Sept. 13, 2007, 8:42 a.m. CST
by Rumpel Tumskin
This was always one of my favorite episodes, it scared the crap out of me when I was a little kids.
Sept. 13, 2007, 8:50 a.m. CST
by Kid Z
... I'm not too up on my astrophysics, but wouldn't the massive doses of gamma radiation from a quasar exterminate all life within the entire galaxy in which it is located? Or at least turn every living thing into Hulks... hmmm... maybe that's why they colored the quasar green? 'Cause as every Hulk fan knows... gamma is green! By the way... FIRST!
Sept. 13, 2007, 9:32 a.m. CST
The new effects are pretty and everything, but does the show itself suffer for the effort? I ask this because I can't help but recall the 'Remastered' versions of Red Dwarf. While the effects were an improvement, many scenes were trimmed down to allow the time to show more pretty FX shots. Are they cutting any scenes (other than the old FX shots) in these versions?
Sept. 13, 2007, 9:37 a.m. CST
Not slamming this episode, but a Quasar is, by definition, the core of a very young Galaxy. The closest Quasar is also about 800 million light years away. So a quasar couldn't exist within our galaxy. Also, they are extremely bright and spew more energy than anything else in the known universe.
Sept. 13, 2007, 10:17 a.m. CST
Very good episode. Liked that it had Sulu.
Sept. 13, 2007, 10:50 a.m. CST
...no way for me to know right now without taking some time to research-- but maybe somebody else here knows offhand-- but were they ( meaning the production people/ staff ) aware of the true nature of quasars back when this episode was first filmed? ( Im not sure that the scientific definitions of a quasar back in the early 60's are the same as what we know now about them ) --and as far as I can tell, the mission of the remastered staff is to bump up visuals without re-writing episodes in order to maintain the spirit of the originals...so I can see why something like that would not be changed up-- they're really only hitting key scenes and color correcting/ enhancing the rest, which is a huge amount of work, Im sure. NOw I gotta go look up quasars on google... I didnt even know about what they really were and how powerful their energy output was until just now... in the meantime-- the pics from the new episode look really cool:)
Sept. 13, 2007, 10:55 a.m. CST
by Jack Parsons
The quasar. Yes. Well bma, we did know what a quasar was in the 1960's. Giant hyperenergetic mini-galactic object, very mysterious. The red shift and the distance meant that it was an object on the very edge of the universe, which means that it was there at the earliest times that we can detect. The WRITER and the Great Bird didn't know their science, just what sounded cool. Hence the reason why Start Trek isn't science fiction, but instead sci-fi -- faux science fiction written by people who love the genre but are not exactly up on their science.
Sept. 13, 2007, 11:16 a.m. CST
Are they remastering the Giants at all?
Sept. 13, 2007, 11:18 a.m. CST
Sept. 13, 2007, 11:19 a.m. CST
You're right -- quasars are galactic nuclei VERY far away, and couldn't be within our galaxy. But in the 1960s, consensus was far from clear on what they were, or how far away they were. The original term (quasi-stellar radio source) implied something on the scale of a star, not a galaxy. The redshifting did suggest great distance, but there was a lot of debate about it in the '60s, with some putting forward explanations other than distance, so there really was no consensus when this episode was filmed in 1966 or '67 -- the term "quasar" wasn't even coined until 1964! The current model of an accretion disc around a supermassive black hole in a distant galactic core didn't really reach consensus until the 1980s. So cut the TOS folk some slack -- they were actually *talking* about quasars on TV in 1966!
Sept. 13, 2007, 11:22 a.m. CST
The idea that quasars were "white holes" was one suggestion making the rounds during the 1960s.
Sept. 13, 2007, 11:56 a.m. CST
"Look at how antiquated the effects were in 2007!" Luckily, I won't mind the derision because I'll either be dead or suffering from dementia.
Sept. 13, 2007, 12:30 p.m. CST
by Kid Z
...I, for one, plan on NOT being dead. By then, I'll either go for that "transplant your brain into a robot body" thing, or the Futurama "living head in a jar" bit.
Sept. 13, 2007, 12:48 p.m. CST
In Journey to bael which was worked on last year, the shuttlebay and shuttlecraft were shown. Also in the remastered Doomsday Machine.
Sept. 13, 2007, 1:25 p.m. CST
I think he meant that in the original series, "The Galileo Seven" was the first episode produced that actually showed (or even mentioned?) shuttlecraft.
Sept. 13, 2007, 1:47 p.m. CST
by 6 DEMON BAG
On its way to deliver medical supplies to plague-ridden Makus III, the U.S.S. Enterprise passes Murasaki 312. Since they are under Starfleet orders to inspect galactic phenomena such as this quasarlike star group, McCoy, Spock, Scott and four crewmen take a shuttlecraft, the Galileo, for a closer look. From Startrek.com Episode guide.
