# Trek Refurbished



## 3rdIgrafx (Apr 16, 2005)

Hey Everyone,

I dont know if anyone has posted or mentioned this, as it was done three years ago, but this is a great "tweaking" of things I think. Check it out.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9XHmj-dPEY&search=star%20trek Kudos to the creator, D. Dochterman.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Invalid URL.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Worked. I love TOS and I love that updating of the effects, the only weak spot of the best Trek episode ever.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

This must have been posted on every bboard I vist at least twice in the last few weeks. 
It's fun as a private project, but I'd never want to see the originals altered "officially." They exist as works of art and moments in a specific time. Altering them officially would be as repugnant as replacing a Van Gogh with a photo.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The discussion at Starship Modeler:

http://starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40273


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'd love to see a boxed set w/updated VFX/SFX offered as an alternative. The FX from the '60s were great for their time, but are pretty badly dated anymore. I'm not saying they should only offer an udpated version of TOS, but offer an alternative boxed set w/the updated FX.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I gotta agree with Griff.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Me 2. The Mona Lisa has been refurbished, the Last Supper, the Coliseum, the statue of Liberty.... Trek can get a face lift too WITHOUT diminishing the original. Here's why- The advocates of the Original version do not have to, nor will be forced to watched the colorized, er, updated versions.


----------



## Tyboy4umodels (Apr 26, 2005)

I saw that on YouTube,and I thought it was very good also,I would like to see Paramount redo all the TOS episodes with better graphics and updated special effects.I think it would bring everything up to speed as far as "cannon" with Star Trek:Enterprise


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

The Mona Lisa and Last Supper were _restored_. What we're talking about would be like have the airbrushed version of the Mona Lisa, or the Last Supper rendered in high definition 3-D. That isn't what I'd want. I love all the fan noodling, but definitely keep the series as is, properly color corrected, remastered, with a cleaned up soundtrack. That's about it.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Tyboy4umodels said:


> I saw that on YouTube,and I thought it was very good also,I would like to see Paramount redo all the TOS episodes with better graphics and updated special effects.I think it would bring everything up to speed as far as "cannon" with Star Trek:Enterprise












*" No...No....NO!! "*


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Fascinating.

Unlike other attempts that I've seen, this one did a better job of integrating the SPFX with the look of the original so that the contrast isn't jarring. Still, I'm with John P. The original can still hold its own so long as you respect it for what it was at the time.


----------



## Tyboy4umodels (Apr 26, 2005)

GLU Sniffah said:


> *" No...No....NO!! "*


Ok,I just thought is would make everything look more real as far as the special effects go.I can agree that changing a good thing could be bad as well.Thanks


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Man....one of THEE reasons I love the Classics _as is_ is because I derive a certain amount of pleasure from the Cheez Factor. I LOVE it! Mess with my classics by making them TOO realistic will only CHEEZ me off. Dig?


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Tyboy4umodels said:


> Ok,I just thought is would make everything look more real as far as the special effects go.I can agree that changing a good thing could be bad as well.Thanks


No problem. I'm not THAT worked up about it. 

It's....It's just a TV show!


----------



## Tyboy4umodels (Apr 26, 2005)

GLU Sniffah said:


> Man....one of THEE reasons I love the Classics _as is_ is because I derive a certain amount of pleasure from the Cheez Factor. I LOVE it! Mess with my classics by making them TOO realistic will only CHEEZ me off. Dig?


 Yeah I dig it,I just thought it would be cool to see what the special effects guys to do by revising some of the episodes juust for fun.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

At most, I wouldn't mind seeing the same special effects technology but better camera angles. Is the Constellation slightly above the big bugle's maw or directly in front of it? How far away is it? How big is the maw compared to the ship? Or ... if the Klingons are shooting at us, why are they aiming way off our port bow?

That sort of thing. But not too fancy -- it should look like lost footage found in the vault.

But the original, warts and all, is just fine as well.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Tyboy4umodels said:


> Yeah I dig it,I just thought it would be cool to see what the special effects guys to do by revising some of the episodes juust for fun.


Here's the problem I see.

Tweak the starship effects, matte lines and transporter dissolves all you want, but as long as The Shat's acting remains hammy ( which I LOVE! ), Spock continues to be hit in the head with styrofoam boulders and rubber spears, or foam rubber phasers get bent in half by genetically-engineered supermen...there will ALWAYS be a clash!


----------



## Tyboy4umodels (Apr 26, 2005)

I agree with that GLU,I would love to see the special effects on the ships and other things also,that is what I was speaking of.I would not change anything else.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

^ That goes to the heart of what I was saying. If you tweek certain elements...no matter how realistic the tweeks are, you'll still have a clash with the style of the live action elements, which are quite often fakey in a nostalgic, endearing sense!


----------



## Tyboy4umodels (Apr 26, 2005)

True,but it would be fun and interesting to see anyway what they came up with.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

I still want to know how that sparkly stuff comes out of the Lawgiver's tubes.

Landru! Help me! LANDRU!!!


----------



## Tyboy4umodels (Apr 26, 2005)

sparklers maybe????? I have always wondered that myself


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Tyboy4umodels said:


> True,but it would be fun and interesting to see anyway what they came up with.



















*" Murderers!! ASSASSINS!!! "*


----------



## Tyboy4umodels (Apr 26, 2005)

ROFLMBO,that is great GLU :tongue:


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Tyboy4umodels said:


> ROFLMBO,that is great GLU :tongue:


A healthy DVD collection and Adobe ImageReady and I'm a gif-making fool!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

GLU Sniffah said:


> ^ That goes to the heart of what I was saying. If you tweek certain elements...no matter how realistic the tweeks are, you'll still have a clash with the style of the live action elements, which are quite often fakey in a nostalgic, endearing sense!


Not if its done _right._

Which to date, it never has been. Even though this is better than a lot of the more horrible "enhancements" out there, its still pretty weak. Especially from a lighting and animation point of view.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I'm willing to bet Michaelangelo would tend to disagree with that. Like I said, no one would force any one to watch it and it would not hurt the INTEGRITY of the TV show, just fans who don't want anything changed, the ones who wouldn't watch it anyway!:freak:



Ignatz said:


> The Mona Lisa and Last Supper were _restored_.


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

www.trekenhanced.com

Did not see that anybody got the website yet.....


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

F91 said:


> Me 2. The Mona Lisa has been refurbished, the Last Supper, the Coliseum, the statue of Liberty.... Trek can get a face lift too WITHOUT diminishing the original. Here's why- The advocates of the Original version do not have to, nor will be forced to watched the colorized, er, updated versions.


 And TOS has been refurbished the same way as the Mona Lisa, last Supper and Liberty - the footage has been cleaned up, the colors restored, and then presented to the public EXACTLY AS IT WAS ORGINALLY PRESENTED. _Restored_, not _altered _at all.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

What's the lesson here, Peeps?

