"The Ultimate Computer/Remastered" Airs This Weekend [Archive]

GeneK

02-09-2008, 04:05 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47adf140$0$21090$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

> That's pretty unlikely, considering the fx in the original consisted of a
> shot of the "fleet" which was one shot of the Enterprise optically printed 4
> times, used over and over again throughout the episode, and a few other
> stock shots covered in coffee rings and thumb prints, with nary a single
> visual representation of M5's l33t maneuvering we were told about- but never
> saw.

The motion control aspects of "remastered" have often been
better than the simple flyby shots of the original series, except
for when they had the FX doing something that contradicted
what the dialog said (in those cases it's better not to see what
the characters are talking about than to see FX that is even
more mismatched than the original stock footage). Where
the new cgi has consistently fallen short of the original is in
its ability to depict things that look as if they really exist in
three dimensions as well as the original footage of things that
really did exist in three dimensions did. That said, the cgi has
been slowly improving, and these latest still images don't look
too bad at all...they're almost as good as some of the stuff
that I've been seeing amateur modelers uploading to sites
like trekmeshes and 3dgladiators for several years now.
Maybe TPTB should have started the "remastering" off with
TAS first, they could have gotten the kinks worked out before
going to work on TOS.

GeneK

Robo-man

02-09-2008, 04:40 PM

"Warchild" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:bob-BBF96D.13231909022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <47add3b2$0$85778$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Wouter Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>
>> Steven L. wrote:
>> > This weekend, CBS has released for airing, the remastered version of
>> > the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer."
>> >
>> > http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119127934.jpg
>> >
>> > http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119121668.jpg

Great!
Here in the Washington DC area we get it at 12:00 midnite.
After reruns of The King of Queens, That 70s show, and some kind of
Ultimate Fighting crap.

Anim8rFSK

02-09-2008, 06:59 PM

In article <Jyorj.1071$lU5.151@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio. net>,
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:

> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:47adf140$0$21090$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> > That's pretty unlikely, considering the fx in the original consisted of a
> > shot of the "fleet" which was one shot of the Enterprise optically printed 4
> > times, used over and over again throughout the episode, and a few other
> > stock shots covered in coffee rings and thumb prints, with nary a single
> > visual representation of M5's l33t maneuvering we were told about- but never
> > saw.
>
> The motion control aspects of "remastered" have often been
> better than the simple flyby shots of the original series, except
> for when they had the FX doing something that contradicted
> what the dialog said (in those cases it's better not to see what
> the characters are talking about than to see FX that is even
> more mismatched than the original stock footage). Where
> the new cgi has consistently fallen short of the original is in
> its ability to depict things that look as if they really exist in
> three dimensions as well as the original footage of things that
> really did exist in three dimensions did. That said, the cgi has
> been slowly improving, and these latest still images don't look
> too bad at all...they're almost as good as some of the stuff
> that I've been seeing amateur modelers uploading to sites
> like trekmeshes and 3dgladiators for several years now.
> Maybe TPTB should have started the "remastering" off with
> TAS first, they could have gotten the kinks worked out before
> going to work on TOS.
>
> GeneK

hee hee

--
Star Trek 08:

No Shat, No Show.

Jaxtraw

02-09-2008, 07:08 PM

GeneK wrote:
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:47adf140$0$21090$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>> That's pretty unlikely, considering the fx in the original consisted
>> of a shot of the "fleet" which was one shot of the Enterprise
>> optically printed 4 times, used over and over again throughout the
>> episode, and a few other stock shots covered in coffee rings and
>> thumb prints, with nary a single visual representation of M5's l33t
>> maneuvering we were told about- but never saw.
>
> The motion control aspects of "remastered" have often been
> better than the simple flyby shots of the original series, except
> for when they had the FX doing something that contradicted
> what the dialog said (in those cases it's better not to see what
> the characters are talking about than to see FX that is even
> more mismatched than the original stock footage).

I haven't seen all the remastered episodes, so haven't seen any of the ones
where the new fx contradict the dialogue, can you give an example?

On the other hand, they've in some cases fixed situations where the original
effects flatly contradicted the dialogue and script and put new effects in
that make narrative sense, e.g. in The Doomsday Machine, which is quite a
bonus I think.

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

GeneK

02-09-2008, 08:15 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...

> I haven't seen all the remastered episodes, so haven't seen any of the ones
> where the new fx contradict the dialogue, can you give an example?

The two that come most immediately to mind:

The opening of "Space Seed." Originally, the Enterprise
comes up alongside the drifting Botany Bay, which doesn't
do much of anything (because, of course, it's drifting). In
the remastered version, we see the Botany Bay drifting at
an angle suddenly turn itself into alignment with the E as it
approaches. Then, after the opening credits, we get Kirk's
log entry stating that an hour has gone by and their presence
has been *completely ignored,* and *after* some additional
discussion Kirk finally orders a tractor beam on the BB.

The second is "Paradise Syndrome," where the natives
talk about how the medicine chief is supposed to know
how to make "the blue flame" come out of the obelisk.
When Kirk and Spock finally make the obelisk work, the
remastered flame is orange.

These are minor nits, to be sure, but they make one wonder
if the FX team actually listened to the dialog or read a script
before they went to work.

> On the other hand, they've in some cases fixed situations where the original
> effects flatly contradicted the dialogue and script and put new effects in
> that make narrative sense, e.g. in The Doomsday Machine, which is quite a
> bonus I think.

The new FX for DDM made the E seem a bit too jetfighter-
like for my taste, but I could have lived with it if the ship
hadn't looked so much like the one in the old "Star Trek
25th Anniversary" computer game.

GeneK

Steven L.

02-09-2008, 08:40 PM

GeneK wrote:

> The new FX for DDM made the E seem a bit too jetfighter-
> like for my taste, but I could have lived with it if the ship
> hadn't looked so much like the one in the old "Star Trek
> 25th Anniversary" computer game.

I'm not sure it's their fault, or the fault of the original Jeffries
design, on which the remastered CGI is based.

As I've said before, the original Jeffries design just doesn't have
enough surface detail for today's large high-resolution monitors. If
you watch the HD version, the Big E looks like a toy model because it's
not detailed enough.

You weren't as cognizant of it with the original Doomsday Machine
episode's effects, because most of those shots had the Big E moving past
the camera at a decent speed--frame blur obscures the lack of detail.
In remastered DDM, they had shots where the Big E is almost stationary
relative to the camera, and then your eye dwells long enough on the Big
E to see it's not that impressive.

The refitted ST:TMP model had etching representing "steel plates" and
other such details. So does the new model in the Abrams Trek XI teaser.
So did the NX-01 in ENT, as well. The camera can get quite close to
those models without giving the appearance of a toy model.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

GeneK

02-09-2008, 09:27 PM

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13qslgdjtin4j3c@corp.supernews.com...

> I'm not sure it's their fault, or the fault of the original Jeffries design,
> on which the remastered CGI is based.

Yes, it is. The original Jeffries design has plenty of surface
detail, far more than was ever captured by the original film.
Much of it is buried in grain, but that wouldn't be an issue
for a cgi recreation. It wasn't an issue when Daren
Dochterman did his version of DDM, and it hasn't even
been an issue for the amateurs who are doing "New
Voyages" or "Starship Exeter."

GeneK

Jaxtraw

02-09-2008, 09:35 PM

GeneK wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13qslgdjtin4j3c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> I'm not sure it's their fault, or the fault of the original Jeffries
>> design, on which the remastered CGI is based.
>
> Yes, it is. The original Jeffries design has plenty of surface
> detail, far more than was ever captured by the original film.
> Much of it is buried in grain, but that wouldn't be an issue
> for a cgi recreation. It wasn't an issue when Daren
> Dochterman did his version of DDM, and it hasn't even
> been an issue for the amateurs who are doing "New
> Voyages" or "Starship Exeter."
>

The problem there is that Dochterman's Enterprise looks like a model, which
apparently it's intended to, to recreate the lack of realism of the original
effects, which I can't see the point of. It doesn't look like a starship, it
looks like a model starship. If that was the intention, fair enough, but I
don't believe the original creators intended their show to appear to be
about the adventures of a model starship, and as such it all seemed a bit
self-defeating to me.

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

Jaxtraw

02-09-2008, 09:45 PM

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:Acsrj.42886$Wt7.12474@newsfe14.phx...
>
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>
> > I haven't seen all the remastered episodes, so haven't seen any of the
ones
> > where the new fx contradict the dialogue, can you give an example?
>
> The two that come most immediately to mind:
>
> The opening of "Space Seed." Originally, the Enterprise
> comes up alongside the drifting Botany Bay, which doesn't
> do much of anything (because, of course, it's drifting). In
> the remastered version, we see the Botany Bay drifting at
> an angle suddenly turn itself into alignment with the E as it
> approaches. Then, after the opening credits, we get Kirk's
> log entry stating that an hour has gone by and their presence
> has been *completely ignored,* and *after* some additional
> discussion Kirk finally orders a tractor beam on the BB.
>

Well, I've just watched the fx reel on youtube and I see nothing to complain
about. The shot before the opening credits just shows it drifting. The shot
afterwards shows the two ships coming into alignment. It seems quite
reasonable to me that a starship would pull alongside another ship like that
in a regular "formation".

