I think this thing is really absurd. I like watching Star Trek, and although I'm not the biggest fans of them, I love the old model works and special effects. I really loved the special feature dedicated for the props and the models in ST:TNG DVD, and that make me want to collect them.

In this case, CGI effects may looks better, but model works are better in all other level.

they should stop wasting their time tweaking a classic with F/X that will date quicker than SW SE'97, and spend more time coming up with NEW quality trek product.

Ugh is right. In theory I have no objection with updating the special effects, but it's when they start adding stuff that I get annoyed. That's what bothers me the most about the Star Wars updates, I can't stand how they added those little flying robots and dinosaurs at the beggining.

I'm not a big Star Trek fan, though I think this is a pretty disgusting move on Paramount's part. Makes me think what other stuff companies will do to "adapt" other old TV shows for HD-standards (i.e. the first season of The Simpsons reanimated with the digital ink-and-paint process that's currently being used).

The cgi Enterprise looks pretty good, and it's based on the seven foot model at the Smithsonian in DC.

also:

I hope they add transparent outfits to the chicks in Spock's Brain.

I don't see how the situations are comprable. Michael Curtiz chose to shoot 'Casablanca' in black and white, even though color was an option at the time. Gene Roddenberry chose to make 'Star Trek' with the best special effects available at the time. Updating those special effects would not change anything about the show which does work (such as acting, writing, etc.).

I suppose they are comprable in the sense that colorizing 'Casablanca' would not make the writing or acting any worse, but it would be changing a deliberate artistic choice; if you can find a source where Roddenberry says that they deliberately used cheesy effects in order to not call attention away from story, etc., then you'd have a better point. But I'm pretty sure they intended them to be cutting edge at the time.

(Beyond that, colorization has an inherent difficulty: do you color the characters accurately based on what they're wearing, even though the clothes [and everything else] were specifically chosen for how they would photograph in black and white? Or do the colorizers make artistic choices of their own with respect to color, thus doing work more associated with "art direction" or "production design"? A new CGI Enterprise based on the old model and aping the old shots doesn't quite fall into that category.)

I'm not saying I want to see CGI 'Star Trek', especially with extra characters (wouldn't it be cool to see that other navigator from the Animated show, though?). Don't get me wrong. But somebody pointed out, the reason the show is great is the writing and acting, not the special effects. In light of that, how could improving the special effects hurt it? [Note that I say improving the effects, not adding new ones.]

I, for one, think the effects on 'Enterprise' were the only good thing about it. So if they can take high quality effects like that and put it on the original show ... I'm just saying, this *could* be cool. I don't know that it will be. But I don't see it as automatically, inherently negative, that's all.

Not to be pedantic, but there's a difference between "characters" and "extras".

To my mind, changing the theme song is the worst thing they announce in there. I think that will stand out as the most noticeable change, except that all the Enterprise shots will look like one piece of film instead of five or more composited together.

I really don't understand why they spent time and money on this. For one, the old f/x fit perfectly with the show. But now it will be jarring to see modern cgi alongside 60's sets, costumes, etc.

Seriously, updated ship footage is one thing, but what happens when, say, these guys show up?



If kids can't get past the dated look of a model flying through space, how are they going to accept such outlandish aliens?

I agree. The paintings used for establishing shots have always been a personal favorite of mine. Instead of taking me out of the episode, they somehow give it more atmosphere

And in many cases, the same shot was used multiple times to portray different planets. How much are they going to have to alter them for each episode?

DigitalBits reports that CBS has officially confirmed this.

This is *officially* the stupidest thing I've heard this week (and you should see the morons around me, not to mention some of the goofy shit my own brain comes up with).

Go out and get the OS right now before it's too late.

No kidding. It's just like when I now see a CGI creature in Star Wars. I'm immediately taken out of the movie when I see special effects that obviously did not exist in 1977.

dance party?

No, the reason for the Psycho remake is that after Good Will Hunting, the studio told Gus van Zant that he could make anything he wanted, and he decided to do the craziest thing he could think of. There are actually a fair number of critics who now defend the film as a study of what the essence of a good film is.

I was sorta okay with this until I heard about changing the planet-scape paintings and adding extras to the background. The only thing that's ever stood out to me is the overly-grainy model shots. If those were somehow reduced to a normal level of film grain, that would be okay with me.

The rest of this just sounds kinda crappy to be blunt. They may as well be doing the J. Michael Strazynski reboot project and just refilm all the episodes.

See the SW SE. Updating the effects didn't change the way the whole Mos Eisely sequence worked?


And they've already mentioned that they're also changing matte paintings, adding digital extras, re-recording the theme song, etc. This is Star Wars all over again.


EDIT: I just can't get over how similar this entire approach is to SW. They're SE-ing the originals. There's a theatrical prequel coming out in 2008 that is rumored to be recasting established characters with younger actors. Anyone who is saying this is a good idea officially loses all rights to complain about the SE trilogy or Jar-Jar Binks.

the thing that kills me is how they are trying to play it off like it has little to do with the next Trek movie, when in fact it has everything to do with it.

Paramount flatly turned down Shatner when he asked for some funds to spruce up Trek V on DVD. and that one needed more of a facelift than TOS episodes.

There is a theory that Star Trek V is simply a dream that Kirk had, and nothing more.

Or a bad dream that everyone else had.

As they say, life is but a dream.



/merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily....

I'll watch it.

As I said it was "part of the reason":

http://www.angelfire.com/movies/oc/t...sychofail.html

I'm just trying to say studios "think" these things will lure new viewers in: no B&W, redo with CGI, etc. I'm not saying they work or anybody actually likes it when they do them.

Nothing I have seen has indicated that they will be changing major character elements the way they did with Mos Eisely.

If they change 'City on the Edge of Forever' so that Kirk trips while trying to save Edith Keeler, rather than letting her die, I'll agree with that comparison.

If you're referring to other elements of the Mos Eisely scene which were changed, you'll have to forgive me, I don't recall them as jarring from the one time I saw the Special Edition.

I don't have a problem with them fixing the shitty matte painting effects any more than I have a problem with them fixing the shitty space FX.

Now, when the product is out, it will certainly be possible to believe that the "fix" also looks shitty, but I still maintain there's nothing inherently shitty about fixing effects that flat out don't work (as opposed to 'Star Wars', where they *didn't* fix many bad effects but did add many new ones, which looked bad in a different way, and also changed ones that did work and made them look worse).

As for digital extras, again, I have no problem with that in theory. If it's done well. (Like 'Lord of the Rings'.) Pointing to the absolute worst example imaginable ('Star Wars') doesn't really do justice to the CGI artists in the world who can do quality work. If Commodore Decker's ship has CGI extras added in, or the alternate Enterprise in ('Wink of an Eye'? I forget which third season ep I'm thinking of), then, yes, that would bother me, because it would interfere with the story.

Mind you, I still think it's unneccessary, and I think that re-recording the theme song is a terrible idea, but unneccessary does not equate to terrible sight unseen.

I think fixing the effects has the potential to be a good idea. If the fixes look good, I'd be more likely to watch those than the originals, because it won't take away from anything I'm watching them for. I don't need the effects fixed to enjoy the show, which is why I say it's unneccessary, but if they're fixed well, I don't see how it would interfere with the quality of the show.

Re-casting characters, on the other hand, would defeat the purpose of telling a Kirk story (in my mind). Much as I loved the show as a kid, I find Shatner to be the only really compelling thing most of the time these days (except for a few *really* well written ones).