Sept. 13, 2007, 3:05 p.m. CST
...will be plugging the images via Wi-Fi directly into your brain. The portable media has gone from flipbooks to huge reel & sprockets to TV to tape to CD to DVD, and now the new format of the future will probably be either the size of a thumbnail or an implant V/R receiver done in a quick one day brain surgery. <br> <br> People then will look at the remastered TOS while brain-surfing channels and say- oh yeah, I think this is “Star Trek” or something-- my great grandfather used to sit around and talk about how they remastered it (yawn!-sorry) but who looks at flat shows anymore? <br> <br> Back to immersive TV surfing- There’s this cool new Sci-Fi show on BrainTV called “Voyage to the Cosmos”, where you can log in to the TV show and play this captain of a FTL spaceship where you can see, feel, breathe, smell and taste like you’re actually there. You can order people around and fight old enemies that unexpectedly return to haunt you! Once you're in the BrainTV show, it's a total VR imagery and sensory experience-- for all intents and purposes, you're actually there. OK crew, full speed to the Pleasure Planet- let’s go get the Space-Babes!!!!!! <br> <br> This BrainTV show is a proud sponsor the Help-a-Trekkie Foundation. Your donations will help the elderly Trek-inclined folk to complete their Star Trek Voyager and Star Trek Enterprise Remastered viewing material on a format they are able to view it on—vintage DVD. Did I offend anyone? Just kidding. And I’m a huge Trek fan too, so it’s self-depricating humor, so let’s not get too sensitive about Trek now, fanboys.
Sept. 13, 2007, 3:33 p.m. CST
Oh yeah....alll right.
Sept. 13, 2007, 4:06 p.m. CST
It had a crappy picture.
Sept. 13, 2007, 6:22 p.m. CST
Is anybody else bothered by the lighting on the exterior shots of the Enterprise? There is never any shadowing or anything. It always looks like the ship is being filmed in a brightly lit room. Other than that, good work!
Sept. 13, 2007, 6:32 p.m. CST
Sept. 13, 2007, 6:32 p.m. CST
In the top picture there is shadows on the ship. Look at the bottom of it. Redshirt DESERVES to die on this away mission.
Sept. 13, 2007, 7:14 p.m. CST
"My answer: In answering the question, "What does the red spectrum tell us about quasars?" -- write bigger -- there are various words that need to be defined. What is a spectrum, what is a red one, why is it red, and why is it so frequently linked with quasars? ...... What the hell is a quasar?"
Sept. 13, 2007, 7:16 p.m. CST
You get gorgeous exteriors of the ship like these, gorgeous long shots of the planets, and then they beam down and they're on a soundstage with fog machines and papier mache rocks, and a rippling painted canvas backdrop behind them. It's just too incongruous. Of course they're damned if they do, damned if they don't, because if they just try to recreate the 60s effects exactly without the film grain or the (what are they called--matte lines?), people will say, "Well that looks the same--what's the point in even doing it?"
Sept. 13, 2007, 7:34 p.m. CST
obviously you are the only person on earth that does not know that "SCI-FI" is "science fiction" but abbreviated...... here let me help you out..... SCIence FIction... look at the letters in capital....see ? got it ? good... maybe u were tryin to be wordy but the two terms are the same word, defining them differently because of spelling is just silly.. as for a quasar in the milky way, i agree with whoever said the writers were thinking what would be cool to see on screen....which would be a break from typical trek science which is actually based on actual theories..
Sept. 13, 2007, 7:37 p.m. CST
watched the first episode and glad to say i will not be downloading anymore ...whoever said that it is quality work and acting has got to be brain dead.....horrible, absolutely horrible
Sept. 13, 2007, 10:26 p.m. CST
by Deus Vult
just askin's all...
Sept. 13, 2007, 11:14 p.m. CST
... that a Quasar is just a Marvel comics characters. Used to be a dude, now they have a lesbian. Well, okay, maybe not EVERYONE...
Sept. 14, 2007, 7:41 a.m. CST
it was horrible. From the dialogue to the acting. I could give the acting a pass but the dialogue killed it. I couldn't watch the full thing.
Sept. 14, 2007, 7:59 a.m. CST
by Kid Z
...Star Trek Animated.
Sept. 14, 2007, 8:03 a.m. CST
by Kid Z
... Is it the original's daughter, or was a Larry-to-Lara Wachowski-like "transformation" somehow involved?
