star trek in TV Terrors Forum

Forum Jump

star trek

Author	Comment
CapnDunsel		#41	[-]
May 6 12 8:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I was wondering out loud about people's taste in CGI and remakes, not making any conclusions. And frankly, who cares what I think? They dont call me Dunsel for nothing, or, that's why they call me that. If they had only fixed the FX mistakes in ST:OS, I'd be happy, but it wouldnt have been "profitable" since noone would have noticed; so they went overboard with the CGI to make it noticeable. By virtue of that, it ruins the experience for certain fans. On the other hand, I can see beefing up the FX for the later TREK shows. Their FX were pretty sterile and needed some oomf, like the "realistic" look in "Battlestar Galactica." And because the newer TREK shows had newer FX, the changes wouldnt necessarily seem jarring.
	Remove this ad
bela lugosi		#42	[-]
May 6 12 8:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought much of the cgi stuff in TNG was kind of fakey looking for the most part, how about you? I think you're probably right, they went overboard with some of this on TOS. I do think that DOOMSDAY MACHINE was wonderful though, of course I love that episode anyway, 60s low budget effects and all. AMOK TIME was horrible. I may have missed some of the things referred to earlier. I do not think that Me-TV aired the two part MENAGERIE, also one of my favorite episodes.
bela lugosi		#43	[-]
May 6 12 8:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought the Enterprise in the first 3 Trek films is my favorite all time representation of the space-faring vessel. I remember watching ST III with someone who was weaned on TNG and they were outright unimpressed with the scene of the Enterprise going into spacedock. I tried explaining that it was representative of a sea-faring vessel and didn't move around like the CGI-Enterprise of TNG, but I was getting nowhere. I remain in awe of the old lady in those first 3 films.
rvoyttbots		#44	[-]
May 6 12 8:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bela lugosi wrote: I thought much of the cgi stuff in TNG was kind of fakey looking for the most part, how about you? I think you're probably right, they went overboard with some of this on TOS. I do think that DOOMSDAY MACHINE was wonderful though, of course I love that episode anyway, 60s low budget effects and all. AMOK TIME was horrible. I may have missed some of the things referred to earlier. I do not think that Me-TV aired the two part MENAGERIE, also one of my favorite episodes. Actually, they were still using models in TNG. There is a pre-auction show where these guys are opening up crates where all the STAR TREK props & custumes were stored by Paramount. And there were all the models used over and over in TNG.
bela lugosi		#45	[-]
May 6 12 8:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yes, they were, but they also incorporated a lot of CGI from what I recall, on TNG. I thought, at the time, a lot of it looked kind of fakey.
riotengine		#46	[-]
May 6 12 9:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't have a problem with the updated FX on Star Trek, as Much as I HATE the egregious edits in the syndicated episodes. I watched Doomsday Machine on Me-TV Saturday night, and was appalled at the hatchet-handed cuts with important bits of dialogue. GREG ESPINOZA I made it possible for you to come here! I welcomed you to this Earth, you made it a charnel house! http://www.comicspace.com/gregespinoza/
bela lugosi		#47	[-]
May 6 12 10:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	riotgenie, I'm with you on that. This is one of my favorite episodes, and one of the reasons for that was the dialogue and reaction shots of the crew when Spock and Decker were jockeying for control of the bridge. They sliced and diced that, ruining the experience for me.
