# Doomsday Machine-Trek Enhanced WOW!



## saiyagohan (Aug 4, 2006)

I just finished watching this and all I can say is WOW! It is just amazing,the detail and they way they remade this classic episode. The attacks looked more real,and the detail of the Constellation Damage and the Doomsday machine itself make this an episode worth watching. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It was worth watching for the 40 years it existed BEFORE CBS screwed with it.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

John, we get your point. We've been getting it for months now. You prefer the original versions, you don't like the idea of them being messed with, you don't want your fond memories being changed. However, MANY OF US LIKE WHAT WE SEE and look forward to what we see as a fresh look to a fine show. Does that make us lemmings for numbly swallowing what Paramount is shoving in our faces or does that make us open and receptive to, as Kirk said, "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant."

I loved it. It was fantastic. I'm very happy with these changes, though I'm also content that the original versions are still and will always be out there to see.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

I liked it. It seemed shorter though. They must have clipped it for more commercials these days.

However the Enterprise moves too fluidly for me. It's as big as an aircraft carrier and I think it should move rather stately. This ain't star wars. 
This bugs me with all cgi. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Well, I've watched it about six times since it aired yesterday (I taped it), and I wasn't unhappy with the results. The effects that were added were fine with me (I didn't think it hurt the story at all), and it was interesting to see what they came up with compared to both the original and all the fan attempts for this episode.

Actually, the only thing that has stood out for me while watching any of the remastered episodes (including _Doomsday Machine_) is when lines are cut or scenes shortened. I realize that 1 hour dramas run considerably shorter now than in the 60's (something like 47 minutes back then to 42 minutes now), but I hope they put that stuff back in on the DVD versions.



terryr said:


> However the Enterprise moves too fluidly for me. It's as big as an aircraft carrier and I think it should move rather stately. This ain't star wars.
> This bugs me with all cgi. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.


Part of the plot point was that the starships were supposed to be more maneuverable than the planet killer.

An aircraft carrier isn't quite a good comparison model here... a carrier would be able to move that fast if it didn't have to displace tons of water. It wasn't the early _ST:NV_ style fighter plane movements, so I'm not complaining.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

There is no resistance in space. Water has much resistance. Size wouldn't be an issue. Just mass because it affects directional momentum. It would probably powerslide as it turns from the forward thrust.

Still never seen any of the new makeover shows. Wish it would air here in Baltimore.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Mass is the point. It still has the mass of an aircraft carrier. And it has nothing to slide against.

I watched it again. Spock said something like 'the bridge is out but the rest of the ship can support life'. Uh Spock, do you see those giant blackened pieces of the saucer?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

terryr said:


> Mass is the point. It still has the mass of an aircraft carrier. And it has nothing to slide against.


Hence the slide... which is the momentum of the ship wanting to continue in the original direction.

Technically, a slide would occur with an impulse turn... but not a warp turn (as the momentum of the ship doesn't play a part in warp maneuvers).

But we should remember, science fiction is (and always has been) a two way street. The artist of the work try (within their means) to provide an intriguing story that doesn't abuse the reader/viewer, and the reader/viewer understands those limitations and agrees to suspend disbelief.



terryr said:


> Uh Spock, do you see those giant blackened pieces of the saucer?


Actually... he doesn't.

The effects were done long after live action filming was completed. William Windom actually later expressed disappointment when he finally saw what it was that he was supposed to be reacting to.

This isn't the first time (or the last, sadly) that dialog doesn't match the effects. The later series and movies (with the notable exception of Star Trek V) did a much better job of trying to make everything seem _pretty_ plausible.



But what I'm seeing here is that you aren't doing your part for an enjoyable story... you either can't (or won't) _suspend disbelief_. Usually the only time SciFi fans won't do this is if they feel insulted by the artists. Surely this story (in many forms) has been around long enough for you to have already decided that it wasn't worth your effort.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Actually, significantly MORE mass than an aircraft carrier. The Nimitzes displace between 85,000 to 100,000 tons, depending on loadout. The Enterprise (if you go by Roddenberry's orginal quote and the one perpetuated by the Trek tech meisters) masses 190,000 tons. (Scotty's "almost a million tons" remark notwithstanding). And it's actually harder to change vector without the resistance of air or water to help you along, using only puff-jet RCS thrusters.


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

It was great wish they had those effects 40 yrs ago I just don't like the hack job they did for commercials time they even took out the "Vulcans never Bluff" line (That Sucked)


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Roguepink said:


> John, we get your point. We've been getting it for months now. You prefer the original versions, you don't like the idea of them being messed with, you don't want your fond memories being changed. However, MANY OF US LIKE WHAT WE SEE and look forward to what we see as a fresh look to a fine show. Does that make us lemmings for numbly swallowing what Paramount is shoving in our faces or does that make us open and receptive to, as Kirk said, "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant."


 Oh, the former, clearly. 
But my point was, why do new effects suddenly make it worth watching, as the original poster claims? I don't know anyone who thinks it WASN'T worth watching for the last 40 years.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

John P said:


> Actually, significantly MORE mass than an aircraft carrier. The Nimitzes displace between 85,000 to 100,000 tons, depending on loadout. The Enterprise (if you go by Roddenberry's orginal quote and the one perpetuated by the Trek tech meisters) masses 190,000 tons. (Scotty's "almost a million tons" remark notwithstanding). And it's actually harder to change vector without the resistance of air or water to help you along, using only puff-jet RCS thrusters.


Something to keep in mind is that we don't really know how _Enterprise_ turns in TOS. There's also that all-mystical impulse engine that seems to make a ship be able to do remarkable things, such as how the E-D seems to dance and flit about in TNG. 

So saying, I ain't got a problem w/how any vehicle moves in almost any TV show or movie, w/the exception of those ships that are supposed to be modern-era spacecraft, aircraft or the like. When an F/A-18 can produce tighter turns than it really can and then maneuver thru natural canyons like an X-Wing, I've got a problem....


----------



## fiercegaming (Jul 21, 2004)

John, I watch the original ones on TVland at 12:00 centeral time actually like 12:15 anyway I think they are on evey night. I have seen only one remastered ep, what time are they on?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

John P said:


> Oh, the former, clearly.


Careful, John. Hal's got what I consider to be a valid point about your constant harping about how much you dislike the Remastered episodes. I don't think that there's a single regular poster here who's not read your posts - ad naseum - about how they "screwed it up" and the like. While Hal sort of set himself up for your quip, let's not let this digress in to some ugliness. 


> But my point was, why do new effects suddenly make it worth watching, as the original poster claims? I don't know anyone who thinks it WASN'T worth watching for the last 40 years.


Mayhap you should have just said _that_ instead. I've got no problems w/folks stating their opinion and as a Sponsor/Mod ain't gonna forbid you from doing so - that's not why I'm in the U.S. Military, after all - so long as said opinion falls w/in the bounds of the TOS and specific forum guidelines. Just be prepared for the negative feedback towards your own constant negative pot-shots at the Remastered episodes that seems to be building up.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Shaw said:


> But what I'm seeing here is that you aren't doing your part for an enjoyable story... you either can't (or won't) _suspend disbelief_. Usually the only time SciFi fans won't do this is if they feel insulted by the artists. Surely this story (in many forms) has been around long enough for you to have already decided that it wasn't worth your effort.


How do you know when I've first seen it? You're not doing your part to give me an enjoyable story. 

Some people are making comments about the show, and others make comments at individuals.


----------



## JT1 (Nov 11, 2006)

I have mixed emotions.

it is nice to see things that just couldn't be done the first time around.

OTOH, the star of the original show, to me, is the Enterprise, and that to me is the 11 foot model.

The new CGI Enterprise doesn't seem "canon" to me. I guess my major gripe is that it looks to grey to my eye on screen.

As a modeler, I wish they had never done it. As I see it, you can't accurately duplicate a cgi image in model form.

Duplicating the 11 footer is hard enough, lol.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I get John's point, actually. The original series has ALWAYS been worth watching, at least I think so, and always will be. So some flashy new effects are exciting. They make it worth watching all over again, not that this has ever been lacking. Perhaps I should say that they make it fresh. You CAN NOT say that TOS is still within its "use-by" date.

Now, TOS, remasterd, IMAX? wooooooooo............


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

John P said:


> It was worth watching for the 40 years it existed BEFORE CBS screwed with it.


To each their own, but the damage to the Connie was much better than it was 40 years ago.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I wonder if a person can love the original episode and yet hate the 18" (constellation) AMT model at the same time. Personally, I love both AND the new remastered versions. My life is good.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

terryr said:


> How do you know when I've first seen it? You're not doing your part to give me an enjoyable story.


I didn't realize you had never seen this episode before.

As for _doing my part_, as I am neither one of the artists nor you, I am completely powerless to help you enjoy the story. I can _tell you_ that being less critical and more imaginative will make the story more enjoyable, but beyond that the ball is totally in your court.



> Some people are making comments about the show, and others make comments at individuals.


Comments about the enhancements (if they work for you or don't) seem to be totally inline with the original poster's point of the thread.



But at some point I usually find myself asking hecklers why they feel such a strong need to disrupt other people's enjoyment of something they don't (themselves) find entertaining. If this is your first experience with Trek and you've found you don't like it (and my advice on how it could be made more enjoyable didn't seem to help you with this), maybe it just isn't for you.

For the rest of us, we all seem to enjoy the show (which is a common reference for us) and are debating the merits of the enhancements in contrast with the original version.

If it seems like my comments started singling you out, I'd point out that the change from debating parts of the show to _you and your views_ started when you seemed to be having issues with the show itself (rather than if the enhancements worked).

... which was almost as off topic as this post has become. :tongue:


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

F91 said:


> I wonder if a person can love the original episode and yet hate the 18" (constellation) AMT model at the same time.


I think I started giving the show a lot of leeway after I built my first model of the Enterprise (which was back when I was 9 as I recall). The fact that they took the time to build a model (at all) for the episode made it a big deal... it was something they had never done before or since in TOS.

So yeah, it is (for me) the _thought_ that counts here with that old AMT model.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I think they also used an AMT E in another episode, when it's docked with a space station, I think...


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

John P may be in the minority here, but his views are shared on other Trek boards....
This is after all... a modeling board.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

.....And I love how the planet killer which is capable of ripping huge chunks out of planetary bodies selectively takes out hull plating and decking out of the Constellation, leaving the internal framework intact....


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

terryr said:


> Some people are making comments about the show, and others make comments at individuals.


OK, this is a good point. Let's stick to the subject of the thread and not pick at each others comments - and yes, that includes me.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

F91 said:


> I think they also used an AMT E in another episode, when it's docked with a space station, I think...


That was "The Trouble with Tribbles," in which an AMT _Enterprise_ model is seen through the office window of the space station.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Cool, I love that I'm ALWAYS right!!


----------



## dgtrekker (Jul 23, 2001)

Well I watched it at 3 and I just re-watched it again. First I have to say that I have been a Trek fan since I was old enough to watch and this is one of my favorites, do I love the original, yes, do I like seeing the new stuff yes, to the cuts PO me, yes, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying something I love with a new spin on it either.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trekfanart/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SciFiFantTvMovieModelers/


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

My girlfriend and I thought it was great!!Alexander


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

This episode, along with "The Ultimate Computer" are two episodes I think that a lot of folks have wanted to see "special editions" of for a very long time. 

