Question about Original Star Trek DVD sets
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question about Original Star Trek DVD sets
Are the season sets of the original Star Trek in those brightly colored cases the shows with the "new, updated, special FX"? I keep seeing how they are coming out with HD versions with the updated effects and I just wondered if the normal DVDs have them also? I don't have an HD or blu-ray player so I would just be getting the normal DVDs. Anybody know?
#3
DVD Talk Legend
The HD DVD release of Season 1 (with the enhnaced episodes) are flippers, with the DVD version of the shows on one side...so if you REALLY wanted them, you could always pick up that...although it's a pretty expensive set! (Maybe you'll be able to find it cheap now that HD DVD is dead).
#4
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will they be releasing the new CGI sets in a normal DVD format anytime soon? Or just in Blu-ray or something?
If not, will I be satisfied with the current sets? Do the effects look TOO outdated?
If not, will I be satisfied with the current sets? Do the effects look TOO outdated?
#6
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally Posted by Nickofdoom
They are outdated, but I think that is part of the charm of the series. I've seen a few of the new, updated episodes, and they are just not the same.
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Boba Fett
I was surprised to see (not on this site, but a few others) the people who complained about the Star Wars SEs praise the CGI additions to Trek.
I'm not crazy about the CGI in Star Trek:TOS. Yes it may LOOK better, but it doesn't FEEL better. (if that makes any sense)
#9
DVD Talk Legend
I've been watching all of the Enhanced episodes in syndication and think they've been a nice upgrade. It always takes me out of the episode seeing what's been done (i.e. it's a little distracting), but the enhancements are always honoring the original without being "Lucas flashy".
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Boba Fett
I was surprised to see (not on this site, but a few others) the people who complained about the Star Wars SEs praise the CGI additions to Trek.
That put a lot of people in that room in a better frame of mind right off the bat. Of the dozen or so episodes I've seen with the new CGI, I have to agree. The scenes on Vulcan for "Amok Time" are a major change, but unlike Lucas', they are completely keeping with the tone of the episode. They even threw in a shoutout to the animated series, with the arial shot of the circle-city of Shikar (sp).
It's the attitude: Lucas has always stated he was never happy with the original FX, the Trek team has always approached it with the idea of "how do we smooth out these FX so they're not so jarring to modern day viewers?".
#11
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sracer
I'm not crazy about the CGI in Star Trek:TOS. Yes it may LOOK better, but it doesn't FEEL better. (if that makes any sense)
Part of the joy of watching older films is to be transported back to another era of media where filmmakers had to find creative solutions that made use of the best tools available at the time. To me, regardless of how antiquated a technique might be considered today, if it's visually striking and works for the production, that works just fine for me.
#12
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Dr. Forrester
This is how I feel as well. The new effects are much, much less jarring than other notable examples *cough*Lucas*cough*, but part of the charm of the original series was the homespun SFX. They might be considered quaint today, but the effects fit perfectly into the overall aesthetic of the show
Part of the joy of watching older films is to be transported back to another era of media where filmmakers had to find creative solutions that made use of the best tools available at the time. To me, regardless of how antiquated a technique might be considered today, if it's visually striking and works for the production, that works just fine for me.
Part of the joy of watching older films is to be transported back to another era of media where filmmakers had to find creative solutions that made use of the best tools available at the time. To me, regardless of how antiquated a technique might be considered today, if it's visually striking and works for the production, that works just fine for me.
I guess a good compromise for these new Treks would have been to use models, but do them against bluescreen so you don't get the excess grain. Best of both worlds and all that.
#13
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can't they just leave the original episodes alone? They are what they are, and were made when they were made. Just appreciate the show for what it was -- outdated special effects, Shatner's goofy overacting, low budgets and all -- and stop trying to make it into something made in 2008. Why is this such a hard concept?
#14
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Walter Neff
Why can't they just leave the original episodes alone? They are what they are, and were made when they were made. Just appreciate the show for what it was -- outdated special effects, Shatner's goofy overacting, low budgets and all -- and stop trying to make it into something made in 2008. Why is this such a hard concept?
Don't knock it 'till you try it.
