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.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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!)
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
^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?
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
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."
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic