posted
So, I ask again...why is it that it "needs" to be changed at all? The original effects suit the rest of the production perfectly, and are authentically part of the show. What is the point of doing new effects and attempting to disguise them as such?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
So, I ask again...why is it that it "needs" to be changed at all? The original effects suit the rest of the production perfectly, and are authentically part of the show. What is the point of doing new effects and attempting to disguise them as such?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
In some cases, the VFX was pretty annoyingly low quality, even compared with the sets and props. Eps like "The Doomsday Machine" really suffer from ridiculous visuals, and could use a retuning. The original writers and directors did not aim at being laughed at; Paramount would only be doing them a favor by providing in the 2000s what it could not in the 1960s.
Then again, other episodes need repairs in completely different areas. The VFX for "Spock's Brain" is plenty cool, down to the viewscreen graphics, for example... A number of other episodes would require plot hole fill-ins, or de-outdating of technobabble, or patching up a mis-edited soundtrack.
A visuals update will make those screw-ups stand out all the more. Then again, perhaps there will be other kinds of Quantum Leaping done on the episodes as well. It wouldn't be that hard to insert Balok's missing lines, or redub the Talosian voices, or even change the "black star" into a "black hole" in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" if one gets pedantic enough.
quote:Originally posted by Johnny: To be honest, I'm not too impressed by the shots of the Enterprise in orbit of the planet. It could just be the Youtube compression, but it seems quite overlit and a little too high definition(something which often makes CG look fake). The shot of the phaser depth charge thing looks good though. I still can't wait for it.
I had the same feeling about the scene in which the Bird of Prey flies away. It looked just as bad as the original shot.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Man, what's wrong with the Talosian voices?
I seem to remember that last time I was on the "remakes are no big deal" side, but really, I have to agree with Mim. What is the point, exactly? (Well, the point is explicitly to attract audiences who do not enjoy 1960s era special effects. But in a wider sense?) It isn't like they can make Star Trek more "realistic," which is a completely hollow term when it comes to this sort of thing anyway.
Timo gets at something important, I think. The whole show is awash in American Cold War culture, hence its mix of post-war optimism with the occasional "and then the advanced civilization blew itself up" message. Surely, today, the most unbelievable aspect of the show is that humanity has come together around a core set of Western liberal democratic values. Like, America in space? They don't even believe in America across the Atlantic anymore.
And of course, by the time we update the show to reflect the current introverted zeitgeist, things will have changed and we'll have to do it again.
(And yet, Battlestar Galactica is 100% the best show. But it is not the old show with extra pain and suffering edited in, I guess.)
I don't know. I suppose I still stand by my claim that this isn't a big deal, and if it looks neat, then great. But I also think that Star Trek, like any work of art, is the product of specific cultural forces, and it would take more than updated effects to make it current. Also, maybe that there is a wrongheaded notion shared by some that science fiction only has value so far as it represents an "accurate" depiction of the future, or rather falls in line with the current guesses about same.
Blah blah blah. My only real point is that I love some of those matte paintings.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
They go into broadcast syndication. I believe they're replacing Enterprise, so if a local channel is showing Enterprise reruns, they will be switching to these. (Assuming they renewed their deal.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well I checked out the official web site for airdates in New York and supposedly they're showing it on NBC at 3:00 Am on morning. Stay classy Paramount.
My last hope is My 9, which used to be UPN 9. They still show Voyager and Enterprise reruns.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Updating the VFX is an inherently futile thing to do when you consider that in within a few years the stuff they're producing now will look just as dated as what they replaced.
Pandering to those who can't appreciate the production values for what they are--the very best they could do with the technology and budget available--runs completely contrary to the entire spirit of the show. It's missing the point.
Star Trek is an historical document. When I look at an historical document, I want to see it as it originally was--not as it has been altered to appear by later meddling. I don't want a CGI-cluttered collage of 1960s and 2000s material. I just want the real, unadutlerated thing, complete with whatever "flaws" it might have.
Thanks goodness I already have the show on DVD!
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: So, I ask again...why is it that it "needs" to be changed at all? The original effects suit the rest of the production perfectly, and are authentically part of the show. What is the point of doing new effects and attempting to disguise them as such?
From what I heard it was because they've brought the footage to HD resolution, but the effects shots at HD became a lot more problematic.
A shot like this at HD resolution would probably take me right out of the episode.
Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Uh...that stuff was shot on film, the actual resolution of which is much higher than HDTV. It's not going to look any worse on HD than it ever has.
BTW, just to make sure the record is straight, I'm all for an HD transfer of the show. I'm just against the use of updated CGI effects.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It won't look worse, resolution-wise, no. But the high-def will allow you to see all the flaws that may have been glossed over at lower resolutions. Like just how badly the Constellation looks like the plastic model kit that it is.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