Remember also that log entries aren't necessarily real time. We have log
entries when Kirk is on planets, captured, sitting in his command chair
saying nothing etc. They're a narrator's voice to explain what's happening
to the audience, so we shouldn't put too much store by their being accurate
to the precise thing we're seeing on screen. Kirk even becomes prescient in
log entries; what's that one about "the situation critical, our orbit
tightening, and unknown to us a disease is among us something something"?
Clearly he can't be making an actual entry referring to something he doesn't
yet know is happening; either you treat it as a narrative device and move on
with life, or presume it was made at a later time and is being played back
"early".

Ian

GeneK

02-09-2008, 10:07 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
> Well, I've just watched the fx reel on youtube and I see nothing to complain
> about. The shot before the opening credits just shows it drifting. The shot
> afterwards shows the two ships coming into alignment. It seems quite
> reasonable to me that a starship would pull alongside another ship like that
> in a regular "formation".

No, it shows the Enteprise slowing to a stop along a
straight line while the Botany Bay rotates around
a point through its center to match the Enterprise.
The original fx, which shows the E pulling alongside
the BB in alignment with its orientation, does depict
the "formation" type maneuver you imagine.

But I guess if you don't notice stuff like that you
wouldn't have a reason to complain. I don't deny
that since I've believed from the beginning that
redoing the original fx was unnecessary to
restore the original episodes I tend to look at
the new fx with an eye out for their errors.

GeneK

GeneK

02-09-2008, 10:10 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...

> The problem there is that Dochterman's Enterprise looks like a model, which
> apparently it's intended to, to recreate the lack of realism of the original
> effects, which I can't see the point of. It doesn't look like a starship, it
> looks like a model starship. If that was the intention, fair enough, but I
> don't believe the original creators intended their show to appear to be
> about the adventures of a model starship, and as such it all seemed a bit
> self-defeating to me.

I think the only reason you think it looks like a model is
that you know the original was one, but yes, Dochterman
did set out to match the original fx. But given a choice
between an Enterprise that looks like a model and one
that looks like a videogame from 1992, I'll take the model.

GeneK

Jaxtraw

02-09-2008, 10:46 PM

GeneK wrote:
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>> Well, I've just watched the fx reel on youtube and I see nothing to
>> complain about. The shot before the opening credits just shows it
>> drifting. The shot afterwards shows the two ships coming into
>> alignment. It seems quite reasonable to me that a starship would
>> pull alongside another ship like that in a regular "formation".
>
> No, it shows the Enteprise slowing to a stop along a
> straight line while the Botany Bay rotates around
> a point through its center to match the Enterprise.
> The original fx, which shows the E pulling alongside
> the BB in alignment with its orientation, does depict
> the "formation" type maneuver you imagine.
>
> But I guess if you don't notice stuff like that you
> wouldn't have a reason to complain. I don't deny
> that since I've believed from the beginning that
> redoing the original fx was unnecessary to
> restore the original episodes I tend to look at
> the new fx with an eye out for their errors.
>

Well, if you in turn bothered to look closely you'd notice that the Botany
Bay is still rotating when the cut at the end of the scene comes, so it's
not at all certain that the BB is coming into alignment to "match the
enterprise".

I really don't see the problem here. You're looking for nits, not errors,
which is a difference of both degree and intention.

I think the difference here is, for the average bod watching the episode,
that new effects shot won't cause them to think "hey, wtf is going on here?"
as it doesn't create any narrative contradiction. Compare that to the
original Doomsday Machine, where some of the effects are inadequate to
convey what's going on (it's unclear in the original how the two starships
get separated for instance) or sufficiently wrong to cause a significant
dissonance (we see the Ent fly over the machine towards its rear, cut to the
bridge and the viewscreen shows the machine's maw).

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

GeneK

02-09-2008, 11:18 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote
> I think the difference here is, for the average bod watching the episode,
> that new effects shot won't cause them to think "hey, wtf is going on here?"

I think you're right about this point, though I wonder if
"the average bod" is the person who's likely to stay up
until the ungodly late hours some stations are running
the remastereds at to watch them, or to spend the
money on the HD DVDs.

GeneK

Steven L.

02-10-2008, 08:33 AM

GeneK wrote:
>
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13qslgdjtin4j3c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> I'm not sure it's their fault, or the fault of the original Jeffries
>> design, on which the remastered CGI is based.
>
> Yes, it is. The original Jeffries design has plenty of surface
> detail, far more than was ever captured by the original film.
> Much of it is buried in grain, but that wouldn't be an issue
> for a cgi recreation.

As I understand it, the remastered recreation worked right off the
original 15 foot model. They took measurements of every dimension.

The only "grain" in the original 15 foot model is an *artifact* of the
wood and plastic of which it was constructed. But it's not
representative of the finish of an actual life-size ship--the metal
plates, the fittings, etc.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

02-10-2008, 08:44 AM

GeneK wrote:
>
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>
>> The problem there is that Dochterman's Enterprise looks like a model,
>> which
>> apparently it's intended to, to recreate the lack of realism of the
>> original
>> effects, which I can't see the point of. It doesn't look like a
>> starship, it
>> looks like a model starship. If that was the intention, fair enough,
>> but I
>> don't believe the original creators intended their show to appear to be
>> about the adventures of a model starship, and as such it all seemed a bit
>> self-defeating to me.
>
> I think the only reason you think it looks like a model is
> that you know the original was one, but yes, Dochterman
> did set out to match the original fx.

It's probably because the original model was made out of painted wood
and plastic. And evidently Dochterman rendered the CGI to make the Big
E look exactly the same under reflected light--same reflectance, same
luminance, same opacity, same grain. So guess what, it looks like it's
made out of painted wood and plastic too. What he didn't do is imagine
how a huge starship of those relative dimensions would actually look
like close up, because that wasn't in the original episodes.

It works only because Dochterman also kept to the original choreography
for the most part. So there aren't scenes in which the camera lingers
on the Big E close up for extended periods, which would really show the
Big E to be a cheap-looking model.

> But given a choice
> between an Enterprise that looks like a model and one
> that looks like a videogame from 1992, I'll take the model.

The correct answer is you have to redesign the Big E itself to add more
detail, which is what Abrams is doing for Trek XI. Same basic shape as
the Jefferies design, but with lots of metal plates, rivets, fittings,
etc., visible, so that the camera can linger on it close up without loss
of believability.

That's the only way out of this conundrum.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Wouter Valentijn

02-10-2008, 09:56 AM

GeneK wrote:
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>
>> The problem there is that Dochterman's Enterprise looks like a
>> model, which apparently it's intended to, to recreate the lack of
>> realism of the original effects, which I can't see the point of. It
>> doesn't look like a starship, it looks like a model starship. If
>> that was the intention, fair enough, but I don't believe the
>> original creators intended their show to appear to be about the
>> adventures of a model starship, and as such it all seemed a bit
>> self-defeating to me.
>
> I think the only reason you think it looks like a model is
> that you know the original was one, but yes, Dochterman
> did set out to match the original fx. But given a choice
> between an Enterprise that looks like a model and one
> that looks like a videogame from 1992, I'll take the model.
>

As would I.

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

Steven L.

02-10-2008, 09:57 AM

Jaxtraw wrote:
> GeneK wrote:
>> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>>> Well, I've just watched the fx reel on youtube and I see nothing to
>>> complain about. The shot before the opening credits just shows it
>>> drifting. The shot afterwards shows the two ships coming into
>>> alignment. It seems quite reasonable to me that a starship would
>>> pull alongside another ship like that in a regular "formation".
>> No, it shows the Enteprise slowing to a stop along a
>> straight line while the Botany Bay rotates around
>> a point through its center to match the Enterprise.
>> The original fx, which shows the E pulling alongside
>> the BB in alignment with its orientation, does depict
>> the "formation" type maneuver you imagine.
>>
>> But I guess if you don't notice stuff like that you
>> wouldn't have a reason to complain. I don't deny
>> that since I've believed from the beginning that
>> redoing the original fx was unnecessary to
>> restore the original episodes I tend to look at
>> the new fx with an eye out for their errors.
>>
>
> Well, if you in turn bothered to look closely you'd notice that the Botany
> Bay is still rotating when the cut at the end of the scene comes, so it's
> not at all certain that the BB is coming into alignment to "match the
> enterprise".
>
> I really don't see the problem here. You're looking for nits, not errors,
> which is a difference of both degree and intention.

The drifting/rotating Botany Bay is a nit, and only obsessive fans are
going to complain about it.

OTOH, the orange beam coming out of the obelisk in Paradise Syndrome is
a definite continuity error, made worse by the fact that the original FX
got it right and the remastered FX got it totally wrong. That one, I
wish CBS would fix.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Wouter Valentijn

02-10-2008, 09:59 AM

Jaxtraw wrote:
> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>> This weekend, CBS has released for airing, the remastered version of
>>> the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer."
>>>
>>> http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119127934.jpg
>>>
>>> http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119121668.jpg
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ugh... Still not as good as it could be. Still very computergame
>> like. The old version remains superior.
>
> That's pretty unlikely, considering the fx in the original consisted
> of a shot of the "fleet" which was one shot of the Enterprise
> optically printed 4 times, used over and over again throughout the
> episode, and a few other stock shots covered in coffee rings and
> thumb prints, with nary a single visual representation of M5's l33t
> maneuvering we were told about- but never saw.
>

I know how they shot 'the fleet'.
That original image of the Enterprise at least felt like it had substance,
warmth, depth.
What we see in the remastered version are just digital ghosts. Cold,
soulless, without substance.

