release date for the single disc, which will include the feature-length version of the series pilot, "Encounter at Farpoint," as well the fan-favorite episodes "Sins of the Father" and "The Inner Light," the former from season three and the latter from season five. The Next Level will sell for the suggested retail price of $21.99.
Keep an eye on StarTrek.com for additional news about upcoming Blu-ray releases of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
In the meantime, which Star Trek: The Next Generation episode are you looking forward to watch on Blu-ray?
But nothing specificly about making new effects- which is all I'd care about, honestly. if it's just changing out phaser shots in an exact frame by frame recreation, I'll pass...they could at lest spped up some of the shots so they are not so laughable that actors can casually step out of the way of incoming fire.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I for one am really relieved it sounds like they're going to recomposit the original FX from the original elements and not replace them with CGI. I simply cannot abide the insertion of modern CGI into older works. The revisionism of the "remastered" TOS project made me cringe...at least the original versions are also on the blu-rays of those.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You sir are MAD! Mad, I say to prefer the non-updated TOS to the new versions. Does the Baker Act cover sci fi preferences? If it does, we'll get you the help you need. Sit tight- Flare's crack legal team is on the case.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I was always bothered by that shot in "Best of Both Worlds", when Riker and Data (?) take a shuttle over to the Borg Cube and you see the Enterprise get passed by through the shuttle window, in very choppy slo-mo frames, while the rest of the image is normal framerate. I held out hope they'd update it and other mixed-composition shots like it, but I guess that won't happen now.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I for one am really relieved it sounds like they're going to recomposit the original FX from the original elements and not replace them with CGI. I simply cannot abide the insertion of modern CGI into older works.
Yeah, I'm so looking forward to seeing the reused TMP stock footage of the Klingon battlecruiser in "Heart of Glory," or the reused TSFS stock footage of Spacedock in "11001001," only now in high-def
I'm very disappointed with this. Yeah, it would cost them a lot more the update all the VFX with CGI, but if it's just going to be the same stuff that I've seen before, they just lost a customer. I'll just wait until someone else who has bought them posts screencaps of Wolf 359 and the Qualor II surplus depot (the only things I'm interested in seeing in high-def).
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
That makes two of us. How very half-assed.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Ugh. Since when did updated FX become a plus? Have y'all learned nothing from what Lucas has done to his films? You don't go back and alter iconic pop cultural artifacts like ST and SW decades after the fact, 'tis bad. The ONLY goal of remastering something in higher definition should be just that: to obtain a higher-resolution transfer and possibly to repair damage or defects that have occurred. The idea should be to preserve and archive the original material, not to update or recreate it. It is what it is, you're not going to improve it by second-guessing in hindsight. And CGI will ALWAYS age poorly compared to practical effects. ALL. WAYS. Keep it away.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Ugh. Since when did updated FX become a plus? Have y'all learned nothing from what Lucas has done to his films? You don't go back and alter iconic pop cultural artifacts like ST and SW decades after the fact, 'tis bad. The ONLY goal of remastering something in higher definition should be just that: to obtain a higher-resolution transfer and possibly to repair damage or defects that have occurred. The idea should be to preserve and archive the original material, not to update or recreate it. It is what it is, you're not going to improve it by second-guessing in hindsight. And CGI will ALWAYS age poorly compared to practical effects. ALL. WAYS. Keep it away.
I would say that TOS-R was a great success. There is more detail and the ships and effects just look better.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
And for everyone complaining -- here is a novel idea, just keep the non-remastered DVDs! They are better quality than the original airing and paramount isn't making out give them back. There yours forever. No one is 'ruining' anything.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Ugh. Since when did updated FX become a plus? Have y'all learned nothing from what Lucas has done to his films? You don't go back and alter iconic pop cultural artifacts like ST and SW decades after the fact, 'tis bad. The ONLY goal of remastering something in higher definition should be just that: to obtain a higher-resolution transfer and possibly to repair damage or defects that have occurred. The idea should be to preserve and archive the original material, not to update or recreate it. It is what it is, you're not going to improve it by second-guessing in hindsight. And CGI will ALWAYS age poorly compared to practical effects. ALL. WAYS. Keep it away.
I'm sorry dude, but comparing Lucas's self-deluded compulsiveness about constantly changing things in the SW movies, and the VFX changes done for TOS, is like comparing apples and oranges.
First of all, Lucas is, quite simply put, insane. He's an "artiste" (yes, I'm using that term facetiously) who will never be completely satisfied with his own creation and would rather change the fuck out of it than to leave it alone and work on new stuff, even though everyone else on earth was fine with the original product. But be that as it may, it's entirely Lucas the man making these changes. Not 20th Century Fox, not the producers of the films, not anyone else but him.
Now compare that to CBS's TOS-R for high-definition BluRay release. While you are correct that they needed to obtain a higher-resolution transfer and possibly to repair damage or defects that have occurred, the fact of the matter is that the '60's effects would just not hold up to an HD release. And quite frankly, almost all of the changes they made were a) for the better, b) kept to the spirit of the original, and c) would not be overly noticed by anyone who's not as anal-retentive as your typical Star Trek fan. But these changes weren't done because of the obsessive-compulsiveness of Gene Roddenberry (since he is, of course, dead, whether he was OCD or not). They were done to satisfy a production mandate.
And on the subject of CGI not aging well: Sorry again, but that's out of all of our hands (and I completely disagree with that anyway...if anything CGI is just going to get better, not worse). No effects houses are doing motion control any longer because CGI is easier, more efficient, and cheaper while still looking realistic and better than any model/matte painting/etc. ever could. Unless you're talking about stuff like "The Last Starfighter" (1984!) And all I have to say about that is, compare that movie to the new Planet of the Apes film, and you'll see what I mean.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wes: And for everyone complaining -- here is a novel idea, just keep the non-remastered DVDs! They are better quality than the original airing and paramount isn't making out give them back. There yours forever. No one is 'ruining' anything.
Actually...I was planning on doing that around Christmas, if I have time. I'm making my list and checking it twice- gonna find out who's got non-updated TOS Trek and take their shit.
No, it doesnt ryme. Call it a sign of the times.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I'm actually glad they're gonna recomposite rather than CGI it all, because if they CGI'ed it all they'd probably do it in-house like they did with TOS.
Sure, some of that worked out well, but some of it also sucked, looking much too cartoonish for what was supposed to be the promise of CGI glory. Like literally, some of the Clone Wars CGI show (that's actually intended to be a cartoony CGI show) looks better in some comparison shots.
I imagine most of us remember the far more awesome test reels from Daren Dochterman or whatever that company name is that starts with an I that was trying to get the gig.
So if they can recomposite rather than do cheap CGI, I'm all for it.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
I wonder what'll happen when they come to episodes that had CG aliens, such as the Crystaline Entity or the Galaxy's Child aliens (I think the latter were CG, but if not, there must be other examples). I suppose those will have to be recreated from scratch if they're to match the rest of the crisp film images. Come to think of it, Encounter at Farpoint has Q's wall of CG tictacs, though that shouldn't be too much hassle to recreate.
I'm glad they're using the original footage, though. It's a pity we won't see the Enterprise rendevous with the USS Previously Unseen Ship, or whatever, but it should still reveal some interesting details and look less jarring than cheap CG would. And the use of so much existing footage means that when they do need to create new effects they'll have the time to do them properly.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I'm pretty sure that they will recretaed the CGI scenes in order to match the quality of the rest of the series. There were only few occassions throughout the series where CGI was used (I remember the use of hologramms in two episodes of the first season).
But on the other hand I wonder what they will do with the matte paintings? I don't have any idea if they will live up when it comes to picture quality. To be honest, I didn't liked most of the matte paintings they used. Maybe this is a good opportunity to replace them, as they did for TOS. And speaking of matte paintings, are the planets (outer space) not also matte paintings?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Meh, I don't care. I completely lost interest once I found out that the space/model fx shots weren't going to change. I mean, the last thing I want to see in Star Trek: The Next Generation-HD is Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Indeed, I haven't been this uninterested in Star Trek merchandise since the pizza cutter shaped like the USS Enterprise.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Still don't understand why someone would want to watch a show from the 80s (let alone the 60s!!) with 2011 CGI all over the place. It just wouldn't match. You'd be constantly aware that it's switching back and forth between the production values of very different eras. I would find it very, very distracting.
Of course, it also seems sensible to ask: why does anyone need to see a show that was at all phases of its production intended to be exhibited at 480i in anything other than 480i? To me it's along the same lines as "why does anyone need to see It's A Wonderful Life in color?"
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Having watched several episodes of TOS-R on regular television broadcast, I didn't find the interposing of CGI and original footage to be that jarring. It may be different on Blu-ray... :shrug:
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
My fiancee and I are currently watching TOS-R on Netflix, on a beautiful 47" HDTV, and it isn't distracting to either one of us. As a matter of fact, she doesn't even know that TOS had been given updated effects for HD. She's never made any comment that something looks funny or different. And no, she's not an idiot.
And as for TNG, I'd much rather see new CGI instead of recycled stock footage of Spacedock, Regula One, K't'ingas, Birds-of-Prey, and the five million outdated Excelsiors.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I rather would like to see a complete new TV series with CGI instaed of an old one with updated special effects.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
All of this is really geared to prologing the franchise. Every Trek TV series before ENT / TOS-R is not up to any sort of HD standard. Paramount wants to be able to make money on DVDs as well as syndication, and to have HD material to do it.
Within our lifetimes, we'll have ONLY hi-def signals transmitted on our hi-def screens through digital means. That means that reruns of Golden Girls, Babylon 5, and Knight Rider will forever ONLY be viewable as fuzzy, blurred images. Paramount is ensuring that Trek will be watchable to new and old audiences for years to come, ensuring what they hope will be a small but worthwhile income stream while maintaining material that will in turn help new additions to the franchise. TNG is historically the best-rated of the Trek shows for its context, and it's the natural choice after TOS to preserve. I don't think Voyager or DS9 will get the same treatment for some time, and probably not untilt he cost for redoing everything comes down significantly.
Still, I'm sure whoever pitched TNG-R made a similar value proposition and the execs bit into it. It's money over enjoyment, though ten years from now I'd be very happy to enjoy Encounter At Farpoint in 1080p on a crappy old HDTV and NOT have to complain about the lousy effects and blurry picture.
Mark
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: I rather would like to see a complete new TV series with CGI instaed of an old one with updated special effects.
So would I, but that's not going to happen. So I was content to rewatch TNG-R with its updated VFX of new ships, but that's not going to happen either, so I lost interest.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
In some time there will be a new series, we have to be patient. In the meantime, I will enjoy TNG in the best possible picture quality.
One reason why I was no friend of B5 is the poor quality of the special effects. If they bring this series to HD I think it makes sense to update the special effects as well. But I'm afraid that the relativly small B5 fan base will not justify for such an endeavour.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
^It's not just the size of B5's fanbase that preventing them from upgrading to HD. It's the sheer volume of shots that'd have to be recreated. B5 seriously pushed the envelope in CG effects, not just the limits of what the technology could do at the time but the number of new shots each show could deliver...by several orders of magnitude. While B5 was churning out HUNDREDS of shots a season, TNG was lucky if it got half a dozen new effect shots a year and, I might add, done for twice the budget B5 had.
Then there's the matter of aspect ratio. While all the live action was shot in widescreen, some behind the scenes penny pinching on the part of a certain executive producer (not JMS) meant that the FI folks could only render the effects shots in 4:3. While they did have the foresight to compose shots so they could be cropped for widescreen, this rather drastically lowers the quality and of course any live action composite shot it looks even worse because you're looking a widescreen footage that has been cropped to 4:3, transferred to video then cropped down again for widescreen. To illustrate, this is what happens every time there's a visual effect (like any time a PPG is fired.)
It's basically like pushing the zoom button on you DVD player...only at VHS quality.
On top of that they'd basically be starting from scratch in terms of assets. WB went and lost not only the meshes, but all the damn scenes files too. That means that they can't just build new high-res meshes, load them into the old animation setups and hit 'render.' It'd be a square one remake.
All that plus some very odd internal business politics between the various division of WB are the real reason why we won't be seeing B5 on Bluray any time soon. A shame really because all the actual live action footage was shot on film and would have upscaled nicely.
As for Trek...I think as fans we were lucky to get two shows out of it, never mind *FIVE* of the sodding things. I'm not in any hurry to see another. I have my DS9 DVDs, so I'm happy.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes...DS9 soothes the ache of no Trek, or worse, that JJ Abrams dreck.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
If they decide to tranfer B5 to HD they can only re-use the live action shots. In my opiniom they have to redo all the effect shots, everything else would be out-of-date. I was not even satisfied with the CGI's back in the 90s when I first watched one or two episodes. To bad that they lost the control files...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
^Even some of the original live action footage is gone. As I recall WB were a bit sloppy with storing the film masters and...well, basically rats ate some of it.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
This is sad and funny at the same time!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That does indeed suck- but no amount of CGI updates would fix the terible acting and awful dialogue...or the shit way season three ended.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
There is a new trailer available with new footage - impressive!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
It is nice and does reveal some details on studio models used, but I'm not terribly excited. A syndication broadcast of this would be nice though...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm a little amazed how much detail was apparantly lost with that huge space jellyfish from Farpoint. Looks like ILM built it more to a movie spec than for TV.
I'm not so sure every miniature shot will fair as well if they end up doing the full series. Some of that stuff was (understandably) very quick and crude.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, the space jellyfish looks great-as does the opening credits...but nothing will remove the indellible stain or Marina Sertis' "acting".
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Pain! I sense unbelievable pain!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
She sensed it right through the viewscreen...millions of miles away. She can even do it from another solar system- all tranmitted through that most empathic of devices. The viewscreen.
Personally, I think she was just...insane. She was good at reading facial ticks and body language and her heaving breasts and creepy black eyes somehow distracted from the utter nonsensical aspects to her "empathic powers".
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I rather think she was sensing the audience's pain at watching her performance.
To be fair, the fault was in the writing and direction. Characterisations in season one were all over the map.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
a medical condition now properly diagnosed as Early Installment Weirdness Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Speaking of early install weirdness, has anyone ever noticed that the table in the observation lounge had holographic projectors. I think they only used once or twice in season 1, but never again afterwards.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Someone in VFX probably realised that making a backlit print for the wall display was cheaper...and easier for the actors to look at than empty air on top of the table.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think cost was the determining factor. On top of that it rather restricts what a director can do in a scene if they are forced to lock the camera off every time they use that thing.
One thing I never quite got in DS9 is why they barely ever used the holo-communicator, even after they spent a whole episode basically showcasing the thing in season five. You'd think having the other actor right there on set would have been easier, cheaper conducive to better performances and freer camera movement than using the old fashioned blue screen method.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I think it was difficult for the casual viewer to understand what this concept was. Viewscreen is etablished by now even by the non-Star Trek fans, but this new technoligy is hard to grasp...
For example, in some episodes of TNG it was sufficient for the food replicator to have that sound off-screen and everybody knew: The replicator is working know. But there was nothing comparable to the holo-projector for it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That seems a little unlikely. I think even the casual viewer can grasp the idea of a hologram.
I've never heard of anyone watching The Empire Strikes Back and suddenly shouting "Oh my god, the Emperor is a giant floating head that can appear and disappear at will?!".
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
The scene in Star Wars V was done in post production, which means additional cotsts.
The idea in Ds9 was to use no (or barely) no special effects in order to save money. The actor was 'just' standing on the brigde of the Defiant in front of the viewscreen. I can imagine that a casual viewer, who is not used to this concept is asking why this guy is acting so strange...
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Second try:
You got the concept on SW V because the quality of the hologramm was fairly poor.
The quality of the hologramm on DS9 was so good that you can't tell if this guy was realy standing on the bridge or if he was a hologramm instead.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Not really. You see the person fading in and out and that one other time they used it the Admiral bloke had a spot light right on him to get the point across.
Also remember that the "average viewer" by this point was mostly made up of sci-fi fans if not die hard trekies.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2:
I can imagine that a casual viewer, who is not used to this concept is asking why this guy is acting so strange...
Huh? It was made perfectly clear in the dialogue that the image, while looking like a normal person, was in fact a hologram. The "casual viewer," whether a sci-fi fan or not, would have to be a complete moron not to understand this. Unless you happen to think that people who are not Star Trek fans are complete morons.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I have no complains with the presentation of the hologramms in those two DS9 episodes. This was done very well. But the question was why they have not used it after that. My point was that - if they what to save costs - they have to avoid effects like fading in or out (otherwise they could stick to the established viewscreen). But then it is hard to understand for the casual viewer to grasp the concept. On the other hand, I can't believe that only die-hard Star Trek fans are looking DS9.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2:
But then it is hard to understand for the casual viewer to grasp the concept.
You keep saying this, and yet there's no truth to it at all.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Besides, is fading the person's image in and out at either end of the transmission really any more complicated/expensive an effect than inserting the greenscreen footage onto the viewer? After all, fading people in and out is an effect they should pretty much have down pat, after years of transporter effects.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Mate, even 50's B-movies could competently fad characters in and out. It's one of the oldest optical effects on the books.
Even so, if they really want to penny pinch all they need to is have the person/hologram materialise off screen and just have the sound effect. It's a trick they used for the transporters and replicators all the time.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I can imagine that a casual viewer, who is not used to this concept is asking why this guy is acting so strange...
Huh? It was made perfectly clear in the dialogue that the image, while looking like a normal person, was in fact a hologram. The "casual viewer," whether a sci-fi fan or not, would have to be a complete moron not to understand this. Unless you happen to think that people who are not Star Trek fans are complete morons.
Casual viewers would have to be constantly told that the guy was only there holographicly- they beat that horse into hamburger every episode of Voyager and STILL kept doing it till the end.
It would have just been a distraction on DS9.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Here we go again...
A few days ago the first 1080p pictures of the USS Enterprise appeared:
But they had Tobias Richter work on it, so while I'm curious why it was necessary, I'm glad it's at least being done well.
He's currently working on an Excelsior model, and also mentioned making an Oberth, so it'll be interesting to see if they show up at any point.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Johnny, that's CG? Pull the other one!
Seriously impressive, almost enough to justify getting a bluray player.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Wait, so they are redoing some ship scenes in CGI? So why the hell is Tobias Richter making Excelsiors and Oberths when he could be making new ships?
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
*shrug*
But they've also replaced a shot of the Enterprise at warp, which formerly used the 4-footer, and the shot of the energy transfer in Encounter at Farpoint.
I'm very curious what criteria dictate whether a shot needs to be replaced. The model shots that are from the original film look just fine, so it's curious that a few have been remade.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I guess TPTB didn't like the idea of the Enterprise firing energy out of its captain's yacht.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
But the beam's not coming from the captain's yacht; it's coming from in front of the yacht. And now it's coming from the phaser strip?! WTF?
And the Enterprise in that shot looks...wrong somehow (compared to the original model).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: But the beam's not coming from the captain's yacht; it's coming from in front of the yacht. And now it's coming from the phaser strip?! WTF?
That would be because Picard ordered Yar to send the creature "energy" via the phasers. (Not a weapons shot.) So the original VFX were wrong anyway.
If they'd done it later, they would've used the ever-configurable main deflector instead. But I guess they hadn't thought of that gimmick yet.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: But the beam's not coming from the captain's yacht; it's coming from in front of the yacht. And now it's coming from the phaser strip?! WTF?
And the Enterprise in that shot looks...wrong somehow (compared to the original model).
I think what is supposed to be sensor array around the yacht is really dark, almost as dark as the main phaser arrays.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
I think some of the weirdness in that comparison is down to it being a gif file, which are often full of horrible artifacts. If you look at the bussard collectors when it switches to the original frame you'll see that there's a lot of dithering around those. It's just a lot more pronounced in the blu-ray shot because there's so much more detail to get screwed up.
That sensor ring does look awfully dark, though. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
All the new effects are actually done in .GIF format- Paramount cheaped out a bit more than usual with this release- saves space on the disk for more ads and commercials you can fast forward through... Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I hope those CG shots aren't real. I mean, they could've at least made an effort to match the originals.
Especially given what a rare shot of the ship that is, I want it in its original form, not some blackened Cajun edition with overdone shadows and nonsensical lighting anyway.
Sure, in the energy beam shot the blue of the navigational deflector probably overrode everything else and they couldn't clean it up, but just frickin' leave it that way. It's not like you're gonna have gorgeous HD quality sets and whatnot all the time.
Looks like the Enterprise comming out of warp. In some other thread I have read that this was done with CGI as well. But I can be mistaken...