Remember the 'New Coke' debacle in 1985.

Yep. I bet you do.

100 years from now, people will want the _classics_. Unfettered. Uncut. Clean...but original.

I wish I could be around in a century to be proven right.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

A few years back when Sci-Fi showed TOS and marketed it as "restored" or "enhanced" (can't remember what it was exactly), I was actually disappointed that they hadn't reworked the effects to some degree.

After having seen each episode countless times, I would be FOR a refurbished version of TOS as well as (eventually) a "reloaded" verison that has been mentioned in other threads.

From a franchise point of view, I think they should market a refurbished version of the 10 best TOS episodes prior to the release of the new movie. If done right, refurbished/updated effects would simply (IMO of course) add to the effectiveness of the story telling...and be cool to see...

As long as new effects don't try to alter the story or aren't too overbearing (minute long effect sequences), I say have fun with it. There were countless episodes where a few seconds here and there of additional effect scenes (that they didn't have the money for back then) could really enhance the story.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

*" What planet IS this? "*

Heresy! Outrage!! Blasphemy!! May the Great Bird smote you or something.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

I personally would like to see all the actors roto-scoped out of the backgrounds and digitally replace all sets with better, more realistic updated ones.

As part of the process, the lighting can be tweeked, contrasts enhanced, and so forth. Another advantage of this process, is that you can get rid of all that 60's crappy LSD colorful lighting.

Also then, editing can go in and take care of things like Spock in 'Doomsday Machine' saying that 'the shields can't take much more of this' when a shot hasn't even been fired yet.

Then a new score can be added by todays hottest composers (maybe Danny Elfman).

Now the CG effects have a fresh leg to stand on, not being limited to matching existing shots or where the Enterprise comes toward camers 'off-axis' or following an orbital arc which is drastically too small for the planet that its orbiting. We can now have the warp nacelles glow blue as Roddenberry originally intended.

Finally, we can also have a shuttle where the interior and exterior are properly portioned for each other. 
Also, new shots can be added like the large ape creatures from 'Galileo 7' hanging onto the shuttle as its trying to lift off.

No more will there be debates about how big the Enterprise 'really' is based on window placements. No more will people argue about how to best fit the interior of the Galileo into the exterior. People will no longer ask where the Galileo mock-up is because for a few bucks you'll be able to download the new actual mesh and do your own shots with the 'official' Galileo. The Constellation will finally get the NCC-1710 registry that it really should have to fit into a proper numbering system.

Yep, all we need to start with is a little roto-scoping and the possibilities for finally making Star Trek really great are endless.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

^ Change all that, and you don't have Star Trek ( No bloody TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise...which I like as well, but each for different reasons ). 

Not anymore. A lot of these things that are recommended changes are what endears Star Trek to millions...

I DO hope that your post is in the sarcastic bent, Tepes!


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Wow Tepes...I think you have gone too far!  

I get your point...you have to draw the line somewhere...AND I see where people are coming from when they say "leave it alone".

Let's just say, I find the idea of enhancing the effects from TOS "intriguing". 

When you consider how much footage they reused from episode to episode (because of the almost non existent budget) - where there could have been a few different shots added...and if you consider the number of episodes where there was an attack, but the main visible evidence of the attack was a scene of the crew members throwing themselves around on the bridge - you could see how a few new effects scenes might ADD something to the whole (leave in the "well acted" tossing about of the crew as well).

Let's just say, I would pay for an enhanced version of TOS...just like I paid for the enhanced versions of SW IV, V and VI.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> because of the almost non existent budget...


Where do people get that? The show was quite expensive in its time. Sure, during the third season, there was more cost-cutting, but geez. That's a common stretch these days for so many people to say 'non-existent' budget...and not very accurate.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2006)

Personal viewpoint:
I would dearly like to see some the TOS eps with updated/enhanced/whatever you want to call it SFX but that's about it.

The stuff seen on youtube and other sites is far beyond what i can personally do so i'm just not going to critisise it and seeing as how it was done by a fan or fans rather than a professional body with no other aim or purpose other than being in the business of updating TOS or any other television/movie productions, i consider the snipes against the quality to be redundant.

If they were fully capable of producing this kind of thing to what may be considered to be current standard and did just that and nothing else for a living, the refurbished Trek would already have happened i suspect and there would be fans out there with several shelves crammed with multiple copies of each differing quality or style of ep.

That said i can understand that some fans won't like it, fair comment and if it was a case of "You can have the updated Trek or nothing" then i'd back them to the hilt.
But it isn't is it because TOS is already out there in the world.

It seems a possibly natural knock on effect that if the picture and sound quality are gettting a good scrub-up and polish then why not some of the SFX.

Most if not all of the space battle scenes come to mind for a start off.

Well that's my spin and mine alone, just thought i'd jot it down here.

Go easy folks!


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Oh, I don't know...quotes like this... 

Due to budget constraints, the element of "parallel" or "mirror" Earth planets was used on several occasions to keep set and make-up costs down. (i.e. "Miri", "Bread and Circuses", "A Piece of the Action", "Patterns of Force" and more.)

or this review of the Season Two DVD set:

The high quality and clarity of Star Trek: The Original Series: Season Two will pleasantly surprise long-time fans who remember watching the grainy images of the episodes broadcast on TV. Gene Roddenberry's hopeful vision of the future is captured in all of its glory here - from the vital use of color, light and shadow to convey a range of emotions to the overkill application of the "blurry lens" to highlight the beauty of the Love Interest of the Week. The low-budget constraints of the show and the often laughable (by today's standard) rudimentary special effects compelled the art and set designers to be extremely creative to achieve their goals. This is particularly evident in "Amok Time," the first and only time in the TV series that we see the planet Vulcan. To convey the foreignness of this alien culture, the creative team draws on previous conceptions of the planet Mars, imbuing Vulcan with a red hue and an arid feel. In addition, unusual and jerky camera angles are employed to express the sense of "otherworldliness" of Mr. Spock's home planet. 

I think either it was true that they had a low budget or a widely held mis-belief...


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well if you notice almost all of Season 3 was on-board ship. Very little new props sets and constumes were made. A consequence of their _drastically_ reduced budget. Remember there wasn't supposed to _be_ a Season 3. That's what the write-in campaign accomplished. So the studio gave it to us, but on a bare bones budget.

I think that's where the so-called "rumors" came from. True, but only really during Season 3. Same thing happend during ST Voyager and ST Enterprise... but because CG is so cost effective, you don't really notice it as much.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Frankly, as nice as some of these outside CG shots may appear, they still do not look as if they belong to the same world as the inside material from the 1960's. There is an aesthetic that is not present in any of the so-called 'replacement' shots that I have seen so far. They still scream "CG!" no matter how well they are executed or rendered.