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

GeneK

02-10-2008, 12:28 PM

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...

> As I understand it, the remastered recreation worked right off the
> original 15 foot model. They took measurements of every dimension.
>
> The only "grain" in the original 15 foot model is an *artifact* of the
> wood and plastic of which it was constructed. But it's not
> representative of the finish of an actual life-size ship--the metal
> plates, the fittings, etc.

The TV model was airbrushed with a "weathered" paint
pattern that can be seen on the screen in some close
shots and still photos from the period. The Smithsonian
model was repainted many times except for the top of
the saucer, and you can get a clue from that as to what
the finish on the rest of the model was probably like.

But my point was, the "remastered" people could have
added any additional surface textures they wanted, the
high level of film grain on the original shots left plenty of
wiggle room, and there are literally hundreds of amateur
renderings uploaded to the internet that are "enhanced"
with a variety of subtle textures ranging from slight aztec
to outright plating. They didn't give their cgi model any
surface at all, not even the streaky look of the old paint
job or the texture they put on the Romulan BOP in the
BoT remaster.

But IMO the problem with "remastered" doesn't really
have that much to do with model detail. The original
cgi model was replaced after the first few episodes
with another one because the first took too long to
render. The replacement model has fewer polygons,
which means it has *less detail* than the first, and
yet the cgi has been gradually *improving* as more
episodes are done. I think the real fault is in the
lighting. The original TV shots and all the TOS cast
movie ship shots have multiple light sources on the
model: ambient lighting, a main key light and one or
more fill lights. You can discern that from the fact
that shadows are cast in multiple directions across
surfaces that never fall into darkness. But the cgi
model in "remastered" appears to be surrounded by
a virtual "light dome" that lights it in a uniform level
of dull, and it's only when the ship is shown close to
something like a planet or a star that it begins to
look anything like the original. My guess is that the
animators are just placing the lights themselves
(badly), and that there are no lighting professionals
at work here.

GeneK

GeneK

02-10-2008, 12:35 PM

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
> It works only because Dochterman also kept to the original choreography
> for the most part.

Which is a reasonable approach when you're trying to
"remaster" or "enhance" an original work instead of
"reimagining" it.

> The correct answer is you have to redesign the Big E itself to add more
> detail, which is what Abrams is doing for Trek XI. Same basic shape as
> the Jefferies design, but with lots of metal plates, rivets, fittings,
> etc., visible, so that the camera can linger on it close up without loss
> of believability.
>
> That's the only way out of this conundrum.

I'd say it's a perfectly sensible thing to do for a new,
big-budget theatrical film, especially if you know that
a fairly large contingent of the audience is going to
be drooling newtrek fanboys. Doing it to the original
TOS episodes is another matter. The model scenes
from "Casablanca" or the original "War of the Worlds"
don't need to be redesigned just to put them on DVD,
and TOS didn't need it either.

GeneK

GeneK

02-10-2008, 02:02 PM

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
> The drifting/rotating Botany Bay is a nit, and only obsessive fans are
> going to complain about it.

I'm a sufficiently "obssesive fan" of old movies in general that
I will notice (and yes, complain about) nits like this when an
original work is poorly changed in the name of "improvement."

> OTOH, the orange beam coming out of the obelisk in Paradise Syndrome is
> a definite continuity error, made worse by the fact that the original FX
> got it right and the remastered FX got it totally wrong. That one, I
> wish CBS would fix.

The bad news is, there's no indication that the "remastered"
team is being allowed to go back and fix anything once an
episode has been redone. I think "fixing" any fault in these,
whether big or small or agreed upon or not, is going to have
to wait a generation or two until a new set of owners and
prospective customers and possibly a new technology for
restoring film comes along. Like Fritz Lang's "Metropolis,"
which finally got a really proper restoration effort 75 years
after its original release.

GeneK

Anim8rFSK

02-10-2008, 04:39 PM

In article <13qtv9u1s75obfd@corp.supernews.com>,
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:

> GeneK wrote:
> >
> > "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:13qslgdjtin4j3c@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >> I'm not sure it's their fault, or the fault of the original Jeffries
> >> design, on which the remastered CGI is based.
> >
> > Yes, it is. The original Jeffries design has plenty of surface
> > detail, far more than was ever captured by the original film.
> > Much of it is buried in grain, but that wouldn't be an issue
> > for a cgi recreation.
>
> As I understand it, the remastered recreation worked right off the
> original 15 foot model. They took measurements of every dimension.

Untrue. They CLAIM to have in the press releases, but they lie. Or
they took the dimensions and didn't get them right.

BTW, it's an 11 foot model.

>
> The only "grain" in the original 15 foot model is an *artifact* of the
> wood and plastic of which it was constructed. But it's not
> representative of the finish of an actual life-size ship--the metal
> plates, the fittings, etc.

GeneK is talking about film grain.

--
Star Trek 08:

No Shat, No Show.

Anim8rFSK

02-10-2008, 04:40 PM

In article <47af1094$0$85791$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
"Wouter Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> GeneK wrote:
> > "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
> >
> >> The problem there is that Dochterman's Enterprise looks like a
> >> model, which apparently it's intended to, to recreate the lack of
> >> realism of the original effects, which I can't see the point of. It
> >> doesn't look like a starship, it looks like a model starship. If
> >> that was the intention, fair enough, but I don't believe the
> >> original creators intended their show to appear to be about the
> >> adventures of a model starship, and as such it all seemed a bit
> >> self-defeating to me.
> >
> > I think the only reason you think it looks like a model is
> > that you know the original was one, but yes, Dochterman
> > did set out to match the original fx. But given a choice
> > between an Enterprise that looks like a model and one
> > that looks like a videogame from 1992, I'll take the model.
> >
>
> As would I.

So say we all!

--
Star Trek 08:

No Shat, No Show.

Anim8rFSK

02-10-2008, 04:42 PM

In article <13qu4737i8vapcd@corp.supernews.com>,
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jaxtraw wrote:
> > GeneK wrote:
> >> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
> >>> Well, I've just watched the fx reel on youtube and I see nothing to
> >>> complain about. The shot before the opening credits just shows it
> >>> drifting. The shot afterwards shows the two ships coming into
> >>> alignment. It seems quite reasonable to me that a starship would
> >>> pull alongside another ship like that in a regular "formation".
> >> No, it shows the Enteprise slowing to a stop along a
> >> straight line while the Botany Bay rotates around
> >> a point through its center to match the Enterprise.
> >> The original fx, which shows the E pulling alongside
> >> the BB in alignment with its orientation, does depict
> >> the "formation" type maneuver you imagine.
> >>
> >> But I guess if you don't notice stuff like that you
> >> wouldn't have a reason to complain. I don't deny
> >> that since I've believed from the beginning that
> >> redoing the original fx was unnecessary to
> >> restore the original episodes I tend to look at
> >> the new fx with an eye out for their errors.
> >>
> >
> > Well, if you in turn bothered to look closely you'd notice that the Botany
> > Bay is still rotating when the cut at the end of the scene comes, so it's
> > not at all certain that the BB is coming into alignment to "match the
> > enterprise".
> >
> > I really don't see the problem here. You're looking for nits, not errors,
> > which is a difference of both degree and intention.
>
> The drifting/rotating Botany Bay is a nit, and only obsessive fans are
> going to complain about it.

Or, people that care if they do the effects right and don't change the
story through incompetence.
>
> OTOH, the orange beam coming out of the obelisk in Paradise Syndrome is
> a definite continuity error, made worse by the fact that the original FX
> got it right and the remastered FX got it totally wrong. That one, I
> wish CBS would fix.

I'll bet you they don't have dialog tracks with the remastered shots (we
didn't on the TMP SE DVD) but you'd think they'd have the original DVD
set sitting around to reference.

--
Star Trek 08:

No Shat, No Show.

Anim8rFSK

02-10-2008, 04:42 PM

In article <47af1152$0$85784$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
"Wouter Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Jaxtraw wrote:
> > Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> >> Steven L. wrote:
> >>> This weekend, CBS has released for airing, the remastered version of
> >>> the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer."
> >>>
> >>> http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119127934.jpg
> >>>
> >>> http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119121668.jpg
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ugh... Still not as good as it could be. Still very computergame
> >> like. The old version remains superior.
> >
> > That's pretty unlikely, considering the fx in the original consisted
> > of a shot of the "fleet" which was one shot of the Enterprise
> > optically printed 4 times, used over and over again throughout the
> > episode, and a few other stock shots covered in coffee rings and
> > thumb prints, with nary a single visual representation of M5's l33t
> > maneuvering we were told about- but never saw.
> >
>
> I know how they shot 'the fleet'.
> That original image of the Enterprise at least felt like it had substance,
> warmth, depth.
> What we see in the remastered version are just digital ghosts. Cold,
> soulless, without substance.

They looked really small, too, like AMT kits with weird wide angle
lenses on them.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ToLrAz2TV9A&eurl=http://trekmovie.com/2008/
02/09/the-ultimate-computer-remastered-video/

--
Star Trek 08:

No Shat, No Show.

GeneK

02-10-2008, 06:55 PM

"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote
> Untrue. They CLAIM to have in the press releases, but they lie. Or
> they took the dimensions and didn't get them right.
>
> BTW, it's an 11 foot model.