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
I take back what I suggested about GIF dithering being at fault. This is just a yucky looking shot.
The other CG shots have looked very good, though. So I'm still pro-CG replacements if they're necessary.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The bussards look square in that shot- Is there some rundown of the new stuff on a blog somewhere? Drexler's maybe?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yeah that sensor strip in the beam/energy transfer is far too dark. However some of these pics of the Enterprise do look like physical models! Have we finally arrived at the point where we can't tell the difference!?! Finally people realise that lighting is a big part of the realistic effect.
I too wish they would have some new ship designs. Ones done by Probert and Sternbach though.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
New ships would be great, but for a start I lilke to see a few more angels (e.g. with the Excelsior class).
Did anybody noticed that the forward windows on the saucer in that picture
looks like they did it with an overhead marker?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
The energy beam shot is reputedly a matte painting, which might explain why, for instance, the saucer deflector and other windows on the "-teen" decks of the saucer have no notch-outs, but are instead just slapped on.
It's the lighting on that one that kills me, though. Yeah, I realize some of the lighting is the beam, but where is the saucer shadow on the neck?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: New ships would be great, but for a start I lilke to see a few more angels (e.g. with the Excelsior class).
Did anybody noticed that the forward windows on the saucer in that picture
God...that looks like ass. Looks like beginer's Photoshop- the windows look the same as they curve around the saucer too... That definitelt NOT how the diecut windows on the model look.
I really think most of these pics we're looking at are pure bullshit to promote the release- not the actual product but just stuff some art department churned out to generate hype.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
From what I gather - that is the original shot - the 4' model of the Enterprise with the space probe. I guess whatever is 'wrong' with it was done back in the 90s and they've just cleaned up the footage?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Indeed, that is the original shot.
As I'm looking at this project more, I am loving and hating it. I love when the original is enhanced with the greater resolution and cleaner compositing, but it seems to me that so far every attempt on their part to replace an old shot or old effect is a failure, with the exception of the saucer sep insertion that seems to work fairly well.
And Trekcore calls this "more realistic". Than what? It's more realistic than a firecracker taped on to the model, but not more realistic than a highly complex and more viscerally destructive atomization of the Batris as existed before, with a blast of particles and superheated ejecta. The Batris blew much like the Enterprise-D stardrive in "Generations", but instead we get freighter-flambe in this supposedly-HD effort?
The destruction of a Star Trek ship should be extremely destructive, whereas it looks to me as if the Batris should come out of that fireball whole but with scorching.
My fear now is that the old Star Trek "spinblast" as I call it is going to disappear. That is, if you pay attention, oftentimes in TNG when a ship blows up they actually rotated the thing around, so that in the moment they're overlaying the explosion effect along with the ship, the ship seemed to suddenly go all pulsar and rotate at super-speed. DS9 also had this sometimes, too.
But now if they have to replace the explosion effect, I have a concern that they're gonna ditch that, too, and that'll annoy me greatly.
I hope this mess is just some sort of supplementary canon and not to be considered the real deal.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
Yeah, I was about the say the same thing. That's the actual 4 footer... which is why it looks like ass. If I had my way they would have replaced all footage of that model with CG.
Richter's CG model is a mix of details from the 6 and 4 footers. It wouldn't look anything like the model in that screenshot.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
And that pisses me off...I never liked the 4 foot model, but I understood what they began to use it due to difficulties with the 6 footer. But rather than use the 4 footer exclusively, they incorporated stock footage of the 6th footer. So now the E-D was this shapshifter that seemingly changed the shape of its deflector dish, grew a thicker saucer, and changed surface texture at random. So now there's the CGI model which is the illegitimate son of the two, so more shapeshifting crap. Whoopie!!!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I wish I could believe that I never exhibited this level of ridiculous nerdrage in my day, but, sadly, I know that's not true...
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well, a little bit of consistency is all that I ask for.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: And that pisses me off...I never liked the 4 foot model, but I understood what they began to use it due to difficulties with the 6 footer. But rather than use the 4 footer exclusively, they incorporated stock footage of the 6th footer. So now the E-D was this shapshifter that seemingly changed the shape of its deflector dish, grew a thicker saucer, and changed surface texture at random. So now there's the CGI model which is the illegitimate son of the two, so more shapeshifting crap. Whoopie!!!
No offense, but is it really that big of a deal? I don't think it's any different from TOS, when they would sometimes use stock footage of the pilot Enterprise.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Yeah, but in TOS Remastered this was changed. The CGI model retained the same look throughout all the episodes save for the two pilots, where the CGI model was changed to reflect the physical model's appearance early on (with the bigger bridge dome, deflector dish, etc.) I mean if we're going give TNG the redo treatment, why not go all the way.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Perhaps they have made the CGI model a halfway house because they decided to use it in all the episodes. Frankly I’d prefer they erased the 4-footer entirely and replaced every shot of it with a newly filmed version of each shot using a new model based on the original the 6-foot model, only using CGI where absolutely needed. But they were never going to do that, nor were they going to use the CGI model to replace the 4-foot model, especially as it was important to them (apparently) to try to use as much of the originally filmed model shots as they could.
As a Star Trek fan, and therefore a pedant any solution is going to get me frothing at the mouth, but it’s nice that they are doing it at all, and hopefully they will address the worst SFX crimes of TNG and keep the good parts (i.e. most of it). It would be nice to see a Norway or an Ambassador instead of a Miranda an Oberth/Grissom/Whatever. It would be nice to see the Hood at different angles.
But, I don’t get the impression they want feedback on these sorts of issues. This is a sampler of what they are doing – a sort of ‘well, I’ve not finished my project but here are a few bits done really quite well so you can get off my back and be reassured that it will be done at some stage’. Are these episodes on the new disk exactly as they will be on the full season releases? I think so, I mean, I doubt that they would go to all this effort just to get the fans to critique their efforts and ask what they’d like.
And this is why, in my rather jaded eyes, they will never be able to get it right for everyone. And that’s a real pity, but we all know that no matter how lovingly it’s done by people who care, it’s still just a product. It’s never going to be perfect: there will be a point at which some manager or producer or director or whatever has said ‘that’ll do’.
Which does of course mean that it will happen, because if all the fans were running the show, by committee, it would take about 100 years for a project like this to see the light of day.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Yeah, but in TOS Remastered this was changed. The CGI model retained the same look throughout all the episodes save for the two pilots, where the CGI model was changed to reflect the physical model's appearance early on (with the bigger bridge dome, deflector dish, etc.) I mean if we're going give TNG the redo treatment, why not go all the way.
Probably because it'd be WAY too expensive.
Consider that 1) TNG probably has (on average) several orders of magnitude more effects shots per episode than TOS and 2) There are *seven* seasons instead of three. This is exactly the reason why a BluRay release for B5 is nigh impossible. Doing everything over from scratch would be almost as expensive as doing it all the first time.
Re-compositing as much of the existing miniature footage as possible is, I think, a genius move. Budgetary concerns aside, this is a real act of preservation and I personally couldn't give a shite if the models don't match up exactly from one shot to another. I suspect you could count on one hand the number of people who would even notice.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I now watched the Mission Farpoint episode and it looked great - even if I have to admit that I was never a fan of that particular episode I have to say that watching was actually fun.
I'm pretty sure that CBS used a digital model for the Enterprise even more often than expected. For example I found a scene were the Enterprise is dropping out of warp and passes by the camera. The light reflexes on the ships engineering hull are not quit right and the deflector dish looks to CGI-ish as well.
But actually I don't want to complain to much because TNG in HDTV look just fantastic.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I personally couldn't give a shite if the models don't match up exactly from one shot to another. I suspect you could count on one hand the number of people who would even notice.
But if they're doing the shots anyway, why not at least scale everything correctly this tme?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I see it as a warts-and-all approach rather than a revisionist one.
For the sake of argument though, if you're talking about the BoP shot then I think rescaling the KBoP down to a more appropriate size would make it look *miniscule* next to the E-D. While that might be technically accurate, it rather detracts from the scene in which the ship is meant to look genuinely menacing (I'm assuming this is the Riker exchange episode?)
Of course the alternative would be to replace it altogether with a K'tinga, which is larger but still relatively small. A Vor'cha is a better size, but it doesn't really fit the context of the episode, plus you're straying into revisionism.
Regardless, the bottom line is still money. If they were to redo *every* shot that had some kind of scaling or labelling error, then the cost will increase. Plus the more shots they replace with CG, the more out of place they look next to the cleaned up miniature footage.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I don't care much for the size of the BoP in this scene since we don't know the distance anyhow, but I would have loved to see a more dynamic shot, with movement both from the Enterprise and the BOP in different velocities. Although the picutre quality is great, it looks so 2D...
Posted by Trimm (Member # 865) on :
This is a really good shot of the two foot Enterprise model.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Maybe the crew evacuates to rooms in the neck during dangerous situations- all the lights are on there!
Or maybe back then, a three-shift-rotation referred to entire sections of the ship being off-duty at the same time...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I have a question, which might pertain to why the shot with the Enterprise and the BoP was redone: Would any stock footage from the films have to be reshot, since that stock is now the property of Paramount and not CBS? Reused footage I can think of off the top of my head are Spacedock, Regula One, K'T'ingas from TMP, and certain BoP shots.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Dukhat -
On the face of it, I'd doubt it, since CBS has the rights to distribute TNG on DVD. That would presumably include any footage from the films used for the series ... right?
I did buy the sampler DVD. I was blown away by the quality and clarity of, well, everything. I think I'll be picking these seasons up when they're released.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Weren't the TNG DVDs produced before the big split between Paramount and CBS though?
And where the hell have you been all this time, dude? Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I suspect that the borrowed movie footage as originally presented in the TNG master tapes are property of CBS, but I suspect that Paramount would retain ownership of the raw, pre-composite footage. So yeah, that could be why some shots are being redone from scratch.
That, plus the possibility that some raw footage simply doesn't exist anymore, or is too badly damaged to be usable.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
That was my first thought, too.
But we still don't have an official explanation why the shot was re-done.
On the other hand, this scene was not re-done, although no actor is present and (in my opinion) easy to fix:
(And it was not flaged as upscaled PAL content in the menu of the blu ray disc)
But if the problem with the property of Paramount is true, then I'm afraid they have to redo the mushroom station approach also.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I suspect that the borrowed movie footage as originally presented in the TNG master tapes are property of CBS, but I suspect that Paramount would retain ownership of the raw, pre-composite footage."
I was going to say something similar to this yesterday, but then it occurred to me that, if the footage is from the movies, it should already be on film, so it shouldn't even need to be re-composed, right?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I shouldn't think so. What the TV show probably had was a high grade video transfer taken from the film stock. Paramount aren't likely to just give away the film prints and there'd be no point in the TV show going to the expense of making cinema grade copies, especially when borrowing footage in the first place is meant to be a money saving exercise.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
You guys probably already know, but there are new hd screenshots from the first season available.
I was excited to see that the registry number on the Tsiolkowsky is now (barely) visible:
And we can see that the starbase is not CGI, but done with the origianl material.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I had a discussion about this over at the (gasp!) TrekBBS, and I concluded that while it is the same model shots of the Enterprise-D and the Grissom model, the 53911 registry is in fact new, digitally replacing the Grissom's old registry that was still on the model when it was originally filmed as the Tsiolkovsky.
The use of the original footage of the starbase also answers my question about if they were allowed to use movie stock footage in the remastering process.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I did a very quick and simple comparision: if you enlarge the SD Tsiolkowsky to the same size of the HD version and put one over the other, you can see that the registry number of the SD version is shorter then the one on the HD version, so you could be right!
In the (SD) scene where the ship is pushed into the stellar fragment (at the end of the episode) you can definitly see that the ship has a registry with only three digits.
Wow, this is great news, they actually care!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
On the other hand, the E-D pulling into SB74 still shows her reversed NCC. :-)
Is it just me, or are these shots more grainy than the ones from the sampler?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Yeah, I noticed the grain, too, but I don't know why. The screenshots from Farpoint Station are crystal clear.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Probably has something to do with the quality/type of the original film stock used for filming the miniatures. If memory serves ILM handled all of the VFX shots for 'Farpoint' but the rest of the show was done in-house at Paramount. It shouldn't be surprising that there would be a noticeable dip in technical quality.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Trek Core is posting new pics of the Oberth Class Tsiolkovsky. If you compare those two images, you can find that the ship has now two (sic!) different registries!
Not sure if this is a mistake of the producers (can't validate until next week when the set is available for mortals) or if one of the pics is a hoax.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
And I hate to spoil the party, but the registry of the exploding USS Yamato looks like NCC-71804 or 71806 to me, not NCC-71807. I just downloaded the HD trailer and the last digit doesn't look like the first one (a '7'). I was always under the impression that the registry of the USS Yamato is NCC-71807 like it can bee seen on the computer terminal at the beginning of the episode.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: Trek Core is posting new pics of the Oberth Class Tsiolkovsky. If you compare those two images, you can find that the ship has now two (sic!) different registries!
Not sure if this is a mistake of the producers (can't validate until next week when the set is available for mortals) or if one of the pics is a hoax.
Okuda listed the Copernicus's registry as NCC-623 in the Encyclopedia, but presumably that's wrong, as there's no reason why the registry of the Tsiolkovsky would be two different numbers on the same place on the ship's hull. Obviously the registry was digitally changed to 53911 for the establishing shot but accidentally missed in the destruction shot. So logically the Copernicus's registry was always NCC-640.
quote:And I hate to spoil the party, but the registry of the exploding USS Yamato looks like NCC-71804 or 71806 to me, not NCC-71807. I just downloaded the HD trailer and the last digit doesn't look like the first one (a '7'). I was always under the impression that the registry of the USS Yamato is NCC-71807 like it can bee seen on the computer terminal at the beginning of the episode.
Obviously the registry was digitally changed to 53911 for the establishing shot but accidentally missed in the destruction shot.
I wonder how they 'accidentally' missed it in the destruction scene since the reg number is now very goood readable. They had rather not changed the number in the first shot. Then the number would be consistend throughout the episode.
quote:
So logically the Copernicus's registry was always NCC-640.
This is because the Oberth model was used before in Star Trek IV?
I'm a little bit disappointed that the blu ray release gives us with the clear picture quality more reason to concern.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2:
I wonder how they 'accidentally' missed it in the destruction scene since the reg number is now very goood readable. They had rather not changed the number in the first shot. Then the number would be consistend throughout the episode.
Things were probably rushed, and it was overlooked. An understandable mistake. And the number was changed to match the ship's dedication plaque.
quote:This is because the Oberth model was used before in Star Trek IV?
Yes, the model was reused as ship filler in Spacedock before we see the Enterprise-A for the first time.
quote:So logically the Copernicus's registry was always NCC-640.
Sorry, but this does not make sense. The registry of the Tsiolkovsky was always NCC-640 since we now have the prove that this number was attached to the model. The fact that the registry was digitally alterd for the blu ray release in some scences does not change this.
The registry of the Copernicus is therefore still unclear since
a) the registry is not visible in ST IV. b) the registry could have been altered at any time after shooting ST IV and before shooting TNG The Naked Now.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2:
Sorry, but this does not make sense. The registry of the Tsiolkovsky was always NCC-640 since we now have the prove that this number was attached to the model. The fact that the registry was digitally alterd for the blu ray release in some scenes does not change this.
In Encounter at Farpoint, the Hood's registry, printed on the Excelsior model, was NCC-2541. Later in the series, Okudagrams showed that the registry was instead NCC-42296, and has stuck to that throughout the remainder of Trek history. Same goes for stock footage of the Hood that represented various other Starfleet vessels. That stock footage may have had the Hood's name and registry, but it's not the same ship.
It's simply a case of a changed premise, and it happens all the time. The Tsiolkovsky's registry was always meant to be NCC-53911 regardless of what was printed on a model that was reused from a previous production.
quote:The registry of the Copernicus is therefore still unclear since
a) the registry is not visible in ST IV. b) the registry could have been altered at any time after shooting ST IV and before shooting TNG The Naked Now.
While that may be true, why would the registry number have changed between STIV and "The Naked Now?" What would have been the point? And why would the VFX personnel make the ship's registry 640 when they had the plaque information already? It's far more logical to assume that the NCC-640 registry was from the ship's use as background filler in STIV, and that the VFX guys didn't modify the model at all for its use in the episode. Until Okuda says something to the contrary, that's what I believe.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I would like to stick to the Tsiolkovsky-issue for just a little bit longer:
You ask 'why would the registry number have changed between STIV and "The Naked Now?'. Well, the number on the Oberth model has changed from NCC-638 to NCC-640 between ST III and TNG. Why is it so unthinable that it had been changed inbetween as well? There was always the romour that the registry of the Copernicus was NCC-623.
But if we now say that the registry on the filming model of the Copericus was indeed NCC-640, then this would implay that the Encyclopedia form Mike Okuda is not as reliable as we thought - and maybe we should stick to the one true source of informaiton we have: The DVDs/Blu Rays.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Ok, here we have another shot of the Tsiolkovsky with the registry NCC-640 visible on the side of the ship.
No one ever said the Encyclopedia was 100% reliable. It is filled with several mistakes. However, what's not a mistake is the Tsiolkovsky's registry in its dedication plaque. Since IMHO the registry on the model was the Copernicus's unchanged from STIV, then we have to accept that the plaque's info is the correct one.
As for the change in registry: after the model's use as the Copernicus, it's next use was as the Tsiolkovsky. When in between that time would it have needed to be changed again?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Yes, the dedication plaque. In the DVD version, it is not possbile to read it at all (besides the ship's name, which is spelled wrong, by the way, by what I was told).
I wonder if the blu ray does reveal any new information.
But in the meantime we can see the NCC-640 in at least two different scenes on the ship's hull. This is a hard fact that we cannot ignore.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, I'm ignoring it. You can do whatever you want.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:As for the change in registry: after the model's use as the Copernicus, it's next use was as the Tsiolkovsky. When in between that time would it have needed to be changed again?
Exact my point: Since we can't see the registry of the Copernicus in ST IV we cannot say for sure that the registry was already NCC-640. It is possible that the registry was changed for TNG to NCC-640 and that the registry in ST IV was something else (again, where is this NCC-623 comming from?).
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
NCC-623 is what Okuda stated in the Encyclopedia for the registry of the Copernicus. How he got that info is unclear, since he did not work on STIV. His reg info for the STIV Saratoga was likewise wrong. He also got wrong several of the registries of the BoBW kitbashes, a project that he did work on. So his info about the Copernicus's registry should be taken with a grain of salt.
Conversely, he himself made the Tsiolkovsky's plaque, and said plaque has been seen clearly (not in the screencap, but a photo of the plaque from Starlog magazine, IIRC), so unless Okuda wants to redact the reg info on it, that's what I'm sticking with.
The fact that the reg was digitally changed for the establishing shot clearly indicates that Okuda wanted the 53911 reg to be the correct one. The fact that some shots where we can see the old registry were missed, is simply an oversight most likely due to the rushed nature of this project.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I once asked Okuda about the Copernicus and this was his response in an e-mail dated 05/28/2003:
"If I recall the name and registry number of the Copernicus came from a photo from ILM that showed the Grissom model as it was used in the end of ST4."
Take it for whatever it's worth. His recollection may not be completely accurate, and he did get the Saratoga's registry wrong, after all.
But I would also propose an alternate theory of what might have happened: it might be a similar situation to that of the U.S.S. Hood, where the Excelsior model was relabeled by the VFX department for "Encounter At Farpoint" (as NCC-2541) but the art department came up with a different (higher, perhaps more fictionally "plausible") number that ended up becoming the "official" one because the original one was not readable in the episode.
Perhaps NCC-640 was the VFX department's idea for the Tsiolkovsky's number but the art department came up with NCC-53911 for the dedication plaque and because it was more prominent and "plausible" (and because Okuda was likely the one going to the effort of keeping track of such things) it was that number which became the official one. During remastering, the number was "corrected" in one shot but was overlooked in others.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
While that's certainly possible, without that photo as proof, we'll never know the Copernicus's true registry.
quote:Perhaps NCC-640 was the VFX department's idea for the Tsiolkovsky's number but the art department came up with NCC-53911 for the dedication plaque and because it was more prominent and "plausible" (and because Okuda was likely the one going to the effort of keeping track of such things) it was that number which became the official one. During remastering, the number was "corrected" in one shot but was overlooked in others.
It's possible that when Okuda made that plaque, he was assuming that the Tsiolkovsky would be a new model, a ship contemporaneous to the Enterprise-D, since both ships were launched in the same year. If that were the case, then the term "Oberth" was never meant to be the class of the Grissom-type ships, and only became that class retroactively.