I think they did an OUTSTANDING :thumbsup: job and the 1701 looks better all the time. They're somewhere near 99.9% on the warp nacelle effects. The red/orange glow in the impulse engines looked great and match the movie impulse engines nicely.

(My only continued gripe is the little dark spot on the the lower sensor dome--why???  It's not there on the original in any shots I've been able to find though, IIRC, it's on the refurbished Smithsonian model. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's one nit I have to pick.)

I was a bit annoyed at the cuts, too. Of all the things to cut, the stand-off with Decker was not the thing to chop up. It makes me want to see the HD version now in its entirety. (Maybe that's the idea. They may just be whetting our appetites here.)

The _Constellation _was made into a standard production type _Constitution _class. It would have been a nice touch if they'd've stayed with some of the AMT model variations, but overall, I'd give them an 'A.'


----------



## JT1 (Nov 11, 2006)

Anybody have a link to a previous "remaster" effects real for "The Doomsday Machine". It was floating around the web a year or two ago. I wanted to see how it compared to the one CBS did.

[edit], founf it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HSYC6Wlbv8

JT


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I purchased the TOS "upgrade" DVD set from WallyWorld right before I left for Over Here. They were on sale for roughly $30 a season set, so it was too good to pass up - even knowing that these Remastered episodes were on the way. I only watched the first couple of episodes on season one's set, but will still go out and buy a Remastered set. 

Why? 

'Cause I think that once they sink a little more time in to refining the effects that I've seen a few clips and screencaps of that it'll enhance them that much more, sort of making them "all new" to me and definitely worth re-watching. I won't get rid of my original set, but think that there's absolutely no harm in them Remastering them and re-releasing them.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

JT1 said:


> The new CGI Enterprise doesn't seem "canon" to me. I guess my major gripe is that it looks to grey to my eye on screen.
> 
> As a modeler, I wish they had never done it. As I see it, you can't accurately duplicate a cgi image in model form.
> 
> Duplicating the 11 footer is hard enough, lol.


Well, thats because the model is grey in real life.
It showed up on TV in a bunch of different appearances due to film processing, exposure etc. This series actually makes the CG model look more like the studio model and also as more of a 'real' ship by virture of perspective behind 'window glass' among other things.

You can actually make a CG model that is IDENTICLE in dimension to a physical model or subject (If you make a 3D scan the subject). The quality of the model depends on the quality of the modeler.

Also, it is now possible to make CG images that are indisquishable (Sp?) from their real counterparts. I work on car shoots and have seen CG images that you can't tell are CG. They even put the 'mistakes' in.
So again, it all falls back to the modeler and sometimes the time allowed to render vs. computer horsepower. The software is there.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Griffworks said:


> I purchased the TOS "upgrade" DVD set from WallyWorld right before I left for Over Here. They were on sale for roughly $30 a season set, so it was too good to pass up - even knowing that these Remastered episodes were on the way.


What was this?? can you elaborate. I never heard of this set and what did they do?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

pagni said:


> .....And I love how the planet killer which is capable of ripping huge chunks out of planetary bodies selectively takes out hull plating and decking out of the Constellation, leaving the internal framework intact....


I leave this one alone since in the story....its an alien device and we have no idea what the machines programing was. Also you get into theoreticle concepts of what hull plating vs. structural componets are made of etc. So suggesting any idea of what damage should or should NOT be, is kind of pointless.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

It's the... I dunno what word I want off the top of my head. I used the word "enhanced" to describe them because the original footage had been re-mastered or re-transferred and corrected - color and soundtrack were redefined, as well as the footage looking crisper, IIRC. It was the standard TOS DVD set that was released two years ago? Three?


----------



## badwolf (Apr 20, 2006)

Shaw said:


> Actually, the only thing that has stood out for me while watching any of the remastered episodes (including _Doomsday Machine_) is when lines are cut or scenes shortened. I realize that 1 hour dramas run considerably shorter now than in the 60's (something like 47 minutes back then to 42 minutes now), but I hope they put that stuff back in on the DVD versions.


The episodes are being re-mastered in their entirety; it's the individual TV stations that the show is syndicated to that are doing the edits for time. The DVDs will feature the full length uncut episodes.

And that's what I'm waiting for! :thumbsup:


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

I saw it last night. My wife and I loved it. I too missed the "Vulcan's never bluff," line! 
These remastered episodes are getting better and better IMO.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> I purchased the TOS "upgrade" DVD set from WallyWorld right before I left for Over Here. They were on sale for roughly $30 a season set, so it was too good to pass up - even knowing that these Remastered episodes were on the way. I only watched the first couple of episodes on season one's set, but will still go out and buy a Remastered set.
> 
> Why?
> 
> 'Cause I think that once they sink a little more time in to refining the effects that I've seen a few clips and screencaps of that it'll enhance them that much more, sort of making them "all new" to me and definitely worth re-watching. I won't get rid of my original set, but think that there's absolutely no harm in them Remastering them and re-releasing them.


Same here! I have the complete series on DVD and have no intention of getting rid of it, but would like the remastered version as well since I enjoy the new effects. I plan to order a set as soon as they are available to order.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

most of the original treks were 51-52 minutes long each.

They left those chopped 10 minutes down on the third planet.

"there is no third planet."

"DON"T YOU THINK I KNOW THAT?!!!!"


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*Abomination!!*

Just because most movies today use CGI, old shows and movies 
have to be "re-fitted" with CGI or no one will watch?!

O.K. Rant over.

I think the damage to the _CONSTELLATION_ was a glancing blow.

I also agree that just because CGI can make an object move any 
way an artist wants, physics should come into play.

Decker's shuttle launch is a good example. The way it lept off the 
deck was too... unreal? Have we ever seen a shuttlecraft move that 
easily, considering the gravity field it was in, and its' mass?

The CGI effects still look like cartoons to me.

The phaser shots look flat. They need to rounder.

_However_, I enjoyed this episode very much. I watched it twice.
The CGI effects gave me a better sense of what was happening.

And the shots of the Doomsday Machine seemed to give it a little
personality.

If they ever release the whole episode on regular DVD, I'll buy it! :thumbsup:


----------



## JT1 (Nov 11, 2006)

ClubTepes said:


> Well, thats because the model is grey in real life.
> It showed up on TV in a bunch of different appearances due to film processing, exposure etc. This series actually makes the CG model look more like the studio model and also as more of a 'real' ship by virture of perspective behind 'window glass' among other things.


I think many builds, including Shawn sides (sp?), the MR, and Greg Jein's DS9 version look like the right color, the cgi is too dark.



ClubTepes said:


> You can actually make a CG model that is IDENTICLE in dimension to a physical model or subject (If you make a 3D scan the subject). The quality of the model depends on the quality of the modeler.
> 
> Also, it is now possible to make CG images that are indisquishable (Sp?) from their real counterparts. I work on car shoots and have seen CG images that you can't tell are CG. They even put the 'mistakes' in.
> So again, it all falls back to the modeler and sometimes the time allowed to render vs. computer horsepower. The software is there.


Maybe so, but evidently they weren't willing to put the money in on this project.


----------



## m5multitronic (May 27, 2005)

"The Doomsday Machine" is my all-time favorite episode of the entire franchise, and always has been. Others come close, but this one's the gold medal/blue ribbon winner in the end, as far as I'm concerned.

Having said that, there are a few nits I've always wanted to pick....

1) I figure the DM at about two and a half miles long. Enormous as that is, it's still not big enough to ingest an entire planet's worth of matter in less than a few thousand years. OTOH, it's job wasn't to clean it's plate after every meal.... Okay, I answered myself on that one  .

2) After Spock says "Sir, deflector shields are gone" the Enterprise is hit twice more without sustaining any visible damage (a la The Constellation). Decker's ship should have been made of sterner stuff, methinks....

3) If a 97.835 megaton fusion explosion was enough to kill the DM, what might've a couple dozen photon torpedoes have done to it? Oh yeah, the "general energy dampening field" that deactivated all the antimatter in the Constellation! Lucky for our heroes, that didn't seem to affect the Enterprise. Again, sterner stuff....

Okay, thanks for letting me vent. It's still my all-time favorite episode, original version _and_ remastered. As far as I'm concerned, the existence of the other has no effect on the validity of the one.

Peace! :thumbsup:


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

The motivation for the remastering is the onset of HD. The episodes as they were could not withstand the scrutiny of HD, especially the grainy special effects shots. Some complain about mess'in with the classics, but remastering them will preserve them in a way that will actually be watched (and watchable) by future generations.


----------



## ilbasso (Jun 7, 2006)

This was one of my favorite episodes and I loved the remastered effects. I enjoyed seeing the planet rubble piece bounce off the Constellation's primary hull and break into little bits. Also liked the scenes of the Enterprise struggling to get out of the tractor beam. I thought they showed some good imagination with this episode, bringing even more life to a show that had more "exterior" action than most other episodes.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Those grainy effects are like old friends, though. As many have pointed out, they are part of the magic. No, for the last time, we DON'T need these new effects to make it worth watching. However, they are certainly FUN to see and simply give us a new way to appreciate what has always been the best Star Trek series.

...okay...okay... I'll pet you, dammit!!! My cat is in my lap and biting my hands as I type because SHE wants attention. I guess I have to go now.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I got to watch the digital (though not HD) telecast of the episode. Brilliant colors and the effects shots had incredible detail. I can't wait for the HD version. For now, Trek Dvd's will only be issued in SD and HD-DVD, but perhaps, if the format war is over soon, it'll be issued in BluRay. Otherwise, it's the add on for the 360!


----------



## m5multitronic (May 27, 2005)

Whatever the ultimate format the remastered DVD's are released in, I believe that the original Star Trek episodes themselves stand on their own because of great stories, great characters, and (say what you will) great acting.

You can update the FX, you can clean up the film, you can make the soundtrack more crisp. But, baby, "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage". The original Star Trek is still on TV on several different channels, 40 years later, bad old 60's SFX and all, because we can't stop watching it. Why? Because it's some of the best television ever done. Other shows won emmy after emmy, and where are they now? Not on G4, Sci-Fi, CBS, and Spike. The last time I tuned into "TVLand" was to watch the 1964 (?) "Batman" movie (man, was that a hoot!). How many channels are carrying "All In The Family", "M.A.S.H.", and "Leave It To Beaver"?

All classic TV shows, yes. But Star Trek was something different, something better. Star Trek changed things for a lot of people. Quite a few of those people have gone on to change the world for the better. Can somebody tell me how "I Love Lucy" has changed the world, made it a better place for all of us? I loved that show, growing up. I still like catching it on some obscure channel, at some obscure time. "The Three Stooges", too. Great entertainment.

But Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek was _worthy_ . It earned it's place as a great bit of Americana. Whatever format is used to preserve it, whatever the Okuda's and Mr. Rossi do to improve and update the SFX, the original Star Trek stands on it's own. The remasters may only thrill fanboys (like me), and that's okay. But they might just introduce a new generation to those great stories, those great characters, that fantastic ship of dreams. If that were to happen, it would be a brilliant rebirth of something that deserves to be passed down to our children: a vision of hope, a belief that a better tomorrow is possible.

All of us old folks who have loved it for what it was should not feel threatened by these new remasters; our videotapes and DVD's are still intact. _Our_ Star Trek will always exist, in it's original iteration. Watching the remastered "The Doomsday Machine" entertained the piss out of me, but it also made me have a great big jones to go back and watch the original version. The new one has all kinds of cool stuff to appreciate and to enjoy, but I've been watching --and loving-- the original show for forty years. Actually, I was hoping that the new producers would make the Constellation look more like the AMT model. They decided not to, and I'm cool with that. The remastered Constellation looked great, in my opinion. I'm absolutely certain that GR would've approved.

Alright, I'm getting off my soapbox. I like both versions. As I said in my earlier post, it's my opinion that the existence of the other does not invalidated the value of the one.

Star Trek Lives! That's what's important. :thumbsup:


----------



## badwolf (Apr 20, 2006)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> most of the original treks were 51-52 minutes long each.
> 
> They left those chopped 10 minutes down on the third planet.
> 
> ...


 :lol:  :lol:


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

m5, there are at least two cable stations carrying M*A*S*H - TV Land and Hallmark.

Also, maybe the DM doesn't "eat" the whole planet - maybe certain substances fuel it, and it spits out the rest - Spock mentions "debris and rubble" remaining. Sorta like strip mining on a really, really out-of-control scale.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*open the shuttle bay doors, spock...*

I was thinking about Decker's shuttle "Launch"...

Since he was in such a hurry do you think it was possible that it was half "controlled take off"/half "open-the-door-without-depressurizing". It certainly looked like a more desparate action than the old "turn the shuttle and wait for the doors to open and then slowly leave" of the original version.

just a thought


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

mikephys said:


> The motivation for the remastering is the onset of HD. The episodes as they were could not withstand the scrutiny of HD, especially the grainy special effects shots. Some complain about mess'in with the classics, but remastering them will preserve them in a way that will actually be watched (and watchable) by future generations.


 Yes, it'll preserve everything except the hard work of the effects artists and Richard Datin's and Wah Chang's glorious models that we all loved once.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I was thinking about Decker's shuttle "Launch"...
> 
> Since he was in such a hurry do you think it was possible that it was half "controlled take off"/half "open-the-door-without-depressurizing". It certainly looked like a more desparate action than the old "turn the shuttle and wait for the doors to open and then slowly leave" of the original version.
> 
> just a thought



My thoughts exactly. While the original footage worked, this worked better. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Yes, it'll preserve everything except the hard work of the effects artists and Richard Datin's and Wah Chang's glorious models that we all loved once.


You've got to understand, John, that we're growing _spiritually _by learning to love these new effects. CGI really stretches you inside and makes you open your mind to new experiences and realities. It's the natural result of not only loving and appreciating sci-fi but of actually _becoming_, in your heart, science fiction itself.

To not grow spiritually is to give in to those fossilizing, entropic forces around us. We, sir, are the _resistance _to mental decay! 

_Yea, verily, we are on the verge of becoming one of those nebulous pure mental energy beings _Star Trek_ always seems to resort to when nothing else can explain what has just happened! _ :freak:


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Okay, THAT was a bit over-the-top.

John, John, John... Are we all fools for enjoying these new effects? Are we all out to erase the memory of those who created some 40 years ago? Is this a conspiracy to destroy your childhood? Is the 2006 Mustang not worthy of being a Mustang? Should I give up my widescreen HDTV and digital satellite signal for a black-and-white tube in a small box with a set of rabbit ears?

A classic Mustang is a classic Mustang forever. Nothing can replace it. It will always be appreciated, loved, cherished, taken to shows, etc. But the 2006 Mustang is also worthy as a piece of engineering precision and design brilliance. It has all the feel of its heratige, unlike the previous 20 years worth, yet is made with the best modern techniques to make it a fusion of history and future with 400 hp.

If anyone is missing this analogy, the Mustangs of the 80's and 90's are the TNG, DS9 and VOY of Star Trek. While technically good cars, they all had lost the look and feel of what made Mustangs so frakking cool to begin with.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Roguepink said:


> Okay, THAT was a bit over-the-top.


Yeah. I reckon I forgot to add the "gee-whiz-neato!" factor.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I checked my TOS "The Doomsday Machine" DVD and somehow, the effects from the 60's are still there! John, Am I missing something? Should I...uh...never mind. We get it and yet, we don't get it.




John P said:


> Yes, it'll preserve everything except the hard work of the effects artists and Richard Datin's and Wah Chang's glorious models that we all loved once.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Quite frankly... who in their right minds would have dreamed that anyone would care about a 1960's television show forty years later the way we do?

Think about it. We have a major studio spending money on renovating these shows while attempting not to radically alter them (both concepts running counter to the standard corporate mindset). And we have fans pushing fans to create new versions of stories that have the same look and feel of the 1960's show.



John P said:


> Yes, it'll preserve everything except the hard work of the effects artists and Richard Datin's and Wah Chang's glorious models that we all loved once.


John, actually it is quite the contrary... their work, their vision and their designs *are* preserved. And it speaks wonders of what they did that so much of _what was_ is still there when redoing all these effects.

What we (people of today) are faced with is the fact that everyone has perfect vision (and an eye for detail), but are looking at artwork that is clouded and blurred by the limitations of 1960's technology (and television budget).

I can think of two other examples off hand of this type of thing (neither as extreme as the forty year gulf that TOS spans so effortlessly)... TNG and Yoda.

First, last week my wife was commenting after watching an episode of TNG how strange it was that it still feels contemporary while a show like _Miami Vice_ feels majorly dated.

The second example, Yoda, comes from the fan reactions to changes in Yoda in _The Phantom Menace_. Lucas heard how displease people were and spent quite a bit of effort in the next two films to bring the character back to what it was in _The Empire Strikes Back_. That type of fan outcry shows just how important the work of the original artists is even decades later.

The same is true in this case. When looking at the original script, the planet killer was described quite differently than it appeared on screen in the final episode. But rather than redesign the planet killer to match the original written story, it was based on what we originally saw. To me, that is a credit to the original artists from back then that their vision was the basis (and not the writer's) for what we were given.

But at no point is any of the works of those artist being lost. When I spend hours... heck, years... building replica after replica of Jefferies' mid-60s starship design, that is a tribute to his artistry and vision. The fact that I've spent almost as much time building phasers and communicators says the same thing about Chang's artistry and vision (if the cell phone industries current line of devices hasn't done that enough already!).

Star Trek (original or remastered, and in just about any incarnation to date) has had a greater effect on the world of today than just about any set of stories (short of religious ones) ever.

While you weep for that which really hasn't been lost from the 60's, please realize that Star Trek *defined* today... and is still (forty years later) defining our tomorrow.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

In forty years the hard drive that holds the original cgi will be on display at the Smithsonian.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

terry,
hopefully in fourty years, you could have a holographic projection based on the CGI render on display


----------



## TOS Maniac (Jun 26, 2006)

Ok, time for me to weigh in on all of this “restoration” mishmash.
Firstly, I’ve caught most of the new effects shots via the effects reels published so considerately on youtube. I have neither the time nor the inclination to chase “Star Trek” airings on local t.v all over the clock. Been there, done that!
For the most part, I consider what I’ve seen to be amusing diversions which I don’t take too seriously. I was pleased with the “space seed” shots. Not so pleased with “Where No Man has Gone Before”. I love those early effects shots too much to see them change. My first still I ever bought in 1975 was at a convention and it was the effects shot of the Enterprise approaching the energy barrier. That iconic shot is for me too much of the essence and substance of TOS for me to just jettison it.
No real comment on any of the other episodes, really. I saw “city on the edge..” at a premiere showing in Hollywood. I think I posted a thread about that.
The original effects in “doomsday” have always held mixed feelings for me. I’ve always HATED the shots of the shuttlecraft, wildly out of scale, entering the machine. Also, the phaser shots “bouncing off” the machine always looked embarrassingly cartoonish. For the most part, I really got a charge out of these new shots. The bit where the rocks crash on the constellation’s hull just absolutely sent shivers all up and down my body! I had to watch that 10 times! Whoa! So far, this is the only episode to make me consider buying the new DVD set, just to get this episode. If any of you guys working on the show are seeing this, I say to you “good show! Congratulations and well done”. Let me know where and when and we can all meet and I’ll buy you all a round or two.
Btw…I just acquired on ebay an old old unbuilt 18 inch AMT kit and I’m planning on building a constellation wreck using detailed screen caps of both the original and, to a much much lesser degree, the enhanced version. I’ll post progress pics.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> I think the damage to the _CONSTELLATION_ was a glancing blow.


If you look at this screencap of the new F/X, the nibble out of the saucer makes much more sense. The anti-proton beam obviously skimmed the saucer and secondary hull as _Constellation _was turning away from the PK.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

The cgi has done its' job. It made us watch star trek. I haven't watched any for years.
We watch, they charge more for commercials, get money from new DVDs, sell new souvenirs. Mission accomplished, captain commerce.


----------



## dgtrekker (Jul 23, 2001)

The only problem I had with the new effects is Spock's line where he says (something to the effect) the bridge is damaged but the rest of the ship is habitable, only if you are holding your breath in a couple of those sections!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

terryr said:


> The cgi has done its' job. It made us watch star trek. I haven't watched any for years.


Wow.. from your earlier posts I was left with the impression that you had never seen Star Trek before.

At least no one will mistake you for any form of fan. 



dgtrekker said:


> The only problem I had with the *new effects* is Spock's line where he says (something to the effect) the bridge is damaged but the rest of the ship is habitable, only if you are holding your breath in a couple of those sections!


Wait... so you are saying you have a problem with it in the *new effects* but you were fine with the same line with the *original effects*?

I'm getting the odd feeling that those of us who have watch Trek to the point of knowing the difference are in the minority here. 

For those who have either forgotten what the original Constellation looked like or may have never actually seen it, here are some images.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

That rear shot looks like a little plastic model.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I can't imagine why.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

terryr said:


> That rear shot looks like a little plastic model.


I'm guessing you're kidding, but if not - the original _Constellation _model was a battle-damaged AMT 18" kit.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I always laugh at the line "the _entire_ bridge is uninhabitable." Wow, really? The ENTIRE one room? :lol:


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

The little plastic models' impulse engines' aren't lit. 
"Thanks for pointing that out ART!"


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Actually that twisted engine pylon looks good. They should have kept that.


----------



## dgtrekker (Jul 23, 2001)

Shaw said:


> Wait... so you are saying you have a problem with it in the *new effects* but you were fine with the same line with the *original effects*?