I think it unlikely that Dochterman or the folks
doing "New Voyages" or "Exeter" had access to
the oriignal model at the Smithsonian, but that
doesn't seem to have prevented them from doing
a better job than the "remastered" team.

GeneK

Jaxtraw

02-10-2008, 07:07 PM

GeneK wrote:
> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote
>> Untrue. They CLAIM to have in the press releases, but they lie. Or
>> they took the dimensions and didn't get them right.
>>
>> BTW, it's an 11 foot model.
>
> I think it unlikely that Dochterman or the folks
> doing "New Voyages" or "Exeter" had access to
> the oriignal model at the Smithsonian, but that
> doesn't seem to have prevented them from doing
> a better job than the "remastered" team.
>

His Enterprise does indeed look precisely 11 feet long; not an inch more and
not an inch less :oD

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

GeneK

02-10-2008, 07:29 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...

> His Enterprise does indeed look precisely 11 feet long; not an inch more and
> not an inch less :oD

Since his intent was to duplicate the original series
fx, that speaks well of his ability to accomplish his
goals. Now all we need is to hear the "remastered"
team tell us that they intended to reproduce the
cutscenes from "Star Trek 25th Anniversary."

GeneK

Steven L.

02-10-2008, 09:28 PM

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <13qtv9u1s75obfd@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> GeneK wrote:
>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:13qslgdjtin4j3c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure it's their fault, or the fault of the original Jeffries
>>>> design, on which the remastered CGI is based.
>>> Yes, it is. The original Jeffries design has plenty of surface
>>> detail, far more than was ever captured by the original film.
>>> Much of it is buried in grain, but that wouldn't be an issue
>>> for a cgi recreation.
>> As I understand it, the remastered recreation worked right off the
>> original 15 foot model. They took measurements of every dimension.
>
> Untrue. They CLAIM to have in the press releases, but they lie. Or
> they took the dimensions and didn't get them right.
>
> BTW, it's an 11 foot model.
>
>
>> The only "grain" in the original 15 foot model is an *artifact* of the
>> wood and plastic of which it was constructed. But it's not
>> representative of the finish of an actual life-size ship--the metal
>> plates, the fittings, etc.
>
> GeneK is talking about film grain.

I know what he meant. I repeat what I said: The finish of the original
model is NOT representative of what a real starship would look like if
you looked at it close up. If you duplicate the finish of the original
model precisely with CGI, what you will end up with is a CGI rendering
of a wood and plastic model.

Hence there isn't enough surface detail to work with.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

02-10-2008, 09:34 PM

GeneK wrote:
>
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
>> It works only because Dochterman also kept to the original
>> choreography for the most part.
>
> Which is a reasonable approach when you're trying to
> "remaster" or "enhance" an original work instead of
> "reimagining" it.

Let's not start that again. CBS/Paramount have done more than a literal
"remastering," but less than a "reimagining" because the original script
was left intact. How about we call it a "freshening"?

>> The correct answer is you have to redesign the Big E itself to add
>> more detail, which is what Abrams is doing for Trek XI. Same basic
>> shape as the Jefferies design, but with lots of metal plates, rivets,
>> fittings, etc., visible, so that the camera can linger on it close up
>> without loss of believability.
>>
>> That's the only way out of this conundrum.
>
> I'd say it's a perfectly sensible thing to do for a new, big-budget
> theatrical film, especially if you know that
> a fairly large contingent of the audience is going to
> be drooling newtrek fanboys. Doing it to the original TOS episodes is
> another matter. The model scenes from "Casablanca" or the original "War
> of the Worlds" don't need to be redesigned just to put them on DVD,

Actually, they do. The higher resolution in the new DVD of the George
Pal version makes the suspending wires too visible. A truly
"remastered" version of WoTW would digitally erase those suspending wires.

Also, due to budgetary limitations, George Pal only showed the human
skeleton effect from the "skeleton beam" just once (the closeup of the
Colonel). Likewise, they only showed the "magnetic beam legs" of the
Martian machines just a couple of times. As part of remastering, they
could have added back all these beam effects that Pal was forced to cut.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

02-10-2008, 09:52 PM

Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> Jaxtraw wrote:
>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>> Steven L. wrote:
>>>> This weekend, CBS has released for airing, the remastered version of
>>>> the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119127934.jpg
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119121668.jpg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ugh... Still not as good as it could be. Still very computergame
>>> like. The old version remains superior.
>> That's pretty unlikely, considering the fx in the original consisted
>> of a shot of the "fleet" which was one shot of the Enterprise
>> optically printed 4 times, used over and over again throughout the
>> episode, and a few other stock shots covered in coffee rings and
>> thumb prints, with nary a single visual representation of M5's l33t
>> maneuvering we were told about- but never saw.
>>
>
> I know how they shot 'the fleet'.
> That original image of the Enterprise at least felt like it had substance,
> warmth, depth.
> What we see in the remastered version are just digital ghosts. Cold,
> soulless, without substance.

I'm sure that in the early 20th century, art critics who were used to
paintings felt the same way as you when they were confronted with the
newfangled photographs for the first time.

The more photo-realistic you get, the less room there is for artistic
license and artistic flair. If Leonardo da Vinci had invented the
camera, we would have ended up with a photograph of the Mona Lisa
instead of a painting. Which wouldn't have had the same effect.

I think one thing that will help, is to finally get a version of the TOS
NCC-1701 that has enough surface detail so that you feel you're
looking at a ship that had to be *constructed*--you can see the metal
plates and the fittings and so on.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

GeneK

02-10-2008, 09:55 PM

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...

> I know what he meant. I repeat what I said: The finish of the original
> model is NOT representative of what a real starship would look like if
> you looked at it close up.

And you know this because you've seen how many
real starships...?

GeneK

GeneK

02-10-2008, 09:59 PM

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13qvd27ep9kf2f6@corp.supernews.com...
> Let's not start that again. CBS/Paramount have done more than a literal
> "remastering," but less than a "reimagining" because the original script was
> left intact. How about we call it a "freshening"?

I'll just continue to call it "remuddling."

> Actually, they do. The higher resolution in the new DVD of the George Pal
> version makes the suspending wires too visible. A truly "remastered" version
> of WoTW would digitally erase those suspending wires.

Actually, the wires were already visible in the videotape
release years ago. If it bothers anyone, most TV sets
have a "sharpness" control.

> Also, due to budgetary limitations, George Pal only showed the human skeleton
> effect from the "skeleton beam" just once (the closeup of the Colonel).
> Likewise, they only showed the "magnetic beam legs" of the Martian machines
> just a couple of times. As part of remastering, they could have added back
> all these beam effects that Pal was forced to cut.

I'm sure glad there aren't any drooling George Pal
fanboys to convince Paramount that that would be
a good idea.

GeneK

GeneK

02-10-2008, 10:35 PM

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
> I think one thing that will help, is to finally get a version of the TOS
> NCC-1701 that has enough surface detail so that you feel you're
> looking at a ship that had to be *constructed*--you can see the metal
> plates and the fittings and so on.

That's exactly what Gene Roddenberry told Matt Jeffries
*not* to do when he tasked him to create a ship that
looked centuries more advanced than anything previously
imagined. Why don't you just fit the thing with great big
rocket engines with smoking, flaming exhausts while you're
at it, since no "real" spaceships exist that don't use them
for propulsion.

GeneK

Jaxtraw

02-10-2008, 10:40 PM

GeneK wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
>> It works only because Dochterman also kept to the original
>> choreography for the most part.
>
> Which is a reasonable approach when you're trying to
> "remaster" or "enhance" an original work instead of
> "reimagining" it.

TBH I can't figure out what Dochterman was trying to do. For me there are
three episodes which merit a "special edition", being the three with a
significant starshippery quotient- Balance Of Terror, The Doomsday Machine
and The Ultimate Computer. Those three, I personally would have given a
major workover with extra fx scenes inserted and complete rechoreography of
the ships etc. The Doomsday Machine in particular has always cried out for
that, and so Dochterman takes it upon himself to "enhance" it; then tries to
make it look like the original. What's the point? On the other hand, he's
added things in (animated viewscreen for instance) which weren't part of the
original, so that blows the "just improving the quality of what's there"
angle. Either do one thing or the other, I would say.

Now I appreciate the view that all should be left as it was, for artistic
integrity reasons. That's valid. I've never said that the originals should
be *replaced* with new versions. But to do an enhanced version as an extra;
to give us the old story as it would be done today- that's a valid project,
if a different one. Replacing outdated effects with newly created outdated
effects, well. What a waste of time.

Me, I'd have asked Spinrad what the machine was meant to look like (rather
than the windsock dipped in cement that so disappointed him) and started
from there. But that's just me of course.

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

Jaxtraw

02-10-2008, 10:40 PM

GeneK wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
>
>> I know what he meant. I repeat what I said: The finish of the
>> original model is NOT representative of what a real starship would
>> look like if you looked at it close up.
>
> And you know this because you've seen how many
> real starships...?
>

And yet many times you've claimed to know how starships maneuver. How many
real starships have you seen?

:)

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

Jaxtraw

02-10-2008, 10:43 PM

GeneK wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
>> I think one thing that will help, is to finally get a version of the
>> TOS NCC-1701 that has enough surface detail so that you feel you're
>> looking at a ship that had to be *constructed*--you can see the metal
>> plates and the fittings and so on.
>
> That's exactly what Gene Roddenberry told Matt Jeffries
> *not* to do when he tasked him to create a ship that
> looked centuries more advanced than anything previously
> imagined. Why don't you just fit the thing with great big
> rocket engines with smoking, flaming exhausts while you're
> at it, since no "real" spaceships exist that don't use them
> for propulsion.
>

You need some kind of detailing to give an illusion of scale. It might be
that a script called for a spaceship which is a perfectly smooth,
featureless, white sphere. In practice that would be hard to do without it
looking like a little billiard ball.

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

GeneK

02-10-2008, 11:10 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...

> And yet many times you've claimed to know how starships maneuver. How many
> real starships have you seen?

I have never claimed I know how starships maneuver.
I have on several occaisions said how I'd like to see one
of the Enteprise's size maneuver, and argued against
making changes in the depiction of how the Enterprise
maneuvers. There is a difference.

GeneK

GeneK

02-10-2008, 11:13 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
> You need some kind of detailing to give an illusion of scale. It might be
> that a script called for a spaceship which is a perfectly smooth,
> featureless, white sphere. In practice that would be hard to do without it
> looking like a little billiard ball.

This is done with lighting, and by placing objects of
a size that would be more familiar than the smooth
object in the scene. Just show a couple of guys in
space suits walking on the smooth-hulled ship at
some point early on.

GeneK

Jaxtraw

02-10-2008, 11:23 PM

GeneK wrote:
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>
>> And yet many times you've claimed to know how starships maneuver.
>> How many real starships have you seen?
>
> I have never claimed I know how starships maneuver.
> I have on several occaisions said how I'd like to see one
> of the Enteprise's size maneuver, and argued against
> making changes in the depiction of how the Enterprise
> maneuvers. There is a difference.
>

The problem is, CBS-D didn't "change" the way the Enterprise maneuvers,
because in TOS in the 60s they couldn't actually depict it maneuvering. They
couldn't even show both sides of the model. It simply isn't reasonable to
say that modern sfx are wrong, because they can do things which were beyond
the original fx team. There's one stock shot which attempts to show the E
doing a rapid maneuver, but it just looks like it's falling over on its
side.

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

Jaxtraw

02-10-2008, 11:24 PM

GeneK wrote:
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>> You need some kind of detailing to give an illusion of scale. It
>> might be that a script called for a spaceship which is a perfectly
>> smooth, featureless, white sphere. In practice that would be hard to
>> do without it looking like a little billiard ball.
>
> This is done with lighting, and by placing objects of
> a size that would be more familiar than the smooth
> object in the scene. Just show a couple of guys in
> space suits walking on the smooth-hulled ship at
> some point early on.
>

So, every episode of TOS should start with a couple tap dancing on the
saucer section or something?

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

GeneK

02-10-2008, 11:43 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...

> The problem is, CBS-D didn't "change" the way the Enterprise maneuvers,
> because in TOS in the 60s they couldn't actually depict it maneuvering. They
> couldn't even show both sides of the model. It simply isn't reasonable to
> say that modern sfx are wrong, because they can do things which were beyond
> the original fx team. There's one stock shot which attempts to show the E
> doing a rapid maneuver, but it just looks like it's falling over on its
> side.

As I have said fairly recently, the motion control of
"remastered" has often been better than the original.
Any grumbles I have about it are mainly personal
preference and relatively. What I find downright
bad is the rendering of the ship itself. Moving or
still, it's consistently videogame-like.

GeneK

GeneK

02-10-2008, 11:50 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...

> So, every episode of TOS should start with a couple tap dancing on the
> saucer section or something?

Well, I suppose if the retention of the viewers is
really that bad they could have a shot like that in
the opening credits, like that guy doing the welding
on DS9's opening. But somehow viewers in the
1960's didn't seem to have a problem accepting
TOS visuals as a depiction of a really big ship
capable of carrying hundreds of people. I guess
folks just had more imagination then. Or perhaps
the reason TOS failed in the 60's was that people
then suffered from the same inability to imagine
things in the future that don't go together the same
way that things do today that handicaps some of
the people posting here now.

GeneK

Anim8rFSK

02-11-2008, 12:27 AM

In article <JQOrj.6485$n42.6139@newsfe08.phx>,
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:

> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13qvd27ep9kf2f6@corp.supernews.com...
> > Let's not start that again. CBS/Paramount have done more than a literal
> > "remastering," but less than a "reimagining" because the original script
> > was
> > left intact. How about we call it a "freshening"?
>
> I'll just continue to call it "remuddling."

Yeah, 'fresh' isn't really the concept here, is it?

--
Star Trek 08:

No Shat, No Show.

Steven L.

02-11-2008, 08:49 AM

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <13qu4737i8vapcd@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Jaxtraw wrote:
>>> GeneK wrote:
>>>> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>>>>> Well, I've just watched the fx reel on youtube and I see nothing to
>>>>> complain about. The shot before the opening credits just shows it
>>>>> drifting. The shot afterwards shows the two ships coming into
>>>>> alignment. It seems quite reasonable to me that a starship would
>>>>> pull alongside another ship like that in a regular "formation".
>>>> No, it shows the Enteprise slowing to a stop along a
>>>> straight line while the Botany Bay rotates around
>>>> a point through its center to match the Enterprise.
>>>> The original fx, which shows the E pulling alongside
>>>> the BB in alignment with its orientation, does depict
>>>> the "formation" type maneuver you imagine.
>>>>
>>>> But I guess if you don't notice stuff like that you
>>>> wouldn't have a reason to complain. I don't deny
>>>> that since I've believed from the beginning that
>>>> redoing the original fx was unnecessary to
>>>> restore the original episodes I tend to look at
>>>> the new fx with an eye out for their errors.
>>>>
>>> Well, if you in turn bothered to look closely you'd notice that the Botany
>>> Bay is still rotating when the cut at the end of the scene comes, so it's
>>> not at all certain that the BB is coming into alignment to "match the
>>> enterprise".
>>>
>>> I really don't see the problem here. You're looking for nits, not errors,
>>> which is a difference of both degree and intention.
>> The drifting/rotating Botany Bay is a nit, and only obsessive fans are
>> going to complain about it.
>
> Or, people that care if they do the effects right and don't change the
> story through incompetence.
>> OTOH, the orange beam coming out of the obelisk in Paradise Syndrome is
>> a definite continuity error, made worse by the fact that the original FX
>> got it right and the remastered FX got it totally wrong. That one, I
>> wish CBS would fix.
>
> I'll bet you they don't have dialog tracks with the remastered shots (we
> didn't on the TMP SE DVD) but you'd think they'd have the original DVD
> set sitting around to reference.

I'm not sure about that. If they were just copying the original scenes
without looking at the dialogue, then why did they create a whole new
ship to represent the Woden ore freighter in the remastered "Ultimate
Computer"? In the original version, for cost and schedule reasons,
Roddenberry just reused the stock footage of the Botany Bay to represent
the Woden. If they didn't work from Spock's original dialogue, they
would have done the same thing and just remastered the Botany Bay too.

The obelisk beam in "Paradise Syndrome" is just a dumb mistake. The FX
artists paid attention to what Spock said about the Woden (he's a
Science Officer, he knows stuff). But they just missed what Miramanee
said about the beam.

You never heard Kirk say "Fire main blue phasers" or "Fire red photon
torpedoes," so this was a one-time bizarre situation.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

02-11-2008, 09:39 AM

Jaxtraw wrote:

> You need some kind of detailing to give an illusion of scale. It might be
> that a script called for a spaceship which is a perfectly smooth,
> featureless, white sphere. In practice that would be hard to do without it
> looking like a little billiard ball.

In fact, here's a real-world example for you:

The new Zumwalt class of U.S. Navy destroyers are being designed to be
"stealthy" against enemy radar. That means smooth sides and curves, no
metal fittings, no antennas, no stanchions, nothing that might reflect a
radar beam. So there's almost no "bumpy" surface detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Zumwalt_%28DDG-1000%29.jpg

The problem is that looking at this picture, it's hard to tell just how
big this ship is. It almost looks toylike.

If ships like this were featured in some technothriller movie about
naval war in the near future, the audience wouldn't be impressed because
they couldn't tell just what they were looking at. (And that's the
POINT with stealth; the enemy isn't supposed to be able to tell either!)

--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

02-11-2008, 10:05 AM

GeneK wrote:
>
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>
>> So, every episode of TOS should start with a couple tap dancing on the
>> saucer section or something?
>
> Well, I suppose if the retention of the viewers is
> really that bad they could have a shot like that in
> the opening credits, like that guy doing the welding
> on DS9's opening. But somehow viewers in the
> 1960's didn't seem to have a problem accepting
> TOS visuals as a depiction of a really big ship
> capable of carrying hundreds of people. I guess
> folks just had more imagination then.

First of all, TOS didn't have that many viewers, which is why it was
canceled.

Secondly, it's because most of the viewers still had 21 inch
black-and-white TVs with rabbit ear antennas that made it difficult to
even get a clear picture. Just seeing anything remotely resembling a
spaceship traveling through space was enough. IIRC, the majority of
homes in America didn't get color TV till after 1970.

The original FX for TOS mostly had the Big E flying past the camera at a
decent speed and not too close to the camera, in short clips. Motion
blur disguised the fact that you were looking at a model. There were
very few shots where the ship was stationary relative to the camera (one
in "Corbomite Maneuver"). And in those shots, you became more cognizant
that you were looking at a model.