Azazel02		#48	[-]
May 7 12 8:25 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	CapnDunsel wrote: I wonder if folks who like the CGI also like remakes? The CGI in the Jackson Kong flick made me feel like I was watching a video game with all the unbelievable action. I'll be the first to admit there there are plenty of crappy remakes but that doesn't mean people can't still enjoy the odd decent one that's produced. I'm a big fan of the 1978 'Invasion Of The Body Snatchers', what's not to like?. For the record, I also enjoyed Jackson's Kong despite its many faults. (Speaking of unbelievable action, you do know the films about a thirty foot gorilla, right? ) Because enjoyed is the operative word. It doesn't compromise or lessen my movie fan credentials in any way whasoever. As for the ST remasterings, should all TV shows or movies only be restored on the understanding that the original elements are not to be tampered with in any way whatsoever and no new 'improvements' are to be attempted? Some would say yes. But ultimately that's impossible anyway. For example, trying to restore and then exactly colour time any given older production to look precisely as it did when an audience first saw it is going to produce results that will be subjective at best. The quality of the original Star Trek prints now look better than anyone ever saw them when they were watching them on their relativeley primitive 60's TV sets but I don't hear anyone complaining about that despite the fact that this clearly changes people's viewing experience - providing a version of the show that is markedly different to the one originally broadcast. It seems not all purists are created equal. One of the great joys of the DVD age that we can now have multiple versions of our favourtite films and TV shows. And that's okay because its okay for people to like things. And its equally okay for them to like things others don't. DVD makes room for everyone now. There's rarely a definitive version of any film anway, given period censorship, different regional cuts for different countries and now - these days- director's cuts of certain productions. The version any one person believes to be the best is not necessarily what the film maker intended and not necessarily one someone else will like or even one that exists anymore. I don't see how you can say the ST remasterings have ruined the show for some fans. If you're someone who doesn't like the new versions, don't watch 'em. Simple. Watch the untampered eps. Like Bela Lugosi, I'm a Star wars fan, but unlike him, I like most if not all of Lucas's CGI additions. George's big mistake is that he's refused to release the original theatrical version on Blu-ray therefore denying millions of fans of the version they want to see. As long as the original versions are made available, the DVD age provides everyone with a choice. Some 'purists' don't like that but they usually the ones who are so stick-in-the-mud they think certain films and shows should be hung on the wall in a pool of light, forever untouchable. Well, IMO the first thing movies should be -for the main part - is fun and enjoyable and that particularly goes for sci-fi. Last Edited By: Azazel02 May 7 12 8:45 AM. Edited 12 times.
HalLane		#49	[-]
May 7 12 9:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	<< This is one of my favorite episodes, and one of the reasons for that was the dialogue and reaction shots of the crew when Spock and Decker were jockeying for control of the bridge. They sliced and diced that, ruining the experience for me. << "On my personal authority as Captain of the Enterprise." Yeah, where was that bit? Maybe it's just a tease to get you to boldly go where BluRay owners have gone before.
bela lugosi		#50	[-]
May 7 12 5:03 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hal, yeah, I totally missed that line too! I know some of this dialogue by heart and I can tell when it's not there! Somewhat spoiled that great scene. As for CGI, my experience with those who do it is that they tend to go overboard. Like Justin Wilson when he was cooking, he just kept pouring more spices in. I like them for my food, but for my sci-fi, I'd prefer a light delicate sprinkle. That's what I'm seeing on the ST episodes anyway. Some good, some overboard, or not necessary. As for remakes, I dislike most of them, as I find they are just an excuse to not be creative and re-mine material that has a built-in audience. No problem with that concept I guess from a money-making perspective, but generally the remake is not really worth the price of admission. But that's not always true. For example, sometimes I fell in love with a remake without even realizing it was one. One of the greatest examples of this is THE MALTESE FALCON. Most are familiar with the 41 Bogie version, but much later in my life, I realized there was a pre-code 1931 version with Ricardo Cortez in the lead role. Wow, very different, though many elements are similar. I like that one, but it can't beat the 41 version (though I like the females in the 31 version better!). I'm sure there are other examples of this.
	Remove this ad
LCranston		#51	[-]
May 9 12 12:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	When I read people's comments that the original series' SFX are so primitive or lacking compared to CGI, I think of how people turned their noses up at silent films after the introduction of sound. How many silent films were referred to only in the negative or a condescending way. "Oh, look at those acting styles! How quaint!" The problem I foresee is that people who ONLY get into ST via the new versions won't tolerate any other program of the era. Watch "Outer Limits" or "Twilight Zone?" Feh, look at those effects. Won't watch 'em until the Gremlin gets replaced. And FORGET about "The Adventures of Superman." I feel a studio making a judgement call about restoring a film/series is nowhere comparable to the wholesale replacing of the hard work of dedicated craftsmen. Same goes for the book comparison - the illustrations accompany the narrative, not drive it. Sure, there are multiple versions of "Blade Runner" but we don't need that for every film in existence. Deep water is dark and restful and full of peace.
HalLane		#52	[-]
May 9 12 12:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	<< The problem I foresee is that people who ONLY get into ST via the new versions won't tolerate any other program of the era. Watch "Outer Limits" or "Twilight Zone?" Feh, look at those effects. Won't watch 'em until the Gremlin gets replaced. And FORGET about "The Adventures of Superman." << Water seeks its own level -- those shows will either become dated or they won't, independent of what was replaced on STAR TREK. And The Trek is kind of a special case, what with having like half a dozen spin off series and twice as many theatrical versions to compete with. What other show can make that claim? Some of the best stories arguably belong to The Original Series, and it would be a shame to see them wind up at the flea market with the other antiques in comparison to their (imho) lesser brethren when they have so much potential life left in them.