No I had the same problem originally too, I was just pointing out that if their intention was "fixing" things they could have considered the dialog and not just the effects, and I was nit picking, its still one of my top 10 episodes in either format.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

John P said:


> I always laugh at the line "the _entire_ bridge is uninhabitable." Wow, really? The ENTIRE one room? :lol:


Yeah, as opposed to what? Half the room? The left side is okay but hold your breath on the right. .......and the toilet is broken.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Complaining about dialog is pointless. None of the actual performances will change. Only effects. Quit picking at that nit or it will scab over.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)




----------



## JT1 (Nov 11, 2006)

terryr said:


> Actually that twisted engine pylon looks good. They should have kept that.



I always liked it to, although my reasoning went like this...

"Even the pro model makers at Star Trek couldn't get the AMT kit's nacelles to line up right...",

Lol.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

Shaw said:


> Wow.. from your earlier posts I was left with the impression that you had never seen Star Trek before.
> 
> 
> For those who have either forgotten what the original Constellation looked like or may have never actually seen it, here are some images.


they sure didnt go out of thier way to make it match the 11 footer....... 
is that a raised deflector grid that i see on the saucer? (top photo) hawhoops there goes our canon.........

as to terryr  *OH GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Wow, so much debate and argument.


I liked it, it looked cool. 'nuff said.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

razorwyre1 said:


> they sure didnt go out of thier way to make it match the 11 footer.......
> is that a raised deflector grid that i see on the saucer? (top photo) hawhoops there goes our canon.........
> 
> as to terryr *OH GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


 
There was a canon mounted on the Constellation?  :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

F91 said:


> I wonder if a person can love the original episode and yet hate the 18" (constellation) AMT model at the same time. Personally, I love both AND the new remastered versions. My life is good.


I never thought I would think so, but now I must agree that it CAN happen.

Now that I have my MR 1/350th TOS E I have come to love the AMT model too with all it's quaint flaws and all.

It does help that now I have a three foot long perfectly lit replica I always dreamed of having as a kid.

If I had never gotten my MR TOS E though my view of the AMT may have all remained a little bitter and disdainfull.

But it's all good now.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Not having AMT remakephobia is a beautiful thing!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Was anyone else struck by how reminiscent CBS's shuttlebay was to Phil Broad's version?

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/EnterpriseRenderings/EnterpriseRender04.jpg

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/EnterpriseRenderings/EntHangerDeck04.jpg

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/EnterpriseRenderings/EntHangerDeck01.jpg


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Good point! I like the fact that CBS changed the scale of the bay to a more reasonable size.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

First, I have to say that I finally watched this and a dozen other of the Remastered episodes - with a great many thanks to spe130! I have no problem w/what they've done knowing that they'll be going back and "fixing" any issues that the currently released works have prior to the HD DVD release. I really do feel that it's a positive tweak of an already great series. 

Plus, all those folks who talk about how it's been "ruined" by CBS still have your DVD copies of TOS, right? If not, why not?  




Chuck_P.R. said:


> Was anyone else struck by how reminiscent CBS's shuttlebay was to Phil Broad's version?
> 
> http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/EnterpriseRenderings/EnterpriseRender04.jpg
> 
> ...



Didn't the original plans and drawings by Matt Jeffries depict it smaller than what we got in the original airing of TOS? I don't have anything in front of me, so don't recall for sure....


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> First, I have to say that I finally watched this and a dozen other of the Remastered episodes - with a great many thanks to spe130! I have no problem w/what they've done knowing that they'll be going back and "fixing" any issues that the currently released works have prior to the HD DVD release. I really do feel that it's a positive tweak of an already great series.
> 
> Plus, all those folks who talk about how it's been "ruined" by CBS still have your DVD copies of TOS, right? If not, why not?
> 
> ...


The original plans depicted basically what we saw on screen - a forced perspective layout.

The problem was that, as many have pointed out, a shuttlebay the size shown onscreen would never fit inside a 947 foot craft.

From what I've read, the forced perspective plans were an attempt to compromise between writer's notes that described it as being big enough to hold the equivalent of a "squadron of modern jet fighters" and the space that actually existed.

Another problem with the shuttlebay was that in at least one scene the side corridor leading to the side shuttlebay deck entrance was shown to be very long. Which also makes the "seen onscreen" size of the hanger deck waaaaaaay too wide.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, here are some interesting links to the differences from the new shuttle/shuttlebay effects and the old:

www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-035e/pop.html


www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-035c/pop.html


http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-044d/pop.html


http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-044/pop.html


http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-044a/pop.html


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

The only Jefferies drawings we had for many years were the ones in TMOST. I looked at them for years before I noticed that they are actually drawings of the original concept for miniature set. They incorporate forced perspective features: For example, the observation gallery decreases in size and dips lower to the deck as it proceeds aft. My guess is that they probably opened up the forward end and extended it so they could stick a large 60s era movie camera in the end of it and still leave some room to pour in extra lighting.

Franz Joseph didn't notice this and so he straightened out all of the converging lines and kept the length, giving us his version of the cavernous hangar deck that extends well forward of the engine pylons (leaving those structures without any "roots" -- apparently they just Velcro onto the exterior hull plating...).

Years later, when MJ was designing the refit for Phase II, he depicted the interior in cross-section virtually unaltered from the section view of the TOS-E in TMOST. This drawing has surfaced recently and it is much more detailed than the small sketch in TMOST . It depicts the hangar deck virtually unchanged from its TOS configuration, but with this important difference: It is seen in a true orthographic side view! Without the artificial forced perspective features we find that the hangar fits neatly into the area aft of the pylons as seen in his original TMOST section drawing.

M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I.E., it's drawn to be smaller, just as the original TMOST drawings and the filming shuttlebay should have been but were not.

According to Mr. Datin, it was clear that the construction notes and blueprints Jefferies gave him that the shuttlebay as seen in TOS was a forced perspective setpiece.

So there must be really downplaying the difference involved in MJ rescaling the Phase II bay in relation to the "seen onscreen" TOS shuttlebay.

*You're 100% right* though, that it's possible to make the bay fit much better in the ship, just as the new CGI shuttlebay does the same thing in the original TOS E. 

But the overall size difference has to be much greater then what we saw onscreen or in the TMOST blueprints.

I love the old Datin model (the man brilliantly built what he was instructed to build - the scale issues weren't his fault), but the size the forced perspective blueprints and model suggests just plain wouldn't fit in a 947' craft.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'd love to see some of those Phase II orthographics if you have a link, MGagen.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Here's a thought - why couldn't extra shuttlecraft be stored against that high ceiling?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

spe130 said:


> Here's a thought - why couldn't extra shuttlecraft be stored against that high ceiling?


Yeah! Slap some inverted gravity panel flooring up there and you're set! :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Thanks for pointing that out, Chuck and Mark. I appreciate your insight. I can't seem to find the CD w/my TOS reference info on it, so wasn't immediately able to confirm the original drawings. I'd like to think that, somewhere out there, Matt Jeffries had originally drawn up a shuttlebay that "worked" w/in the confines of the original drawings and would have worked in the studio model. 




spe130 said:


> Here's a thought - why couldn't extra shuttlecraft be stored against that high ceiling?


Ooo! Good point, Sam! Sort of like on a modern-day naval vessel where in boats and other equipment is stored wherever there's some extra, free space, eh? Same applies for modern military cargo aircraft, too. C-130's, C-5 & C-17's all have additional equipment not required every time carog is being removed is stored on the inner fuselage in brackets for use under field conditions. Same could easily be said for a starship, neh?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*Griffworks* asked:


> Plus, all those folks who talk about how it has been "ruined" by CBS still have your DVD copies of TOS, right? If not, why not?


 I only have two DVDs from *START TREK*. They're too expensive for me to buy all.

I was hoping to save enough to collect them all, but now they 
will be put out of production.

I won't be able to get the ORIGINAL series, in the future when I have the money. Only the remastered HD DVD abominations will exist.


----------



## saiyagohan (Aug 4, 2006)

CaptFrank said:


> *Griffworks* asked: I only have two DVDs from *STAR TREK*. They're too expensive for me to buy all.
> 
> I was hoping to save enough to collect them all, but now they
> will be put out of production.
> ...


I do not know if this will help Capt. Frank,but I got the TOS DVD's I have from E-bay,I got mine used but for under $40.00. Also I know that WalMart has them for $54.99. I would expect to see a lot of the Original TOS DVD's on E-bay here in the near future,especially since the Remastered DVD's will be for sale on E-bay.You may get a good deal for them,even better than I got for mine. Good Luck I hope this helps.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> *Griffworks* asked: I only have two DVDs from *START TREK*. They're too expensive for me to buy all.
> 
> I was hoping to save enough to collect them all, but now they
> will be put out of production.
> ...


Unless eBay! goes out of business, I seriously doubt all of your assumptions.

You're leaping to paranoia mode with no good reason.

Several months ago I bought a LaserDisk(the 12" predecessor to the DVD) player for $65. The seller sent it to me in the original box he had saved along with the original store receipt for $850 bucks.

It's worked like a charm for months now and I've bought several titles that are/were only available on LaserDisk in their original "as-released" version.(Some still aren't available in DVD in _any _version, for that matter.)

You can occasionally buy old episodes of TOS on 16mm film for $75-150 bucks if you really want to get rediculous about it.

The point being that if anything, the new high-rez DVD's will probably drive down the price of DVD's.

Plus don't dismiss Hollywood's desire to make a buck!

I'd be willing to bet that there will probably be straight HD conversions of the original series without the new special effects released too.

Maybe on the same disks as "Collectors versions" or "Vintage versions".
Maybe just seperately.

If there is a buck to be made from it, they will undoubtedly find a way to sell you a copy of the series with the old effects.

Plus again, don't forget eBay!. You can get tons of stuff from the '70's cheaper then they were sold at conventions.

Maybe Disney has brainwashed people with their constant DVD promotional gimmicks about "make sure you buy *INSERT ANY DISNEY TITLE* as it will be put in the vault soon and may not be available again for quite some time. Make sure your children get to experience this masterpiece!"

Please! Virtually every title released by Disney since "Steamboat Willy" is available for a reasonable price somewhere.

So relax, CaptFrank.
If people can still buy 16mm versions of TOS Trek episodes chances are you will be able to buy the original DVD's - or even HD upgraded disks with the old effects - once you save up enough dough. :thumbsup:


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Griffworks said:


> Sort of like on a modern-day naval vessel where in boats and other equipment is stored wherever there's some extra, free space, eh? Same applies for modern military cargo aircraft, too. C-130's, C-5 & C-17's all have additional equipment not required every time carog is being removed is stored on the inner fuselage in brackets for use under field conditions. Same could easily be said for a starship, neh?


Just turn off the artifical gravity and float it to the top with one finger.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

CaptFrank said:


> I only have two DVDs from *START TREK*. They're too expensive for me to buy all.
> 
> I was hoping to save enough to collect them all, but now they
> will be put out of production.
> ...


I picked them up at Wal-Mart. As George pointed out, they were selling them for less than USD$50 - atl east at my WallyWorld - a season. I paid $150 for them all because they were a purchase I had to make for my collection. I wasn't willing to pay full price, but made the choice to dump my month's modeling budget just for the complete TOS Set. You just have to set your priorities - as well as set some fundage aside. I doubt that Wal-Mart has any of the sets left, but you never know. 