It's also possible, as you say, that the VFX personnel weren't aware of the info on the plaque, and changed the registry to be more contemporaneous with the Grissom, and that they thought the Tsiolkovsky was an old ship from Kirk's era.
This could also be why later appearances of the Grissom model sported such high registries: because once the Tsiolkovsky set the precedent, Okuda just followed through with the same registry nomenclature.
It's too bad really, because NCC-640 would have fit the Tsiolkovsky so much better. i myself do not find Oberths with regs of 5XXXX and Excelsiors with regs of 4XXXX to be plausible at all. This is one of my few sticking points with Okuda's registry assignings.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Is there any way to get an updated from Mike Okuda on this topic? His last statement is almost 10 years old and with the blu rays we have now a new situation here. Would be great to have a little bit more first hand information on that topic, especially who was it who has triggered the digitally change of the one shot in 'The naked now' and why the others have not been done.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I wrote about this over at the TrekBBS. If Okuda wants to pipe in, he's welcome to. However, I don't see how he'd be any more knowledgeable about the registries now than when he was ten years ago. At best, he would just agree with our theory that there was simply a disconnect between the Art Department and the VFX Department when creating the registry info for the Tsiolkovsky. The same exact thing happened with the Prometheus in ST:Voyager.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
The idea was more to ask him about the recent change of the Tsiolkowsky's registry in just one scene. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Okduda still have some memories of the background of that event.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Picked up the set -
From one of the featurettes: sometimes effects shots are replaced when the originals can't be located. There's I think two sequences in Encounter at Farpoint where the original film couldn't be located so a digital mattee painting was inserted instead.
This also affects the shot of the Klingon bird of prey & the Enterprise in "Sins of the Father."
The Crystalline Entity had originally been modeled in 3-D, but the files are lost. It was re-created (and looks jaw-droppingly amazing).
Also: all F/X had to be redone, but they tried to keep as true to the original as possible.
Additionally, they cleaned up the planet modelling, and made some changes to the star backgrounds.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So it's a worthwhile purchase?
I'm not familliar with all the episides included- any starship battle stuff?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Jason -
Not a lot as I recall. Arsenal of Freedom there's combat with a flying attacking probe.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
If you don't want to splurge on the BR, I'm looking to sell my TNG S1 DVD set. $30.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: The idea was more to ask him about the recent change of the Tsiolkowsky's registry in just one scene. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Okduda still have some memories of the background of that event.
From Ex-Astris-Scientia:
quote:In this shot of the S.S. Tsiolkovsky and the U.S.S. Enterprise-D, the registry of the Oberth class ship is NCC-640. The very first time an Oberth class ship was seen was in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock". The registry of the U.S.S. Grissom was NCC-638. Why is the S.S. Tsiolkovsky labeled "NCC-640" in this shot then?
Mike Okuda: "I seem to recall that Grissom may have been relabeled to serve as another ship (the Copernicus?) in Star Trek III or IV. I didn't try to relabel the model for 'The Naked Now,' partly because we realized that the existing registry would not be legible in standard-def video, but also because we were all so insanely busy at the time that no one could take on an additional project that wasn't likely to be seen on the screen."
NCC-640 must have been the registry of the U.S.S. Copernicus, briefly seen in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" then. After this appearance in the fourth Star Trek film, the model wasn't used until "The Naked Now".
Again, I don't quite agree with Bernd. I think the Copernicus had the NCC-623 registry in STIV, and the TNG VFX guys changed it to NCC-640 for the Tsiolkovsky, unaware that Okuda made a plaque for the ship with NCC-53911 while possibly under the impression that the ship was going to be a new model.
As for changing the registry for that one scene: I think it's pretty clear that the change was done to be more in line with the info in the Encyclopedia and the dedication plaque, and the other scenes that were missed were just oversights.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: If you don't want to splurge on the BR, I'm looking to sell my TNG S1 DVD set. $30.
Thanks but no. I did not recall exactly what was in that season as it's taken me years to forget people in pajamas fighting floating L'eggs containers... Still, overall it beats season 7- where the few great episodes are eclipsed by CRusher's goddamn ghost story romance or Troi's forgotten dead sister or.. (screams for hours)
Okay, I'm better now that the Thorazine has blurred those episodes back to where I can function again.
Hmm...I bet itunes has it by the episode- I might just get Silicon Avatar. Despite the dopey "evil teim brother" premise, it was a nicely paced episode with a truly ailen menace- not some humans with forehead deformities.
Has there been any word on a season 2 yet? when they get to season 3 and BOBW, I'm hoping they can use today's technology to make some things more presentable. Shelby's face for starters...I mean...damn.
As long as we're on Season 1, I say we do a CAPTION CONTEST for old time's sake! Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Season 2 sometime this year, I think. No specific release date. TNG is also streaming on Netflix.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
"So Bev, you want to see my Borg Probe? Resistance is Futile."
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
"But I poop from there."
Not right now you don't. Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
Thank you Mars, for ruining a perfectly good keyboard with liquid I was intending to drink. I shamefully admit that I looked for a "like" button immeidiately too.
Posted by Trimm (Member # 865) on :
While not nearly as funny as that, this screencap from Conspiracy is interesting, in that you can see just how beat up the cricket phasers were after only a season.
Amazon messed up on street date - either that, or their shipping is waaaay too efficient. My copy was delivered this afternoon. Looking forward to cracking into it.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
The first disc starts off with a promo for TNG s3 - sadly, no release date, but a funny story about Patrick Stewart being confronted by a family over the summer after BOBW pt. 1 aired and being told he's ruined their summer.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: And here is another example how even complete starships are deteriorate from S1 to S2!
HTV was fired over crap like this. They totally flubbed the second season set. CBS is outsourcing seasons 4 and 6 to a different company, while taking care of 3, 5, and 7 in-house
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Where did you here that HTV was fired?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wes: HTV was fired over crap like this. They totally flubbed the second season set. CBS is outsourcing seasons 4 and 6 to a different company, while taking care of 3, 5, and 7 in-house [/QB]
I watched now a couple of episodes of the second season and I have to admid that it is not as bad as concerned. Yes, there are a few flaws (the space station at the end of 'The Child' for example), but roughly 99% of it is in HD quality and therefor way better then the DVDs. Of course we can complain about the little things that are not perfect and I liked that 'extra mile' that CBS put into the S1, but in the end S2 is still worht of possessing.
I hope that CBS has learnd from this and will pay extra attention in future when they are givin the work for S4 and S6 to an external company. By the way, I heard that 'BoBW, Part II' will be done by CBS as well in order to gurantie that both parts have the same look and feel.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Did someone watched the new HD trailer for BOBW? There are two scences of the graveyard in it. The quality is better imho, but besides this I found nothing new. The blurry ships in the background are still not recognisable.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I didn't expect to see new CGI ships in the scene, although I wouldn't have been upset if there had been. I did notice new fires/explosions from the wrecked ships though.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Did they fix Dr. Crusher being a complete idiot? If her "He's exhausted!" line is still there, the episode is not ennhanced enough.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Did they fix Dr. Crusher being a complete idiot? If her "He's exhausted!" line is still there, the episode is not ennhanced enough.
I have to admit, that is a pretty stupid line.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I compared the new HD scences with SD screen shots, but I did not find new/added 'fire'. But in HD the burning is more 'red'.
The springfiled class is now a little better to see - I thing it is now visible that a part of the saucer section is missing (perhaps this damage was done to the ship after the 'beauty shots' were done). The springfield class can now identified in the scene where the ENT is entering the debris field (the scene where the Freedom-Class is visible):
But since this shot was taken from the plain of the saucher section, the damage is not that good to see.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I'm just pleased that we'll have Elizabeth Dennehy in HD.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
On a visible level she will look alright, but I'm afraid that she even in True HD cannot deliver the line 'Select a sceleton crew and separate the saucer section' in a believable manner.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I'm just pleased that we'll have Elizabeth Dennehy in HD.
How anyone can find Brian Dennehy in drag is beyond the bounds of even my jaded inernet experiences. Thinking on it, she might be the only Trek female I've never seen a Photoshop job of- I mean, shit, I've seen some nut use the Salt Vampire, but not Shelby. That's pretty sad.
Plus, there must have been major character revamps to her when Patrick Stewart decided to stay on cast and Shelby's role was eliminated- they changed her from "total cunt" to "really dedicated and focused on the mission".
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Plus, there must have been major character revamps to her when Patrick Stewart decided to stay on cast and Shelby's role was eliminated- they changed her from "total cunt" to "really dedicated and focused on the mission".
I dunno, look at that first scene with her and Riker in Engineering in part 2. She hadn't gotten the first officer job yet, and was still dropping not-so-subtle hints that she wanted it. But at the same time, she'd kind of toned down her aggressive attitude, which you could say was due to the crisis with the Borg, or from getting to know the rest of the crew in action. Either way, I'd call that character development. Maybe too much of a change, but it's reasonable IMO.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Was it really a likely option for the writers that Picard 'stayed' with the Borg? I was under the impression that Steward's contract was at least valid for three more seaons.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think the opt out was for Picard to have been killed when the Enterprise's deflector weapon destroyed the Borg ship- leaving part 2 as an aftermath episode and placing Shelby as Riker's new first officer.
quote:Originally posted by o2: Was it really a likely option for the writers that Picard 'stayed' with the Borg? I was under the impression that Steward's contract was at least valid for three more seaons.
I had heard that Stewart decided to stay on after the outpouring of fan support after BOBW pt 1 aired.
If you look at Shelby's charcater, it's a drastic change in tone between part one and two- she's actaully likable in her parting scene, whereas she's unprofessional and really kinda clueless about the whole 'leadership" part of her role as Lt. Commander...but I guess promotion at a starbase or on earth would yield less impressive results than officers with actual field experience leading people.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Ok, I will pay more attention to the behaviour of Shelby when I watch BoBW next time.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I was now able to do my homework. I was a little bit surprised to see that most of the show was about Shelby and Riker (from a character point of view).
Did someone noticed the bad acting of W. Frakes when he saw that his future command, the USS Melbourne, was destroyed? I think this was the worst performace of Frakes in the complete series.
Of course watching BoBW was fun although there are no surprises in it. I kind of hoped to see mayby a new ship in the graveyard scene, but nope, nothing new there.
The documentary was interessing and the raw material of the graveyard scene allows a somewhat better look at the USS Buran. Did anybody else yet saw the documentary?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
From the interviews on the S3 blu ray set, Patrick Stewart was apparently really concerned Picard would be killed off as Gene Roddenberry apparently HATED Patrick Stewart.
Fun note: Ira Steven Behr's "Captain Holiday" originally had Picard going on vacation to Risa and going to a holosuite that promised to face the user with their worst fear: in this case, for Picard, it was that he would be promoted to Admiral and have to turn the Enterprise over to Riker. Everybody loved it, but Roddenberry shot it down and demanded that Picard get laid instead.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:The documentary was interessing and the raw material of the graveyard scene allows a somewhat better look at the USS Buran. Did anybody else yet saw the documentary?
What do you mean by "raw material?" Do you mean better quality scenes from the original footage of the graveyard, or scenes we haven't seen before?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
There is a breakdown of the first graveyard scene into its separate elements: light pass, matte pass, beauty pass. The beauty pass is a few seconds longer than that what we can see in the final product, giving us a full look at the USS Buran (in contrary to the scene in the episonde, where we only get a glimpse at the warp necelles). The saucer section of the USS Buran is severly damaged but you can see that it is 'Galaxy' style.
There is another breakdown of the scene where the Enterprise is entering the field of debris where the USS Buran is visible as well, but in another orientation. Since in this shoot the Buran is far apart, you cannot see so much detail.
Regarding the quality issue: the quality of this breakdown is more or less the same as in the final episode. It is better than the SD version, but not as good as I would have hoped for...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: From the interviews on the S3 blu ray set, Patrick Stewart was apparently really concerned Picard would be killed off as Gene Roddenberry apparently HATED Patrick Stewart.
Fun note: Ira Steven Behr's "Captain Holiday" originally had Picard going on vacation to Risa and going to a holosuite that promised to face the user with their worst fear: in this case, for Picard, it was that he would be promoted to Admiral and have to turn the Enterprise over to Riker. Everybody loved it, but Roddenberry shot it down and demanded that Picard get laid instead.
Both of the above seem weird to me, because I remember Stewart describing the loss-of-a-father feeling when GR died insofar as the "who's going to take care of me now" feeling, as well as saying Risa was part of his request for more sex and shooting for the Captain, implying a purpose-built episode.
No biggie, just odd to see the distinction among different views at different times.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
The original concept for "Captain's Holiday" seemed pretty amazing -- but it got shot down and basically became what Stewart had been asking for: sex and violence.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont think facing your greatest fear would make for much of a holiday, really. If I went on holiday and it was a police state run by a monarchy of the Bush family, I'd ask for my money back.
A better idea for the whole "Face your fears" gag would be a manadtory Starfleet psyche evaluation before Picard could return to command of the motherfucking flagship of the fleet. Maybe they could have had a Betazoid shrink working with him on a Holodeck as a therapy thing and Picard cold draw on his melding with Sarek to remain calm and rational while really confronting the damage he caused and the lives lost at W359.
I definitely hate the notion that Riker in command is Picard's big fear- fuck's sake, Picard was this great mentor to Riker- practically pushing him out of the nest in BOBW Pt. 1
Hell, I'd really have liked to see Riker made into a celebrity- he was captain when the enterprise saved the entire fucking world. you'd think he'd at least have a fansite or something. Maybe a holiday or high school named after him...
Now if Picard's fear was having to work with Admiral Nechayev every day, I'd toally understand- she was bitch from concentrate.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Behr's original concept for Captain's Holiday > the Captain's Holiday we got.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I'm just pleased that we'll have Elizabeth Dennehy in HD.
How anyone can find Brian Dennehy in drag is beyond the bounds of even my jaded inernet experiences.
Brian Dennehy does not rock Spandex like she does, sorry. Let's just say that this scene in HD on the big screen gave me a new appreciation:
Man, were ALL women in the '80s on the Itty Bitty Titty Committee?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Could we try not to sound like sex-starved teenagers? And maybe drop the vaguely misogynistic language? Kay thanks.
(Plus, Shelby was an interesting character in BOBW part 1, providing a conflict for Riker and trying to take him out of his comfort zone. By part two she had become "generic competent office #251".)
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I first heard that phrase from my wife, BTW.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Itty Bitty!?! They dominated the screen quite nicely, and even smushed by those industrial brassieres they stood forth proudly with that wonderful roundness that extends in front of the arms, and that perfect antigravity effect over the marvelously flat stomach.
And the uniform fit continues to impress on the way down.
Assume it is teenager-esque if you will, but to me it is art.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It's just a bit depressing that the majority of the comments on Shelby have been either about her breasts, or describing her as a cunt. Neither of these are going to win any progressive website awards.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I had no idea we were in the running.
Posted by Trimm (Member # 865) on :
We won't be at this rate.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Could we try not to sound like sex-starved teenagers? And maybe drop the vaguely misogynistic language?
Wishful thinking I fear!
I sort of agree with you about Shelby, but I think that's mostly down to the changing dynamic between her and Riker. In part one he's the old guard - he's been in the same job for 3 years. He's been offered a promotion but he's dithering. Shelby's the new blood and she want's his job, regardless of whether Riker is going or not.
She's impudent, impertinent and she pisses him off, apparently in part just to piss him off.
By part two she's got Riker's job, which is what she wanted. Riker is now captain, and she's his XO - the relationship has altered completely. There is still conflict, but it's more like happy families now.
I'm not sure that (hypothetically) if Picard was written out at that point the show would have lasted seven seasons. The episode needed to end with Picard back (even if incapacitated or on light duties for a bit). Because of that Shelby was very much a guest part, instead of an on going role - which shows in part 2.
Also, the part one was made around Easter 1990, so (only on a technicality, as that it's not very likely Dennehey didn't get a haircut for four months) it's not 80's hair. Technically.
And lastly, meh, whatever floats your boat Guardian.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: It's just a bit depressing that the majority of the comments on Shelby have been either about her breasts, or describing her as a cunt. Neither of these are going to win any progressive website awards.
If it makes you feel better, I could care less about Shelby; my main interest in BoBW were the kitbashes Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I really wasn't aware that her breasts were at all small...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: It's just a bit depressing that the majority of the comments on Shelby have been either about her breasts, or describing her as a cunt. Neither of these are going to win any progressive website awards.
If it makes you feel better, I could care less about Shelby; my main interest in BoBW were the kitbashes
Amen. maybe someday we'll get an enhanced version with a few minutes of actual battle...maybe adding some more debris too. I'd love to see some of the debris get pushed aside by the Enterprise's deflector, though that might look weird to those unfamilliar with treknology.
As to Shelby, it's her general awfulness as a human being in part 1 that bugs me...but a case could be made that she felt Geordi and the others were not taking the threat seriously enough. If ever there was a time for doctor Crusher to be passing out stimulant shots, it was then...not that the dopey doctor was of much use in part 2.
Speaking of the doctor, the ease of physical reconstruction on Picard would indicate that stuff like replacing limbs with freshly grown ones was no big deal. It seems silly to assume Picard's original arm was in the Borg attachment thinger, so they must have replaced it- which is entirely plausible between the DNA data all starfleet personell have in their file and transporter records.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Speaking of the doctor, the ease of physical reconstruction on Picard would indicate that stuff like replacing limbs with freshly grown ones was no big deal. It seems silly to assume Picard's original arm was in the Borg attachment thinger, so they must have replaced it- which is entirely plausible between the DNA data all starfleet personell have in their file and transporter records. [/QB]
Huh? They specifically showed that arm attachment being fitted over Picard's existing arm. He raised his fist and they slid it on like a glove.
Now, we can debate why things changed between BOBW and First Contact, but there have been so many changes to the Borg over the years anyway. First they reproduced and then grafted implants onto their young (Q Who?), then they assimilated by grafting implants to captured people (BOBW) and finally they just injected nanoprobes and let them build the implants from the inside out (First Contact).
Sure, you can retcon the baby in Q Who? as just an assimilated baby from some other race. But it's apparent that there was no thought given to limb replacement until First Contact, when the writers could afford to push a PG-13 rating. Ironically, they even mentioned nanites in BOBW, which is just another name for nanoprobes. But there was no suggestion of nanoprobes in relation to the Borg.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, you're right- it's been a while since I last saw BOBW 1.
Personally, I think the Borg were a million times more interesting in Q Who? Q says "It's not a not, not a girl...it's like nothing you've seen before" or somesuch. By Voyager they were parasites at best- unable to exist without finding some sap to assimilate.
As with most things cool, the less you know, the more mistique something has. Had the Borg remained a collective with that great booming creepy voice of a million drones instead of an idiotic Queen, it would have remained awesome.
And hell, I'd have had the Bynars sell out the Federation- by way of story, I'd have had the Enterprise the target of a mystery energy pulse, followed by Riker being called over the comms down to the Holodeck. When he arrives, the scene is the same jazz club as shown in the episode with the Bynars and the same hottie is waiting for him- only looking distressed. The Bynars' sentient main computer has sent a partial copy of itself to the Enterprise (hence the pulse) with a dire warning for the Federation and a plea for help- "she" does not want to be assimilated but the populace does and has begun to systematicly lobotomize her, preventing her from warning the Federation via direct communication. It could be all about what the Federation would do if a member world decided it wanted assimilation, and what, if any, rights their sentient computer has, if any, as it cant exactly go anywhere...which would bring back elements explored when Data ahd his little trial about what is property and all that...
I'd end the episode (2-parter?) with the Federation council deciding in favor of letting the Bynars do whatever the hell they want, as they are hardly prisoners, and let the amassing starfleet hopefully repel any Borg aggression afterwards. No sooner is the verdict reached (back on Earth) than the computer, interacting with Riker via the Holodeck construct babe, looks tearful, says "goodbye" and disappears- before anyone can react, the Enterprise's computer remotely ejecting the Enterprise's warpcore and detonating it in the planet's atmosphere, killing the populace and the computer as well as a sorta "I'd rather be destroyed and kill the entire population of my world than be assimilated and have the Federation destroyed". Picard and Riker and everyone have a giant "Oh shit, it looks like the flagship just aced the Bynars to prevent their leaving the Federation" look- knowing this clusterfuck will surely come back to haunt them.
The approaching Borg cube, sensing what had happened via the subspace link it had established with the Bynars, halts at the edge of Federation space...but does not withdraw, adding extra tension to an utterly dark and bleak two parter which would never have been greenlighted by Paramount.