Sept. 14, 2007, 8:18 a.m. CST
I know in the past, at least, the term Sci-Fi was a derogatory, insulting term for stupid or silly science fiction. SF was the non-inflammatory term, referring more to serious science fiction. Star Trek is someone between the two. Different episodes may be closer to sci-fi (Spock's Brain, Turnabout Intruder) and other maybe closer to SF (Corbomite Manuever, City on the Edge of Forever).
Sept. 14, 2007, 8:20 a.m. CST
Yeah we'll all buy the new DVD set then a few years/months/days down the road....Look nout! Here comes the widescreen set! Why else would all these NEW effects shots be produced in the 16:9 ratio format? My wife's gonna kill me if i shell-out YET AGAIN for any MORE Trek....
Sept. 14, 2007, 8:38 a.m. CST
She's not the originals daughter, I think she's Captain Marvel's daughter
Sept. 14, 2007, 10:46 a.m. CST
...the new one with Sulu. Some of the acting has improved, some hasn't that much, but the storytelling has been ratched up more than a few notches. This is a GOOD Star Trek episode, and I would encourage those who gave up after the first one (and I don't blame them one bit...I didn't watch any more until this one because I wanted to see Sulu again) to try the new ep. Worth your 47 minutes.
Sept. 14, 2007, 12:29 p.m. CST
I always considered it a precursor to Land of the Giant. You've got 7 people stranded on a planet with giant creatures running around, and one of the crew is played by Don Marshall. I think it's also one of the first episodes to put the "red" in Redshirt (even if the two deadmeat guys are wearing gold). Talk about your pointless deaths... "You stand here and watch, Gaetano, okay?" "Ummm, what am I watching for... *uhhh* message for you, sir." And you kind ofwonder why three of the ship's command personnel are doing on the mission: what was McCoy going to do again on this assignment? And the ending never made sense to me: Spock's decision always seemed logical to me: fall to death 0% chance of rescue; or send off a beacon, and fall to our deaths, .000001% of rescue. Still it's an interesting exploration of Spock and command, and probably at the end of the day is why he didn't do anything more then captain training missions and hand off command to Kirk every time. And it's first season, which means the guest stars actually get to do something.
Sept. 14, 2007, 7:53 p.m. CST
Okay I finally had to comment. Been reading this site for years but this eff'n Trek remastered crap has finally made me create an account and comment. I know they are working with a crap budget for these remasters (which in itself is pathethic) but this is the legacy of classic Trek here. And these new VFX ARE FUCKING TERRIBLE. I mean I can cut them *some* slack but the original stuff in a lot of these comparos looks BETTER! How the hell is this shit getting approved? Christ even a monkey with a blindfold could do a better job. I mean at least run a simple post filter on all the CGI to make it match the old film stock of the rest of the show! AT THE LEAST! All the interior shots are terribly lit and have crappy shading. I was laughing my fat ass off when in yesterdays comparo of the shuttle bay was shown. The real one was nicely shaded, all the nooks and crannies with proper shadows (of course since it was real) and then we get this over lit, shadowless, video games from 5 years ago look better, CGI render. The Big P needs to stop jammin fist wads of cash up it's ass and spend some on good VFX for this legacy of Trek. And the fact that AICN seems to think these VFX look great...well guys...it's time to change the bong water.
Sept. 15, 2007, 12:02 a.m. CST
...From ST:TNG. Dark Matter is "dark" because it's nature is unknown...if there were enough to form a nebula, then it would graduate into a "known" and would have an actual name, like neutrino, gluon, meson, etc. Gawddamn TV SciFi writers would get their ass handed to them if they tried to write real SF...
Sept. 15, 2007, 4:43 a.m. CST
The "remastered" effects don't just have technical issues - they're horribly designed. The Okudas have done great work on Star Trek over the years, but they're graphic artists, not cinematographers. Getting angles right on film and understanding how film cameras work is a very unforgiving art, and it's clear from some of these shots they have no idea what they're doing. Which is a pity, because they've had some good ideas - they made the battle in "The Doomsday Machine" make sense on screen for the first time ever, and I loved the setting they created for the battle scene in "Amok Time" - but can't implement them in a truly professional manner.
Sept. 15, 2007, 1:09 p.m. CST
by Real Deal
to say something negative. No matter what! Why weren't you guys complaining about the hundred or so other shows or movies that had unrealistic lighting for interstellar space? These FX have been the best thing to happen to ST in years. If you can't see that you really are blind ( or don't like ST in the first place so what the hell are you doing here? ). Jesus what torrental down pour of crap! Compared to the " Ship on a stick look " they are light years away from something that was actually for me a distraction from the storyline even back in the day ( the scene from " Tommorrow Is Yesterday " comes to mind where they tried to show the Enterprise breaking away from the sun ). I'm sorry but all the crap about camara angles and such doesn't mean much when you consider the original. It's enough that they're doing this at all. I thought at one time they would never get around to this since I''ve been waiting for someone to do this since the late 90's. Also the more they produce it seems like the better they get. It makes these well watched shows new again! Just seeing the ship orbiting in front of a planet now is a joy! So when they take a pedestrian episode like this and add cool effects ( where before the FX were hard to watch without laughing ) it's really something special! Apologies to the original FX people. I realize you were doing the best you could for the budget and the time. But even some of these people are saying " Wow! ".