When I see a CG shot that does not call undo attention to itself and fools me into thinking that I am watching period material with physical models, then (and only _then_ ) will I be impressed by it.

The most I would ever want to see is perhaps a digital transfer and recomp of the original effects stage elements of the time with modern tools, with careful matching of the 'new' compositions together with the original scenes, if only to show the whiny, so-called 'fanboys' of today just how damn good those original elements were. Something akin to what was done with portions of the first motion picture, whereby some of the shots were cleaned up and matting flaws fixed, etc., and any new shots would have to only represent what could have been done physically at that time in the mid to late '60s with textures and grain matched to the period material.

It is amazing what compositing digital tools are out there now, whereby just moving a slider or adjusting a spline can allow an artist (or not) to accomplish a clean matte adjustment and composite in just a few seconds or minutes what used to require days or even weeks of tedious and painstaking (and expensive) optical work. The problem is that most of the kids that are using these programs now have never even touched a piece of film or dealt with cameras, shutters or optics, and are oblivious as to how to incorporate the resulting texture into their own compositions in order to seamlessly marry them into the original material that they are trying to "enhance".


----------



## ilbasso (Jun 7, 2006)

This whole thing makes me think of the brouhaha over the changes that George Lucas made in that Other Galaxy. Some fans really welcomed the updated SFX and added critters in Episode IV, changing the Ewoks nyub-nyub song in ROTJ, adding a physically-incorrect disk burst to the Death Star explosions... Of course then he even added to his additions, adding Jar Jar in the remake of the Coruscant scene that he had added to ROTJ! Now he's re-releasing the original unedited versions of Episodes IV-VI. Smart way to make money but a good way to edited off your fans who have to buy a new release every other year.

I think that it's great that people are making the new and enhanced SFX for TOS - more power to them! Treat them as fan art! But don't make them "official." Please.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2006)

klgonsneedbotox said:


> *BIG SNIP*
> 
> I think either it was true that they had a low budget or a widely held mis-belief...



From a quick skip about the net, seems a lot of the opinion leans toward the thought that TOS was a low budget concern.
Digging up hard facts appears to be difficult unless you know where to look, something i haven't found as yet or any concrete evidence.

Seems to range from $100,000 to $200,000 per ep going by question 14 on this page . Now that was 1960's dollars so how much would that be in todays money ?

Taking an average of what came out on this site  by filling in the value of $125,000 in 1966 and looking at the results a very rough average of about $1,000,000 to $1,200,000 seems to show through though could be $700,000 at the very low end of values.

Wether or not that's anything to go by i don't know, all i can offer is that in my strictly laymans opinion $125,000 per ep in the late 1960's is not exactly small change. 
I could be wrong but thats as far as the dig the info bit has gone for now.

Go easy.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Botox said:



> Oh, I don't know...quotes like this...
> 
> Due to budget constraints, the element of "parallel" or "mirror" Earth planets was used on several occasions to keep set and make-up costs down. (i.e. "Miri", "Bread and Circuses", "A Piece of the Action", "Patterns of Force" and more.)


I understand. A 'constrained' budget is not the same as an 'almost nonexistent' budget. The distinction is a fine one. Raytheon mentions the budgets and inflation adjustments.

Now we can discuss and debate the finer points of overall budgets or we can further divide and break them down by department or by process stage.

But no matter how you slice it, Star Trek was a costly show to produce in its day and VERY high quality. The danger here is judging a 40 year old show based on 21st century perceptions and expectations. I agree with Illbasso and others whom suggest that tweeking is not necessarily bad, but 'official' sanction is a different thing altogether.

Restoration is one thing. 'Enhancement' is much more subjective.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Trek Ace said:


> Frankly, as nice as some of these outside CG shots may appear, they still do not look as if they belong to the same world as the inside material from the 1960's. There is an aesthetic that is not present in any of the so-called 'replacement' shots that I have seen so far. They still scream "CG!" no matter how well they are executed or rendered.



This is because they are, on the whole, *NOT* well-executed or rendered. Even if something is nice looking (which I don't happen to think this is) if it doesn't fit with the live action its cut into then, its _not_ well-executed.

Keep in mind, that this clip was a "proof of concept" not a final piece. Its purpose is to give a sense of direction for an idea, not to be a final product. In that intention I think its somewhat effective, if not wholly so because of its marginal quality. Personally I've never been a fan of trying to make the CG look purposefully like the low quality effects of the day. I think that only makes the attmept look worse. Match the look of the models and the show, but make the animation _correct_ and light _realistically._ It can be done without making the show look too modern.

And I don't know if anyone is aware (based on some comments I've read in this thread) but this clip actually _was_ done by a VFX professional. Darren Dochterman used to work for Foundation Imaging. He worked on the ST: TMP Director's Edition DVD and the "Ships of the Line" calendars. I'm not sure, but he might be at Eden FX now. Definitely a Star Trek veteran.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

^ For Dochterman, that's a very rough draft indeed.

I was actually very happy with their work on STTMP. But STTMP has a totally different look than the series had.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> Well if you notice almost all of Season 3 was on-board ship. Very little new props sets and constumes were made. A consequence of their _drastically_ reduced budget. Remember there wasn't supposed to _be_ a Season 3. That's what the write-in campaign accomplished. So the studio gave it to us, but on a bare bones budget.
> 
> I think that's where the so-called "rumors" came from. True, but only really during Season 3. Same thing happend during ST Voyager and ST Enterprise... but because CG is so cost effective, you don't really notice it as much.


Desliu/Paramount wanted to keep the show running as long as possible, due to the fact that they were counting on syndication to show a profit on it. NBC wanted to cancel it...


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Nova Designs said:


> This is because they are, on the whole, *NOT* well-executed or rendered. Even if something is nice looking (which I don't happen to think this is) if it doesn't fit with the live action its cut into then, its _not_ well-executed.
> 
> Keep in mind, that this clip was a "proof of concept" not a final piece. Its purpose is to give a sense of direction for an idea, not to be a final product. In that intention I think its somewhat effective, if not wholly so because of its marginal quality. Personally I've never been a fan of trying to make the CG look purposefully like the low quality effects of the day. I think that only makes the attmept look worse. Match the look of the models and the show, but make the animation _correct_ and light _realistically._ It can be done without making the show look too modern.


Assuming anyone went forward with this concept, I would hope they'd rendered the ships as if they have _mass_. Right now the ships improved the look of the originals, but they sail on by like cheap video game graphics. Say what you want about the orginal SPFX, but to me the Enterprise moved and behaved like a formidable ship. Better yet, it was filmed to _behave_ like it was massive.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

GLU Sniffah said:


> Botox said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand. A 'constrained' budget is not the same as an 'almost nonexistent' budget.



Point taken...I definitely overstated my point...'almost nonexistent' was an exaggeration.

It is pretty clear though that they re-used shots (as all effects shows do) and probably could have benefiitted from filming some new ones for season 2 and especially 3. 

OK...who's up for a 100% CGI remake of TOS? 

Just kidding...they'd never be able to correctly duplicate the sweating, torn shirt Kirk we all know and love.


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

Best I have seen the old Trek look in a long time.. Could actually sit back down and watch it again if all the episodes were re-done like that!.. Maybe a DVD box set should be a start!

Chris


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

* shaking head *

Everyone seems to want spoonfed ' New and Improved ' rather than let their imaginations augment the storyline.

What's next? We re-CGI " Get Smart " and give him a real cell phone because his shoe phone is SOOOOO 1960's?

It seems as if more and more people just aren't satisfied with anything 'un-reimagined' IE TinselTownSpeek for 'remade, re-served and rehashed'...

The more I think about remakes and tampering with what was...the more 'worked up' I actually get...sorta...maybe...


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Well, how 'bout you just allow us to have our "tampered with" version of TOS and you keep the other, un-"tampered with" set so that we both get what we want? I'd love to see them re-do the FX and if it'll keep the other folks happy, release the "tampered" version as an alternate set to those of us a little more open minded. 

'Sides, what are you complaining 'bout? Last I checked, there's a complete box set of TOS that's available for your purchase. You got yours, why can't we have ours...?


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Griffworks said:


> Well, how 'bout you just allow us to have our "tampered with" version of TOS and you keep the other, un-"tampered with" set so that we both get what we want?
> 
> I'd love to see them re-do the FX and if it'll keep the other folks happy, release the "tampered" version as an alternate set to those of us a little more open minded.
> 
> 'Sides, what are you complaining 'bout? Last I checked, there's a complete box set of TOS that's available for your purchase. You got yours, why can't we have ours...?


 I have all mine. Yes all 80 ( including The Cage ) on DVD...

I tell you what....I'm just glad that there was any Trek at all. Especially after the 1967-68 season. It could have ended right there...and shown only on TV Land today...right alongside Car '54.

That's alright...the Luddites all said to Henry Ford..." Get a Horse "...you cain't stop 'progress'...I guess.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

This is the problem I have with "enhanced versions" as well as colorization and dubbing. Instead of saying to the audience, "You need to realize that everything is not made specifically for you. You need to adjust your attitude to appreciate this work," it instead says, "You are so special that we won't tax your mind with something that may not be what you are used to and adjust everything to fit your expectations and tastes."

In other words, these kinds of changes make the audience stupid.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> In other words, these kinds of changes make the audience stupid.


 On the otherhand, this is capitalism at work. There's demand, so they work to fill it and earn a profit.

Sometimes capitalism and art clash..._caveat emptor_.

~ The Sniffah...not opposed to Capitalism...in principle.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

BEBruns said:


> In other words, these kinds of changes make the audience stupid.


Oh. So, I'm stupid, eh...? 

Thanks....


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Griffworks said:


> Oh. So, I'm stupid, eh...?
> 
> Thanks....












_*" Ehh...Present company excepted, of course! "*_


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

BEBruns said:


> This is the problem I have with "enhanced versions" as well as colorization and dubbing. Instead of saying to the audience, "You need to realize that everything is not made specifically for you. You need to adjust your attitude to appreciate this work," it instead says, "You are so special that we won't tax your mind with something that may not be what you are used to and adjust everything to fit your expectations and tastes."
> 
> In other words, these kinds of changes make the audience stupid.


This is very different than colorizing a movie or TV show. When B&W entertainment was produced, the directors were using a certain kind of film, camera and lighting to get the look they wanted. It was inherently different than color production, and therefore colorization doesn't work right.

The F/X, on the other hand, would be a total replacement, using technology that the F/X guys would have used if they had had it available. A director in the color age may choose to use B&W production (Young Frankenstein and Sin City are good examples) as an artistic choice. No sane director would choose to produce "The Doomsday Machine" using those F/X techniques today. It's more like watching King Kong on an old, damaged print vs. watching the beautifully restored version available on DVD.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Oh. So, I'm stupid, eh...?
> 
> Thanks....


No. I'm saying you're intellectually lazy, which leads to stupidity. If you're only willing to experience things similar to what you are used to and comfortable with, you'll never improve mentally. If you demand that everything be tailored to your tastes and expectations, it promotes selfishness and a sense of entitlement. 

Colorization and Dubbing and "Enhancements" are SAPPING THE MORAL FIBER OF THIS COUNTRY!

*P.O.E.! *


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

BEBruns said:


> No. I'm saying you're intellectually lazy, which leads to stupidity. If you're only willing to experience things similar to what you are used to and comfortable with, you'll never improve mentally. If you demand that everything be tailored to your tastes and expectations, it promotes selfishness and a sense of entitlement.


Where the edited does this crap come from? Just 'cause I would love to see updated FX on an old TV show, I'm intellectually lazy and suddenly going to become stupid?!?!

To be blunt, that's just egotistical edited coming from someone who cannot experience new things and happen to be so rigid in their thinking that they can't even enjoy a good popcorn flick. 



> Colorization and Dubbing and "Enhancements" are SAPPING THE MORAL FIBER OF THIS COUNTRY!


You need to get out more if you think something as simple as the thinking of "enhancing" an old TV show or movie is sapping the moral fiber from this country. Go to the mall and then get back to me about the desire of a handful of folks to see some updated/"enhanced" FX is moraly bankrupting this country....  


> *P.O.E.! *


*B.M.!* :wave:


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

As Brian Singer said in an interview about Superman Returns.. He said something along the lines of.. "With flying, how much is enough.. When the original movie came out, we believed a man can fly. But today, the audience's palet has become bigger, and so they expect more"... Not exactly that, but along those lines.. 

Even when I watched Star Trek for the first time as a kid in the 70's, it was already old.. I loved it, but even for those days, the ship looked like a model, and still does.. When I watch a movie now. I dont want to sit there thinking "hmm I wonder if they have a man crouching behind that door to open it when the captain walks in?".. No, I want to believe that I am actually inside of the story.. The special effects we have today, almost (not quite) lets us realise that.. 

You can have your uncut version. But for those of us, that have a larger palet, then I think giving it a touch up is a good thing.. Some people can read a book, and walk away in another world. Others can read a book, and only see letters... The only stupid people, are the ones that dont like change, for change sake!

Chris


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> But for those of us, that have a larger palet (sic)


Too funny.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> The only stupid people, are the ones that dont like change, for change sake!


 Change is good. Necessary change is better. Change for change' sake is not necessarily necessary OR better...or good...or always desireable.

We each like to drink our respective bongwater. Let each man flavor his own...I guess.

It's not about intelligence or the lack thereof in my opinion...it's about artistic taste...and there is nothing more subjective under the sun than that!


----------



## notagoodname (Mar 19, 2006)

ok, i only quickly flipped through this thread but....a lot of people I know think to save trek you need kirks era. The only reason trek is on it's death bed is because of bad writing. a lack of vision and imagination. You can't just do the same old thing over again. Just having new effects isn't enough. We need challenging new concepts. Imagination. From voyager to enterprise it was just the same old thing over and over again. it doesn't matter if it is a reimagining of the classic series or a new series based after DS9, if the writing sucks then it's gonna blow.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Trek needs a nice long nap. Plain and simple.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

So, people who want a forty-year-old show to look contemporary have "large pallets" and open minds, but those who can adjust their expectations and accept a TV show or movie for what it is are narrow minded?

Going to other sites and bulletin boards, I see a lot of people who just dismiss the original STAR TREK because it looks "cheesy" and "fake." This is a very superficial and simple-minded point of view. If someone can not appreciate the show because they can't get past the "look" and technical limitations, it is a failing on their part. They do not need to be coddled by making the show more contemporary.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Some of the same people deriding classic Star Trek as too fakey or too 'limited' now are the same people who lambasted _ENTERPRISE_ for not being 'canon' enough to that self-same original Trek...The hypocrisy of these individuals are not lost on me.

So in my mind, either Trek needs a nap, or the chronic complainers need one.


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

Well GLU.. I am simply not going to try and change your mind. You already have your thoughts clear for all to see.. But suggesting someone is dumb, or have no artistic taste because they dont see things the way you do, says to me, that your argument is pretty flimsy, and you really dont have anything really constructive or interesting to add.. 

As for Trek being dead because we only like Kirks era is also bogus.. I have watched all forms of Trek. Liked alot of what I have seen, didnt like alot of what I had seen.. Doesnt all come down to the original for some of us.. If to counter your argument.. I love the Shat caharacter Danny Krane!.. Does that make me a horrible person, because I should always see him as Kirk?.. Of course not. Which means to me, that sometimes people can take things waaaaaay too seriously.. When you watch Trek, do you enjoy a good yarn?.. Or when you watch Trek, do you think it is the real world that you live in?.. 

For me, its a great yarn.. But for some, they believe this stuff is real... All I say, is we are all different, and all have differing opinions.. Dont call someone dumb, because they are able to open thier minds to other posibilities....

Chris


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> Well GLU.. I am simply not going to try and change your mind. You already have your thoughts clear for all to see.. But suggesting someone is dumb, or have no artistic taste because they dont see things the way you do, says to me, that your argument is pretty flimsy, and you really dont have anything really constructive or interesting to add..


Re-read my posts. And re-read your own. 

I 'suggest' no such thing and I won't take your flame-bait. It's not worth it.


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

Huh?.....

Just putting my thoughts across, no flame, no bait.. You need to get some sleep I think?

Chris


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> When you watch Trek, do you enjoy a good yarn?..


 Absolutely! This is why I like it the way it is. The cornballishness is one of the things I enjoy about it. It's escapist.



> Or when you watch Trek, do you think it is the real world that you live in?..


 Right. That's it exactly. Sure. :lol: I'm not the one that wants change to make it 'more realistic'. 

Anyway, it's all academic. If and when they ever do make the changes, treat yourself to those and have fun.


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

Well, if the last movie you watched was in 1950.. You would still believe that married men and women slept in seperate beds.. Kinda not hip with today I would say.. Same with Trek.. You may see the greatness in the story.. But for those of us, who dont, I guess need a little more.. 

Come on.. Kirk fighting with a fluffy thing (Trill or whatever)might have been swallowed up in the 60's, but today???.. Come on....

Each to thier own I say?

Chris


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

chris_in_japan said:


> Huh?.....
> 
> Just putting my thoughts across, no flame, no bait.. You need to get some sleep I think?
> 
> Chris


...Nah. I just need a wider 'palet' ( sic ).

Nighty night.


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

Nah, but opening your mind occasionally might be the trick! :dude: 

Chris


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Ok guys lets keep this civil and remember the TOS (terms of Service not The Original Series LOL) says no starrrred out swear words. I've edited the offending starrred out words, sorry. 

We all have varying opinions on this and theres no need to stoop to name calling wether it be direct or indirect.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

chris_in_japan said:


> Well, if the last movie you watched was in 1950.. You would still believe that married men and women slept in seperate beds.. Kinda not hip with today I would say.. Same with Trek.. You may see the greatness in the story.. But for those of us, who dont, I guess need a little more..


 So what you're saying is, we should have a special effect company digitally enhance the Dick Van **** show to show Rob and Laura together in a Queen-size? That'll make it more palletable to modern audiences, I'm sure.  Oh, and any time we see one of those clunky old 1965 TV cameras in the Alan Brady studio scenes, it needs to be digitally replaced with a modern TV camera so young viewers won't be too confused.  And the episode where that guy developed a flying saucer toy - that was SO obviously on strings! We'd better have someone replace that with a CGI toy saucer for the sake of modern viewers who can't imagine the wires away. :lol:

Speaking of wires - when is someone going to redo all the effects for The Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet, UFO and Space:1999? They are SO sixties (and 70s)!!


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

In all honesty.. Its only a few minutes of one episode that has been enhanced.. So I dont think you fella's need to get too riled up over it.. With the way you guys are reacting, you would think that this has already been done to every episode, and the original has been lost.. 

Dick Van **** show.. Now that comment was funny.. I think it was Trek we were talking about, and I was only refering to that.. My opinion on wether Trek should be enhanced, has only got to do with Trek, not the whole world in general.. Its a shame you were unable to work that out for youself..  

But if you got a chance to get what ever it was off your chest.. Then I am happy!

Chris


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Is it time for recess yet? :wave:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

John P said:


> So what you're saying is, we should have a special effect company digitally enhance the Dick Van **** show to show Rob and Laura together in a Queen-size? That'll make it more palletable to modern audiences, I'm sure. Oh, and any time we see one of those clunky old 1965 TV cameras in the Alan Brady studio scenes, it needs to be digitally replaced with a modern TV camera so young viewers won't be too confused. And the episode where that guy developed a flying saucer toy - that was SO obviously on strings! We'd better have someone replace that with a CGI toy saucer for the sake of modern viewers who can't imagine the wires away.


No, the real point of all this is that there's no reason to get insulting - direclty or otherwise - just because someone else - or several someone's - would like to see an old show/movie "enhanced". WTF is the harm of wanting to see some updated FX in our favorite shows? Especially if it doesn't actually take away from the show?!? 

I also don't hear anyone pitching a fit when they've simply "cleaned up" a lot of those old shows and movies. Please explain to me how altering the "mood" of those old shows and movies as has been done - by getting rid of the "snow" from the old prints, enhancing colors, etc... - is acceptable, yet enhancing the FX isn't....  


> Speaking of wires - when is someone going to redo all the effects for The Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet, UFO and Space:1999? They are SO sixties (and 70s)!!


Actually, I'd love to see _UFO_ and _Space:1999_ get the same treatment. T-Birds and Captain Scarlet shouldn't be touched 'cause that's actually a trademark of those particular shows.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> I also don't hear anyone pitching a fit when they've simply "cleaned up" a lot of those old shows and movies. Please explain to me how altering the "mood" of those old shows and movies as has been done - by getting rid of the "snow" from the old prints, enhancing colors, etc... - is acceptable, yet enhancing the FX isn't....


The difference is that cleaning up the print restores it to its original condition. It doesn't alter what was there in the first place. The difference is the difference is between cleaning a painting and repainting it to correct the artist's "mistakes" or to make the work more accessable to modern audiences.


----------



## ilbasso (Jun 7, 2006)

Hey! Let's re-make "Team America: World Police" with CGI instead of those puppets!


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> T-Birds and Captain Scarlet shouldn't be touched 'cause that's actually a trademark of those particular shows.


Hmmm.

'trademarks'. Hmmm. Veddy Interestink! I think Star Trek was full of them. On this basis, I could logically counter that Star Trek would be better served being left alone because its look...notably the visual effects, as they have existed for the past 40 years is a trademark of that particular show.

As to cleanup and reprocessing, I'm in no way opposed to restorations done well. Removing artifacts from old film stock is not the same as cutting out and _replacing_ entire sequences.

If the same philosophy is used as was done in ST:TMP where CGI _must_ be employed is the best of both worlds. If it _must_ be done, let it augment the existing effects, not replace them. In my opinion, if this is ever done, the new stuff should blend with the old as much as possible, rather than replace it.

It's just a TV show!!


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

YIKES, this thread took a nose dive!

Nobody is smart or stupid or any other such thing when it involves an opinion about a TV show's special effects!!!! Really, let's all be respectful of each other and open minded enough to see that we can all have a different opinion in this matter. Peaceful coexistence IS possible!

For me, Star Trek was so much LESS about the effects and so much more about the "moral of the story". Consider "Let that Be Your Last Battlefield". It cleverly dealt with racial issues of the time in the context of a sci-fi story. By today's standards the effects in that episode were cheesey...but clearly, they were not central to the telling of the story.

I guess, as a fan of the show, I just think it would be FUN to see these episodes again with a fresh set of effects. It's really that simple.

And...as fans of the show, we should ALL remember what it was originally about...and try to keep that in mind when we converse with one another on this board!!!!


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

ilbasso said:


> Hey! Let's re-make "Team America: World Police" with CGI instead of those puppets!


This argument (along with those about _Thunderbirds_ and that ilk) and Van Gogh paintings -- it doesn't hold water. Those were deliberate artistic choices, whereas the visual effects in TOS were simply done as best they could, given the state of the technology and the time and budget available. If they could have been done better at the time, they would have done it in a heartbeat. Let's argue apples to apples.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Again...just two words... 'New' Coke. 

Fizzle...pop. 

I have to go get me a can of Classic. Be right back... I can't have my moral fiber sapped!!


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> This argument (along with those about _Thunderbirds_ and that ilk) and Van Gogh paintings -- it doesn't hold water. Those were deliberate artistic choices, whereas the visual effects in TOS were simply done as best they could, given the state of the technology and the time and budget available. If they could have been done better at the time, they would have done it in a heartbeat. Let's argue apples to apples.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


Artistic choices are based on financial and technological limitations. They may have wanted to do better effects, but once the effects were produced as they were, every other creative choice was effected by what they had. The effects as originally produced are an integral part of the final product.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

sbaxter said:


> This argument (along with those about _Thunderbirds_ and that ilk) and Van Gogh paintings -- it doesn't hold water. Those were deliberate artistic choices, whereas the visual effects in TOS were simply done as best they could, given the state of the technology and the time and budget available. If they could have been done better at the time, they would have done it in a heartbeat. Let's argue apples to apples.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


Yep.

Anyway, no one has to be harmed by this. Sell both the "Enhanced" and "Original" DVD sets next to each other. Let the consumer decide which one they want - or both.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

That was my original point, yet I'm apparently one of the Lazy People who'd buy the "enhanced" version...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

sbaxter said:


> This argument (along with those about _Thunderbirds_ and that ilk) and Van Gogh paintings -- it doesn't hold water. Those were deliberate artistic choices


 Was is a deliberate artistic choice for DaVinci to mix his own paints, and to create The Last Supper on a wall that started crumbling almost immediately? We have MUCH better paints and plaster available today. How about we have a modern realist recreate the painting on an adjoining wall in acrylics in photo-realist style? No wait, we don't even need an artist - have actors pose to match the original and just take a picture. It'll be MUCH more realistic-looking than that cheesy Renaissance style stuff. 



> whereas the visual effects in TOS were simply done as best they could, given the state of the technology and the time and budget available. If they could have been done better at the time, they would have done it in a heartbeat.


 And yet, given the constraints of time and budget, the effects guys DID do it as best they could, with as much artistry as they could manage, using all the tools, experience and knowledge at their disposal, and they did it as well or better than any other show on the air at the time. And here we are 40 years later insulting them. Here we are, telling those artists and technicians that their best effort was cheesy crap.



> Let's argue apples to apples.


 Either way I look at it, we're talking about art, and the work of artists.

Like I said, I got nothing against people doing it as an excercise to hone their 3DS/Lightwave/Maya skills. And I LOVE to see new adventures from the fanfilm makers. But I never want to see anything "official." That's an insult to the artists who gave us the original. I think we owe them respect and admiration, not consignment to the scrap heap.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> I think we owe them respect and admiration, not consignment to the scrap heap.


Without their original efforts, there would BE no debating this 'issue' today. Hear Hear!


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

spe130 said:


> Yep.
> 
> Anyway, no one has to be harmed by this. Sell both the "Enhanced" and "Original" DVD sets next to each other. Let the consumer decide which one they want - or both.


If this was done, I would accept it. Just as I accept pan-and-scan versions of widescreen movies, colorized versions of black-and-white movies, and dubbed versions of foreign films. What I object to is the attitude that makes them neccessary.

A while back when the movie HERO was released in the States, I found a website that posted reviews of the film. Apparently, many of those posting had never seen a foreign-language film before. "How am I supposed to follow it when they stand around spewing gibberish. They should have made it in English."