I'm tired as hell and rambling, so please forgive this crazyland idea...too late now anyway. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I liked how in Q Who they made it seem like the ship was partially organic. I mean it had HR Giger-esque piping which looked like veins. And that image of the ship repairing its hull damage, always gets under my skin like watching someone popping a pimple. Later cubes looked completely mechanical and didn't do that regeneration trick.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Amen. maybe someday we'll get an enhanced version with a few minutes of actual battle...maybe adding some more debris too. I'd love to see some of the debris get pushed aside by the Enterprise's deflector, though that might look weird to those unfamilliar with treknology.
I remember reading about someone who said that the first filmed battle at Wolf 359 was during the Borg attack and not after. But this version was droped when it was decided that the Enteprise joined after the battle was over. I was hoping that this filmed scene was part of the bonus material for TNG S3, but appaerently it was not.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Given how closely BOBW II was written to the film date, I highly doubt any battle sequence was shot for the episode.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
It seems to me they hadn't even finished making the models when they were filming; EAS quotes that hilarious story of one of the model makers quipping "Look what you did!" at Patrick Stewart while the latter was in his Borg costume.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Amen. maybe someday we'll get an enhanced version with a few minutes of actual battle...maybe adding some more debris too. I'd love to see some of the debris get pushed aside by the Enterprise's deflector, though that might look weird to those unfamilliar with treknology.
I remember reading about someone who said that the first filmed battle at Wolf 359 was during the Borg attack and not after. But this version was droped when it was decided that the Enteprise joined after the battle was over. I was hoping that this filmed scene was part of the bonus material for TNG S3, but appaerently it was not.
You're thinking of the Borg battle from DS9's pilot episode, not BoBW. Rob Legato did indeed film a battle scene that wasn't used. I'm hoping that the footage will be found and shown when and if DS9 ever gets remastered.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: It seems to me they hadn't even finished making the models when they were filming; EAS quotes that hilarious story of one of the model makers quipping "Look what you did!" at Patrick Stewart while the latter was in his Borg costume.
No, they were finished. It was Okuda who was applying battle damage to the finished Melbourne model when Stewart in Borg costume ran into him.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I wonder why they discarded the battle scenes for "The Emissary" then since in this episode (in contrary to BoBW) they showd the hot phase of the battle. Nevertheless, I would love to see this additional material...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: I wonder why they discarded the battle scenes for "The Emissary" then since in this episode (in contrary to BoBW) they showd the hot phase of the battle. Nevertheless, I would love to see this additional material...
Legato was asked to shoot the battle scene before the script was finished. When the scene called for the Saratoga and other ships to be just encountering the Borg ship instead of already being in the middle of the battle, the footage couldn't be used anymore.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Ok, thanks. Then lets cross fingers that we get this lost footage as bonus material for the DS9 HD-release.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Yesterday I watched 'Sarek' from S3 and I was a little bit disappointed that imho a great opportunity was missed: At the end of the episode the Enterprise is beaming Sarek and this company on board of the USS Merrimack. Before and after that scene the Enterprise was shown in Orbit around a planet. It always bothered me that the Merrimack was not seen in this neither of those two shots. I would have been great if the guys from CBS would have added the Merrimack into that scene. Not necessarily side by side, but maybe as small ship in the background, already departing (I think the Merrimack is Nebula Class according to the ships status list that will show up in season 4). Yeah, I know, I know, just wishful thinking...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
They haven't done any ship adding in so far, and I can't imagine that they will for the rest of the series. They've been pretty adamant on their "todying up only" approach.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
No, they haven't done ship-adding so far, but in 'The Battle' they have changed the content of a computer screen. I would say that the effort for doing this is roughly the same as for adding a (background) ship to a scene. In 'The Naked Now' they have even changed the registry of the 'Tsiolkovsky'. What I want to say: If they can do this they can also add other stuff like a ship here and there. That would make my day!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Absoutely- and considering the range of a transporter, it's not like the added ship needs to be close to the camera's viewpoint. They did such a fantastic job with the TOS stuff- the Orion and Gorn ships, the Planetkiller, etc, that not doing as much for TNG seems a crime.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I gathered that they were making no additions when I didn't even see distant specks in "Conspiracy"[TNG1] around Mira. Of course, I would've loved to see an Ambassador and a New Orleans flying with the Enterprise. But as noted, it isn't necessary to have other ships so close.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: No, they haven't done ship-adding so far, but in 'The Battle' they have changed the content of a computer screen. I would say that the effort for doing this is roughly the same as for adding a (background) ship to a scene. In 'The Naked Now' they have even changed the registry of the 'Tsiolkovsky'. What I want to say: If they can do this they can also add other stuff like a ship here and there. That would make my day!
If you're seriously waiting for something like this to happen, I think you're going to be sorely disappointed. They changed the computer screen text for a reason: They didn't want all their previously illegible in-jokes to be seen. And digitally changing the Tsiolkovsky's registry on the shot of the studio model is quite different from totally changing the Tsiolkovsky's design with a new CGI design, when it was deemed unnecessary to do so.
Maybe if, like TOS-R, all the model shots needed to be replaced with CGI, we'd see more of what you describe. But if it's just an upconversion of the existing footage, there'd be no logical reason to add stuff that wasn't there previously, unless there was an egregious script error, like the Medusan "vessel" in TOS.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I gathered that they were making no additions when I didn't even see distant specks in "Conspiracy"[TNG1] around Mira. Of course, I would've loved to see an Ambassador and a New Orleans flying with the Enterprise. But as noted, it isn't necessary to have other ships so close.
Even creating lo-poly CGI models of the Ambassador and New Orleans class ships for the far background would have taken time and money, likely more time and money than CBS was willing to spend. Especially with their seeming edict that nothing is going to change unless there's damage or loss of original footage.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Let's take a look at this scene when the Enterprise is arriviing at the mining colony:
I don't see any problems to add three background ships in this shot. I would not expect a complete 3D model of the Ambassador or the New Orleans here. What I have in mind would be similar to this shoot from TOS:
Since the planet in "Conspiracy" has been done using CGI the additional effort to include the ships would be minimal. I'm not saying that the effort would be zero, but if you have the revolving planet already in your computer the effort for adding three ships ala TOS "The Omegar Glory" should have been possible, even with a limited budget and under time contraints.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
You're not thinking like CBS. The above is not really a valid comparison, because the Exeter was in the original shot, so there was a need to represent it again. Plus, after the credits we see the establishing shot of the Enterprise next to the Exeter. The Horatio, Renegade, and Thomas Paine were not in the original shot, nor do we see the Enterprise-D parked next to any of those ships later, so in CBS's mind there was no need to add something that wasn't there before, no matter how easy you might think it would be to do so. That's not what they're paying their people to do, nor would the remasterers do something like that if CBS didn't specifically tell them to.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
As a customer I have the luxury that I don't have to think like CBS.
The reason why we have not seen ships like the Horatio or the Merrimac 25 years ago are time and/or budget contraints. Sometimes even the creatuve people involved in the series have told us that they wandted to show certain thinks, but were denied by the producers.
To say now: Look, it was not in the origial broadcast, so we don't have to change it for TNG-R is only a cheap excuse in my opinon and does not make it better. I was under the impresson that one reason why Mike Okuda is with CBS for this restoration is that certain errors in the past would be corrected. I think I have shown how this could have been done with a minimum of effort. But obviously CBS is not willing to go that way. Sad, but this is the world we are living in.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: As a customer I have the luxury that I don't have to think like CBS.
You're welcome to think however you'd like, but it would be a mistake to think that you're entitled to anything from them just because you've chosen to buy the blurays.
quote:To say now: Look, it was not in the origial broadcast, so we don't have to change it for TNG-R is only a cheap excuse in my opinion and does not make it better.
Again, you're misconstruing what this project is. You were spoiled with new stuff because it was a necessity with the TOS HD transfer. That is not the case here.
quote:I was under the impresson that one reason why Mike Okuda is with CBS for this restoration is that certain errors in the past would be corrected. I think I have shown how this could have been done with a minimum of effort. But obviously CBS is not willing to go that way. Sad, but this is the world we are living in.
But what you've described with the Horatio and the other ships is not an error. It's just your personal opinion that you think you should have seen those ships in orbit.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It's funny. When Lucus did the special editions of Star Wars, lots of fans complained, saying that all they wanted was the original footage cleaned up, with no new bits put in. When CBS does exactly to TNG what many people wanted Lucus to do to Star Wars, fans complained.
Fans are dicks.
quote:Originally posted by o2: [saying] we don't have to change it for TNG-R is only a cheap excuse in my opinon and does not make it better. I was under the impresson that one reason why Mike Okuda is with CBS for this restoration is that certain errors in the past would be corrected. I think I have shown how this could have been done with a minimum of effort. But obviously CBS is not willing to go that way. Sad, but this is the world we are living in.
You can complain all you want that CBS are not doing the things that they always said they weren't going to do, but it doesn't make the argument any less silly. But, to follow on from Dukhat above... there's a hell of a big difference between changing some text on a computer screen (or swapping out a wireframe graphic of a refit-Constitution with an original-Constition), and adding in CGI ships, no matter how tiny. The first example corrects a mistake. The second changes the shot, which they are not going to do without a really, really good reason. And so far, "because I wanted to see a class of ship that was never seen on the original show" is not a good reason.
Saying "cheap excuse" is also ridiculous. Paramount would have realised that they could have made money from making HD versions of TNG episodes and selling them on blu-ray/to TV stations, and so allocated a budget to do so. Not giving CBS the money to do more changes is not being "cheap", it is making a financial decision. They don't owe you CGI ships. You may say that you have shown how you could do it with the minimum of effort, but do you know the hourly salary of the people who would design a ship? What software would be used? Whether the time it took to do that would have taken time away from another task? (For example, I'm pretty sure that CBS know about ALL the reversed registries seen over a season. If they have the time and the budget they try and fix them, but if fixing a phaser blast is more important, they'll do that instead. They only have finite resources).
Fans of all kinds will sit there and blame companies for being "lazy", without knowing any of the details. It is annoying. And saying "Sad, but this is the world we are living in" is just bizarre. What world are we living in? Where companies put out a product that pleases some people and annoys others? Yes, that is exactly the world we live in.
(Oddly enough, skimming over the start of this thread from two years ago, o2 seems to be going for the "just clean up the original footage" argument, and Dukhat seems to be going for "it'll look like shit, replace it all". Freaky Friday!)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: (Oddly enough, skimming over the start of this thread from two years ago, o2 seems to be going for the "just clean up the original footage" argument, and Dukhat seems to be going for "it'll look like shit, replace it all". Freaky Friday!)
Well, in my defense, I originally had the "it'll look like shit, replace it all" mentality when I thought all the model shot VFX were going to be replaced with CGI like they did in TOS-R. Once they went with upconverting the original shots however, I changed my tune.
Now that's not to say that if replacing the filming models with CGI was necessary, I wouldn't have minded them changing some things. But it's not necessary and they're not going to change things, so I'm content with that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No new stuff equals no buying of the new editions to me- it'll happen eventually, mark my words, even if it's for the 50th anniversary of TNG or whatever.
The scene swapping looked too damn good and proved the concept too well for TNG to not eventually follow suit- and in my opinion, TNG needs the update every bit as badly- at least in battle scenes!
I may be jaded but watching giant KBOPs has become painful- like a loose that should have been pulled a long time ago but is no longer tolerable....those scenes make me wince now.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I'm not going to buy them either, but not because they aren't changing anything. Because (a) I don't have the money, and (b) they'll eventually be shown on Netflix anyway, just like TOS-R.
While I share your hatred for stuff like oversized BoPs and constantly reused Excelsiors, TNG is what it is. I'm more interested in knowing if all those CGI fleet scenes will have to be redone if DS9 ever gets remastered. That's a good ten years away though, if it happens at all.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: They don't owe you CGI ships. You may say that you have shown how you could do it with the minimum of effort, but do you know the hourly salary of the people who would design a ship? What software would be used? Whether the time it took to do that would have taken time away from another task?
They don't have to do this with CGI. They can use the stock fotage they already have for the Sutherland or the Phoenix. Since the ship has to be down-sized anyway I think this could work very well. They have used stock fotage for the Excelsior over and over, so why not in this case? By the way, the software for the composition of shoots is already available. Obviously they used it for three seasons now.
Regarding the costs involved: I would estimate the hourly costs with 100 Dollars. Assuing that the (stock) footage is alreday available this job should be done in 1 day, resulting in net costs of 800 Dollars. Usually this amount will be multipled by 3 to 5 to cover quality assurance, management, office equipment, etc. so that we receive a total of 4000 Dollars. I expect the real costs to be significant lower since certain synergies apply (the shot in question had been updated with a CGI planet, so all the processing steps after the shot has been finshed by the artist are already covered. The additional starship in it would only be a by-product).
Your profile says that you also work in the IT business. Can I assume that your question was therefore only rhetorical? Please share your insights with us.
4000 Dollars is a lot of money and no project manager is spending this kind of money without a good reason. On the other hand: I have to spend between 60 and 70 EUR for each season (85 to 100 Dollars). This is really a high price for a show considering that no sets were build, no actors had to be paid and no film crew was employed. Don't get me wrong. I love to see TNG in HD (this is the luxury I allow myself). But every now and then I would like to see a little surprise in there. Why? Because I'm assured that this is the last release.
You said I should not complain so much. For my defense I have to say that I was lured by the change of the Tsiolkovsky's registry in 'The Naked Now'. I understand this as a signal that they will indeed change thinks like that every once in the while.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
^Again, you're assuming that not seeing the ships in the original shot constitutes a problem that they needed to fix. The Tsiolkovsky's registry was deemed a problem because the studio model said one thing and the dedication plaque and the ship's listing in the Encyclopedia (which Okuda co-wrote) said another thing.
I'm curious as to how you came up with those figures you gave. What's your experience working with CGI for a television show?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:This is really a high price for a show considering that no sets were build, no actors had to be paid and no film crew was employed.
Did you even pay any attention to the documentaries and information about how they created the remastered version? They had to meticulously search and catalogue 7 years worth of archived footage (not just the used footage, but ALL footage shot). And then they had to re-cut the episode from scratch. That in and of itself is a ridiculous undertaking.
This isn't just a packaging up of an existing show. They're effectively creating a new show. Sure, not from the sets and actors, but I'm CERTAIN that the production staff isn't cheap either.
We can quibble over price all day. But in the words of Publilius Syrus, "Everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it."
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: ^Again, you're assuming that not seeing the ships in the original shot constitutes a problem that they needed to fix. The Tsiolkovsky's registry was deemed a problem because the studio model said one thing and the dedication plaque and the ship's listing in the Encyclopedia (which Okuda co-wrote) said another thing.
Then I'm curious to see how the conundrum regarding the USS Br(a|i)ttain has been solved in season 4.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I'm curious as to how you came up with those figures you gave. What's your experience working with CGI for a television show?
Obviously I am neither a CGI artist nor do I have a history in movie business. But I did a quick proof of concept to get an idea of the work involved:
It took me roughly 15 min. to get the pictures (the USS Sutherland and the scene from Sarek), 'repair' the damage to the Sutherland (since the ship should represent the Monitor), scale it down, rework the color palette a little bit, flip the ship (since Riker said that the Montior just arrived so I guess the ship should be facing towards the planet) and paste it in the existing shot of the Enterprise with the planet. I have to admit that this is only 1 frame out of 120 (24p multiplied with 5 secs), but modern software is able to automate certain steps in the process so things can be expedite a little bit. Therefore I think that 8 hours effort is reasonable.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Then I'm curious to see how the conundrum regarding the USS Br(a|i)ttain has been solved in season 4.
I'd be interested in that as well. But if it turns out that for that particular episode the budget required focusing on Troi's dream-sequences and not on correctly spelling the ship's name, then I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. But we'll see.
quote:It took me roughly 15 min. to get the pictures (the USS Sutherland and the scene from Sarek), 'repair' the damage to the Sutherland (since the ship should represent the Monitor), scale it down, rework the color palette a little bit, flip the ship (since Riker said that the Montior just arrived so I guess the ship should be facing towards the planet) and paste it in the existing shot of the Enterprise with the planet. I have to admit that this is only 1 frame out of 120 (24p multiplied with 5 secs), but modern software is able to automate certain steps in the process so things can be expedite a little bit.Therefore I think that 8 hours effort is reasonable.
Not if they were not instructed specifically to do so by CBS, or, as I keep trying to tell you, that they consider it to be a problem that needs to be fixed.
It seems like no matter what any of us say to you, you simply will not feel differently about adding tiny ships in a shot that didn't have them before, all just to satisfy your incessant need to see them. I'm sorry that TNG-R isn't full of all these changes that you personally would like to see, but I don't recall CBS ever sending out a poll to us fans asking us what we want, nor forcing us to buy their product to make up the difference in added cost to make every single change each individual fan would want. So I don't know what else to say to you.
Now with all that said, the only two "changes" I would have liked to see were to see the entire fleet in "Redemption Pt. II" instead of just the Enterprise, Excalibur, Sutherland and Hathaway in that particular shot...and to replace all the shots of the Oberth class Pegasus stuck in the asteroid with CGI of a newer-looking ship stuck in the asteroid. The former did not happen, and it's highly unlikely that the latter will happen either. Why? Because even though I care that IMHO the Pegasus should have been a new model, CBS doesn't care, and neither do the production personnel of TNG-R. It's not considered to be a mistake that needs to be corrected.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: It seems like no matter what any of us say to you, you simply will not feel differently about adding tiny ships in a shot that didn't have them before, all just to satisfy your incessant need to see them.
I'm afraid in this regard I'm a junkie, never saturated, hopeless...
But I'm also ready to move on. Did anybody saw this new picture they released from Redemption? Word is on the street that they used a CGI-Enterprise for that. The Mirandas in the foreground are the old physical models, but the trash belt in the back is new.
quote:Originally posted by o2: Did anybody saw this new picture they released from Redemption? Word is on the street that they used a CGI-Enterprise for that. The Mirandas in the foreground are the old physical models, but the trash belt in the back is new.
That's from "Unification," not "Redemption." And while I don't know for certain if the Enterprise is CGI, you're correct that the background junk is new, although I'm not sure why it was replaced.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Right, it's Unification (how could I missed that?). The trash in the background looks like an asteriod beld to me. Why should they stack trash in a plain like we see it in the screen shot and not e.g. in a more sphereical form?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I think that's the 4-foot physical model in that shot. If you focus on the details like the lifeboat hatches or the inset windows and the way the shadow falls across them, it really doesn't look like CGI. And it would have to be a different CGI model than the one used previously in "Encounter At Farpoint," which was based on the 6-foot miniature and didn't have nearly that much surface detail.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
If you compare the TNG-R shot with the SD version you can see that multiple windows from the saucer section are now iluminated. So I would assume that this is not the original material they have used.
A quick glance at the deflector array shows these are not the same model. There are other subtle differences, but that is the glaring one to me.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Why, oh, why did they meddle with the scrap belt?! (rhetorical) The old one at least hinted at starship wreckage, the new one is just junk! Why not at least throw in some wreckage, not hard to do with cgi.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Agree on the scrap, but I figure they did it for expedience.
The matting around the Miranda under the Enterprise is really obvious - do they usually tidy them up a bit better than that for the blurays?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starship Freak: The old one at least hinted at starship wreckage, the new one is just junk! Why not at least throw in some wreckage, not hard to do with cgi.
I think we had this discussion recently: before they spend time & money on new CGI models they rather use what they have. By the way, the junk reminds me a little bit of the debris field of the USS Horatio. Wild guess: Could it be that the remainings of the USS Horatio had been brought to the surplus depot as well? Then this debries field would be indeed the wreckage of a startship.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: By the way, the junk reminds me a little bit of the debris field of the USS Horatio. Wild guess: Could it be that the remainings of the USS Horatio had been brought to the surplus depot as well?
It's possible, though I'm curious to know why the far background objects needed to be replaced with random CGI flotsam. Was it because those objects might be revealed to be non-Trek items? If that's the case, then this is actually a change I don't quite approve of, as I would have liked to see exactly what was originally used in the FB.
Although I will say that I do approve of that Batris-type freighter no longer being that silly orange color.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
o2: I agree, but there is a world of difference in proberly doing a cgi model to be used for closeups, and doing something on the cheap and quickly. (Has been done in Trek before, ask Doug Drexler)
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Maybe the original background junk footage was either lost or low quality and so had to be replaced?