#15
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They can talk all they want about making the old effects more palatable for contemporary audiences, but the main reason they had to update the effects was because many of the old effects were unwatchable in hi-def. In other words, it seems unlikely that the original versions will ever be available in HD.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: coast to coast
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Walter Neff
Why can't they just leave the original episodes alone? They are what they are, and were made when they were made. Just appreciate the show for what it was -- outdated special effects, Shatner's goofy overacting, low budgets and all -- and stop trying to make it into something made in 2008. Why is this such a hard concept?
when I was nine the stuff looked good but its considered corny and boring nowadays. same thing with the adventures of superman or old Tom Baker Doctor Who`s. I love the shows but to someone younger it`s just dull. when young people see Shatner fight the Gorn it`s just laughable nowadays.
#17
Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=bloopbleep]I was watching 1933 classic King Kong with my 9 year old son, he made fun of it. I love the shows but to someone younger it`s just dull. [QUOTE]
My daughter at 8 didn't have the slightest problem with King Kong or Star Trek. She did find Doctor Who cheesy but enjoyed it anyway.
My daughter at 8 didn't have the slightest problem with King Kong or Star Trek. She did find Doctor Who cheesy but enjoyed it anyway.
#18
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by bloopbleep
believe I understand and love the original show but stuff we enjoyed even 10 years ago just won`t fly with todays generation. example I was watching 1933 classic King Kong with my 9 year old son, he made fun of it , called it play dough kong,I tried to watch Godzilla movies from the 60`s and he asked how I could watch man in rubber dinosaur suit step on train models(boring).
when I was nine the stuff looked good but its considered corny and boring nowadays. same thing with the adventures of superman or old Tom Baker Doctor Who`s. I love the shows but to someone younger it`s just dull. when young people see Shatner fight the Gorn it`s just laughable nowadays.
when I was nine the stuff looked good but its considered corny and boring nowadays. same thing with the adventures of superman or old Tom Baker Doctor Who`s. I love the shows but to someone younger it`s just dull. when young people see Shatner fight the Gorn it`s just laughable nowadays.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: coast to coast
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=brisco32][QUOTE=bloopbleep]I was watching 1933 classic King Kong with my 9 year old son, he made fun of it. I love the shows but to someone younger it`s just dull.
My daughter at 8 didn't have the slightest problem with King Kong or Star Trek. She did find Doctor Who cheesy but enjoyed it anyway.
my son watched the pete jackson KING KONG version and the new bbc Doctor Who on scifi first,so that probally was the reason. he does love Star Wars especially the original trilogy. for some reason original Star Wars Trilogy dated better than Star Trek TOS.
My daughter at 8 didn't have the slightest problem with King Kong or Star Trek. She did find Doctor Who cheesy but enjoyed it anyway.
Last edited by bloopbleep; 03-16-08 at 03:36 PM.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: coast to coast
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sracer
Hold out for the colorized CGI-ified version of CITIZEN KANE.
#21
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally Posted by bloopbleep
for some reason original Star Wars Trilogy dated better than Star Trek TOS.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: coast to coast
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gerry P.
Star Trek looks like a tv series from the 1960s, which is what it is.
#24
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bloopbleep
to think that star wars came out only 9 years later though. circa 1977.
Movies always tend to have much higher budgets than TV shows. Plus, TV shows, with their already smaller budgets, have to divide the budget over a multitude of episodes. If the TV show season is twenty episodes at half an hour each, then that is ten hours of total time that has to be budgeted. A movie budget is used to make a single two-hour movie, not a multitude of episodes.
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: coast to coast
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by taffer
Yes, but Star Wars was a movie. Star Trek was a TV show. Big difference.
Movies always tend to have much higher budgets than TV shows. Plus, TV shows, with their already smaller budgets, have to divide the budget over a multitude of episodes. If the TV show season is twenty episodes at half an hour each, then that is ten hours of total time that has to be budgeted. A movie budget is used to make a single two-hour movie, not a multitude of episodes.
Movies always tend to have much higher budgets than TV shows. Plus, TV shows, with their already smaller budgets, have to divide the budget over a multitude of episodes. If the TV show season is twenty episodes at half an hour each, then that is ten hours of total time that has to be budgeted. A movie budget is used to make a single two-hour movie, not a multitude of episodes.