The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey," in 1968, totally changed audience's
expectations of what space travel would be like. The next TV space
show, "Space: 1999," featured the harsh lighting and highly detailed
models that "2001" had pioneered.

> Or perhaps
> the reason TOS failed in the 60's was that people
> then suffered from the same inability to imagine things in the future
> that don't go together the same
> way that things do today that handicaps some of the people posting here
> now.

I don't think Jefferies would have agreed with you.

If he had, he wouldn't have even bothered to put windows on the Big E
miniature.

Notice the rows of windows on the main pylon? And the two levels of
windows on the saucer? Notice how some windows are lighted and others
are not? The purpose is obviously to give the audience the impression
of a starship with lots of decks and compartments, like a present-day
cruise ship.

I could make an argument that a heavy cruiser starship in the 23rd
century has no need of so many windows: TV monitors can work just as
well, and windows are possible points of failure in the event of enemy
attack, or the few times the Big E enters atmosphere or flies too near a
star. But without them, scale becomes much harder for the TV audience
to judge.

Jefferies did a great job for his time. But now we've got HDTV; we've
seen many videos of Space Shuttle operations in orbit so we have a much
better idea what space looks like; and so audience's expectations are
much higher.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

GeneK

02-11-2008, 10:17 AM

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
> The problem is that looking at this picture, it's hard to tell just how
> big this ship is. It almost looks toylike.

Maybe if you're completely uneducated about naval ships.
From the guns on the deck, the length from bow to stern
would have to be somewhere around 200m.

The *real* problem is viewers who are unable or unwilling
to conceive of anything the slightest bit forward-looking.
Perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise and is just another
part of the general dumbing down that's going on all around
us.

From the 1951 "The Day the Earth Stood Still:"

GENERAL
Getting any place, Sergeant?

SERGEANT
(raising his helmet)
No, sir.
(shaking his head in
annoyance)
Beats me, General. I saw that ramp
come out of the side of the ship --
right here. Now I can't even find a
crack!

The Klatuu saucer was completely seamless. The
cracks in the rotating dome door and the retractible
ramp were filled with putty and painted, so that when
they opened the smooth surface would break, and
for shots of the door and ramp closing they ran film
of them opening in reverse, so that there would be
no seam when the ship was closed. This was done
to reinforce the idea of the ship being "different"
and "more advanced" than any contemporary craft.

The 1951 audience apparently got it, but 57 years
later people complain that futuristic starships aren't
believable unless they look like they're riveted
together like WWII battleships.

GeneK

GeneK

02-11-2008, 10:32 AM

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
> First of all, TOS didn't have that many viewers, which is why it was
> canceled.

That was my point, ultimately. The NBC suits were right
when they originally labeled Star Trek "too cerebral,"
and GR overestimated the intelligence of much of the
TV audience.

> If he had, he wouldn't have even bothered to put windows on the Big E
> miniature.

The E has windows for the same reason that Kirk
tells the galley chief to make the synthesized food
look like turkey for Thanksgiving: nobody wants to
spend their days living in a windowless can eating
food that comes in bricks. The entire design
philosophy of TOS was based on the technology
of the future adapting to meet everyday human
needs, like being able to see the space you're
risking your life to explore with your own eyes
once in a while. So I guess in your future
"everyday human needs" also include being
able to look out the windows of your starship
and count the rivets on the hull.

GeneK

Jaxtraw

02-11-2008, 10:53 AM

GeneK wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
>> The problem is that looking at this picture, it's hard to tell just
>> how big this ship is. It almost looks toylike.
>
> Maybe if you're completely uneducated about naval ships.
> From the guns on the deck, the length from bow to stern
> would have to be somewhere around 200m.
>
> The *real* problem is viewers who are unable or unwilling
> to conceive of anything the slightest bit forward-looking.
> Perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise and is just another
> part of the general dumbing down that's going on all around
> us.
>
> From the 1951 "The Day the Earth Stood Still:"
>
> GENERAL
> Getting any place, Sergeant?
>
> SERGEANT
> (raising his helmet)
> No, sir.
> (shaking his head in
> annoyance)
> Beats me, General. I saw that ramp
> come out of the side of the ship --
> right here. Now I can't even find a
> crack!
>
> The Klatuu saucer was completely seamless. The
> cracks in the rotating dome door and the retractible
> ramp were filled with putty and painted, so that when
> they opened the smooth surface would break, and
> for shots of the door and ramp closing they ran film
> of them opening in reverse, so that there would be
> no seam when the ship was closed. This was done
> to reinforce the idea of the ship being "different"
> and "more advanced" than any contemporary craft.
>
> The 1951 audience apparently got it, but 57 years
> later people complain that futuristic starships aren't
> believable unless they look like they're riveted
> together like WWII battleships.
>
> GeneK

No, what you're overlooking is that back then, indeed until Star Wars pretty
much, nobody expected special effects to be realistic. It was impossible. It
couldn't be done. Flying saucers in 1950s movies just represent flying
saucers for plot purposes. Nobody ever thought they were what a real flying
saucer would look like, any more than a stage set for an opera looks like a
real castle for instance.

As special effects improved, particularly after the Star Wars landmark, the
fx artists could strive for realism. As that became attainable, people began
to expect it and no longer accept "representative" effects. The convention
changed. Look at it this way; when the original Mugato or Gorn appeared in
Trek, they looked just like some guy in a rubber suit. They didn't look the
slightest bit real. People accepted this because monsters never looked real
in film or TV then. The Mugato or the Gorn are just representing aliens,
they're not a "realistic" portrayal of what characters in the story might be
seeing. Or, even the highly acclaimed Planet Of The Apes, although a
landmark step forward, didn't actually look like real apes (the gorillas
came closest IMV). A chimp has never lived that looks like Roddy McDowell's
Galen. But they were more realistic than anything before, and a step ahead
of Mugato/Gorn type rubber suits. Once that stage had been reached by
prosthetic artists, Gorn type suits had become outdated. A new standard had
been reached.

In 1951 it was entirely impossble to make a flying saucer look "realistic"
so nobody minded that one didn't. Once special effects artists gained the
technologies and skills to make "realistic" spaceships, that became the
standard and the old standard became unacceptable to the eyes of the
viewers. It's nothing to do with people being stupid or "not getting it".
It's changing perceptions and standards in a changing society. We compare
things to the standard of our time, in all things. We all happily watched TV
40 years ago on little black and white sets, or with crude blurry colour.
Nowadays if you bought a TV with that picture standard (even an analogue CRT
one) you'd send it back as broken and substandard; you'd find the picture
unacceptably poor. Or, I do my digital scribbling these days on a high
quality 21" flat CRT monitor. 10 years ago I was using a 15" with a screen
like a section of fishbowl. I wouldn't even be able to use that now; it
would be far beneath my "acceptable" level. Probably 10 years from now,
whatever I'm using, I'll wonder how I ever coped with that crappy 21"
Samsung. And so it goes.

Remember Star Wars? I'll never forget the sheer thrill of watching that with
my dad at my local cinema. For the first time it was like, "this is what a
space battle actually looks like!" Nothing was ever the same after that. The
inferiority of the effects in, say Doctor Who, became painfully apparent. I
suspect as it goes that that's one reason for part of the disappointment
expressed about the Star Wars prequels. A lot of middle aged people went to
see them expecting the same emotional reaction they'd had to Star Wars. But
SW was such a step change in our perceptions; it couldn't be done again.
Awesomeness is a relative measure compared to the average.

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

GeneK

02-11-2008, 11:35 AM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...

> No, what you're overlooking is that back then, indeed until Star Wars pretty
> much, nobody expected special effects to be realistic. It was impossible. It
> couldn't be done.

Oh come one, you're telling me that prior to Star Wars nobody
who built spaceship miniatures knew how to glue parts of old
model kits onto them, or to paint them so they looked like
they had separate plates in their hulls? That's nonsense. The
miniatures (the good ones, at least ) looked the way they did
because their designers intended them to look that way. The
intent was to create something that looked *different* from what
people saw around them in the real world.

It's not that Star Wars looks "realistic" and everyone now wants
spaceships to look "realistic." It's that Star Wars was a cultural
phenomenon and now everyone wants spaceships to look like
the ones in Star Wars.

> Remember Star Wars? I'll never forget the sheer thrill of watching that with
> my dad at my local cinema. For the first time it was like, "this is what a
> space battle actually looks like!"

Maybe that's the difference between our perceptions. I
didn't go to the movie with my dad. I went myself after
classes during my senior year in engineering, by which
time I knew that actual explosions in space wouldn't make
smoke or showers of sparks. The FX certainly looked
"cool," but didn't remotely resemble anything "actual" that
my dad was doing on the prototype for the NASA space
shuttle at the time. Except, maybe, some of the hatches
on the Millenium Falcon.

> Nothing was ever the same after that. The
> inferiority of the effects in, say Doctor Who, became painfully apparent. I
> suspect as it goes that that's one reason for part of the disappointment
> expressed about the Star Wars prequels. A lot of middle aged people went to
> see them expecting the same emotional reaction they'd had to Star Wars. But
> SW was such a step change in our perceptions; it couldn't be done again.
> Awesomeness is a relative measure compared to the average.