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Sounds like the obvious explanation. But I would love to hear what the original debris field consisted of. Lost in time...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: Regarding the costs involved: I would estimate the hourly costs with 100 Dollars. Assuing that the (stock) footage is alreday available this job should be done in 1 day, resulting in net costs of 800 Dollars. Usually this amount will be multipled by 3 to 5 to cover quality assurance, management, office equipment, etc. so that we receive a total of 4000 Dollars. I expect the real costs to be significant lower since certain synergies apply (the shot in question had been updated with a CGI planet, so all the processing steps after the shot has been finshed by the artist are already covered. The additional starship in it would only be a by-product).
Your profile says that you also work in the IT business. Can I assume that your question was therefore only rhetorical? Please share your insights with us.
4000 Dollars is a lot of money and no project manager is spending this kind of money without a good reason. On the other hand: I have to spend between 60 and 70 EUR for each season (85 to 100 Dollars). This is really a high price for a show considering that no sets were build, no actors had to be paid and no film crew was employed. Don't get me wrong. I love to see TNG in HD (this is the luxury I allow myself). But every now and then I would like to see a little surprise in there. Why? Because I'm assured that this is the last release.
You said I should not complain so much. For my defense I have to say that I was lured by the change of the Tsiolkovsky's registry in 'The Naked Now'. I understand this as a signal that they will indeed change thinks like that every once in the while.
My question was completely rhetorical, because I have no idea of the costs involved. None of us do. No actors had to be paid? Are you sure they contracts don't cover money made from re-releases? Same with any of the old production staff. And your costs have completely missed out on a whole load of factors. As has been said, they've spent months tracking down the original footage and re-editing it. Bits like the Starbase from 11001001 (from memory, bitches!) were taken from the original film stock from ST III, lots of shots have been reframed to remove things like tripods, the colour-grading has been changed across all episodes, every single piece of CGI in the show at the moment has had to be redone practically from scratch...
Besides, hourly costs of $100? Assuming that they're at least 5 staff on the project, you're only paying them $20 an hour for quite technical skills? Never mind that you've left no money for paying for the computer software (which even if already bought might need to be continiously relicenced), the specialist hardware such as the monitors required, a general IT infrastructure including email, file servers, anti-virus software and so on, office space, electricity, food and drink, cleaning, transportation costs, running and maintaining the equipment required to read the old film stock, advertising money, paying for all the blu-ray extras like the commentaries, cast and writers get-togethers, and lots more that I can't think of because I'm not a project manager...
But basically, if the costs are anywhere near as low as $100 an hour I would be staggered. I doubt that would even cover the wages.
(I do understand that you'd like to see more changes. So would a lot of people. And a lot of people complained about the Star Wars special editions, or the remastered versions of Red Dwarf. I do respect the producers desires to keep things clean. Both TOS and TNG remastered weren't done for us, they were done for casual fans. Casual fans would notice the horrible-for-today space shots in TOS. They would notice that TNG is a blurry, smeary mess. They won't notice that the BOPs in Yesterday's Enterprise are bigger than they are supposed to be.)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Sorry, just realised we've moved on. I will do the same!
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: The documentary was interesting and the raw material of the graveyard scene allows a somewhat better look at the USS Buran. Did anybody else yet saw the documentary?
So I just bought the BoBW bluray. You're correct, there's a lot of great ship stuff in that documentary, even though there's no new ships. If I had a bluray drive I'd make screencaps, but alas, I don't. Here's what I observed:
1. The GCS nacelle directly underneath the TMP Enterprise saucer is actually blown out at both ends, not just where the bussard collector was.
2. The Chekov does indeed still have the secondary hull underneath the ship (was previously thought to have been removed before filming), and you can see how the Oberth-like pylons are situated on the secondary hull with an almost-front-view of the ship. It actually looks really cool.
3. Not only can we see the Buran in its entirety in the opening shot, it's the closest ship to the camera, and we can make it out extremely well. Why this didn't show up in the episode is beyond me, as the model work was exceptional.
4. We also have great views of the Princeton and Melbourne from the final shots, and how the models were all placed via mounting rods.
5. There's also a *lot* of other stuff in the far background (seen attached to the aforementioned mounting rods), but unfortunately no closeups of them.
6. The interview with Greg Jein was short but very insightful. Besides mentioning the Princeton and the Firebrand (which also seemed to have been reused for that unused battle scene from Emissary if I understood him correctly), he talks about creating models of actual dead crewmembers floating in space but were either too small to see or too gruesome to be filmed.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Thanks for the info Dukhat! Looking forward to seeing screencaps. You know, I was browsing memory alpha recently and saw an image of the USS Freedom that was different than the standard screencap, the ship had drifted further to the right, showing more of the ship, kinda cool actually.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Some more observations:
7. That GCS nacelle underneath the TMP Enterprise saucer in the first scene reappears as the longish piece of wreckage seen in the far background of the final scene (directly above the Ent-D).
8. The Chekov's upper, angular pod is actually connected to the ship by two pylons on either side of it. The pod itself is not actually touching the ship.
9. In the final scene, the Ent-D is heading right for the Chekov (seen here from above), but to the immediate left of the Chekov in the far background is another shot of the Ahwahnee (in the actual shot it looks like only the top pair of nacelles are showing, but I could make out both pairs in the beauty pass during Jein's interview).
10. Contrary to the side-view schematic Bernd drew up for the Nebula prototype Melbourne on the Wolf 359 page at Ex-Astris-Scientia (showing the small nacelles attached to the end of the secondary hull), I truly believe that those small nacelles are actually attached to some kind of structure sticking out of the back of the saucer. If the top view photo of the ship were normal instead of false-color, we'd be able to make it out.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starship Freak: I was browsing memory alpha recently and saw an image of the USS Freedom that was different than the standard screencap, the ship had drifted further to the right, showing more of the ship, kinda cool actually.
The picture on Memory Alpha is from the BoBW blu ray disc. I haven't checked if this is a slightly longer cut compared to the DVD.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
6. The interview with Greg Jein was short but very insightful. Besides mentioning the Princeton and the Firebrand (which also seemed to have been reused for that unused battle scene from Emissary if I understood him correctly), he talks about creating models of actual dead crewmembers floating in space but were either too small to see or too gruesome to be filmed.
Jein is most probably referring to the shuttle 'Kotoi' from the USS Liberator. The photo of this shuttlecraft shows a dead crewman within the shuttle (a photo of that shuttle can be seen here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Kotoi).
I don't think that this shuttle was actually in BoBW; both blu ray feature and behind the scene material gives us no indication of such an appearence of that shuttle.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
o2: It is. So, bluray caps exists. I thought they might, but haven´t seen any more. Anyone?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Can you point me to it? In which scene is the shuttle visible?
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Sorry, my reply was to your posting on USS Freedom, not the shuttlecraft.
However, considering all the debris not identifiable onscreen, you never know, they might have slipped it in anyhow. It is such a great modelpiece.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
No, there is just this one shot of the USS Freedom.
Regarding the shuttle: I watched the particular scenes from BoBW and the documentation as well now a couple of times and I'm pretty sure that the shuttle is not in there. The only thing that I cannot identify is the ship or wrackage that is located directly over the Kyushu in this scene: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/wolf359-1-3.jpg
At some point in time I believed that this is a Miranda class model with only one warp nacelle (the other one being destroyed), but now I tend to belive that this is the a piece of the Ent-D model kit (the piece that is forming the underside of the engineering section, including the two pylons for the warp nacelles), flipped upside down and equipped with one warp nacelle.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: Regarding the shuttle: I watched the particular scenes from BoBW and the documentation as well now a couple of times and I'm pretty sure that the shuttle is not in there. The only thing that I cannot identify is the ship or wrackage that is located directly over the Kyushu in this scene: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/wolf359-1-3.jpg
At some point in time I believed that this is a Miranda class model with only one warp nacelle (the other one being destroyed), but now I tend to believe that this is the a piece of the Ent-D model kit (the piece that is forming the underside of the engineering section, including the two pylons for the warp nacelles), flipped upside down and equipped with one warp nacelle.
Thanks to the bluray, I've managed to identify every single piece of wreckage that can be seen in all the shots, with the exception of the same piece you linked to. Frustratingly, this piece (which appears in three different shots no less) was not seen clearly at all in the documentary.
1. It's unlikely to be another Miarecki study model, as all five models he built can be seen together in the first scene. It's also unlikely to be a piece of a Miarecki model that was removed, as we don't see any other missing pieces of the ships floating around.
2. It's also unlikely to be something Greg Jein Inc. created, as his main stuff was either two large ships or three large pieces of wreckage. This thing looks really small, so it could be the Kotoi.
3. The perspective of this object changes from the first scene to the last. The shadowing tends to hide characteristics too (like with the Chekov's lower pod). In the first scene, it does kinda look like a Reliant saucer and one nacelle. But in this scene, it looks more like some kind of shuttle:
It could be the Kotoi. Okuda also said that they were considering using a shuttle maquette from Phase II. Could this object be it?
As for your hypothesis, I have an Enterprise-D model kit. I will arrange the pieces the way you described and take a pic of it to see if it looks somewhat like how you see it.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
After making this image, I've decided that this wreckage is in fact the Kotoi. To my eyes, it sorta matches up with the middle shot, which is the final time we see the wreckage, right below the Ent-D's saucer in the final shot.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Well, I'm not so sure that the wreckage is the Shuttle Kotoi. What would be the orientation of the shuttle so that it matches the scene in BoBW? Was is filmed from the side or from behind? The warp nacelle of the shuttle is very close to the body of the shuttle, but the scene in BoBW suggest that the warp nacelle (or whatever this small part on the left botton is)is more apart from the ships main body.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I think he's correct. The dark window combined with the shadow that would fall across the undercut of the shuttle's ventral bow and the blown starboard hatch would lead to the large black area that looks like empty space. Plus, the little dark spot on top seems to match an area of damage in the photo of the Kotoi in The Art Of Star Trek, where part of the hull is sort of peeled back. In addition to all of this, the identification is supported by process of elimination.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: Well, I'm not so sure that the wreckage is the Shuttle Kotoi. What would be the orientation of the shuttle so that it matches the scene in BoBW? Was is filmed from the side or from behind? The warp nacelle of the shuttle is very close to the body of the shuttle, but the scene in BoBW suggest that the warp nacelle (or whatever this small part on the left botton is)is more apart from the ships main body.
Keep in mind that the perspective and shadowing in these scenes are very deceptive. For the longest time it looked as if the Princeton's left nacelle was just floating in space next to the ship because its pylon was as dark as the surrounding space.
Here's my take (with admittedly lousy Microsoft Paint editing skills):
I think the first time wee see this wreckage (the pic on the far right), the perspective is just such that it doesn't resemble the shuttle all that much, but then it tends to later.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Here's what you're talking about. The above is from both the 1/1400 kit and the 1/2500 kit. I sorta see why you thought this wreckage looked like this, but it looks to me like the pylon with the nacelle would be too thin at the angle wee see it on screen. There's more structure that can be seen than just a thin curved pylon, IMHO.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Hello Dukhat,
this is a reply to your previous post (04:21 AM):
You are suggesting that the windshield of the shuttle is not visible (or black) due to the illumination in this shot. But I think that this is not the case here because in both scenes where the object is visible you can see a faint star that is passing the area. This star moves from left to right and is on the same level as the 'warp nacelle' (or whatever it is). Therefore I would conclude that the space right beneath the illuminated (grey) area is indeed empty and not shadowed. But this would leave us with the question where the windshield of the shuttle is instead.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Regading your post from 04:35 AM:
Thanks for doing this exercise. Have you thought of swithing the nacelle from left to right and to look at it from behind? I think that orientation would be more like the objekt in the scene.
By the way, it is possible that we have two different objects here (though they seam to be similar in appearence)?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: You are suggesting that the windshield of the shuttle is not visible (or black) due to the illumination in this shot. But I think that this is not the case here because in both scenes where the object is visible you can see a faint star that is passing the area. This star moves from left to right and is on the same level as the 'warp nacelle' (or whatever it is)
I think that what you're referring to as a "star" is actually part of the wreckage. I could be mistaken though.
quote:Have you thought of swithing the nacelle from left to right and to look at it from behind? I think that orientation would be more like the object in the scene.
I will do that and photo the result.
quote:By the way, it is possible that we have two different objects here (though they seam to be similar in appearence)?
No, I'm pretty sure it's the same object.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I think that what you're referring to as a "star" is actually part of the wreckage. I could be mistaken though.
The star is moving with a diferent velocity than the object itself and in the same manner als the rest of the starfield. Please check out time index 0:56:27.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I don't have the blu-rays so I can't check, but are you sure it isn't simply an illusion created by the object rotating as well as moving across the starfield? Or perhaps a compositing error?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I'm not sure how I could tell if it is a compositing error. Normaly you create the matte pass so that the shilouette is blocking everthing that is behind the ship (in this case the stars), even if the ship (or parts of it) is very dark. But in this case I'm convinced that a star is moving right beneath the visible parts of the ship, leading me to the assumption that the dark area is not part of the ship.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I don't have S4 yet (in Germay it will only be released next month!) but did anybody checked if the registry of the USS Cochrane is now legibable? Unfortunately Memory Alpha has not been updated with the new material. It still shows a picture from the DVDs (were you barlely see nothing).
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Just wanted to point out that Amazon has TOS and TNG (both on Blu Ray) on sale for $34 (for TOS) and $50 (for TNG 1 - 3) and they are totally worth every penny.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, that was disappointing. Until I clicked through, I didn't realize that you meant those prices were per season.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I've often wondered why it is that Star Trek seasons are so damned expensive. Even the regular DVDs are still outrageous for a season of a show that was originally aired 20+ years ago.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I've often wondered why it is that Star Trek seasons are so damned expensive. Even the regular DVDs are still outrageous for a season of a show that was originally aired 20+ years ago.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
They're priced so high because people are willing to buy them at that price.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
At least they got the right idea with the TNG DVDs and have released that new "silhouette" set for I think $40 a season. Which is more in line with most other TV shows out there.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
At least they got the right idea with the TNG DVDs and have released that new "silhouette" set for I think $40 a season. Which is more in line with most other TV shows out there.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I almost wish that silhouette art was used for the blu rays: that art is gorgeous!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I see what you mean. Very nice art with the Big E flying through the spaces.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Checking Amazon for similar genre shows:
Star Trek: TNG (DVD) £16 per 26 episode season, £76 for complete set Battlestar Galactica (new series, DVD) £24 for season 1 (13 episodes), £10 for season 2 or 3 (20 episodes) Quantum Leap (DVD) roughly £10 per 22 episode season Red Dwarf (DVD) roughly £6 per 6 episode season.
TNG is a bit more expensive but I wouldn't call it "outrageous". The Quantum Leap DVDs have no extras and extensive music replacement. BSG has slightly less episodes for a third off the price, but I don't think the difference is enought to make TNG seem hugely overpriced.
The blu rays are a different proposition, because there isn't anything to compare them with. Modern TV shows are shot in HD for blu ray release. I can't think of any other TV shows that have required the amount of work TNG has received in order to "HD-ize" it, and bear in mind they will receive less money than they would if it was a new TV show because they're still selling a 20 year old 4:3 show. A better comparison might be Enterprise, which WAS a modern HD show. Amazon are showing those seasons for £40 a pop, which is slightly less than TNG, but again not significantly cheaper.
Are the blu-rays expensive? Probably. OTOH, a film usually costs at least £13 on blu-ray, so £40 for a 24 episode season with lots of good quality extras seems great value for money. At the end of the day as MinutiaeMan they are priced at what they think people will pay for them. I've bought them, even thought they're showing on satellite TV now. But then, I'm also the guy who's about to spend over £100 on a two-foot tall Transformer (with articulated eyes!), so I'm not the best judge of value.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
The Startrek.com shop still lists each season of the shows for $70US for the DVDs, which is the price I usually see them retailing for in stores. The new silhouette set is also listed for $70US on the website, but I know it was at Costco for $40CDN per season not too long ago (my local store is sold out currently).
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
The Startrek.com shop still lists each season of the shows for $70US for the DVDs, which is the price I usually see them retailing for in stores. The new silhouette set is also listed for $70US on the website, but I know it was at Costco for $40CDN per season not too long ago (my local store is sold out currently).
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
After recently watching Redepemption Part II I made a small obervatation I like to share with you: In the scene aboard the USS Sutherland, where Data is accessing the computer, the LCARS screen has been redone for the remastered release. Some of the text is now readable, but some thing is bothering me: The reference to the USS Ahwahnee is not there anymore. It looks like to me that the same three pages are beeing used over and over and maybe the guys who were doing the update where not aware of the fact that the Ahwahnee is shown on one page with registry. Here is the link to the screen shot from the DVDs:
I can't read a single word of that strand of text.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Ok, bad example. On the USS Ahwahnee-side of Memory Alpha you can find a screenshot where you can read the name of the USS Ahwahnee (it is the left (unremastered) picture).
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Ok, I see what you're saying now. But couldn't it just be that the text is scrolling and that HD cap just shows the text at a later time?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I have watched the scene picture by picture, but I didn't found what I was looking for. If I'm correct then the Uss Ahwahnee is not mentioned anymore, at least not in this scene.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, if it's still on the tachyon grid, it's not really much of a problem.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
It is still on the tachyon screen.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: I don't have S4 yet (in Germay it will only be released next month!) but did anybody checked if the registry of the USS Cochrane is now legibable? Unfortunately Memory Alpha has not been updated with the new material. It still shows a picture from the DVDs (were you barlely see nothing).
I'm now in a position to answer my own question: The registry of the ship is NCC-59318. This is not really a surprise.
Here comes the interessing part: If the same model was used in 'A Fistful of Datas' then the registry would be NCC-59318 as well. But since the Oberth is named 'Biko' in that episode I have to conclude that the ship in 'The Drumhead' is the 'Biko' as well and not the 'Cochrane'.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Assuming NCC numbers are fixed. Which they probably almost certainly are.
Alternatively, the ship might have changed it's name. Cochrane is probably quite a prestigious name for a ship, so perhaps something with a new kind of warp drive or whatnot was launched and named Cochrane. NCC-59318 was renamed Biko and resumed its life in a relegated position.
Or not. *Shrugs* could just be a thing they assumed no one would ever notice.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: Here comes the interesting part: If the same model was used in 'A Fistful of Datas' then the registry would be NCC-59318 as well. But since the Oberth is named 'Biko' in that episode I have to conclude that the ship in 'The Drumhead' is the 'Biko' as well and not the 'Cochrane'.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that something about the Biko is going to change in TNG-R. They may just change the registry to match the one in the Encyclopedia (NCC-50331), or, along with the planet it's in front of, they may change the design of the ship entirely. Using stock footage of the Cochrane for the Biko was a poor decision, since it was described as a supply ship, something that the Oberth class had never been used for before.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2:
quote:Originally posted by o2: I don't have S4 yet (in Germay it will only be released next month!) but did anybody checked if the registry of the USS Cochrane is now legibable? Unfortunately Memory Alpha has not been updated with the new material. It still shows a picture from the DVDs (were you barlely see nothing).
I'm now in a position to answer my own question: The registry of the ship is NCC-59318. This is not really a surprise.
Here comes the interessing part: If the same model was used in 'A Fistful of Datas' then the registry would be NCC-59318 as well. But since the Oberth is named 'Biko' in that episode I have to conclude that the ship in 'The Drumhead' is the 'Biko' as well and not the 'Cochrane'.
As far back as 2002, Spikeprovided screenshots that showed the number legibly. (The image links may well be dead by now, though.) Respectfully, I think your second conclusion is misguided. It would both be a distortion of what actually happened (the model was labeled as the Cochrane and then footage of it was reused as a different ship) and would conflict with the casualty list graphic from DS9 ("In The Pale Moonlight," et al) that again shows NCC-59318 attached to the name U.S.S. Cochrane.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that something about the Biko is going to change in TNG-R. They may just change the registry to match the one in the Encyclopedia (NCC-50331), or, along with the planet it's in front of, they may change the design of the ship entirely. Using stock footage of the Cochrane for the Biko was a poor decision, since it was described as a supply ship, something that the Oberth class had never been used for before.
Though I would appreciate a new starship very much I highly doubt that we will get something like that. And I doubt that they will change the registry either. But we have only 2 month till S5 is out on blu ray and we will see...
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: As far back as 2002, Spikeprovided screenshots that showed the number legibly. (The image links may well be dead by now, though.) Respectfully, I think your second conclusion is misguided. It would both be a distortion of what actually happened (the model was labeled as the Cochrane and then footage of it was reused as a different ship) and would conflict with the casualty list graphic from DS9 ("In The Pale Moonlight," et al) that again shows NCC-59318 attached to the name U.S.S. Cochrane.