Or, as George also pointed out, e-Bay is an optional route. I've picked up several other movies and such there for considerably less than retail. I picked up all three of the Matrix movies, plus the Animatrix DVD for under USD$40, shipping included. 

So, put money aside for what you want, dude. Eat ramen noodles for a month, stop smoking, quit buying beer/hard liqour, give up video games/CCG's or whatever. If it's that important to you, you can make the sacrifice. Lord knows I've done it enough in my life for things that I really wanted - and I appreciate those things that much more for it, too. 

Again, if you really want them, you'll sacrifice to get them. 



> Only the remastered HD DVD abominations will exist.


Y'know, every time I read this sort of stuff from folks who absolutely hate the idea of CBS' remastering of TOS, I hope that the folks who makes those comments and don't yet own the sets _can now never get them_. Mean, small-minded and poor tempered of me, I know. But y'know what? It's the truth....


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

spe130 said:


> Here's a thought - why couldn't extra shuttlecraft be stored against that high ceiling?


I thought the the blueprints in "The Making of Star Trek" did show the rotating disc was also a lift that placed the shuttle into the ceiling?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> Only the remastered HD DVD abominations will exist.





Griffworks said:


> Y'know, every time I read this sort of stuff from folks who absolutely hate the idea of CBS' remastering of TOS, I hope that the folks who makes those comments and don't yet own the sets _can now never get them_. Mean, small-minded and poor tempered of me, I know. But y'know what? It's the truth....


But that's not going to happen, Griff.
We all know it's ridiculously paranoid to think that that original fx DVDs will disappear from at the very least the Ebay-internet market for decades apon decades.

We all know people who exaggerate their problems in order to be able to bitch about something they don't like.

It's fine to not like what CBS is doing.

Personally though I wasn't impressed at all from the first few efforts, they are getting undeniably better and better and I believe will actually eventually do TOS a great service.

A lot of younger people who found TNG interesting could barely squirm and put up with watching TOS.

Perhap with the new effects they'll be able to get past some of the more glaring technical problems and be able to appreciate Trek for the quality of the writing and the way it introduced a new vision of the future at one of the most dangerous and bleakest periods of the then not-so-cold war.

CBS has a ways to go yet, but I appreciate what they are trying to do. With most people switching to HD in the next few years...

(*yes, CaptFrank whether you like it or not HD is coming. You will be assimilated, and writing your Congressman won't help* - He's already been bought out *by the people conspiring to make DVD's obsolete!* *Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated!)*

*... I can't see them re-releasing the series in HD without redoing the f/x's,* except to include them in a special retro version that will cost just as much or more to buy!

I love the old series myself, but it would be nice to have a clean clear version without glaring tech inconsistencies that distract from the stories and action.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It's fine to not like what CBS is doing.


And I have no problem with folks not liking it, never said I did. I think it's pretty inane to constantly poo-poo something that's going to happen whether you like it or not. It's also pretty silly to call it things like "abomination", as well as insulting to those of us who like the direction that CBS is going. 

Just tellin' my opinion is all.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It's fine to not like what CBS is doing.


I must say that I respect the integrity and pride of those that resist the alterations to the orginals. :thumbsup: Sometimes the fears of losing the original version of stories are justified (not just talking TV shows and movies here).

In most cases, I'd say leave well enough (or incredibly excellent) alone. (A _Forbidden Planet_ remake? _Why bother???_ There's no place to go but down hill.  ) 

_Star Trek_'s special effects have bothered me for a long time, however. I like seeing them at least made consistent and more views of a universe that has continued to expand on TV and in the movies and in the minds of fans for forty years now. 

As much as the archival value of modern and historic cultures is respected and the relics preserved as well as the relative ease of preservation nowadays (DVD stuck in a drawer vs. reels of deteriorating film stored in a refrigerator), I'd guess that we're in very little danger of losing the original versions of_ Star Trek_.

That being said, I'm not sure I'll pony up the money for the HD versions since I already have the original DVD versions--which I enjoy very much.


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

Actually reels of film are a much more reliable and longer-lasting form of preservation. Discs rot, and rapid technological progress make modern recorded media obsolete very quickly.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I don't see how discs made of plastic would rot, that's a phenomenon I'm not aware of.
Though my ignorance doesn't make a thing impossible, I have to assume you are speaking of some older technology then Laserdisc, DVD's, or even Vinyl for that matter.


And most of those 16mm film rolls I was talking about have taken on a magenta/violet discoloration. 

My main point was that the chances of not being able to buy a DVD set of TOS episodes with the original f/x for a loooong time to come are slim to none.

I have to disagree that newer technology constantly makes stuff obsolete.

From Laserdisc to NTSC DVD there has been limited improvements.

Laserdiscs and DVD's will still do excellent standard definition displays of their media up until it becomes impractical to buy them and the movies in that format.

But about every couple of decades major advancements are made, color TV in '53, the first VCR around '77(for about the price of a good used car - about $1800 bucks or so), Laserdisc brought in the first of the digital media and DVD's have finally become dirt cheap.

But never since 1953 has a technology come out that change what we come to expect from TV and home theater as will HD.

To think that people *who supposedly love Sci-fi* are bitching so much about having TOS's video improved to more then 5 times the quality of regular TV seems really silly and absurd to me.

It's hard to believe that CBS is doing all this work to improve and upgrade the series to HD and getting so much flac because they want to improve the f/x.

The old f/x will still be around if you want versions later.
They aren't destroying anything, if anything they are making the show look less technically destracting and thereby perhaps widening it's future appeal.

What's next? People complaining about not being able to buy 20" and larger B&W TV's anymore?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I'll predict that as long as there are easily stored zeroes and ones around, the film can rot and the shows will survive on an infinite variety of formats in all its various incarnations.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

It'll be totally digital soon. I have a data stick that holds a meg of data, as much as my first hard drive.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Only a meg? A have a 2 GIGAbyte fash card in my camera.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

"Helping" again I see.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

terryr said:


> . . . a meg of data, as much as my first hard drive.


I remember owning a computer that used a cassette tape recorder as its only "hard drive."


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

I meant 1 Gig of course.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

heiki said:


> I thought the the blueprints in "The Making of Star Trek" did show the rotating disc was also a lift that placed the shuttle into the ceiling?


I've never seen those blueprints.

Griff, my local Hell-Marts still have the TOS DVD sets, less than $55 each.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> And I have no problem with folks not liking it, never said I did. I think it's pretty inane to constantly poo-poo something that's going to happen whether you like it or not. It's also pretty silly to call it things like "abomination", as well as insulting to those of us who like the direction that CBS is going.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

John P said:


> Only a meg? A have a 2 GIGAbyte fash card in my camera.


What's a "fash card?":tongue:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Agreed. I meant that there is nothing wrong with not liking it, but that this was being illogical and unreasonable, not just expressing a dislike of the new f/x.
> 
> I was also trying to point out to those who have expressed concern that versions of the old f/x are somehow going to suddenly disappear that that is also unreasonable.
> 
> *>SNIPPERS!<*


OK I've had someone point a finger an cry "foul!" over this. For the most part, we weren't singly an individual out other than to comment on the basic mindset of constant slamming of the work that's been/being done to remaster TOS. I think we were both "attacking" the mindset, not the individual - or at least I wasn't attacking that specific person. 

I _am_ guilty, however, of letting my frustrations get to me on the subject and being a little less distant from the subject itself. I literally do not understand why people find it necessary to call the Remastered TOS an "abomination" and talk about how it's "ruined" TOS. That makes ZERO sense to me.

I won't recant anything I said about making a sacrifice for what you want. If you want the complete TOS DVD set you'll get it by eating ramen, drinking water and going w/o smokes for a couple months - or it just isn't worth it to you so there's no use complaining about it. My folks taught me that. 

Regardless, let's just move on beyond this and get back to the topic of the thread, please.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Agreed. I too thought it was implied that we weren't talking about just one person in this thread, as more then one person has decried the re-engineering of the f/x.

I did address one person in particular with advice not to worry about the original versions disappearing from existence - until I realized the person wasn't genuinely worried about that happening but was just more upset about the re-engineering.

If I led anyone to think they were being personally slighted I apologize.
Though I stand by my arguments about the conclusions/opinions that more then one person has made.

I still think it's dumb to take personal offense at Trek being re-F/X'ed, or to act like CBS is spray painting over the frescos of the Vatican or something.

But I think most people here on BOTH sides have kept 99.5% of this discussion it civil and non-personal. And I've seen no one here be outright abusive to anyone.

Having said that, if at some point someone here feels I didn't keep it civil and got too harsh with them then I DO sincerely apologize for that.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I have never seen any episodes of the new FX episodes. No channel carries them. But I really don't care, I have TOS on DVD, which I paid around $100 for each season.

I won't upgrade to HD, unless I really have to. Someone mentioned about complaining to Congress. Congress created HD broadcasts. They told the broadcasters, you have no choice. So HD TVs had to be sold, and now HD DVDs. I still watch TV on a 20 inch 16 year old TV. Works for me. Can't afford saterlight.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I won't upgrade to HD, unless I really have to. Someone mentioned about complaining to Congress. Congress created HD broadcasts. They told the broadcasters, you have no choice. So HD TVs had to be sold, and now HD DVDs. I still watch TV on a 20 inch 16 year old TV. Works for me. Can't afford saterlight.


If you get all of your TV service from cable and rent a cable box you will still be okay.

Very few people get their TV only through rabbit ears and their built in TV tuner these days.

If you have at least basic cable and rent a box, there are no plans that I know of to take out the lower quality non-HD outputs from your current or future cable boxes.

Just as you can today with current HD cable boxes and satelitte receivers, you will still be able to plug your old TV's into the HD boxes using the Video or S-Video, connections.

The people who will be left out in the cold with no signal whatsoever will be those who are only getting their local broadcasts through the air via Rabbit Ears or regular external TV antennas.

If those people decide they only care about getting their local stations through the air they will be able to buy a seperate HD tuner to receive their local stations through the air on the HD frequencies.

Just like the cable boxes, chances are that they will still be able to plug their old TV into a new HD Tuner box's output.

The only people who simply will cease to get TV will be those who only want to get TV from their local stations through the air, but don't want to buy a new tuner box or a TV with a built in HD tuner.

Does that clear things up a little or have I just confused things a bit more?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. wrote:


> I don't see how discs made of plastic would rot, that's a phenomenon I'm not aware of.
> Though my ignorance doesn't make a thing impossible, I have to assume you are speaking of some older technology then Laserdisc, DVD's, or even Vinyl for that matter.


It's not the plastic that will rot soon, it's the metal film in between the layers of plastic that corrodes.



> The reflective layer is usually of thin gold, silver or silver alloy. Gold does not corrode, though gold-coated disks are expensive. Silver corrodes when exposed to air pollutants such as sulfur. Most silver-coated disks use alloys to inhibit corrosion.


This is from here:
http://www.gcn.com/print/23_5/25166-1.html?topic=news

The whole article is fascinating, from a technical point of view.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

CaptFrank said:


> It's not the plastic that will rot soon, it's the metal film in between the layers of plastic that corrodes.
> 
> 
> This is from here:
> ...