By "they," they apparently meant the Chinese director and producers who made a Chinese film on a Chinese subject for a Chinese audience. How dare "they" not take into account the tastes and expectations of a semi-literate American teenager. 

If someone can't "get into" a film or TV show because it's in black and white, or in a foreign language, or has cheesy effects, the problem is with the viewer, not the show.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

John P said:


> That's an insult to the artists who gave us the original.


Just because *you* think it's an insult to the SFX guys doesn't mean it's meant as an insult. You and a few other folks seem to think it's a slap in their face. Hell, I've said many times before in other threads that they did a great job w/what they had on-hand in the way of "tools" to work with. It was state of the art at the time. However, some of us who love the original wouldn't mind seeing them updated a bit. It would certainly give the rest of those "lazy people" like me more of a reason to watch TOS Trek and wouldn't give them anything to complain about, now would it? 

In fact *:gasp!:* it might _attract new fans to TOS_!!!



> I think we owe them respect and admiration, not consignment to the scrap heap.


Great Googly Moogly! Who said a frellin' thing about "consigning" their works to a "scrap heap"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? 

Not me!!!!

So, I'll thank you and your bestest buddy BEBURNS (whom is on my IGNORE list) to stop making out that those of us who would love to see an enhancement set of DVD's - along with the originals, thank you! - are disrespectful and have no admiration of the original show. That's what *I* find insulting.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Woah. I think this is the first time I've been put on an ignore list. I guess I should have activated hyperbole mode in one of my postings. I guess the P.O.E. reference was too obscure for some people.

And just to clarify my position: [Hyperbole] I'm not saying you are stupid for wanting to see the "enhanced" editions. I'm saying that wanting to watch them causes you to become stupid. [/Hyperbole]


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

John P said:


> And here we are 40 years later insulting them. Here we are, telling those artists and technicians that their best effort was cheesy crap.


Not at all. I'd just like to see some of those same scenes re-done with modern technology. I've still got the original versions on DVD and I have no plans to get rid of them.

Anyway, some of those effects WERE cheesy "crap." Look at the phaser shots in "The Doomsday Machine," then look at the effects, produced the same way 10 years earlier, in "Forbidden Planet." Anyone in 1968 who had seen FP would have cringed at those awful phasers.

The Star Wars SEs are another great example. While I don't agree with everything Lucas did (damn that Greedo scene...), the new F/X of the fighters are beautiful. The best possible example is the snowspeeder scene in "Empire" - originally, the matting process made the edges of the canopies translucent, an artifiact that was VERY distracting. Even though it was the best that could be done at the time, and I salute ILM for their groundbreaking F/X in the original trilogy, the scene looks MUCH better after ILM went back and cleaned it up.




BEBruns said:


> If this was done, I would accept it. Just as I accept pan-and-scan versions of widescreen movies, colorized versions of black-and-white movies, and dubbed versions of foreign films. What I object to is the attitude that makes them neccessary.
> 
> A while back when the movie HERO was released in the States, I found a website that posted reviews of the film. Apparently, many of those posting had never seen a foreign-language film before. "How am I supposed to follow it when they stand around spewing gibberish. They should have made it in English."
> 
> ...


B&W: As I have said before, B&W doesn't translate well into color due to the entirely different process of setting up and shooting a film in B&W, and is therefore an artistic choice. Again, see "Sin City" for a great example.

Subtitles and dubbing: The only language I speak and understand well is English. I can muddle by in French, Spanish, Italian and Dutch. If I'm watching a movie made in a foreign country, in their language, I _need_ the dubbing or subtitles to know what the heck is going on. Otherwise it's just a bunch of pretty art direction.


I don't necessarily understand people who can't watch TOS because of the F/X - and I have met a few. However, as a fan, I would love to have "enhanced" versions available, entirely for my own enjoyment. If it happens to bring some new fans in, so be it.

No one is going to come into your house and smash your TOS DVDs and VHS tapes. Heck, I'd be against the idea if ParaBorg was going to quit selling the original versions.

One last thing - I'd love to see "enhanced" versions of the first two seasons of TNG. I remember cringing at some of those effects as a 10-year-old kid when they first aired. Some were, quite honestly, worse than the TOS effects.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

spe130 said:


> Subtitles and dubbing: The only language I speak and understand well is English. I can muddle by in French, Spanish, Italian and Dutch. If I'm watching a movie made in a foreign country, in their language, I _need_ the dubbing or subtitles to know what the heck is going on. Otherwise it's just a bunch of pretty art direction.


I only mentioned dubbing. Subtitles are the correct way to watch a foreign language movie since it preserves the original performance of the actors.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

BEBruns said:


> I only mentioned dubbing. Subtitles are the correct way to watch a foreign language movie since it preserves the original performance of the actors.


I guess we'd better recall all those US-made TV series and movies that have been dubbed into other languages for foreign markets, then... :freak:

Saying that your opinion is the "correct" way to do things is the absolute height of arrogance. Just as bad as any street-corner preacher telling me that I'm going to hell for not following their exact interpretation of the Word of God. :freak:


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

I hesitated using the word "correct," but I stand by it. Dubbing eliminates a major part of the film for the sole purpose of making it easier to digest. 

And I'm not an absolutist on this. I wouldn't show by six-year-old niece MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO in its original Japanese and insist she read the subtitles. And I wouldn't want to watch THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY in a melange of English, Spanish, and Italian.


----------



## jaeike (Aug 11, 2005)

This is a modeling forum, right?


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

^That's what they told me at the front desk when I checked in. Not so sure now...


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I thought this was some kind of pissing contest.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

GLU Sniffah said:


> Again...just two words... 'New' Coke.


There are those who believe that the whole "New Coke" deal was actually an extremely elaborate publicity stunt.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

sbaxter said:


> There are those who believe that the whole "New Coke" deal was actually an extremely elaborate publicity stunt.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


Which adds a whole new take on my point!


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

GLU.. You actually got upset about the whole new Coke thing? Sheesh, you do need some fresh air?.. I could care less if I am drinking a Pepsi or a Coke.. As long as its cold!

BeBurns, after having a nice little sleep on this now, I am surprised at the amount of responces since I last posted.. But in all honesty. Getting back to the enhanced Trek thing..It hasnt happened, It probably wont happen. If it does happen, then I will say "cool". I have watched the piece they have done, and I loved it!.. As for you thinking of me being stupid for likeing it, then at the end of the day.. I could really care less what you think, and I think alot of other people feel the same.. I am not going to do something, or stop watching because some guy on a message board says I am stupid??... char right!

For people who dont want it, fine.. For those who do, well, fine!

Chris


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

BEBruns said:


> Artistic choices are based on financial and technological limitations. They may have wanted to do better effects, but once the effects were produced as they were, every other creative choice was effected by what they had. The effects as originally produced are an integral part of the final product.