The ship list that is featured in the episode 'In the Pale Moonlight' is not the same that was published in the DS9 companion and that has referenced the Cochrane. There is still no canon source for a ship named 'Cochrane' in any episiode that has aired. But here I'm talking about information that is accessable right now with the TNG-R project. This piece of information has to be favoured over any other kind of information that has only be made available in 'written' form.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I think you got that mixed up. The display reproduced in the companion is the one from "In the Pale Moonlight". It was later modified for "DS9 The Siege of AR 558" with Starfleet vessels replaced by Klingon and Romulan ships, but the Cochrane is on both lists. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/PWB_Tomal?file=Casualty_list%252C_The_siege_of_AR558_1.jpg Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I don't have my own screencaps handy at the moment to verify, but going by memory I'm pretty sure the graphic in "In The Pale Moonlight" is indeed the one from the DS9 Companion, and that it was only later that it was modified, adding Romulan ships and deleting some of the SF ones. I don't remember if the Cochrane was among the deletions or not. (EDITED TO ADD: I now see from Spike's post above that it was not.) But I'll leave that aside for a moment.
It's one thing to consider a name that wasn't visible in the episode non-canon. (Though silly IMO, since it was surely on the model. Where else would the writers of the TNG Companion get the name, since it's not specified in the script? I don't believe they uncharacteristically just made it up.)
It's a another matter and a step too far to posit that every time stock footage of a ship is re-used, even if the registry is visible, it must represent the same ship, since there are many cases where this is impossible and it was clearly not the intent. (The same footage of the Hood from "Encounter At Farpoint" was re-used as many Excelsior class vessels in TNG, some specified to be other ships and some not. And was every single Akira we ever saw the same ship? They all had the same registry! There are numerous other [and maybe better] examples as well.)
I think excluding what we know from behind-the-scenes sources from consideration is counterproductive, because it's tantamount to a denial of the reality of the situation. There *was* a ship named Cochrane irrespective of whether that name was seen in the episode(s) as aired, and if we pretend there wasn't because of that technicality, we're simply ignoring the facts. Moreover, if we pretend that it was instead a ship from an episode that hadn't been written/produced yet, we're compounding the problem by adding retrospective speculation and interpolation of intent to the mix. I know I've done my fair share of that in the past, and that it can be part of the fun, and that it's ultimately all pretend, etc., but I hope my point is taken nonetheless.
[ September 23, 2013, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Indeed. o2, it's just a bit too anal-retentive to base stock footage of other ships as gospel. Yes, the ship described in dialog as the Biko has the registry number of the Cochrane, but did the Enterprise-D rendezvous with the Repulse every single time that we saw her flying next to an Excelsior? Of course not.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have any stock footage at all (see my status under my username), and every time we saw another ship in TNG, it would be completely new footage of a new model of vessel, instead of stock and movie-era ships. But time and budget constraints, not to mention that at the time no one would ever have thought that future viewers would be using giant HDTVs and HD Bluray discs to analyze scenes to death, necessitated what they ended up using.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Indeed. o2, it's just a bit too anal-retentive to base stock footage of other ships as gospel. Yes, the ship described in dialog as the Biko has the registry number of the Cochrane, but did the Enterprise-D rendezvous with the Repulse every single time that we saw her flying next to an Excelsior?
I think you are missing my point: The re-use of the Repulse footage is no problem (and, as you said, a necessarity of filmmaking) because the name and/or the registry is not visible on screen. But for the Biko we have a different situation. The registry is indeed visible, at least in 'Drumhead'.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike: I think you got that mixed up. The display reproduced in the companion is the one from "In the Pale Moonlight". It was later modified for "DS9 The Siege of AR 558" with Starfleet vessels replaced by Klingon and Romulan ships, but the Cochrane is on both lists. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/PWB_Tomal?file=Casualty_list%252C_The_siege_of_AR558_1.jpg
I have to do same investigation on that (where are my DS9-DVDs?).
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
What are those PWR/PWB ships? Romulan?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Yes, the Romulan logo is under the ship names. Praetorial WarBird is my best guess.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: I think you are missing my point: The re-use of the Repulse footage is no problem (and, as you said, a necessarity of filmmaking) because the name and/or the registry is not visible on screen. But for the Biko we have a different situation. The registry is indeed visible, at least in 'Drumhead'.
Actually, in HD the Repulse's registry is visible as 2544 on the end of the nacelle.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Actually, in HD the Repulse's registry is visible as 2544 on the end of the nacelle.
Is it possible that your blu ray disc has a higher resolution then the one that I am own? If you look at this picture from 'The Child':
You can see that there is some text on the fins, but I honestly belive that you can't read 'NCC-2544' actually.
But we have other situations where we disregard a registry because we know that stock footage has been used.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I had some discussion recently regarding the registry that is visible on the hull of the shuttle in 'Identity Crisis' and I thought this could be interesting for you guys as well:
I just want to add that I think it is weird they haven't released anything about season 6. The season 5 had no preview for the 6th season, and usually, within a week or two of the release, the next season's release date has been announced.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Season 6 is the bad season. We don't talk about season 6.
Or is that SG-1.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Season 7 is the bad season.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It's been ages since I've watched TNG. Honestly the seasons blur together for me.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
It's so funny how everyone says this or that season is so horrible without thinking of the first season at all.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
The first season gets a pass because it was the first season.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I compared the Tachyon Fleet chart from Redeption, Part II from the Bly Rays with the DVDs and I found that the USS Excelsior is now listed as well. This ship was missing in the original status chart.
On the other hand is the USS Hathaway still not listed on that diagram.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
So now there's 18 ships instead of 17? Did the Excelsior have a registry number like the other ships did?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I count 17 ships on that chart, I thought the old one had only 16 names on it. But, yes, the registry of the Excalicur is there, too: Ncc-26517.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I'm confused. You first said the ship was the Excelsior, and now you're saying it was the Excalibur (which was Riker's command). And to clarify, there were a total of 17 ships in the grid (16 plus the Enterprise). There were two detection grid diagrams shown, one with all the ships, and another when the grid was disrupted, which did not show the Excalibur. Maybe you're confusing the names?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Sorry for the confusion. I meant the Excalibur, not the Excelsior. I wanted to point out that the Excalibur was not on either of the diagrams before but was added for the blu ray release.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I see know that there is a third appearence of that diagram in the first half of the episode (actually it is the first appearance). I never noticed before that the Excalibur was listed here.
By the way, for the blu rays they re-arranged some of the ships in that particular diagram. It seems to me that the Sutherland and the Charleston have switched positions in order to match their places in the diagrams that are being shown later in the show.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Season 6 is the bad season. We don't talk about season 6.
Or is that SG-1.
Possibly SG-1. TNG Season 6 had some fantastic episodes - such as "The Chase"... "Relics", "Schisms", "Chain of Command", "Face of the Enemy", "Tapestry", "Starship Mine", "Lessons", and "Timescape"! Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Unfortunately, the joke was apparently lost on many. SG-1's season 6 was when Daniel Jackson was gone and Jonas Quinn filled in.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Nah, I got ya. Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
By looking at this ship list from 'Brothers' on this page
Well, because things change.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Quick reply, that I have to admit...
The Zhukov was later seen as Ambassador class, but is there any reference on screen for the Ajax to be Apollo class?
By the way, Bernd is referring to this particular screenshot in 'Brothers' and not to any secondary sources.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: The Zhukov was later seen as Ambassador class, but is there any reference on screen for the Ajax to be Apollo class?
The Ajax was shown in the tachyon detection grid. However, no class info was shown and it had the registry listed in the Encyclopedia. The Ajax on the status display has a different registry. But obviously they're supposed to be the same ship.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
From my point of view only the one from the episode 'Brothers' should be considered, though it would be interesting to know why the list was changed in some cases (ok, the case of the Zhukov is quite clear to me, but why have they changed the class of the Ajax? This ship was not shown in any episode, so no harm was done).
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
USS Titan on "Future Imperfect" Riker service history?
I'm assuming this is a newly created screen and someone decided to have a little fun.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Makes sense, in an in-joke-y way. Weren't a lot of the text screens just plain gibberish, since they knew they wouldn't be legible? They'd have to be updated for HD anyway. Plus, they know that we look for this stuff now... Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I do SO wish to know what the "Joint Excalbian Campaign" was to be.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Conspicuous gallandry", huh? My best etymological guess is that that means "French manliness".
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: USS Titan on "Future Imperfect" Riker service history?
Since the episode is actually not playing in the future (or in an possible future) the alien boy had no way to know what the future command of Rike would be.
On the other hand, maybe Riker recalled this incident a few years from this episode and asked Starfleet to remanme his first Ship to USS Titan because of his service record?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: "Conspicuous gallandry", huh? My best etymological guess is that that means "French manliness".
"French" + "manliness"?
{Nomad} Non sequitur; your facts are uncoordinated. {/Nomad}
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: Since the episode is actually not playing in the future (or in an possible future) the alien boy had no way to know what the future command of Riker would be.
Yeah, I caught this too. Barash couldn't see into the future, so how the hell would he have known actual future events like this? Obviously it's just an easter egg and shouldn't be taken seriously.
quote:On the other hand, maybe Riker recalled this incident a few years from this episode and asked Starfleet to remanme his first Ship to USS Titan because of his service record?
I sincerely doubt that. The service record was fake; why would he feel like he needed to follow it in any fashion?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:On the other hand, maybe Riker recalled this incident a few years from this episode and asked Starfleet to remanme his first Ship to USS Titan because of his service record?
I sincerely doubt that. The service record was fake; why would he feel like he needed to follow it in any fashion? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Because Caption Riker realized that USS Titan is really a cool starship name! Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"'French' + 'manliness'?
{Nomad} Non sequitur; your facts are uncoordinated. {/Nomad}"
Well, alternatively, "gall-" could come from gallus, in which case we're talking about manly chickens, which... sure, why not?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
In the personal file of 'Commander' MacDuff is his previous post given as USS Orion.
Is this ship name real or fake?
I tend to believe that this ship is indeed a real one, although the file was (of course) a fake. Why? Because no operative would be send on a mission when his false background story could be so easily uncovered.
What do you think?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: Why? Because no operative would be send on a mission when his false background story could be so easily uncovered.
Yes, that's probably true. Considering that Starfleet has such ships as the U.S.S. Elmer Fudd and the U.S.S. Non Sequitor, the U.S.S. Orion is practically blase.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
First I though it is a referece to the Orion Syndicate, but it is more likely that this is refering to the constallation Orion, like the USS Aries.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I don't think the term "Orion Syndicate" existed at the time. That wasn't until the later seasons of DS9. Plus, why would Starfleet (or the Satarrans, for that matter) name a ship after that? Does Starfleet have a U.S.S. Mafia? It's probably named after the mythological figure (which the constellation is named after).
*EDIT* Were the personnel profiles the original film elements, or were they reconstructed for TNG-R? If the latter, then yes, it might have been an in-joke about the OS, but I'm not sure why.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Looks like most of them have been reconstructed for this episode. The file of Ensign Ro now has a referece to the USS Wellington.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Just saw the restored picture of the USS Yosemite on Trek Core:
The registry is now visible: NCC-19002.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
While the studio model for the Yosemite (clearly showing the registry number on the secondary hull) was shown in Cinefantastique magazine, this screencap shows that the registry on the saucer was likewise changed too.
The interesting thing is that this episode takes place before DS9's "Emissary," and the Oberth carrying Dax and Bashir to the station was listed as the Cochrane. But the model would still have been labeled as the Yosemite, with her 19002 registry...
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I guess we will find out once DS9 will be released on Blu Ray (fingers crossed!).
By the way, I wouldn't had a problem if it was the Yosemite instead of the Cochrane.
On another topic, there is also a picuture of a Runabout on Trek Core. I think they used the Rio Grande for that shot. I don't think name or reg will be visible due to motion blur, but it would be nice to have a new name/reg here instead.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
In "Aquiel" We can see in Keith Rocha's service record that he was assigned to the U.S.S. Mare Tranquillitatis:
Check out time index 29:40. There are a few ships mentioned: Uss Hood, Uss Charleston, Uss Marrimac and two others that I cannot read.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
^I don't have the Bluray; I just got the Mare Tranquillitatis info from Memory Alpha.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I'm not allowed to post picutes here...
But if you like you can check with the DVD: It is the scene where LaForge is in the command center of the relay station. There is a big display on the wall, saying 'Releay Message Flow 1293'. There are at least five ship names in the list, all starting with USS and a few star bases (e.g. SB 72).
Unfortunately the name of USS Mare Tranquillitatis is only faintly readable, as is the name of the captin.
[ July 06, 2014, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: o2 ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: I'm not allowed to post pictures here...
Huh? Why not? If you have screencaps, you can send them to me and I'll post them.
quote:Unfortunately the name of USS Mare Tranquillitatis is only faintly readable, as is the name of the captain.
Douglas Drexler is the captain.
Also, in "Darmok" we find out that the Shiku Maru has an S.S. prefix, not U.S.S., and that its registry is NDT-3XXX4 (38864 is my guess), so it's not a Starfleet ship:
quote:Originally posted by o2: I'm not allowed to post picutes here...
Every member can post pictures, there is no restrictions on that. This is very old software so we don't have the option to upload a picture and attach it during the posting process; all pictures must be hosted off-site and linked using img tags.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux:
quote:Originally posted by o2: I'm not allowed to post picutes here...
Every member can post pictures, there is no restrictions on that. This is very old software so we don't have the option to upload a picture and attach it during the posting process; all pictures must be hosted off-site and linked using img tags.
Yes, it is possible to link external pictures. Somehow I was under the impression that I can upload pictures to Flare once I have a certain number of posts...
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: If you have screencaps, you can send them to me and I'll post them.
Please send me a PN with you email address.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
He's probably referring to the 250 post requirement to make use of Flare Upload.
The Shiku Maru was always generally thought to be a non-Starfleet vessel. It was listed that way (though not specifically with an "S.S." prefix) in the official reference works, and in real life the Japanese suffix Maru is only applied to civilian vessels.*
*(Add yet another reason to the list for why J.J. Abrams' Trek is @#%&*! stupid.)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
The Shiku Maru was always generally thought to be a non-Starfleet vessel. It was listed that way (though not specifically with an "S.S." prefix) in the official reference works, and in real life the Japanese suffix Maru is only applied to civilian vessels.
The "U.S.S." prefix for the ship was listed at Memory Alpha, but they've since deleted the page (probably updating it with the new info).
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: He's probably referring to the 250 post requirement to make use of Flare Upload.
Correct.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Hunh, I didn't think Flare Upload still worked. Anyway, you can now use it, o2.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
So there's four starbases and eight ships listed. Here's what I can make out.
STARBASE 54 STARBASE 76 STARBASE 12 STARBASE Beta or Zeta
USS K'XXXXX USS CHARLESTON USS XXXXXE USS HOOD? USS MERRIMAC USS XXXXX USS CAROLINE? USS ZHUKOV?
There's also a Starbase 4112.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
After inverting the colors, I think I can make out a bit more:
USS K'MARKS USS CHARLESTON USS XXELE USS HOOD USS MERRIMAC USS WETLARK USS CAROLINE USS ZHUKOV
Of course, several of these names come out to be nonsense words, so I'm probably wrong in my guesses.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
Dukhat,
I would like screencaps of the following: 1. The right side of the Relay Message Flow 1293 2. The log entries from Relay Station 47 3. Sector 21527 star chart
[] this symbol represents what is illegible
Here is what I can read: 1. Sector 56, Sector [] 2. Starbase 78, Sector 1540 Starfleet Commnet Three 3. Starbase 12, Sector 25712, Starfleet Commnet One, Encoded Beta 4. Starbase Meta, Sector 9012, Starfleet Commnet Three- Commnet Six, Open Channel 5. U.S.S. K'Marco, Sector 5501, Starfleet Commnet One, Gamma One-Three, Warp Drive Performance Tests 6. USS Charleston, Sector [], Starfleet Commnet Seven, Secure Channel, Deep Space Exploration Sector 22855 7. USS Odele, Sector 9012, Commnet 229, Open Channel, Refit Starbase 4112 8. USS Hood, Sector 9012, Relay Station 182-A, Encoded Epsilon, Warp Power Testing, Mark VI Version 9. USS Merrimac, In Transit, Relay Station 452 10. GCA Wetlark, Sector [], Relay [] []-[] [], [] Five, Starbase 11. CCN Caroline, Extragalactic, Commnet Seven, Relay [], Deep Space Exploration 12. USS Zhukov, Sector 001, [] Station 001, [] [] []
The colors used in the chart play havoc with what is readable. I am not sure what the colors represent, but it doesn't help the decipherment process.
On the chart next to this one, I can read Science Station [], Channel [].
On the Keith Rocha file, I am not able to read the Sector name. Have you had any success with this?
I am a little disappointed that they didn't change the registry of the Biko from NCC-59318 to something else.
On a historical note, there was an HMS Caroline that fought in the Battle of Jutland in 1916.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwuser:
Dukhat,
I would like screencaps of the following: 1. The right side of the Relay Message Flow 1293 2. The log entries from Relay Station 47 3. Sector 21527 star chart
Sorry, o2 has the Bluray, not me. I'm just posting his pics.
quote:[] this symbol represents what is illegible
Here is what I can read: 1. Sector 56, Sector [] 2. Starbase 78, Sector 1540 Starfleet Commnet Three 3. Starbase 12, Sector 25712, Starfleet Commnet One, Encoded Beta 4. Starbase Meta, Sector 9012, Starfleet Commnet Three- Commnet Six, Open Channel 5. U.S.S. K'Marco, Sector 5501, Starfleet Commnet One, Gamma One-Three, Warp Drive Performance Tests 6. USS Charleston, Sector [], Starfleet Commnet Seven, Secure Channel, Deep Space Exploration Sector 22855 7. USS Odele, Sector 9012, Commnet 229, Open Channel, Refit Starbase 4112 8. USS Hood, Sector 9012, Relay Station 182-A, Encoded Epsilon, Warp Power Testing, Mark VI Version 9. USS Merrimac, In Transit, Relay Station 452 10. GCA Wetlark, Sector [], Relay [] []-[] [], [] Five, Starbase 11. CCN Caroline, Extragalactic, Commnet Seven, Relay [], Deep Space Exploration 12. USS Zhukov, Sector 001, [] Station 001, [] [] []
Good catch on the GCA and CCN. I just assumed all the ships had USS prefixes.
quote:On the Keith Rocha file, I am not able to read the Sector name. Have you had any success with this?
Nope.
quote:I am a little disappointed that they didn't change the registry of the Biko from NCC-59318 to something else.
I haven't seen that episode yet, so I'll take your word for it. I was hoping that they might have changed the secondary hull of the Oberth to something that looks like it could actually carry freight, with a corresponding registry change. But it still has the Cochrane's registry, huh.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
Memory Alpha has updated some of their photo files for the 6th season. Check the Biko. It's the same registry as the Cochrane.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Damn, and I was hoping that they'd create a new ship design for the previously unseen Raman too. I guess that probably won't be happening.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
The Raman was from S7, so there is still hope... at least a little bit (fingers crossed).
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwuser: I would like screencaps of the following: 1. The right side of the Relay Message Flow 1293 2. The log entries from Relay Station 47 3. Sector 21527 star chart
1. I'm afraid the only scene that I found with the complete diagram is quite blurry:
3. In which scene is this star chart visible? Do you have a time index or a (SD) screenshot for reference?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: The Raman was from S7, so there is still hope... at least a little bit (fingers crossed).
If they didn't bother to fix this registry when they originally did so with the Tsiolkovsky, then I'm not holding out hope that someone created a whole new CGI ship model for the Raman, and even if they did, it would probably be another Oberth, as it's easier to create an already-existing design than to come up with a new one.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
Sector 21527 star chart is from "Chain of Command, Part II". It's on the bridge with Geordi La Forge and Jellico. On Trekcore, it's image 246 on page 17.
Talking about changing things, on image 249, we have another stellar cartography file with text. Did they keep the text, or did they change? It would be nice to have a screencap of that. Thanks for providing the screencaps.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
This is the shot in HD, but the sector number does not match...
I was really hoping that there would be something readable on the map.
Did they make as radical a change on the Stellar Cartography File that is in image 249?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Did you mean 248? As far as I can tell there is no change. The scene is still blurry, so I assume that the text was not redone for the remastered version.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
o2,
If I can beg your indulgence, I have requests for "The Chase"
1. There is a galaxy map in "The Chase". Can you grab some screen caps of this map? The map is titled Data Stream 99102.
On TrekCore, the best view of the map's text would appear to be in image #67
2. There is a PADD. It is a listing of USS Enterprise Personnel Database. It's image 167. Can you get a screencap of this PADD?