LCranston		#53	[-]
May 9 12 7:36 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't understand - you're saying the only options are CGI or the "flea market?" Many of the best episodes of TOS often had a minimal amount of SFX - how many people turned off CITY ON THE EDGE... because of the Enterprise's original flyby? (Yes, my fave is DOOMSDAY MACHINE, but I like the original as it is). I don't see that there was ever "competition" between the series - I would say that TOS was always the measuring stick for all the other series to live up to. Does anyone really want to be the next VOYAGER? Obviously VOY didn't make as much of an impression as TOS, and they had far "better" SFX. Have VOY and ENT surpassed TOS in fans? I see this as an erosion. I would like to be proved wrong, but I doubt the original versions of TOS will air on television ever again. Deep water is dark and restful and full of peace.
HalLane		#54	[-]
May 9 12 8:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	LCranston wrote: I don't see that there was ever "competition" between the series - I would say that TOS was always the measuring stick for all the other series to live up to. Oh I agree that TOS was the measuring stick when the others were in production. But the optical effects in the post-STAR WARS/ILM era were more seamless, a lot easier to do, there were a lot more of them, and they tended to be taken for granted by the audience. They weren't "special" special effects any more. But when you put all the series together in the High Definition Home Video arena, I'm sure the thinking was that TOS was gonna come out the loser by comparison. I have no idea, I'm not part of that arena. And I have no idea how the old opticals held up when they went back to the original negs and remastered them -- for all I know they looked really cheezy. But I assume the reason they tweaked the original presentation was to stay apace with the later "franchise". And if doing that keeps the original program in the public eye, great. I do wish the originals were more easily available, though. I'd hate to see them get the bum's rush.
John Van Helsing		#55	[-]
May 10 12 1:36 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	TOS is definitely the best of the franchise! The acting,the stories and direction are miles above the follow ons! Infact you can watch the original without having to watch TNG,DS9 or VOY (I don't acknowledge ENT) I'm not a fan of the new CGI option really,one or two things are an improvement but on the whole I prefer it as it was! The earth looks better as a bluey white ball than an atlas globe it has to be said but the nacelles appearing on the deck screen look ridiculous! The programme does look dated it has to be said but it's a classic and that's that! None of the follow ons could compete with the Amok Time Vulcan fight theme either! Da da der der der der der da da da der.... JVH
flashback		#56	[-]
May 10 12 2:56 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	reguarding the cgi" improvments " on the star trek series and star wars movies and wherever else they show up.i believe a tv show and movie is a time capsile.to me that means when it is shown the effects are the same as they originally were. i am not talking about making the picture and audio cleaner because of the damage time has done to the prints.i am talking about the addition, subtraction or changing of visual effects and sounds in a movie.
Dale Sherman		#57	[-]
May 10 12 4:24 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Looking back on The Next Generation now is how '80s it looks. You don't get that feeling from TOS, even with the beehive hairdoes and '60's style of dialogue at times. I think this namely comes down to presentation, with TNG going with a plastic video-feel, while TOS was full-color film. That is the writing is simply better in a lot of ways on TOS; TNG tried too hard to be topical, leading to it being out-of-date much quicker with many episodes over TOS.
bela lugosi		#58	[-]
May 10 12 9:53 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dale, I agree with you, I get that same feeling from TOS vs TNG. But I'm also kind of biased, I love TOS so much more than any other incarnation.
Wich2		#59	[-]
May 10 12 10:34 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'd have to disagree on that one small point. I love TOS far above any sequel; but it looks as much a creature of its era as the others.
HalLane		#60	[-]
May 10 12 11:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I love the idea of a Future filled with blinking salt shakers, Laura Petrie's kitchen chairs and men exploring planets in their pajamas. It feels very tactile and real, where the subsequent shows seem too "designer-ly" and phony baloney. A few state of the art spaceship exteriors added to TOS don't really diminish that feel for me, perhaps because the new digital spfx don't seem particularly more "real" than the old ones did. What I like most about them though is the variety, the various angles on the ships and planets, where the original show recycled the same tired shots over and over and over, 'boldly going' with the 'old' Enterprise from the pilot with the antennae on the nacelles whenever it was handy. The new inserts may not actually be better, but at least they're different.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

star trek