Interesting read. Thanks for the link. 

However, I don't see how it really means that film is the better medium over a CD/DVD disc. Especially given Treadwell's comment of earlier: 


Treadwell said:


> Actually reels of film are a much more reliable and longer-lasting form of preservation. Discs rot, and rapid technological progress make modern recorded media obsolete very quickly.


Unless film is kept in very strict, controlled conditions, it doesn't take long for it to start breaking down. It's my understanding that while we've got well preserved copies of movies from as far as back as the 1920's, those copies have been kept in special vaults so as to preserve them. After all, film is nothing more than a photographic medium that is created by a chemical reaction to sunlight, right? 

Just like photographs, nature & time start to break down the initial chemicals and the film itself eventually becomes too brittle and the images start to fade. You could, conceivably, re-burn the information on a CD/DVD much more efficiently than you could make another film copy of an original film. 

And then there's the whole issue of storage space. 

Anyhow, it's an interesting side-argument to the whole Remastered TOS debated, but it's a side-track, nonetheless.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Still interesting and mostly on point though.

One thing I'd like to point out, CaptFrank, is that the metals in factory-recorded discs is way different from the foil used in the discs people burn on their home players.

Factory recorded DVDs/CDs are a lot tougher then the homestyle disks.

The home-burned disks will also start to discolor long before they ever corrode or become unreadable for that matter. At which point you can almost always transfer the information long before it becomes unreadable.

Even though home burned DVD's are not as durable as factory pressed - right after hurricane Katrina I had a friend who got to find out how durable they are firsthand - not just from one or two examples but hundreds he personally worked on from hundreds of different households/conditions. This friend worked for HP and was sent along with several other Hewlet Packard representatives here to New Orleans right after hurricane Katrina.

Their job was to help people restore not only water and mold damaged photos but also to make new copies of home video DVD's for people.

About 9 out of 10 times they were able to read and perfectly copy DVD's that had been sitting in salt water for two weeks or longer!

They were also able to restore many printed paper photos, if not to 100% of the original quality(sometimes impossible due to mold) they often were able to recover a decent image.

Let's just say that film and magnetic tapes didn't stand up quite as well as the DVD's to soaking in moldy salt water for a couple of weeks...

I'm not saying the discs are impervious, but with a little common sense and zero environmental control requirements DVD's can last indefinitely. 

As Griffworks pointed out - if and when they do show the potential to be corrupted you can virtually instantly make a copy with the exact same quality as the original - that never happens with film.

I know of dozens of people who had DVD's soaking in moldy, salty floodwater for weeks and still were able to recover perfect copies of them.

That's pretty durable in my book.

I wouldn't try the same thing with film or magnetic tape, would anyone else?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Good points, Chuck. I think the key is that once images and sound are reduced to ones and zeros, there is an ever increasing number of ever more durable and reliable formats to which they may easily be transferred.


----------



## TrekMaster (May 8, 2005)

As a survivor of Hurricane Katrina, I can tell you that I had over 300 DVDs immersed in water. Even after the water receded it was months before I could spare the time to actually sift through them, Very few of the disc were playable in even the best DVD player I could buy. BUT the data was still readable on a computer DVD drive and thus perfect copies of all of them have now been made and all work just fine. This is where I said to hell with the DMRA and the laws banning copying DVDs. If this had been tape or film, I would have been s**t out of luck!

As to the remastered Star Trek: I am a first generation fan back from the beginning and I choose to approach the newly enhanced shows with excitement. In fact, I really don't care if I ever see the original versions ever again (except for comparison studies.) I subscribe to the idea that if Roddenberry and company could have produced effects like CBS Digital is doing, they would have. The flavor and pacing of the stories is still wholly intact and the new effects only add to the experience without removing or changing anything crucial. The only problem I have had concerns the recent changes tot he movement of the Enterprise in episodes like Doomsday Machine. I've always liked the fact that the Enterprise doesn't swoop or bank like the later Trek ships do. That majestic almost lumbering movement conveys a sense of size and power. It's not a big thing but it is a concern. To get a clear idea of my meaning, consider the Enterprise at the end of Wrath Of Khan when it is having to back away from the Reliant and escape before the explosion. You realized just what a big deal it is to get that big ship out of there in time. CBS-D seems to be moving more in line with later Treks and is giving the Enterprise abilities it should not have. It doesn't ruin the episodes but it doesn't feel right either.


----------



## Bot The Farm (Jan 13, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Good points, Chuck. I think the key is that once images and sound are reduced to ones and zeros, there is an ever increasing number of ever more durable and reliable formats to which they may easily be transferred.


I would point out that there is a hidden assumption in this discussion. That being that there will be devices capeable of reading your media still around.

As I see it the main problem will not be the lifetime of the media, but the availability of devices to read it as technology advances.

Granted HD players are currently backwards compatible, but will the next generation of media players be so?

For example all how many 5 1/4" floppy disk drive's have you seen for sale around in your local store? I am sure many business's still have data archived on 5 1/4" disks they cant read because they cant find a disk drive to read the data.

Just a thought..........


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Bot The Farm said:


> I would point out that there is a hidden assumption in this discussion. That being that there will be devices capeable of reading your media still around.
> 
> As I see it the main problem will not be the lifetime of the media, but the availability of devices to read it as technology advances.
> 
> ...


 My point exactly.

I have a large collection laserdics. My original player died a couple years ago. I was fortunate to find a recondintioned one to replace it. The "new" one is still 20 years old, of course, so god knows how long that will last. And it doesn't have half the features of my original. Meanwhile you really can't get a brand-new LD player without spending thousands. And laserdisc rot claims a disc every now and then, usually one I can't replace because the movie was never released on DVD.

I recently threw away a few hundred Beta cassettes after spending years trying to duplicate the collection on VHS or DVD. Some still can't be replaced, like TV shows I taped in the 80s, which aren't on DVD yet. My Betamax died about a decade ago and I kept the tapes around in case I ever got around to having it fixed or replaced. I never managed to get a working deck.

So y'all can see why I react poorly to the continual, obviously incorrect assertion that "You'll always have you original DVDs to watch!"

Experience shows me that just ain't the case.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

In the case of the 5 1/4" floppies - or anything else that we're made aware isn't going to be produced anymore, really - , the intention of computer companies was made will in advance that they were going to STOP PRODUCING THEM. Any business that failed to transfer that data w/o making sure they're current 5 1/4" drives were working properly are at fault for not taking action. Betamax and laserdiscs were exactly the same way. Those of us who _want_ to keep those shows will transfer movies or TV Shows over to other mediums when we know that medium is about to become extinct. It's on us to take action. It's really not Sony's fault they're not making any more of (fill in the blank) type of player because sales are declining for that type of medium and (fill in the blank) players are more popular and selling well. They're supposed to keep producing what they might consider to be "throw back" technology because maybe 5,000 people out of the tens-of-millions of people in the U.S. decide they don't want to buy the new technology? 

There's also this angle to think about: You can't watch your movie/show or listen to your 8-Track's or records because you wouldn't transfer it, so it's Sony's fault? Especially when it's public knowledge they're not making those devices any longer? I'd argue that the blame doesn't belong heaped upon the shoulders of those companies no longer producing subjects in that medium, but on those who refuse to change.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Exactly, Griff!

There's no media out there now, that if you currently have a decent computer and a decent player, you can't transfer to hard drive and thence to some other medium. (I'll admit that there has been a gap in time in the last decade or two that wouldn't have made that as inexpensive a proposition as it is now.)

Backwards compatibility will come to mean less and less when new recording media will all plug into the same port no matter what sort of medium it is and there won't be any moving parts to make it necessary to retrieve the data. We're almost there now.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

And, of course, agreed Lee. 

Also, just so's no one thinks that I'm picking on them, I'm just trying to engage in a general discussion here. Not picking on individuals nor meaning to be insulting. If you take umbrage to it in those two directions, my apologies in advance. However, I just think that a lot of the opposing argument is more about nostalgia than it is about logical thinking and progression.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Griffworks said:


> In the case of the 5 1/4" floppies - or anything else that we're made aware isn't going to be produced anymore, really - , the intention of computer companies was made will in advance that they were going to STOP PRODUCING THEM. Any business that failed to transfer that data w/o making sure they're current 5 1/4" drives were working properly are at fault for not taking action. Betamax and laserdiscs were exactly the same way. Those of us who _want_ to keep those shows will transfer movies or TV Shows over to other mediums when we know that medium is about to become extinct. It's on us to take action. It's really not Sony's fault they're not making any more of (fill in the blank) type of player because sales are declining for that type of medium and (fill in the blank) players are more popular and selling well. They're supposed to keep producing what they might consider to be "throw back" technology because maybe 5,000 people out of the tens-of-millions of people in the U.S. decide they don't want to buy the new technology?
> 
> There's also this angle to think about: You can't watch your movie/show or listen to your 8-Track's or records because you wouldn't transfer it, so it's Sony's fault? Especially when it's public knowledge they're not making those devices any longer? I'd argue that the blame doesn't belong heaped upon the shoulders of those companies no longer producing subjects in that medium, but on those who refuse to change.


Heck, I'm not saying it's anybody's fault - where'd you get that idea!? I'm just saying people should stop telling me "You'll always have youre original DVDs to watch." 'Cause based on past experience, it may not be so. And not everyone has the adeptitude or equipment to copy the _hundreds _of shows and movies he owns onto the _next _format. I'm finding the suggestion that that's "all we have to do" a bit techno-elitist.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> . . . I'm finding the suggestion that that's "all we have to do" a bit techno-elitist.


Okay. You may have a point there.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

John P said:


> Heck, I'm not saying it's anybody's fault - where'd you get that idea!?


From the general "we'll never see these again! Those bastiches!" comments that have been made in this thread as well as your comments about been left to hang where some TV shows and movies only available on LD or Betamax are concerned. 


> I'm just saying people should stop telling me "You'll always have youre original DVDs to watch." 'Cause based on past experience, it may not be so. And not everyone has the adeptitude or equipment to copy the _hundreds _of shows and movies he owns onto the _next _format. I'm finding the suggestion that that's "all we have to do" a bit techno-elitist.


And I find the suggestion that the remastering of Trek is "an abomination" and the "they'll never be available again" to be an anachronistic attitude when IMNSHO neither is the case. 

Gonna have to agree to disagree, John.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Bot The Farm said:


> I would point out that there is a hidden assumption in this discussion. That being that there will be devices capeable of reading your media still around.
> 
> As I see it the main problem will not be the lifetime of the media, but the availability of devices to read it as technology advances.
> 
> ...


Once the movies are digitally saved as they are on DVD, 99.999999% of the real work of copying is done.

That's not a technologically elitist statement.
It is a simple statement that acknowledges that 99.9% of the reason people don't copy their old home movies and VCR tapes and 8mm film isn't because it is complicated,

there will be some percentage of the populace that thinks turning a screw is complicated

99.9% of the reason people haven't copied their old movies is because with the non-digital older formats you have to sit there while everything copies in REAL TIME, hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second.

Once you have that info digitally transferred to DVD or Hard Disk, that is no longer the case.

