posted
Yes, well, I know I'm the lone naysayer on this one, but I still have zero idea of what the point of this was. Replacing fake-looking motion control work with faker-looking CGI? C'mon people, I can't be the only one...what is the purpose?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I've now seen "Balance of Terror", and if this is all they're changing, I'm not gonna make a thread for every episode. I agree with the last couple posters - not enough is new to warrant talking about it all.
To be honest, until we see "The Ultimate Computer" and "The Doomsday Machine"...
posted
I think I'm the only one that had BoT shown at a decent timeslot - 1:00 PM on Saturday. The downside there being it's on at the same time as College Football, so it still had to be recorded.
I thought the changes looked good, and they were done well enough to not pull me out of the episode. I was actually impressed that they didn't just repeat the same footage of the phaser bursts every time.
As for the promotion of this, I haven't seen it advertised *anywhere*. If it wasn't for Flare and TrekBBS, I wouldn't have known about it.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Yes, well, I know I'm the lone naysayer on this one, but I still have zero idea of what the point of this was. Replacing fake-looking motion control work with faker-looking CGI? C'mon people, I can't be the only one...what is the purpose?
No, Mim, you're not the only one who finds this a bit pointless. As I said before, unless they make major changes (i.e. replacing the three stock-footage Enterprises in "The Ultimate Computer" with three brand-new distinct ship designs), then it's just watching the same show with CGI VFX instead of 1960's VFX. Big deal.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: As for the promotion of this, I haven't seen it advertised *anywhere*. If it wasn't for Flare and TrekBBS, I wouldn't have known about it.
Sigh. Man, you can't please everyone. If they changed it more, then the purists would complain. If you don't change it enough then people complain whats the point. Maybe they didn't advertise it heavily *because* it wasn't a big change and it was only fan-hype made it sound like it was supposed to be the Second Coming. Changing the effects can't cost much money, but its a good excuse to put the episodes back on TV and prepare them for release on some high definition DVD format.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I've schooled myself a ton on this whole thing over the past weekend. My real verdict on this is that we'll never be satisfied, and with this latest re-tooling we aren't meant to be.
According to multiple sources, the whole idea with this retooling is just to REPLACE the original effects with shots analogous to the original, and to match the original as much as possible while removing obvious faults and limitations of the FX technology of the time. The reason behind this is that with the HD release, the old effects (shot on 16mm film) won't transfer the same way as the live action masters (shot on 35mm). So instead of perpetually fuzzy releases of the original VFX in HD, we'll get
Thus, the whole idea is to preserve the original as much as possible. We'll never see huge sweeping changes to the makeup or blocking of VFX shots. The doomsday machine will still look like a half-smoked joint, but it'll move smoother. The four other Connies in the wargames will bear correct registrations, but will move in the same formations. That's what they're trying to do in the first place, and with few exceptions and dramatic liberties, that's all we'll get.
posted
I've seen screenshots and posted my opinion on my blog:
Uh-oh ... ST:TOR First Looks
"The Original. Remastered." is the tagline on ads for the new TOS, so I'm assuming TOR is the appropriate three-letter designator.
In any case, TrekMovie.com has some images of the remastered Balance of Terror. The images are at standard definition quality, so it's not the HD glory we're hearing of.
While it's unfair to judge based on these screenshots, I have to say that perhaps the attempt to replicate the 1960's over-lighting of the Enterprise was not the best plan. The ship looked pretty good rendered in the ST:ENT lighting style, but while I haven't seen her in motion yet, in these images the ship looks flat and kinda cartoony, with only the vaguest hints of the details seen in the beauty shots posted online. Of course perhaps the show looks better in HD, but perhaps TOR is not the best thing for standard-def.
One thing that seems clear, though, is that the forward nacelle caps are crappy, with none of the multicolored christmas-light look. I don't get it either . . . the ship looks absolutely frickin' gorgeous in the beauty shots, lit properly and with nacelle caps that are multicolored and very wait-is-that-the-real-model?-esque. But in the images we're seeing the nacelles look like they were done in Windows 3.11 Paintbrush with the Pepto-Puke color selected.
Hopefully the situation will improve, and Balance of Terror (serving here as the "pilot" for TOR) will either look really great on HD or else will be redone to do so. Or, most hopefully, maybe the screenshots are just crappy and things look great in full motion.
Fingers . . . crossed.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
NOTHING should move like the NV rendition of the DDM.
In fact, none of the ships, none of the effects, none of the lighting should ever be done like NV. Graceful these ships are, not barrel-rolling fighters! Some of NV's choreography was downright painful to watch.
"Man, you can't please everyone. If they changed it more, then the purists would complain. If you don't change it enough then people complain whats the point."
So, instead, they found the exact middle ground, wherein they please nobody.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I really doubt the distribution of the fans has its peaks at the extremes, where the majority of fans are extreme worshipful purists or extreme VFX-hunting fanboys. I suspect that that the distribution is (as in most cases) a normal distribution, where most people can appreciate a minor update without expecting more. We (as a group that posts online about ST) is by definition abnormal and more vocal than that silent majority.
As with those DVD re-releases of Stargate SG-1 or X-Files that I've been seeing at much lower prices than the original release, I suspect that their plan is to eventually re-release these at a cheaper price than the originals and with higher quality to entice those that haven't bought-in yet.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I really doubt the distribution of the fans has its peaks at the extremes, where the majority of fans are extreme worshipful purists or extreme VFX-hunting fanboys. I suspect that that the distribution is (as in most cases) a normal distribution, where most people can appreciate a minor update without expecting more. We (as a group that posts online about ST) is by definition abnormal and more vocal than that silent majority.
1.) It's a "minor update" that was not in any way needed. 2.) Not only was it not in any way needed, it was not in any way imaginative or original. 3.) I don't give a rat's ass about the "silent majority" of people who don't really care about Star Trek one way or another.
To sum up: I am totally against an update, but I feel just as strongly that if it's going to be done it shouldn't be lukewarm and half-assed.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
quote:It's a "minor update" that was not in any way needed.
My understanding is that most of the effects shots were done on 16mm film, and ended up looking like ass when blown up to HD resolution.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