That's still not the equivalent of a Post-Impressionist painting or the integral _purpose_ of telling a story using "Supermarionation." You can make the argument above, but it isn't the _same_ argument as this. One could argue with a substantial degree of certainty that Van Gogh's paintings were exactly as he wished them to be, and that the films and television shows produced using Supermarionation and its variants were done that way because that was much of the point. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> I thought this was some kind of pissing contest.


That would make a great new cola ad slogan. Just get the word "extreme" in there somewhere. :thumbsup:


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

I'm not sure why some people are having a problem with my point. I haven't called anyone stupid for wanting to see the enhanced versions. I probably shouldn't have used the word "stupid." I thought it was just a bit of humorous hyperbole, but it seems to have rubbed people the wrong way.

My point is that there is a too common tendency for people to insist that movies and TV and other forms of entertainment conform to what they expect and what they are used to. They seem to be unwilling to accept that not everything produced was produced specifically for them. They automatically reject anything that falls slightly outside their comfort level. Unfortunately, technology is encouraging this trend. If someone only wants to watch violent action movies, they can do it everyday of the week and never look at anything else. If someone wants to only listen to a singer's Top 40 hits and ignore anything new or a little bit experimental, they can. I find this sort of insular narrow-mindedness frightening. No, I do not think that dubbing and colorization will bring about the downfall of civilization, but I think their acceptance is symptomatic of a more general problem.

And yes, I am fully aware that this is taking the subject of this thread far afield. I hope people don't take it more seriously than it is intended.


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

So what do you say about comic book hero's being made into movies? Does it mean the aduience that pays to see them is dumbed down, because they dont take the time to sit down and read the comic as it was originally meant to be?

Chris


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

beeblebrox said:


> That would make a great new cola ad slogan. Just get the word "extreme" in there somewhere. :thumbsup:



Hehehe, or if you add "sports" in there somewhere... people would drink it!


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Cool clip, looks like they're trying to bring the original series technology and FX up to the level of Enterprise...which came before TOS, nevermind.

Edit: Which is entirely possible that old technology is more advanced, people in the past used to be able to travel at supersonic speeds between continents. :thumbsup:


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

Concord!


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Golly gee wilikers 8 pages of this topic and I already fergot what the topic was all about .....................something to do with models , right?! :thumbsup:


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

chris_in_japan said:


> Concord!


Grapes.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Fruit.


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Cake :hat:


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Ice cream! :hat:


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

Stupid people, and traditionalists! :freak:


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

"This visual effect is being refurbished for your future enjoyment!"

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

chris_in_japan said:


> So what do you say about comic book hero's being made into movies? Does it mean the aduience that pays to see them is dumbed down, because they dont take the time to sit down and read the comic as it was originally meant to be?
> 
> Chris


Of course not. I have no problem with new works being based on something else. I do have a problem with people judging the adaption solely on how closely it follows it source, but that's a different subect.

In fact, getting back to the original subject of this thread. I have no problem with people recreating effects sequences from an old show as a creative exercise. I've even considered trying something myself with my computer modeling and animation software. What I object to, _in principle_, is changing a work of art (or craft) simply to make it more accessible to a modern audience.


----------



## chris_in_japan (May 27, 2005)

I have sooo lost interest in this now! he he he


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

chris_in_japan said:


> Stupid people, and traditionalists! :freak:












*It's a beautiful world....

...for you...

...for you...

...for you...

It's not for me. ( It's a Beautiful World ). "*

I'm a New Traditionalist.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Are we not modelers?


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

SteveR said:


> Are we not modelers?


We are DEVO...Dee Eee Vee Ohhh. 

A little levity doesn't hurt.

And...

_*" Freedom of Choice....

Is what you got...

Freedom from Choice...

Is what you want...*_


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

*Now WHIP IT... WHIP IT GOOD *!!!!


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

*" We're thru bein' cool. We're thru bein cool...

E-lim-in-ate the ninnies and the twits..."*


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Are we not modelers?


_"What is the Law?"

"Not to run on all fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men?"

"What is the Law?"

"Not to eat meat; that is the Law. Are we not Men?"

"What is the Law?"

"Not to spill blood; that is the Law. Are we not Men?

His is the hand that makes.
His is the hand that heals.
His is the House of Pain!"_

I think it's time for my medication.


----------



## 3rdIgrafx (Apr 16, 2005)

Wow, I guess I missed the point.
I was simply offering an artist's "eye" into how things COULD have looked given todays technology, which, (I'll assume), was his intention also. Seeing how he is a professional with experience in designing Trek. It is a form of modeling, just in 2 dimensions (a true model has real texture, weight, etc. A CGI does not). It was just an "electronic sketch" of sorts. 
There was no intention of trying to "redefine" TOS. But the conclusions just took off like a rocket, in a burst of flame.
Maybe I'll just keep things to myself if this what the board & it's results are going to be.
Sorry.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Yep, folks can be a bit touchy around here, but compared to other boards, it's very civil here.

Give it a chance ... sooner or later a goofy reference comes up to help us regain perspective.


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

So are we gonna drive a member away just because we can't respect each others Opinions.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Probably! :lol:

Look, folks, I don't know why anybody is taking anything said here personally. We're all just expressing opinions. I do feel strongly on the subject, but not enough to hurl insults or break friendships. I for one didn't _personally_ insult anyone. There's no need for that.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

John P said:


> I never want to see anything "official." That's an insult to the artists who gave us the original. I think we owe them respect and admiration, not consignment to the scrap heap.


Hmmmm....

I disagree. I think its showing respect for the TOS series that even after all these decades, people are still watching, and wanting to swap out last centuries state of the art SPFX, (even though it wasn't) for todays SPFX. The first hint of that appeared in Trials and Tribblations, and as long as they keep to the original designs, etc I don't have any problem with it. I wouldn't DISCARD the TOS series, but side by side would be OK. We mostly agree that the 1960's ST-TOS SPFX were the weak point of the show anyway. 

Lost in Space is a show I have NO DESIRE TO WATCH except for the wonderful SPFX. I hated the last half of the 1st year all the way til the last of "Junkyard in Space" faded to credits. Same for Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. I can watch the SPFX but not the plots etc. Would I care if they used the same ships and did SPFX in CGI and replaced alll the shots in the Irwin Allen series? IF they were done better, as MOST of the 'in space' shots could be. Flying thru the explosions of fire are hard to beat with CGI however.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, I'm just sayin,' if I were one of those guys that sweated over the original effects 40 years ago, and somebody came along saying they wanted to replace them because they were cheap and cheesy, I'd feel kinda hurt. I'm sure even those guys understand that effects are better now, but I picture them getting all indignant and saying "hey, man, we did our best!"

Just sayin'.


----------