Thanks for what you are doing.
[ July 10, 2014, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: vwuser ]
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwuser: Memory Alpha has updated some of their photo files for the 6th season. Check the Biko. It's the same registry as the Cochrane.
Based on that fact I have to draw the conclusion that the three ships from 'The Game', 'The Drumhead' and 'Fistful of Datas' are all the 'USS Biko'. I know that there is some background information that the ship from 'The Drumhead' is the 'USS Cochrane', but this is not backed up by the information we have now. I have to disregard the 'Cochrane' as faulty information.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
o2,
The association between the Cochrane and the registry was made in a casuality report seen in DS9. I think the episode in which it appeared was "In the Pale Moonlight".
For myself, I think the multiple instances of unnamed Excelsior-class starships seen in TNG were NCC-2541. This registry was barely visible on the nacelle of the starship.
And, lastly, I think the Oberth-class starship that visited DS9 in "Emissary" was the Yosemite for it bore the registry of that ship.
For the database, I have been able to deciper most of it.
1. Lt. Cmdr. Wendy Neuss Gamma Trianguli IV 2. Lt. Cmdr. Brannon Braga Sherman's Planet 3. Lt. Cmdr. Rene Echevarria Therbia 4. Lt. J. Lowry Johnson Alpha Cygnus II 5. Lt. Cmdr. Ron Surma Taurus I 6. Lt. Jay Chattaway Regulus Five 7. Cmdr. Jerry Goldsmith illegible 8. Cmdr. Alexander Courage Triacus 9. Lt. Jonathan West Alpha Carinae I
[ July 10, 2014, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: vwuser ]
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwuser: The association between the Cochrane and the registry was made in a casuality report seen in DS9. I think the episode in which it appeared was "In the Pale Moonlight".
This is not entirely correct: The section with the Cochrane was never visible on screen, neither the name nore the registry. The causality chain for the Biko and the registry NCC-59318 is still intact.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
o2,
Go to Memory Alpha. Visit the PWB Tomal page. There is a picture there that shows the name Cochrane and the registry. So, it was shown.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: Based on that fact I have to draw the conclusion that the three ships from 'The Game', 'The Drumhead' and 'Fistful of Datas' are all the 'USS Biko'. I know that there is some background information that the ship from 'The Drumhead' is the 'USS Cochrane', but this is not backed up by the information we have now. I have to disregard the 'Cochrane' as faulty information.
If you're going to use that logic, then every Excelsior that the Ent-D rendezvouses with was either the Hood or the Repulse, even when the dialogue stated that it was a different ship (or conversely, multiple ships have the exact same registry number). I understand your mode of thinking based solely on what we see on screen, but I'm leery of accepting that logic, as I'm more inclined to accept that the model was indeed labeled "Cochrane" even though no photos have surfaced proving it. The Biko was just a case of ill-used stock footage that the TNG-HD guys didn't have the time (or were just apathetic) to change the registry. I'll take new footage over stock footage to prove a point every time.
quote:Originally posted by vwuser: For myself, I think the multiple instances of unnamed Excelsior-class starships seen in TNG were NCC-2541. This registry was barely visible on the nacelle of the starship.
Again this is faulty reasoning, as stock footage of the Repulse, while still having the 2541 registry, was stated in dialogue to be different ships (the Crazy Horse comes immediately to mind).
quote:And, lastly, I think the Oberth-class starship that visited DS9 in "Emissary" was the Yosemite for it bore the registry of that ship.
So do I, but hopefully if at least "Emissary" gets the HD treatment, we'll be able to better tell what that registry reads.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Can anybody confirm that the picture in the middle from the page PWB Tomal is indeed from one of the DS9 episodes? I recocnize the pics on the left and the right, but on those the Cochrane is not visible. Can somebody name episode and time index for the picture in the middle, please?
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
o2,
The episode is "Image in the Sand". (S. 7, E. 1)
Did they fix the silhouette of the Potemkin in "Second Chances" from Ambassador-class to Excelsior-class?
Dukhat,
I said in my comment "unnamed ships". Over at Memory Alpha, the Oberth-class starship seen in "The Game" is said to be the Cochrane, because that is the registry on the hull. They fall back on the Encyclopedia for the appearance of the Oberth-class ship seen docking with DS9. The Oberth-class starship was modified for "Realm of Fear", being given the registry of NCC-19002. So, it should be the Yosemite, not the Cochrane.
I am saying that for those unnamed Excelsior-class starships, that were seen in TNG, could be considered the same ship with the registry of NCC-2541. I am aware that stock footage was used for the Fearless, the Potemkin, the Repulse, and the Crazy Horse.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
The silhouette of the Potemkin was not changed, unfortunately.
This is the picutre from 'Image in the Sand'. The 'Cochrane' or its registry is not visible there:
By the way, the Memory Alpha article of the 'Cochrane' is referring to 'In the Pale Moonlight'. TrekCore has this picture, but the 'Cochrane' is not visible there either:
I have to conclude that there is no visible conection of the 'Cochrane' to the registry of the 'Biko'. Furthemore, there is not even a reference to a starship with the name 'Cochrane' in a single episode of Star Trek.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
According to the image description, the Cochrane was mentioned in "The Siege of AR-558". I don't have the episode.
For now, the image is not the best. Maybe if DS9 is released on Blu-Ray, we will have a clearer image of the list. When that time comes, maybe we can discuss the matter further.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
The first version of this display from "In the Pale Moonlight" was reprinted in the DS9 companion, where it's clearly legible.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
But we cannot verify the content on screen.
I doubt that the blu ray release will help us in this case since the focusing was on the actor and not on the report. It will still be fuzzy, even in HD.
But let's think about what would happen if we would have the name and registry visible:
Those episodes from DS9 have been produced/broadcasted years after 'A Fistful of Data's' has been established that the registry of the 'Biko' is NCC-59318 and furthermore that the ships from those two other TNG episode are the 'Biko' as well. We would have to dismiss at least the registry of the Cochrane as wrong since it is contradicting the already available information from TNG.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: Those episodes from DS9 have been produced/broadcasted years after 'A Fistful of Data's' has been established that the registry of the 'Biko' is NCC-59318 and furthermore that the ships from those two other TNG episode are the 'Biko' as well. We would have to dismiss at least the registry of the Cochrane as wrong since it is contradicting the already available information from TNG.
Again, if we go by this logic, then the SS Tsiolkovsky's registry was actually NCC-640 instead of NCC-53911 (in the original SD broadcast), even though the former is the registry of the Copernicus (and the Tsiolkovsky was still labeled as the Copernicus even though the angle of the shots make this impossible to see on screen).
Sometimes it's not necessary to slavishly follow what we see on screen when such instances were due to stock footage reuse. I find it hard to believe that, with the thousands of ships Starfleet has, that the Ent-D would rendezvous with the exact same Excelsior-class ship every time, simply because we can make out the NCC-2544 registry thanks to HD.
Feel free to believe what you want. I'm fine with having an Oberth class ship named the Cochrane with a registry of NCC-59318 (especially since the casualty list backs this up even if we couldn't see it clearly on screen). I'm also fine with the Cochrane being the same ship that ferried Wesley to the Enterprise (even though this conflicts with my above belief about not seeing the same ship every time, but at least this only happens once). I'm also fine with an Oberth class Biko. I'm NOT fine with it having the same registry as the Cochrane thanks to stock footage reuse (if they were going to reuse stock, then they should have used the Lantree instead), but for now I'm content with Okuda's made-up registry in the Encyclopedia for the Biko.
(In all honesty I'm NOT fine with any use of the Grissom model at all in TNG, but that's another story.)
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
There weren't many stock shots of the Miranda class starship. I think an Excelsior class would have been better for the Biko. She has the bulk to be a cargo ship. These ships were being used for milk runs.
The impression I get from the Okudagrams is that Starfleet was a much smaller organization in TNG than it appeared to be in DS9. We have starship mission status charts for a wide range of sectors; the number of ships was less than 20. Many of the ships named in dialog are mentioned in these charts. Rarely, do we see a new ship. This continued into DS9 until the Dominion War when Starfleet experienced an inflation. And, we have seen the Enterprise rendezvous with the Hood on several occasions.
Lastly, the registry that is seen on the nacelles is NCC-2541, not NCC-2544.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwuser: There weren't many stock shots of the Miranda class starship. I think an Excelsior class would have been better for the Biko. She has the bulk to be a cargo ship. These ships were being used for milk runs.
The Lantree was described as a supply ship, just like the Biko was. There's no reason not to assume the stock footage couldn't have done the job in a somewhat better capacity (at least by obscuring the registry).
quote:The impression I get from the Okudagrams is that Starfleet was a much smaller organization in TNG than it appeared to be in DS9. We have starship mission status charts for a wide range of sectors; the number of ships was less than 20. Many of the ships named in dialog are mentioned in these charts. Rarely, do we see a new ship. This continued into DS9 until the Dominion War when Starfleet experienced an inflation. And, we have seen the Enterprise rendezvous with the Hood on several occasions.
While it's true what you say about SF seeming to be smaller in TNG, the fact that this isn't borne out later could be considered a retcon. But I'm going with what I saw in DS9.
quote:Lastly, the registry that is seen on the nacelles is NCC-2541, not NCC-2544.
Nope, the registry of the Repulse is NCC-2544.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
NCC-2541 was the original registry of the Hood, the one the model was labeled with for "Encounter At Farpoint" (TNG). So shots that are re-used from that episode (or recomposited from the same elements) would have 2541, while those from "The Child" would have 2544.
BTW, in spite of Okuda's statement quoted on Memory Alpha regarding the Tsiolkovsky's NCC-640 registry being left over from the Copernicus, I'm still inclined to believe that the latter ship's registry is NCC-623 (as previously reported by Okuda in the Encyclopedia, and which he once stated to me to have come from a behind the scenes photo of the model during filming of STIV) and that the model was in fact relabeled for its appearance in "The Naked Now" (TNG) as seems to have been the practice from the beginning. (The Hood establishes a precedent both for this and for the fact that one number might be put on the model while another was used on set dressing.)
It will indeed be interesting to see if the registry is visible in a future transfer of "Emissary" (DS9). The model was relabeled as the Yosemite for "Realm Of Fear" (TNG) as seen from a behind the scenes photo from the DS9 episode and confirmed in the remastered TNG episode, but we don't know if it might have been relabeled after the photo was taken.
Let's remember that there were TWO Oberth-class ships in the episode, and according to the Encyclopedia, the one destroyed in the opening battle sequence was the U.S.S. Bonestell NCC-31600. We can't see this in the episode, nor the names and registries of the other ships apart from the Saratoga and Melbourne, but we know from behind the scenes photos that they were all in fact relabeled with the names and numbers reported for them in the same source. (Query: Do we think the Bonestell was represented by the same filming model or a separate one? It kind of got blown up, and I seem to recall that in the case of the Saratoga's destruction they used a special "stunt" model.)
I've never examined all the instances of the various starship mission assignment lists to confirm that their chronology bears this out, but for whatever it's worth to the conversation, Okuda also once told me that the reason he changed the Trieste's registry from Yosemite to Merced was because of the name Yosemite being used for the ship in "Realm Of Fear," so I suppose that if something so small as that was noticed and "fixed," then it isn't entirely outside the realm of possibility that they'd take the destroyed vessel's signage off the model for its next appearance. (Am I remembering correctly that the Yosemite was destroyed?)
It also occurs to me that we're aware of a few examples which seem to indicate that by this point there was sometimes a practice of relabeling only the surfaces of the models that were thought likely to be seen on camera in a particular episode, whilst leaving old labels elsewhere on them. (I can think of the Yamaguchi/Excalibur and Farragut/Leeds off the top of my head, and it seems to me there was at least one other instance that escapes me at the moment.) Is it possible that some part of the model retained the Cochrane's number even after being relabeled? It seems unlikely, given that between the behind the scenes photo and the remastered episode we can see both sides of the hull and saucer, and they all seem to bear the Yosemite's number. (However, I have personally never seen a high-enough resolution version of the photo to be able to tell for certain what the number on the ventral saucer is. Someone in possession of the original source might speak more definitively.)
Lastly, I will reiterate my previously stated view that it is useless and counterproductive to ignore facts known from behind the scenes sources simply because they cannot be definitely confirmed onscreen, and that it is moreover worse to then draw conclusions from the resultingly incomplete data and impose them where they directly contravene the actual intent. If your inferences can be made only through arbitrarily choosing not to look at all the data, deliberately excluding from consideration the points that go against them, they are bad inferences. That the number NCC-59318 belongs to the Biko is such an inference.
[ July 11, 2014, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
They didn't change the registry of the Excelsior model to NCC-2544. I know the Repulse is NCC-2544, because that is what one of its shuttles says and what the starship mission status says. When I visited "The Child" (HD) on Trekcore, I go to the first page. The nacelles have a four-digit number. The last digit was 1.
The issue with the Lantree stock shot is that it is of the Enterprise coming to the Lantree. The shot in "Fistfuls of Data" required a ship to come to the Enterprise. There were only four classes that did that in the run of the series: the Ambassador, the Constellation, the Excelsior, and the Oberth.
Speaking of changes, in "Brothers", the Ajax was an Excelsior-class starship with the registry of NCC-13554 and the Zhukov was a Rigel-class starship with the registry of NCC-62136. This was changed later.
I have seen the "Emissary". The registry on the ventral saucer is NCC-19002. They appeared to have done a complete registry update on this model for its appearance in "Realm of Fear".
Returning to the HD, am I the only one who is bothered by the shot of the Cardassian ships and the Enterprise in Ensign Ro? I have seen pictures from this episode at Ex-Astris-Scientia. I feel the lighting is wrong. If the right side of the Enterprise is in shadow, shouldn't the Galor class starship's left side be in shadow as well?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwuser: They didn't change the registry of the Excelsior model to NCC-2544. I know the Repulse is NCC-2544, because that is what one of its shuttles says and what the starship mission status says. When I visited "The Child" (HD) on Trekcore, I go to the first page. The nacelles have a four-digit number. The last digit was 1.
I looked at the bluray screencaps at Trekcore. Even in HD I can't make out the number on the nacelles at all; it's just a smudge. Do you have a better shot of it?
quote:The issue with the Lantree stock shot is that it is of the Enterprise coming to the Lantree. The shot in "Fistfuls of Data" required a ship to come to the Enterprise.
Other than the planet (which was added to the Cochrane stock footage later anyway), how is this different from this? In both of these scenes, both ships were shown stationary.
quote:I have seen the "Emissary". The registry on the ventral saucer is NCC-19002.
Again, I'd like to see your proof of this, as I can't make out anything printed on that ship in "Emissary." (I'm not saying you're wrong; as a matter of fact I agree with you, I just want to see some proof.)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: BTW, in spite of Okuda's statement quoted on Memory Alpha regarding the Tsiolkovsky's NCC-640 registry being left over from the Copernicus, I'm still inclined to believe that the latter ship's registry is NCC-623 (as previously reported by Okuda in the Encyclopedia, and which he once stated to me to have come from a behind the scenes photo of the model during filming of STIV) and that the model was in fact relabeled for its appearance in "The Naked Now" (TNG) as seems to have been the practice from the beginning. (The Hood establishes a precedent both for this and for the fact that one number might be put on the model while another was used on set dressing.)
I used to have the same feeling about the Copernicus having the 623 registry until I read this from Okuda:
"I seem to recall that Grissom may have been relabeled to serve as another ship in Star Trek III or IV. I didn't try to relabel the model for 'The Naked Now,' partly because we realized that the existing registry would not be legible in standard-def video, but also because we were all so insanely busy at the time that no one could take on an additional project that wasn't likely to be seen on the screen."
So Okuda himself stated that he didn't relabel the model, which to me means that it was labeled "U.S.S. Copernicus NCC-640" when it was filmed as the Tsiolkovsky. Remember, the VFX guys were separate from the Art Department and the scriptwriters. Their job was just to film the model. It was Okuda's job to relabel the models, which he clearly states here that he didn't do.
quote:It will indeed be interesting to see if the registry is visible in a future transfer of "Emissary" (DS9). The model was relabeled as the Yosemite for "Realm Of Fear" (TNG) as seen from a behind the scenes photo from the DS9 episode and confirmed in the remastered TNG episode, but we don't know if it might have been relabeled after the photo was taken.
Let's remember that there were TWO Oberth-class ships in the episode, and according to the Encyclopedia, the one destroyed in the opening battle sequence was the U.S.S. Bonestell NCC-31600. We can't see this in the episode, nor the names and registries of the other ships apart from the Saratoga and Melbourne, but we know from behind the scenes photos that they were all in fact relabeled with the names and numbers reported for them in the same source.
You bring up an excellent point. All the models used were relabeled even though they weren't at all clearly seen in the shots. So logically, this would mean that that Oberth, even though it was on screen for only half a second, could very well have been labeled "Bonestell" with the accompanying registry change. But does that mean that it was still labeled as the Bonestell when the model is next filmed bringing Dax and Bashir to the station? It's been commonly believed to have been the Cochrane, but by chronological use of the model, it should have been labeled as "Yosemite" by then (and vwuser claims to be able to see the Yosemite's registry, which I cannot). If the model was relabeled Bonestell, would it still have that name in the second shot? I suppose it would depend on when the VFX shots were originally done.
quote:(Query: Do we think the Bonestell was represented by the same filming model or a separate one? It kind of got blown up, and I seem to recall that in the case of the Saratoga's destruction they used a special "stunt" model.)
I believe that the intact model was replaced with the damaged Vico model for that shot, but I could be wrong.
quote:I've never examined all the instances of the various starship mission assignment lists to confirm that their chronology bears this out, but for whatever it's worth to the conversation, Okuda also once told me that the reason he changed the Trieste's registry from Yosemite to Merced was because of the name Yosemite being used for the ship in "Realm Of Fear," so I suppose that if something so small as that was noticed and "fixed," then it isn't entirely outside the realm of possibility that they'd take the destroyed vessel's signage off the model for its next appearance. (Am I remembering correctly that the Yosemite was destroyed?)
No, the Yosemite was not shown to be destroyed by the end of the episode.
quote:Lastly, I will reiterate my previously stated view that it is useless and counterproductive to ignore facts known from behind the scenes sources simply because they cannot be definitely confirmed onscreen, and that it is moreover worse to then draw conclusions from the resultingly incomplete data and impose them where they directly contravene the actual intent. If your inferences can be made only through arbitrarily choosing not to look at all the data, deliberately excluding from consideration the points that go against them, they are bad inferences. That the number NCC-59318 belongs to the Biko is such an inference.
Agreed (since this is what I basically said to o2).
[ July 12, 2014, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I used to have the same feeling about the Copernicus having the 623 registry until I read this from Okuda:
"I seem to recall that Grissom may have been relabeled to serve as another ship in Star Trek III or IV. I didn't try to relabel the model for 'The Naked Now,' partly because we realized that the existing registry would not be legible in standard-def video, but also because we were all so insanely busy at the time that no one could take on an additional project that wasn't likely to be seen on the screen."
So Okuda himself stated that he didn't relabel the model, which to me means that it was labeled "U.S.S. Copernicus NCC-640" when it was filmed as the Tsiolkovsky. Remember, the VFX guys were separate from the Art Department and the scriptwriters. Their job was just to film the model. It was Okuda's job to relabel the models, which he clearly states here that he didn't do.
Yes, that is the statement to which I referred as being quoted on Memory Alpha. It might help to seek some further clarification from him on this point, as it seems to conflict somewhat with previous statements he's made separately on the matter, namely the Encyclopedia starship list compiled from his own notes and his response to a query of mine specifically regarding the Copernicus' name and registry, which I also quoted somewhere earlier in this thread...
Me, on 5 May 2003:
"Also, where did you get the name and registry of the Oberth-class ship in Spacedock at the end of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home? According to the Encyclopedia, it's the Copernicus NCC-623, but what is the source of this information?"
Okuda, on 28 May 2003:
"If I recall the name and registry number of the Copernicus came from a photo from ILM that showed the Grissom model as it was used in the end of ST4."
It seems to me that BOTH statements are qualified as being based on his recollection, which I'm sure is no more infallible than anyone's. I do not mean to attack his credibility, but I hesitate to unquestioningly assume that the more recent one—which was no doubt given in response to someone asking specifically for an explanation of the registry discrepancy in the remastered TNG episode—is the more accurate of the two. The Encyclopedia reference was likely drawn from notes rather than recollection, but of course those demonstrably aren't infallible either.