That would certainly be my opinion of the reaction of
drooling fanboys who only went to the movies to see
more and better whiz-bang space battle FX.

My disappointment in the SW prequels was the lack of
engaging characters and the absence of anything in the
plot that told me something important we didn't already
know from the first three movies. But you're right about
one thing: nothing was the same after Star Wars. There
hasn't been a single successful science fiction film driven
by a complex, realism-based plot rather than whiz-bang
space battle FX since.

Maybe if they want STXI to be successful the best course
would be to fire the writers and actors and just put up two
hours of Trek ships in battle. They could do a montage of
all the different designs they considered being blown up,
climaxing with the appearance of the one they finally chose

GeneK

George Peatty

02-11-2008, 11:51 AM

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:35:00 -0800, "GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com>
wrote:

>That's exactly what Gene Roddenberry told Matt Jeffries
>*not* to do when he tasked him to create a ship that
>looked centuries more advanced than anything previously
>imagined. Why don't you just fit the thing with great big
>rocket engines with smoking, flaming exhausts while you're
>at it, since no "real" spaceships exist that don't use them
>for propulsion.

I agree with the OP. I think the minimalist approach worked for its time,
but in any reboot of the franchise, I'd like the Enterprise to look
"busier", much like the NX-01 did ..

GeneK

02-11-2008, 12:21 PM

"George Peatty" <peattyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote...
> I agree with the OP. I think the minimalist approach worked for its
> time,
> but in any reboot of the franchise, I'd like the Enterprise to look
> "busier", much like the NX-01 did ..

Won't particularly bother me if that happens.

Redoing the original TOS footage is another
matter. If what they're doing now works out
for them, I expect to see little R2-style robots
composited into the backgrounds of ship
scenes and guys in plastic armor riding on
giant beasts roaming the horizons of every
planet Kirk and co. visit in the next round
of "remastering."

GeneK

Wouter Valentijn

02-11-2008, 01:23 PM

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <47af1152$0$85784$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Wouter Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>
>> Jaxtraw wrote:
>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> Steven L. wrote:
>>>>> This weekend, CBS has released for airing, the remastered version
>>>>> of the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119127934.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119121668.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ugh... Still not as good as it could be. Still very computergame
>>>> like. The old version remains superior.
>>>
>>> That's pretty unlikely, considering the fx in the original consisted
>>> of a shot of the "fleet" which was one shot of the Enterprise
>>> optically printed 4 times, used over and over again throughout the
>>> episode, and a few other stock shots covered in coffee rings and
>>> thumb prints, with nary a single visual representation of M5's l33t
>>> maneuvering we were told about- but never saw.
>>>
>>
>> I know how they shot 'the fleet'.
>> That original image of the Enterprise at least felt like it had
>> substance, warmth, depth.
>> What we see in the remastered version are just digital ghosts. Cold,
>> soulless, without substance.
>
> They looked really small, too, like AMT kits with weird wide angle
> lenses on them.
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ToLrAz2TV9A&eurl=http://trekmovie.com/2008/
> 02/09/the-ultimate-computer-remastered-video/

O no! It's worse than I thought.
Look at that space station. It used to be a sister station to Deep Space
Station K7.
They really alter canon!

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

Jaxtraw

02-11-2008, 02:58 PM

GeneK wrote:
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>
>> No, what you're overlooking is that back then, indeed until Star
>> Wars pretty much, nobody expected special effects to be realistic.
>> It was impossible. It couldn't be done.
>
> Oh come one, you're telling me that prior to Star Wars nobody
> who built spaceship miniatures knew how to glue parts of old
> model kits onto them, or to paint them so they looked like
> they had separate plates in their hulls? That's nonsense.

Miniature making evolved. People may have known how to do those things, but
didn't necessarily think of doing them. They became de rigeur as model
making technique and effects work strove towards a greater sense of realism-
and in this context this means "more convincing" rather than "close to
reality" necessarily. Models became more detailed as it was realised that
adding such details created a greater illusion of scale by providing scale
cues. People expect things to be detailed. It may be in the future a
starship hull is cast from solid plastic, but people in this day and age and
in past days and ages expect at a subliminal level for big metal things to
be made of joined plates. It creates a convincing effect.

We must draw a distinction between convincing and realism, perhaps realism
is a bad term to use period. For instance, ghosts don't exist so you can't
portray a realistic ghost. There is no real to strive towards. But effects
crews can certainly strive towards a convincing portrayal of a ghost. What
matters is if it works for the audience.

>The
> miniatures (the good ones, at least ) looked the way they did
> because their designers intended them to look that way. The
> intent was to create something that looked *different* from what
> people saw around them in the real world.

I'm not sure anyone did think of the bits of kits and metal plates until
somebody thought of it, you can see the evolution of scifi "realism" through
say 2001 to Star Wars and on. Are you saying that 50s fx crews sat around
debating whether to stick on bits of model kits or not? I don't think they
did.

Additionally, it's not just model making. SW added technologies never before
seen; computer controlled cameras, advanced (for the day) compositing
techniques, the idea of spaceships swooping around in complex ways that
simply couldn't be done before. It was cutting edge. THe makers of This
Island Earth or 2001 couldn't have made a movie that looked like Star Wars
even if they'd wanted to. Technology wasn't there yet. Star Wars was the
point at which space battles could be portrayed convincingly. Prior to that,
it just couldn't be done.

> It's not that Star Wars looks "realistic" and everyone now wants
> spaceships to look "realistic." It's that Star Wars was a cultural
> phenomenon and now everyone wants spaceships to look like
> the ones in Star Wars.

Circular reasoning. It was a cultural phenomenon largely because of the
amazing sfx (the story's nothing to write home about) and for the time big
budget treatment. It set a standard because it looked great. The spaceships
looked like they were really spaceships made of real materials flying around
in space, to the eyes of the contemporary audience.

>> Remember Star Wars? I'll never forget the sheer thrill of watching
>> that with my dad at my local cinema. For the first time it was like,
>> "this is what a space battle actually looks like!"
>
> Maybe that's the difference between our perceptions. I
> didn't go to the movie with my dad. I went myself after
> classes during my senior year in engineering, by which
> time I knew that actual explosions in space wouldn't make
> smoke or showers of sparks. The FX certainly looked
> "cool," but didn't remotely resemble anything "actual" that
> my dad was doing on the prototype for the NASA space
> shuttle at the time. Except, maybe, some of the hatches
> on the Millenium Falcon.

Well I hardly see the purpose of that remark. I appreciate I used the term
"realism" but I've explained above, and surely you understand, that in movie
terms that means "convincing" to the audience, as opposed to a documentary
standard of realism. Sci-fi is portraying things that don't really exist.
Your father's work on the Space Shuttle is meaningless to that; it's like a
film maker in 1900 presuming that a futuristic aeroplane must look like a
hot air balloon.

Movie-making is storytelling and artifice. Artifical lighting is used,
artificial settings, artifical dialogue, all to create a convincing illusion
for the audience. That's all that matters. Putting detail on spaceships is
more convincing to the audience. Often using spaceship moves that are more
appropriate to aircraft works too, because that's the point of reference
people have. It may be that a true-to-the-laws-of-physics-in-space movement
will be less convincing to the audience (except a small minority of
aerospace engineers) than an "unrealistic" one. What matters is how it
looks.

It's much like your previous arguments about how the Enterprise should move.
We don't know how it should move. It doesn't obey the laws of physics as we
know them. What matters is whether it looks cool, and whether it convinces
most ordinary viewers.

>> Nothing was ever the same after that. The
>> inferiority of the effects in, say Doctor Who, became painfully
>> apparent. I suspect as it goes that that's one reason for part of
>> the disappointment expressed about the Star Wars prequels. A lot of
>> middle aged people went to see them expecting the same emotional
>> reaction they'd had to Star Wars. But SW was such a step change in
>> our perceptions; it couldn't be done again. Awesomeness is a
>> relative measure compared to the average.
>
> That would certainly be my opinion of the reaction of
> drooling fanboys who only went to the movies to see
> more and better whiz-bang space battle FX.

Well, Star Wars was a kids movie primarily about whiz-bang space battle FX.
It wasn't Hamlet.

> My disappointment in the SW prequels was the lack of
> engaging characters and the absence of anything in the
> plot that told me something important we didn't already
> know from the first three movies.

Well, Star Wars was a kids movie primarily about whiz-bang space battle FX.
It wasn't Hamlet.

> But you're right about
> one thing: nothing was the same after Star Wars. There
> hasn't been a single successful science fiction film driven
> by a complex, realism-based plot rather than whiz-bang
> space battle FX since.

Blade Runner? Alien?

Science fiction is about wow factors most of the time, thrills and spills
and adventure. If you want reality, go live your normal life. Cinema is
about creating something a bit more thrilling than that. Especially sci-fi.
Take a look at the trailer for say This Island Earth. It's non-stop
promotion of the special effects sequences.

> Maybe if they want STXI to be successful the best course
> would be to fire the writers and actors and just put up two
> hours of Trek ships in battle. They could do a montage of
> all the different designs they considered being blown up,
> climaxing with the appearance of the one they finally chose
>

Oh, don't be so snobbish and silly. You have a fine refined sense of the
aesthetic compared to the dumb sheep, right? Are you in Anybody's gang?

Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

GeneK

02-11-2008, 03:45 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
.. > We must draw a distinction between convincing and realism, perhaps
realism
> is a bad term to use period. For instance, ghosts don't exist so you
> can't
> portray a realistic ghost. There is no real to strive towards. But
> effects
> crews can certainly strive towards a convincing portrayal of a ghost.
> What
> matters is if it works for the audience.

Ok, now we're moving closer to the same wavelength.
It's not "more realistic," but what the audience *thinks*
is more "realistic," based on the limits of their abilty
to imagine anything different from what they're used
to seeing. Fair point.

> I'm not sure anyone did think of the bits of kits and metal plates
> until
> somebody thought of it, you can see the evolution of scifi "realism"
> through
> say 2001 to Star Wars and on. Are you saying that 50s fx crews sat
> around
> debating whether to stick on bits of model kits or not? I don't think
> they
> did.

No, I think they just looked at the sleek aircraft and rockets of their
time and the proposals that were being put forth by the USAF and
presumed that in the future things would move forward, rather than
backward.

The "bits of kits" originated with the alien craft from "Close
Encounters."
According to magazine interviews of the time, it was done deliberately
to make the ship look "different" from previous renditions of flying
saucers.
They didn't just use random model parts, but also bits of the mold
sprues,
because nobody would be able to tell what any of the bits were in the
dark and spotlights. There was no attempt to present it as something
"accurate" or "realistic" (personally, I would have preferred they use
something that better resembled the drawings made by people claiming'
to be alien abductees, since many elements of real-life claims of same
were incorporated into the film).

> Additionally, it's not just model making. SW added technologies never
> before
> seen; computer controlled cameras, advanced (for the day) compositing
> techniques, the idea of spaceships swooping around in complex ways
> that
> simply couldn't be done before. It was cutting edge.

No arguement there.

> Circular reasoning. It was a cultural phenomenon largely because of
> the
> amazing sfx (the story's nothing to write home about) and for the time
> big
> budget treatment. It set a standard because it looked great. The
> spaceships
> looked like they were really spaceships made of real materials flying
> around
> in space, to the eyes of the contemporary audience.

"To the eyes of the contemporary audience." Again, fair point.

> Your father's work on the Space Shuttle is meaningless to that; it's
> like a
> film maker in 1900 presuming that a futuristic aeroplane must look
> like a
> hot air balloon.

Or a 20th/21st century audience expecting a starship built 200-300
years in the future to have hull plates that are assembled with arc
welders and rivet guns...

> It's much like your previous arguments about how the Enterprise should
> move.
> We don't know how it should move. It doesn't obey the laws of physics
> as we
> know them. What matters is whether it looks cool, and whether it
> convinces
> most ordinary viewers.

Fair point. In space a ship should be able to propel itself in any
direction, turn in three dimentions without having to bank, etc.
My point was, the original versions of things like Star Trek didn't
do that, so what's the point of replacing an admittedly non-
realistic depiction with another equally non-realistic one and
defending it by saying it's more realistic?

> Well, Star Wars was a kids movie primarily about whiz-bang space
> battle FX.
> It wasn't Hamlet.

Bingo. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'd just rather
not see Star Trek turned into it. Especially not old Star Trek
episodes already finished decades ago.

> Blade Runner? Alien?

In case you've forgotten, Blade Runner bombed at the box
office. Alien substituted whiz-bang monster FX for space
battle FX, but it was basically a rework of the 1958 monster
movie "It! The Terror from Beyond Space" and its plot was
hardly what could be called "complex" or"realism-based."
Again, nothing wrong with that, but let's not mistake it for
an attempt at anything more than it was.

> Oh, don't be so snobbish and silly.

So you don't think that two hours of whiz-bang space FX
with no plot or characters would do well at the box office?
I would probably have gone to see that over any of the
TNG movies.

GeneK

Anim8rFSK

02-11-2008, 04:51 PM

In article <47b092bb$0$85780$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
"Wouter Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <47af1152$0$85784$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> > "Wouter Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> >
> >> Jaxtraw wrote:
> >>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> >>>> Steven L. wrote:
> >>>>> This weekend, CBS has released for airing, the remastered version
> >>>>> of the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119127934.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.cinemablend.com/images/gallery/s8782/_12025119121668.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ugh... Still not as good as it could be. Still very computergame
> >>>> like. The old version remains superior.
> >>>
> >>> That's pretty unlikely, considering the fx in the original consisted
> >>> of a shot of the "fleet" which was one shot of the Enterprise
> >>> optically printed 4 times, used over and over again throughout the
> >>> episode, and a few other stock shots covered in coffee rings and
> >>> thumb prints, with nary a single visual representation of M5's l33t
> >>> maneuvering we were told about- but never saw.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I know how they shot 'the fleet'.
> >> That original image of the Enterprise at least felt like it had
> >> substance, warmth, depth.
> >> What we see in the remastered version are just digital ghosts. Cold,
> >> soulless, without substance.
> >
> > They looked really small, too, like AMT kits with weird wide angle
> > lenses on them.
> >
> > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ToLrAz2TV9A&eurl=http://trekmovie.com/2008/
> > 02/09/the-ultimate-computer-remastered-video/
>
> O no! It's worse than I thought.
> Look at that space station. It used to be a sister station to Deep Space
> Station K7.
> They really alter canon!

Yes. I'm told that came from the cover of one of the novels. Bleah.

--
Star Trek 08:

No Shat, No Show.

GeneK

02-11-2008, 05:29 PM

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
> Blade Runner? Alien?

I went through a list of the highest box office science
fiction films since 1977 looking for possible candidates
that might meet the criteria for "successful science fiction
film driven by a complex, realism-based plot rather than
whiz-bang space battle FX." Here's what I came up with
(in cases where there's a series, I didn't count sequels):

The Matrix, 1999
My best candidate. It gets a free ride on
"realism-based," because the whole point of
the film was to play with one's concepts of
reality. And it was definitely successful until
its awful sequels sank the series.

Jurrasic Park, 1993
Not sure how complex this would be for a general
audience, seemed pretty simplistic to me; but no
doubt it made big box office.

Back to the Future, 1985
Men in Black, 1997
If comedies count. I know a lot of people hate
science fiction comedies.

E.T., 1982
For some reason I always forget this one, maybe
because I perceive it as a children's movie? I'll
defer to others' judgement on plot complexity for
that reason.

The first Star Wars continues to be the biggest, which
probably explains why every other space-based movie
wants to copy it.

GeneK

Al Smith

02-11-2008, 11:35 PM

> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>> > Blade Runner? Alien?
>
> I went through a list of the highest box office science
> fiction films since 1977 looking for possible candidates
> that might meet the criteria for "successful science fiction
> film driven by a complex, realism-based plot rather than
> whiz-bang space battle FX." Here's what I came up with
> (in cases where there's a series, I didn't count sequels):
>
> The Matrix, 1999
> My best candidate. It gets a free ride on
> "realism-based," because the whole point of
> the film was to play with one's concepts of
> reality. And it was definitely successful until
> its awful sequels sank the series.
>
> Jurrasic Park, 1993
> Not sure how complex this would be for a general
> audience, seemed pretty simplistic to me; but no
> doubt it made big box office.
>
> Back to the Future, 1985
> Men in Black, 1997
> If comedies count. I know a lot of people hate
> science fiction comedies.
>
> E.T., 1982
> For some reason I always forget this one, maybe
> because I perceive it as a children's movie? I'll
> defer to others' judgement on plot complexity for
> that reason.
>
> The first Star Wars continues to be the biggest, which
> probably explains why every other space-based movie
> wants to copy it.
>
> GeneK
>
>

"Soylent Green"
"1984"
"Brave New World"
"Metropolis"
"The Time Machine"
"Contact"
"ZARDOZ"
"Silent Running"

-Al-

Anim8rFSK

02-11-2008, 11:47 PM

In article <O_3sj.1130$lU5.57@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.n et>,
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:

> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
> > Blade Runner? Alien?
>
> I went through a list of the highest box office science
> fiction films since 1977 looking for possible candidates
> that might meet the criteria for "successful science fiction
> film driven by a complex, realism-based plot rather than
> whiz-bang space battle FX." Here's what I came up with
> (in cases where there's a series, I didn't count sequels):
>
> The Matrix, 1999
> My best candidate. It gets a free ride on
> "realism-based," because the whole point of
> the film was to play with one's concepts of
> reality. And it was definitely successful until
> its awful sequels sank the series.
>
> Jurrasic Park, 1993
> Not sure how complex this would be for a general
> audience, seemed pretty simplistic to me; but no
> doubt it made big box office.

Massively, incredibly dumbed down from the book by one of the worst
screenwriters in the business. We saw it opening night and one of my
viewing accomplices said something very sad as to why it was so dumbed
down: Speilberg didn't WANT to make a GOOD movie; he wanted to make a
blockbuster.
>
> Back to the Future, 1985
> Men in Black, 1997
> If comedies count. I know a lot of people hate
> science fiction comedies.
>
> E.T., 1982
> For some reason I always forget this one, maybe
> because I perceive it as a children's movie? I'll
> defer to others' judgement on plot complexity for
> that reason.

There is no plot complexity. Things in ET only happen for off screen
reasons, like merchandising tie ins, or because it's required to happen
to get them to the next scene.
>
> The first Star Wars continues to be the biggest, which
> probably explains why every other space-based movie
> wants to copy it.
>
> GeneK

--
Star Trek 08:

No Shat, No Show.