Heck, as hurricanes and other natural disasters have proven, you should always have a backup of that stuff somewhere high and dry.

I think that now that DVD technology is finally cheap and so widely available upgrading to the next format

will be undenibly easy. Anyone who fails to do so with DVD's on will likely have nothing to do with not being a techno-elitist, but with being lazy.

Will there be a chance that if you wait 30 years it might be difficult to find devices to read and copy DVD's into new formats?

Yes. But waiting 30 years is just another side of the laziness coin. 

Even then, I would be willing to bet it will still be doable, just like today I can go on Ebay and find devices to allow me to transfer 8mm film to digital and then burn DVD's.


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I have to disagree that newer technology constantly makes stuff obsolete.
> 
> From Laserdisc to NTSC DVD there has been limited improvements.


Laserdisc players are no longer being made. In 20 years, how hard will it be to find one that still works?

When was the last time you saw a working computer that can read 5 1/2" floppies?

In the 70s many shows were mastered on quad videotape (2"), for example...for producers trying to put old Doctor Who episodes to DVD, they're having to jump through all kinds of hoops getting decent playback off of them from one or two machines still running.

All the while, the Trek 35mm film negatives and preservation dupes sit on a shelf in a climate-controlled room in fine shape.

Just because something's on ones and zeroes doesn't mean it's in a format that will forever be able to be read by whatever computers are in use at a particular time. To compensate it requires a much more frequent schedule of backing up data to current formats than film requires.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Griffworks said:


> Gonna have to agree to disagree, John.


 I call wet noodles and ten paces!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

How 'bout beer & pizza?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Treadwell said:


> . . . All the while, the Trek 35mm film negatives and preservation dupes sit on a shelf in a climate-controlled room in fine shape.
> 
> Just because something's on ones and zeroes doesn't mean it's in a format that will forever be able to be read by whatever computers are in use at a particular time. To compensate it requires a much more frequent schedule of backing up data to current formats than film requires.



Refrigeration does not stop film degradation. It merely slows down the chemical processes involved. It is (or will soon be) cheaper by far to regularly back up those ones and zeroes on newer formats than to restore the images on film. Restoration is necessary every time with film in order to get a (near-) perfect image since every time it is played or otherwise handled, scratches and dirt are added to the frames.

When pixels and sound are reduced to ones and zeroes, the information is always going to be available if the least bit of attention is paid to archiving it by the studios (who are usually very protective of their property and its money making potential). 

Film, on the other hand, will fade and otherwise deteriorate even if properly stored and require restoration which cannot be 100% accurate. On the other hand, film that has been converted to information, ones and zeroes, will always be of the same quality. 

ANY format for storing those ones and zeroes will work. Any type computer storage medium will store those ones and zeroes as long as it is large enough to hold them. Conversion from one format to another is simple and exact. The information is intact and stays that way from one storage format to the next.

ANY late model computer with enough memory that understands binary will be able to translate those ones and zeroes. (Presumably, any future types of computers will be able to figure out the relatively simple binary code)

Mechanical motion players are quickly going away as formats for storage evolve. In the future, the biggest problem you may face with (what will some day be) obsolete non-mechanical drives is finding or rigging an adaptor to make the hardware connection to your computer and software to interpret that memory format (that will, no doubt, be available free on the internet). 

The main point I'm trying to make is that storage of ones and zeroes is a lot easier than preserving fragile and volatile film media. You can copy ones and zeroes an infinite number of times and still have the same exact articles. If you try making copies of copies with film, you quickly lose any resemblance to the original article.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Treadwell said:


> Laserdisc players are no longer being made. In 20 years, how hard will it be to find one that still works?
> 
> When was the last time you saw a working computer that can read 5 1/2" floppies?


I'm looking at one as I speak. If you have a PC and not a mac so are you. You can go online and buy a 5 1/2" drive and have it fed ex'ed to and installed into your computer by the day after tommorrow.

If you've read everything I've written instead of trying to take one or two sentences out of context you'll see that the very first comment I made in trying to assuage what I thought were genuine fears of another member you'll find a consistent theme

- i.e. you can go online right now and for very few bucks buy technology to convert decades old media to present day media.

Now that we have gotten to the DVD level of digital video and sound that is even more the case.



Treadwell said:


> Laserdisc players are no longer being made. In 20 years, how hard will it be to find one that still works?


Perfect point. Just a few months ago I got tired of not having a copy of Trek The Animated Series and didn't want to buy a copy of distorted analog tape.

So I bought a Sony Laserdisc player for what I think was about $65 bucks(that originally cost the seller $850) that the seller still had and sent in the original box with the original receipt.

It has worked fine ever since and I've gotten to watch a couple of dozen discs that were not available in another format(original versions of some Star Wars movies as well) until Paramount recently rereleased several of them -TAS - on DVD.

Which leads to another point - tons of pirated Laserdisc to DVD copies of TAS were starting to pop up on the internet both for free and for sale.

There is a good chance that Paramount saw this and that's why they suddenly got off their buts and released the DVD's

MORAL OF THIS STORY: It is a repeat of what I've said before: If they figure out a dime can be made from it they will produce it in a current format - so stop being paranoid!!!!!




Treadwell said:


> In the 70s many shows were mastered on quad videotape (2"), for example...for producers trying to put old Doctor Who episodes to DVD, they're having to jump through all kinds of hoops getting decent playback off of them from one or two machines still running.


Although expensive such machines are not down to one or two. They were mostly used in TV stations for playback, actually storage and playback at TV stations were their main use - not mastering TV shows. During the 70's that was the purview of 70mm and sometimes 35mm film, both of which can be transferred into HD quality. If they are resorting to Quad tape then they have lost some of their original films. The BBC was so notorious for space limitations and not maintaining original libraries - muchless props - that it is not surprising they're having to resort to old tapes instead of film originals.

How do I know those machines aren't so rare though? My father was an electronics technician here at WWL-TV in New Orleans for about 40 years and until hurricane Katrina I had one (plus a couple dozen of those big ole' honking cartridges) that still worked(at least until I put it in my shed in about 1984) until my shed was flooded by Katrina(I lucked out and thankfully only lost the shed as it was at ground level four feet lower then my house).

*However, having said all that about quad-tape it's a totally moot point.*
*Producers of Dr. Who on DVD's problems are their problems - which you seem to be admitting they are solving as you are pointing out.*

*We're talking about problems with formats that the general public uses.*
*Quad tape has never been one of them.*



Treadwell said:


> All the while, the Trek 35mm film negatives and preservation dupes sit on a shelf in a climate-controlled room in fine shape.


There's the rub. Climate controlled libraries of film.
I can be a lot rougher with my DVD's and in the future HD DVD's(Blueray or whatever the standard becomes) without having to have a climate controlled storage area of a medium that takes up exponentially more room.

How fan friendly is having to have a constantly climate controlled storage and projection facilities?


*


Treadwell said:



Just because something's on ones and zeroes doesn't mean it's in a format that will forever be able to be read by whatever computers are in use at a particular time. To compensate it requires a much more frequent schedule of backing up data to current formats than film requires.

Click to expand...

*Who is talking about forever? You somehow think that film can be copied without loosing quality each time? You think film can last forever?

Film can not last forever and looses quality each time you copy it - digital files do not.

Actually, backing up digital files WOULD insure the show or movie would be available virtually forever with no loss of quality.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

The concern is not about the medium.

HD is a necessary improvement in America's television technology.
The current system is based on standards set in the 1930s.

The problem is the integrity of the story we grew up watching.
The remastered cgi episodes are different. Some have already 
suggested editing the episodes' dialog, and other content, to suit 
their tastes.

My contention is that the _true_ original versions will be lost.
The current DVDs are already altered, slightly, from the originals.

(As an example, I direct you to the episode "Balance of Terror".
When the _Enterprise_ fires her weapons, there was no sound.
The DVD I have has the photon torpedo sound effect. And the visual 
effect of a white blob has been replaced by a sharp star-pointed dot.)

The problem I have with such changes is that it will lead to what 
some are already asking for: "Let's change this, let's change that."

Soon, the real stories will be forgotten.

As far as the originals not being available after the remastered 
abominations( :tongue: ) are issued, there is precedent for that.
I point to a few examples:

*BLADE RUNNER
STAR TREK I-VI
SUPERMAN (1978)*

These movies disappeared when the "Special edition/director's cut"
versions were produced.

Can you get Blade Runner now? No.
Only the director's cut.

The same with Star Trek. Only the special editions.

There are changes to these movies, and they are not always for the 
better. McCoy's added lines in Star Trek II are awkward. That's why
they were originally cut out. 

The Superman audio was redone, and it is worse. I liked the sound
of the theatrical version.

The concern I have is that the original true versions will not be 
released anymore once the HD remastered versions are produced.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

All I can say is buy either the DVD's or video tape when you can afford to. Chances are they will be available - at least through something like eBay! - for decades to come.

You can still occassionally buy 16mm versions of some of the episodes(only a few were produced on 16mm) and those haven't been made for over 30 years.

On Star Trek 1-6 you can get exact digital copies of the original on 12" Laserdisc. Again, those machines can still be bought on eBay! for about $40-90 bucks.

If you sincerely need help or advice on how to find them let me know.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

On the issue of Blade Runner the first DVD release version(which was NOT the same as the theatrical release) is supposed to be rereleased in about a year with yet another version(the original theatrical release that was never put on DVD).


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> You can still occassionally buy 16mm versions of some of the episodes(only a few were produced on 16mm) and those haven't been made for over 30 years.


Why do you bring up the 16mm films?
I never once wrote about them.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

To point out that DVD's are not likely to disappear as quickly as you might worry they will.

I'm willing to bet far less 16mm episodes were ever produced then has been on DVD though they can still be found decades later.

My point being don't worry so much about the original episodes dissappearing, either or DVD or Videotape for that matter.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

^^

You are missing my point: The _medium doesn't matter_, 
it's the integrity of the episodes.
Some tech down the line deciding to edit for clarity, or because
he feels a scene is too long. An element is unnecessary, so it
is deleted.
It is a slippery slope.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I got that point.
You missed mine.

Buy and save a copy of either the DVDS or the videotape releases of the original series.

Unless you have a way to purchase original film copies and store them in a vault somewhere...

you are fretting over something that 1) won't happen because they'll always be a copy of the originals floating around in some form or another,

And 2)

if there is some "master plan conspiracy" and someone or a group of someones with the resources to intentionally wipe out every existing copy of the original form of the TOS Trek episodes exactly what hope do you have of overcoming the dastardly plans of such an evil person!?!

Oh woe is me? How will we ever stop these unnamed conspirators from re-writing all of history and turning all these great works into "HD abominations!!!"

Jeez! Get real!


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. wrote:


> if there is some "master plan conspiracy" and someone or a group of someones with the resources to intentionally wipe out every existing copy of the original form of the TOS Trek episodes exactly what hope do you have of overcoming the dastardly plans of such an evil person!?!
> 
> Oh woe is me? How will we ever stop these unnamed conspirators from re-writing all of history and turning all these great works into "HD abominations!!!"
> 
> Jeez! Get real!