This discussion has actually made me quite curious as to exactly how the job of labeling models was delegated early on, and if it always remained consistent, because from day one it seems that the Excelsior model was relabeled as the Hood NCC-2541, and then this was either forgotten about or deliberately retconned, but to my knowledge Okuda has never indicated any awareness of this. Also there were instances such as the misspelling of the Brattain's name on its model (but not on set dressing) that it seems unlikely Okuda himself would have been responsible for. Anyway, being unable to speak certainly in the absence of more information, I wonder if much the same could not have happened in this case, and personally I regard the situation as a bit muddy and inconclusive. We are, after all, talking about events that transpired nearly three decades ago.
I've thought about respectfully querying him further as to just how confident he is in the firmness of either recollection, and particularly as to whether he thinks it possible or plausible that the model might have actually been relabeled without his knowledge and/or recollection. I'm not sure I still have his e-mail address though. Does he still frequent the TrekBBS? What channels are people generally using to ask him stuff about the remastered TNG project?
[ July 12, 2014, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Me, on 5 May 2003:
"Also, where did you get the name and registry of the Oberth-class ship in Spacedock at the end of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home? According to the Encyclopedia, it's the Copernicus NCC-623, but what is the source of this information?"
Okuda, on 28 May 2003:
"If I recall the name and registry number of the Copernicus came from a photo from ILM that showed the Grissom model as it was used in the end of ST4."
In your email conversation here, Okuda never comes out and says that 623 was the ship's registry. That was something you pointed out to him based on what he wrote in the Encyclopedia, and he was just agreeing that he saw a photo of the model with a different registry than the Grissom's.
Based on what we actually saw printed on the model for its first use in TNG (640), and also based on Okuda's comment I quoted, it seems to me that in this instance, he or his old notes were just wrong. He was also wrong with the registries of several of the BoBW kitbashes, not to mention info from Okudagrams that he himself created and yet the Encyclopedia entries are different. It's a lot of information to keep track of over the years (and he probably never thought that he'd be writing a Trek encyclopedia years after the fact), so it's understandable that he wouldn't get everything right (and quite frankly, what he did get right is pretty amazing in itself).
quote:I've thought about respectfully querying him further as to just how confident he is in the firmness of either recollection, and particularly as to whether he thinks it possible or plausible that the model might have actually been relabeled without his knowledge and/or recollection. I'm not sure I still have his e-mail address though. Does he still frequent the TrekBBS? What channels are people generally using to ask him stuff about the remastered TNG project?
Personally, there's no way in hell that I'd ever bother him about something like this now. He's a super-nice guy, but I wouldn't try to hold him accountable about what he thought he saw in some photo almost 30 years ago.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Based on what we actually saw printed on the model for its first use in TNG (640), and also based on Okuda's comment I quoted, it seems to me that in this instance, he or his old notes were just wrong. He was also wrong with the registries of several of the BoBW kitbashes, not to mention info from Okudagrams that he himself created and yet the Encyclopedia entries are different. It's a lot of information to keep track of over the years (and he probably never thought that he'd be writing a Trek encyclopedia years after the fact), so it's understandable that he wouldn't get everything right (and quite frankly, what he did get right is pretty amazing in itself).
Thank you Dukhat for pointed that out. It is my impression too that some information about starships, its names or its registries are coming from sources that have not been documented properly. This is the reason why I tend to rely on the best source of information we could have: The Star Trek episodes on DVD and Bluray.
But I have to accept that there are other schools of thought.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
@Dukhat
Really, I quite agree. The points you raise are in fact the same ones that I myself have attempted to raise. I do indeed believe he was simply taking the question as asked and responding to the best of his recollection, so it should be interpreted in that context. And doesn't the very same apply equally to his more recent statement? What question was he asked in that case, and how might it have led him to answer in the way he did?
I just want to make sure that the whole of the available record continues to be documented and that we don't prematurely "close the books" on questions that haven't really been definitively answered, and can't necessarily be from the available information, despite some information being available. As I'm sure you're well aware, deductive reasoning is only reliable if the data relied upon in the deduction are both accurate and complete.
This seems to be the chain of reasoning you are following:
1. The model bore NCC-640 in "The Naked Now" 2. Okuda doesn't recall relabeling it for that episode Therefore, 3. The model bore NCC-640 in STIV
But I question whether Okuda would have been the only one who could have relabeled the model, and also how reliably he might recall having done so thirty years after the fact. In other words, I question whether the data being used to draw the conclusion are accurate AND complete.
If I cited the Encyclopedia and Concordance and added a point, I might be led to a different conclusion:
1. The model bore NCC-623 in STIV 2. The model bore NCC-640 in "The Naked Now" 3. Okuda doesn't recall having relabeled it Therefore, 4. Someone other than Okuda relabeled the model, or alternatively Okuda's recollection is inaccurate.
And you—completely validly—question whether the book references aren't simply mistaken. In other words, you question whether the data being used to draw the conclusion are complete AND accurate.
(Not trying to be patronizing here, sorry if it reads that way.)
Obviously if an actual photo of the model during STIV ever comes to light, we'll know the real answer. Until such time I remain wary of discrediting information that might yet prove to be reliable, while you and others remain wary of crediting information that you feel is already indicated to be unreliable, based on the above reasoning.
I don't really intend on making it any kind of priority to pursue this in any way with Okuda, and even if I did, it wouldn't be to "hold him accountable" for anything. It would only be to look for any additional insight that might afford a better answer to a question we seem to periodically find ourselves expending some amount of time and effort in discussing, even as it mainly leads us around in circles!
@o2
The fact remains that there are many instances where what can be seen on screen can only be made sense of by putting it in the context of behind the scenes information.
Why? Because as much fun as it can be for some to pretend that they are, the episodes are not documents of some internally-consistent reality or universe. Nor are they "the best source we could have" for starship names and registries. If I have a screenshot of a display where it's not clear what the middle three digits of a number are, and a photograph taken on the set or a reproduction of the same display where those numbers are readable, the latter is in fact a better source.
And while it's certainly nice to have sources properly documented, the source of something not being properly documented should not necessarily be taken to mean that there is no source or that the information is wrong. Likewise, having a source documented for something doesn't necessarily mean that it is accurate.
[ July 12, 2014, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: If I cited the Encyclopedia and Concordance and added a point, I might be led to a different conclusion:
1. The model bore NCC-623 in STIV 2. The model bore NCC-640 in "The Naked Now" 3. Okuda doesn't recall having relabeled it Therefore, 4. Someone other than Okuda relabeled the model, or alternatively Okuda's recollection is inaccurate.
[/QOUTE]
Did anybody ever asked the question why the production staff went into the extra work of relableing the Grissom from ST III when this effort is not visible in the movie? Even in the HD version of the movie is the registry of the Oberth not readable. For me it looks like the registry was overexposed on purpose so nobody can see that it still wears the number NCC-638.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
I think that when it came to the matter of registries that there was a great deal of miscommunication.
Let's look at the Yamato. In "Where Silence Has Lease", the registry is NCC-1305-E. In this case, the writer was not on the same page as Michael Okuda who wanted a higher number.
In "The Measure of a Man", there is an okudagram that has the Yamato with a registry of NCC-24383. Did Okuda forget that the Yamato was a Galaxy-class starship?
In "Contagion", we have two more registries for the Yamato - NCC-71807 in the Okudagram and NCC-71806 on the model. If Okuda is directing the labeling, how did this error occur?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Mim: You're not being patronizing at all. This is what I love about Flare: We're all starship experts to some degree or another
quote: 1. The model bore NCC-623 in STIV 2. The model bore NCC-640 in "The Naked Now" 3. Okuda doesn't recall having relabeled it Therefore, 4. Someone other than Okuda relabeled the model, or alternatively Okuda's recollection is inaccurate.
Let's analyze this, shall we? First, the model was labeled Grissom NCC-638. The ship gets destroyed, but in the next film it's used as filler in Spacedock. It wasn't until Okuda wrote the Encyclopedia that we even knew that there was a possibility that the model was relabeled and re-regged as Copernicus NCC-623. When you inquired to Okuda about the name and number, he mentioned that he saw a photo ILM took of the model. Whether his memory was faulty or not isn't important right now: what's important is that he did in fact see said photo showing changes made to the model.
quote:Originally posted by o2: Did anybody ever asked the question why the production staff went into the extra work of relableing the Grissom from ST III when this effort is not visible in the movie?
Simple: Because someone told ILM to do it. Someone knew that the Grissom was destroyed in the previous film and didn't want the ship labeled the same as that ill-fated vessel. But that person didn't know how ILM was going to arrange the shot. ILM just happened to film the model in such a way that the name and reg changes weren't at all clear.
So now the question is: What registry number did ILM use, 623 or 640? I think it was always 640. Mim thinks that it was 623 and then was changed to 640 during filming for "The Naked Now." Okuda pretty much clears the air about this when he said that production on the episode was too rushed for anyone to have changed the info on the model. And if the VFX guys would have had the time, why wouldn't they have relabeled the registry to match the dedication plaque that Okuda made? Why "640?"
Would it be worth emailing Okuda with this esoteric question that in all likelihood he won't remember anyway? Even if he says something like "Yeah, I thought it said 623 but I must have been mistaken, since this screencap clearly shows 640," that's hardly a definitive answer. The only real way to know is to uncover this mysterious photo of the Copernicus Okuda saw, and that's pretty much impossible.
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwuser: I think that when it came to the matter of registries that there was a great deal of miscommunication.
Let's look at the Yamato. In "Where Silence Has Lease", the registry is NCC-1305-E. In this case, the writer was not on the same page as Michael Okuda who wanted a higher number.
In "The Measure of a Man", there is an okudagram that has the Yamato with a registry of NCC-24383. Did Okuda forget that the Yamato was a Galaxy-class starship?
In "Contagion", we have two more registries for the Yamato - NCC-71807 in the Okudagram and NCC-71806 on the model. If Okuda is directing the labeling, how did this error occur?
It happened again with the Prometheus. Okudagrams on the bridge called it NX-74913, but the CG model had it as NX-59650.
And IIRC, several of the DS9 frankenfleet members also had wonky names and registries - can't remember exactly which at the moment, though.
Seems to have been a regular occurrence.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
Going loopy, we have the NCC-1864 which fought in the Dominion Wars. Is this an alternate timeline Reliant that somehow managed to end up in the prime universe?
Loopier still, we have a pair of three ships from the first season of TNG that had the same registry.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:Originally posted by o2: Did anybody ever asked the question why the production staff went into the extra work of relableing the Grissom from ST III when this effort is not visible in the movie?
Simple: Because someone told ILM to do it. Someone knew that the Grissom was destroyed in the previous film and didn't want the ship labeled the same as that ill-fated vessel. But that person didn't know how ILM was going to arrange the shot. ILM just happened to film the model in such a way that the name and reg changes weren't at all clear.
With all due respect, but that's pure speculation. Or is there any relevant evidence for such a statement?
I think it is very likly that the number is in the range of six hundred (and this would include 623, 638 and 640), but from what we know for sure it could be any number.
quote:And if the VFX guys would have had the time, why wouldn't they have relabeled the registry to match the dedication plaque that Okuda made? Why "640?"
The '640' would only require to change two digits on the model, hence reducing time & effort. The number vom Mr. Okuda is a little bit longer (5 digits), resulting in more work. We saw this pattern a few times, e.g. with the Reliant, the Saratoga and the Lantree (NCC-1864, NCC-1887 and NCC-1837).
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
^Yes, it's my speculation, because no one here has any proof of anything. I thought that in the absence of proof, that was what we were doing here...speculating?
And evidence? Let's see...It was ILM's job to relabel the Enterprise from NCC-1701 to NCC-1701-A. It was their job to relabel the Reliant NCC-1864 to Saratoga NCC-1887 (which we didn't see clearly in the film either, just like the Grissom, but they did it anyway). It was their job to relabel the Excelsior from NX-2000 to NCC-2000. So having them relabel the Grissom NCC-638 to Copernicus NCC-640 would just have been another day at the office for them.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
^Also, from Memory Alpha:
quote:The Copernicus was not identified by name on screen, but was identified by production sources. ILM's Model Shop Supervisor Jeff Mann has stated, "We had an incident in the beginning of the film, where we needed a Reliant-class [sic.], so we put a new paint job on the old Reliant model, changed a small shuttle called the Grissom to the Copernicus and we added a back half to the shuttlecraft that Scotty flew around in Star Trek: The Motion Picture." (The Making of the Trek Films, 3rd ed., p. 68)
By "putting a new paint job" on the Reliant, I'm assuming he means that he changed the name and registry. He definitely changed the "small shuttle's" name to Copernicus, but says nothing about what new number he gave it (and, like the Saratoga, he probably didn't remember anyway).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
And it bears repeating that, notwithstanding the numerous available examples of discrepancies between dedication plaques/computer displays/set dressing/artwork and filming miniatures insofar as ship names and registries are concerned, there are also examples of the reference books getting these things wrong, including the other ship relabeled for the same film! Both of two different registries (NCC-1867 and NCC-1937) given in the Encyclopedia for the U.S.S. Saratoga differ from that on the model (NCC-1887). It is entirely possible that the same is true for the Copernicus. I am feeling less and less inclination to argue otherwise.
Dukkie, I know you have been a regular poster on the TrekBBS; have you ever thought of starting a thread asking people to go through their collections of old magazines (etc.) that would have featured Trek/ILM stuff, in an effort to unearth such photographs of miniatures (etc.) that haven't yet made it onto the internet? If Okuda is still around there, he might have some ideas about where to look, to boot! It might be a long shot, but who knows...maybe in the process you'll turn up the Trinculo! Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Sure, I can certainly ask about this there. But just to let you know, I've asked questions like this before (though not specifically about the Copernicus), and come up dry.
As for the Trinculo, you'll have to refresh my memory about that ship. What was the issue again?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Rumour has it that a Galaxy class vessel on exhibit at a Planet Hollywood restaurant was labeled as USS Trinculo NCC-71867.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
But no one (to my knowledge) has ever been able to produce any photographs of it, despite claims of having seen them, leading me to use it as a byword for "ship of which photographic documentation is absent from evidence, despite such documentation being purported to exist."
It used to get mentioned fairly frequently around these parts, and I have no doubt that a search through the record of it being discussed here might lead to numerous embarrassing and/or entertaining examples of, in the words of one Captain Mike K. Bartel, "Mim fit[ting] his pattern of hearing what is actually the truth and then disregarding it for his own belief" and defrock me of whatever little credibility yet left to me in matters such as the one at hand...so, erm, let's not do that, then, ok? Ah, to be young and stupid again!
[ July 14, 2014, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: But no one (to my knowledge) has ever been able to produce any photographs of it, despite claims of having seen them, leading me to use it as a byword for "ship of which photographic documentation is absent from evidence, despite such documentation being purported to exist."
Keep in mind that back in the '90's, nobody had little cameras on their cell phones (and most people didn't have cell phones at all), and digital cameras didn't exist, never mind the internet in any usable fashion like it is now. We often take for granted how easy it is today to get information than it was even just 20 years ago. So I'm not surprised photos of said model haven't turned up. Of course that's not to say that photos don't exist, just that they might not have been uncovered yet; whoever might have them may just need to be asked about them. Remember the BoBW kitbash pics?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yeah, I'm sure there is more of this kind of stuff out there waiting to be discovered in the analogue domain; it's just a question of getting people to actively dig for it, and you among others have made (and I hope continue to make) an admirable effort to that end, resulting in quite a few successes over the years. Here's hoping for more in the future!
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I recently watched 'Chain of Command' and I noticed two things:
1) There is only stock VFX of the Enterprise in those two episodes! Not a single new shot.
2) The Starfleet Operations diagram is visible on the observation deck for the first time. And guess what? Captain Jellico let the Cardassians straight into this room, where they could study it (now even better in HD!). This was either a brilliant ruse since the data was outdated for approx. 2 years or Captain Jellico was not so clever after all...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
That's hilarious! Obviously an oversight for the set dressing, but I wouldn't put it past Jellico to either plant the info as a distraction or as disinformation.
On the other hand, Starfleet security is so incompetent it could easily be the genuine info there. Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
We know that the class of the USS Zhukov was changed from 'Rigel' to 'Ambassador' in this particular list, I guess this was done on purpose to derange the Cardassians!
By the way, Picard is not any better: In 'The Chase' they have a Cardassian and a Klingon in the observation lounge while the list is visible on a viewscreen.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Jellico and Picard...yeah, I can definitely see them adhering to some Starfleet Security protocol to display a bunch of (mostly) nonsense as disinformation.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
I am speaking of the real world setting here. I would think that both the Cardassians and the Klingons would have knowledge of where the majority of the Federation starships were located.
The more I read history, the more that I realized that the depiction of fleets in Star Trek is based primary on a 19th century vision of sea power. Ships needing to be resupplied with fuel and consumables at naval ports, and ships transferring personnel at sea. Battles of manned ships at close distance. And, the idea that sailors fight on board ship and on land is far older in time, dating back to antiquity. (There wasn't the strict division of naval and land forces until the modern era.)
This is far from the model of naval warfare we have nowadays. Though ships still get fuel and consumables at port, the emphasis is on keeping them longer at sea, so there are supply ships and tankers. And ships fight at great distances. And a new concept is emerging - power projection. Power Projection
I find the changes in TNG HD inconsistent. There is a minor change made to an okudgram that appears in one scene (see Unification Part I), while in another episode (see A Matter of Time) we have the set appearing above the shuttlebay set. For myself, I would have prioritize the latter over the former.
Then, whoever rewrote the Redemption II texts that Data read, had a fetish for technobabble porn. It's incomprensible.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I guess most of you have know seen those two new trailers that are available for season 7 and All Good Things. Did anybody found something interesting in it?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote: Then, whoever rewrote the Redemption II texts that Data read, had a fetish for technobabble porn. It's incomprensible.
Ok, compare this:
"Remarkable hypergeometric tachyon invariants vanish orthogonal to time axis T (N) and is compatible with the assumption that local quantum / Brettner functions are unstable in a transition state."
and
"The Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics hypothesizes that the state of the universe evolves smoothly through time with no collapsing of quantum wavefunctions."
One is from 'Redemption 'and the other one is from a Wikipedia article about the 'EPR Paradox'. Maybe the author of the text from 'Redemption' is the next Einstein...
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
I heard a new word for technobabble from a commentary for Doctor Who - babble talk.
For myself, I don't see the connection between what was written in the Okudagram and what Data was attempting to do, which was to "remove the veil", thus revealing the Romulan ships.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen more connection. Say, like including history of the Romulan cloaking technology and Federation efforts to unmask cloaked ships, and diagrams.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: I guess most of you have know seen those two new trailers that are available for season 7 and All Good Things. Did anybody found something interesting in it?
Other than the deleted scene for AGT with the "Talarians," there was nothing I hadn't already seen before.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
There was a scene where Riker and, I think, Worf are gagging on their drinks. According to TrekCore, this is a deleted scene from "Masks".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwuser: There was a scene where Riker and, I think, Worf are gagging on their drinks. According to TrekCore, this is a deleted scene from "Masks".
Well, if any episode will make you gag, that's the one. Of course, most of season seven falls into that category- or worse.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
I don't think Season 7 was a good year for DS9, VOY, and TNG. For TNG and DS9, it seemed that the shows peaked in their third and fourth years, with a gradual decrease in story and plot and characterization. I can't say for sure if VOY ever peaked; it seemed hamstrung by upper management interference from the get-go.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
TNG7 just got Braga-weird, DSN7 had to deal with going Jadzia-less but did as well as they could, and VOY7… wait lemme look… oh, huh. It was pretty good, for Voyager.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
Thinking about Enterprise, I wonder if the show had a seventh season, how that season might have been?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Under Coto and with the Reeves-Stevenseseses backing him up? Probably at least as good as post-Nazi-wrapup ENT4.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Guardian, I think you need to work on your pitch skills- "Probably at least as good as post-Nazi-wrapup" has never, to my knowledge, enticed excitment.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Under Coto and with the Reeves-Stevenseseses backing him up? Probably at least as good as post-Nazi-wrapup ENT4.
Does that include "These Are the Voyages"? Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
No. That was Braga back at it again.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Sorry, but the continuity porn was always the worst thing about Enterprise. Turning the entire show into a constant stream of it in Season 4 was no improvement. The only Trek show that really got better over time was DS9.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
vwuser:
quote:Riker and, I think, Worf are gagging on their drinks.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)