  

Where do you get these ideas?
Are you off your Lithium again?

A few posts ago you accused me of jumping to paranoid mode, then 
of being afraid of the re-engineering.
Now you think I am fretting over a "Master plan conspiracy"?
"Unnamed conspirators"?
Who said anything about a conspiracy?

STAR TREK has been remastered by Paramount, Michael Okuda, and his
technical team. Are they the conspirators you mention?
Are _you_ the one worried about conspiracy? You brought it up.
You must be thinking of the idea.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Alrighty, fellas. Let's take a deep breath and stop w/the ever-so-subtle insults of personal members. Nobody needs to be jabbed at to "take your lithium" and nobody needs to be called a conspiracy theorist. 

I can fully understand the passion of the discussion and now understand exactly what CaptFrank was getting at. He's concerned w/the original, uncut episodes being lost - which I don't see happening, considering there are the recently "cleaned up" (for lack of a better word) episodes available right now which run their original length. We'll also get the original length episodes with the Remastered TOS HD DVD's that will eventually be released, as well. So, it seems to me there's no reason to fear the original episodes being "lost".


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

Chuck and Perfesser,

I was responding to an (admittedly tangential) academic point about media storage and longevity. (For the record I like most of the new Trek effects.) My posts were entirely stoic (paranoid? Not I), while you guys have read emotion into them and responded that way. So take a chill pill, please. 

FWIW, I didn't mean there are only one or two 2" machines left in the world. Just at the BBC. While what you said about film-originated shows not being mastered on 2" is true, I was speaking of shows originated on video, of which there are _many_ examples having been mastered to that format in the 70s.

I do not have a 5 1/2" floppy drive on my PC. Are you sure you're not thinking 3 1/4"? 

Anyway, my point being that you guys seem to be treating "digital" as if it's a universal format in itself. That you just transfer files from one storage medium to another and expect modern and future hardware and software to know what to do with them. That is often not adequate. Digital does not equal digital. Keeping your assets up to date is not simply a matter of backing up files but _converting them_ to something readable by the current technology. As an analogy, I could back up an old copy of a spreadsheet created in 1987 by Lotus 1-2-3 all day long...it's digital, right? But what's going to run the program? Running DOS-based programs in XP is really dicey. For legacy archiving I'd not only have to transfer the file to a new medium but also convert it and save it with Excel or something. And do it again in 5 or ten years with the next flavor.

And it is by no means a guaranteed lossless process.

I agree with diligence it can be done. But it is not nearly as simple as is being suggested, is all.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Treadwell said:


> . . . So take a chill pill, please.


No problem here. I'm not upset about anything.  



> But it is not nearly as simple as is being suggested, is all.


I agree that up to now it hasn't been easy, but, IMHO, we're rapidly coming to a point where there is nearly universality involved with movies stored on various media. 

When we have movies stored on plug-in cards (no player involved) that, with some care, keep their data for a few hundred years, as long as there is a hardware connection made and the software to interpret it, there's no problem. I don't see us reaching a point where our computers become unable to read old data for movies when it is just a matter of having a program to interpret it. 

Right now, by swapping from one format to another, if you can keep it all digital, you may preserve your original quality product (barring copyright protection technology). I'm just thinking in the future it will be even easier.

Just my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Treadwell said:


> >SNIPPAGE!<
> 
> And it is by no means a guaranteed lossless process.


Any more than that of trying to preserve film. And I'd argue that it's a lot closer to guaranteed than film can possibly be.  


> I agree with diligence it can be done. But it is not nearly as simple as is being suggested, is all.


No more so than it is to transfer that movie over to another reel of film, even from the master copy. What if you damage the original during a transfer 

Actually, as Lee/PerfesserCoffee points out, it actually is a pretty simple process. We've had the same types of visual/picture programs for Windows Compatible programs for more than two decades with more added fairly regularly - mostly when a company decides it wants to create a medium that will only work on their machine or w/their software! - right? JPEG, BMP, GIF, etc... I don't see them being universally dismissed any time soon. 

Same w/movie-type programs. We've had AVI, MPEG and similar programs for about 15 or so years, at least. For what doesn't immediately work on one type of operating system there are programs to convert it to the appropriate type. Not all of them are perfect converting programs, but there are some that will give you exactly the same quality as from the original source medium. 

For the most part, any DVD's will last in your desk drawer or book shelf considerably longer than a couple cannisters of film. You don't have to have a special vault designed just storage of that particular object - tho to do so would likely allow it to survive quite a bit longer. You can put it in your closet, cedar chest or attic. As long as there are no extreme conditions, the disc(s) will still be readable for quite some time to come. Another benefit is that to watch the movie you can pop that DVD into most computers, your home DVD player or even a portable DVD player that's smaller than a laptop. _And_ watch it pretty much anywhere you want. 

Let's look back at film. If you want to keep your film cannisters (note use of the plural!) for _Forbidden Planet_ in such shape as to watch it even just once a year for 20 years, you've got to keep those reels in sealed containers when you're not watching them. You have to further keep them in a climate controlled environment of some sort that's as dust-free as you can make it. This is usually literally in the form of a vault. 

You'll also have to take extra care of that bulky reel-to-reel player, too, so that it's in top condition and clean - both the visual and audio track elements! - or you risk irreparably damaging the film. You'll need a somewhat largish, open area and a screen on which to show your movie, as well. And unless you want to have to stop the movie for a couple of minutes while you change out reels, you'll have to have _two_ of those projectors. 

And finally, there's the cost of the print for _Forbidden Planet_ - of which I have no clue what it might approach. I do know that you can get a copy of the DVD release - with lots of bonus extra's - for ~USD$20. I would imagine that the complete set of reels for FP would be just a little bit more than that. 


Now, just to be clear, I've been looking at this aspect of the discussion in this thread pretty dispassionately. I'm an old-school camera guy who doesn't much like the idea of having to retire his 35mm camera's (yes, plural!) for digital camera's because I feel that there are some things you can do with a film camera versus digital which just appeal to my eye. Heck, I used to load my own film, develop it and make my own prints! For a long time I hated the idea of digicams. 

However, the time where you can't take exactly the same type of pictures between the two is pretty much over. Digicams can take more pics in one setting before needing to DL those images - or pull out a video card and replace it - than your average 35mm camera. I remember having to walk around w/a bulky camera bag to help w/the storage of those extra rolls of film, for instance, whereas now I can walk around with a relatively small camera bag that contains one extra video card that holds an average of 80 images on it. You can also currently do more w/those digicam "prints" than you can standard film prints when you consider how you can more easily crop, change light-tones and even the color of the image on your computer. You can even more easily change a color image to black & white. 

And there's the fact you don't need chemicals to develop those prints - be they from a 35mm camera or using the much larger reel-to-reel copy machines for movies. Chemicals that are toxic in more ways than one. 

Given all those facts, it just seems to me that your argument doesn't hold up all that well, Treadwell. Not trying to be mean spirited, just continue the discussion on the issue of various media storage. Just sayin'.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Griffworks suggested:


> Alrighty, fellas. Let's take a deep breath and stop w/the ever-so-subtle insults of personal members. Nobody needs to be jabbed at to "take your lithium" and nobody needs to be called a conspiracy theorist.


 O.K. Griff.

Hey, Chuck!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> Chuck_P.R. wrote:
> 
> Where do you get these ideas?
> Are you off your Lithium again?
> ...


Have you ever heard of satire?

You made the statement that only "HD abominations will be left."

I didn't make that statement. As I've explained about four times over already, that's paranoid and is not going to happen.

If you can still buy 30 year old 16mm film versions of episodes(which is the case) the chance that we will ever get to the ridiculous point where "only HD abominations will be left" is a BIG FAT ZERO.

So please, please, please stop denying the fact that the "slippery slope"(yeah, that's not a paranoid term) situation you described in which we will end up with "only HD abominations" will never happen.

You are complaining over absolutely nothing.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> Griffworks suggested: O.K. Griff.
> 
> Hey, Chuck!


 
Nuff said.

Hey, CaptFrank!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Treadwell said:


> Chuck and Perfesser,
> 
> I was responding to an (admittedly tangential) academic point about media storage and longevity. (For the record I like most of the new Trek effects.) My posts were entirely stoic (paranoid? Not I), while you guys have read emotion into them and responded that way. So take a chill pill, please.
> 
> ...


I agree that digital is not a ubiquotous[sp?] term. But as long as you don't wait forever and a day once you have something in a computer-readable digital form it is tremendously easier to copy and transfer to a more modern format.

DVD's are an example where it will be easy to upgrade to later disk formats, as you can stick the disks in the computer and you don't have to wait in real time to do the copying.

Laserdisks would be a good example of how it's sometimes not so easy to upgrade, as usually you will have to convert the disk via analog connection in real time, unless you have special hardware.

But just like 5.5" and 3.5" disks made it tremendously easier to transfer info into any later computer format - as opposed to 8" disk drives(remember those?); now that we have DVD's I think it'll get more and more convient to copy transfer and back up all kinds of info - not just video.




Treadwell said:


> Chuck
> 
> I do not have a 5 1/2" floppy drive on my PC. Are you sure you're not thinking 3 1/4"?


Sorry. Thought I explained it. I meant that with a few minutes of online searching you could find, buy, and have one installed in just a couple of days if you chose too, not that you already had one. 

Sorry about the confusion.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Any more than that of trying to preserve film. And I'd argue that it's a lot closer to guaranteed than film can possibly be.
> 
> No more so than it is to transfer that movie over to another reel of film, even from the master copy. What if you damage the original during a transfer
> 
> ...


 
Oooooh. Speaking of toxic that reminds me I still have several containers of fixing solution in my attic that literally contain CYANIDE! 

I'm guessing I probably shouldn't just flush it down my toilet...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Oooooh. Speaking of toxic that reminds me I still have several containers of fixing solution in my attic that literally contain CYANIDE!
> 
> I'm guessing I probably shouldn't just flush it down my toilet...


No, don't do that! I'd at least throw it away in the nearest ditch


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Griffworks said:


> Alrighty, fellas. Let's take a deep breath and stop w/the ever-so-subtle insults of personal members.


Anybody insults MY personal member, I'll show it to 'em!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^ :lol:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Oooooh. Speaking of toxic that reminds me I still have several containers of fixing solution in my attic that literally contain CYANIDE!
> 
> I'm guessing I probably shouldn't just flush it down my toilet...


Well, if you live in New York, that'd at least get rid of the alligators in the sewers, tho I don't think it'd kill their dog-sized rats! 




John P said:


> Anybody insults MY personal member, I'll show it to 'em!


Yikes! Poor wording on my part. What I get for trying to post from work.... 

Everybody's a commodian....


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Have you ever heard of satire?
> 
> *>SNIP!<*
> 
> You are complaining over absolutely nothing.


 Enough of the picking at people, alright Chuck? Satire, sarcasm and the line doesn't always translate well, and that's particularly true of folks who are caught up in the moment when the issue is something they feel strongly about. I've done it myself on several occasions when someone was just being playful and I took it as a jab. Let's refrain from this any further in the thread, please. 

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------