Sept. 15, 2007, 1:13 p.m. CST
by Real Deal
I have a real hard time going back to watch the old versions now. Now that they have something that make s the episodes come alive for me again. But old ones will always be around for you guys who continue to feel that way.
Sept. 15, 2007, 3 p.m. CST
It's got squat to do with wanting to "say something negative". It's a pity CBS has bungled the remasters, but you only need to look at shots like the one of that shuttlebay to realize that something's not quite right here. And it goes beyond technical issues, although as someone rightly pointed out that particular shot looks like it came from a videogame a few years back. The big issue though is that the original effects frequently exhibited superior cinematography, and they were done 40 years ago on a television budget. CBS should have hired someone who knew their way around a camera. The old effects looked laughably fake most of the time due to the limitations of the day, but the new ones look just as bad most of the time because they haven't been rendered properly. (They've done a great job replacing matte paintings though - the Okudas do fine work on backgrounds, which is what they should have been limited to on the remasters.)
Sept. 15, 2007, 7:39 p.m. CST
The HDDVD only remastered ST season 1 has already been announced and packaging shown. They will all be in their original 1:33.1 aspect ratio just like they are shown on TV, now.
Sept. 15, 2007, 11:32 p.m. CST
I've never been a fan of 'remastering', as it's come to be known (I prefer the term 'Lucasfication' aka "Ass-Raping") The bottom line is this: FX does not make a show/movie better or worse. If there is a solid story and halfway decent actors, then the story can hold up on it's own without having to re-do the effects every couple of decades. Can any serious fan of the original Star Wars films say that Lucas made the series 'better' by removing old effects and replacing them with CGI? Was 'A New Hope' improved with Greedo shooting first? With Jabba inserted? Or having Mos Eisley overrun with camera-blocking Rontos? Whether it be Star Wars or Star Trek, the only changes that I actually LIKE are the tiny little 'fixes' to mistakes, like Starbase shuttles with the Enterprise name and numbers on them or, in Star Wars, fixing the matte painting in the detention corridor so it doesn't look like a wall with a corridor painted on it. But more often than not, these nice little 'fixes' come at too high a cost because directors and effects teams get too carried away with changing things.
Sept. 16, 2007, 1:16 a.m. CST
Was watching "Galileo Seven" tonight (my first time watching a remastered epsiode) and was pretty much enjoying it. Then, for some freakish reason, just after Spock told Scotty to get back to draining the phasers (after shocking the creature), the scene cut to Kirk getting ready to fight a very horny Spock on Vulcan! They cut straight from Galileo Seven to Amok Time! Did this happen to anyone else watching? Or is this network being night-managed by some high school drop-out who has been smoking too much weed?
Sept. 16, 2007, 5:39 a.m. CST
is pretty damn good. sure the actors kinda suck and if it was for money i would say miscasts, but they manage to pull off some cool stuff. the episode with the Doomsday thing and the one with Sulu are better than any Trek i have seen on TV since the TOS.
Sept. 16, 2007, 10:58 a.m. CST
by Bill Maher
....between :Sci Fi" and "Science Fiction" is a socially stunted fucktard. This just in, geniuses: IT'S ALL FAKE! If you think Asimov is "real" science fiction and Star Trek or Star Wars aren't, then you are a fucking imbecile. It's all made up. It's like saying the Incedible Hulk is more realistic than Spider-Man.
Sept. 16, 2007, 12:16 p.m. CST
by Real Deal
You just don't get it. Like I've already said in these talkbacks it looks like they actually held back with the CGI detail because too much would look out of place with the rest of the show. They did just enough to give the show the slick look it deserves without over doing it. By the way I'm watching it again right now and it's so good they pan from the new chronometer ( that isn't really there ) on the center console up to the Bridge screen in a seemless shot! How's that for camera work? One of the best episodes to date with the remastering!
Sept. 16, 2007, 12:33 p.m. CST
Um... seems to me that 'holding back' on the CG detail is kinda defeating the purpose for bringing the special effects up to date. I just watched a clip of the doomsday machine that, according to the clip, was created in the early nineties and it looks just as good as this. There is fan made stuff out there that makes this look antiquated. I for one would prefer them to go the whole hog and dazzle us... else leave it the 'F' alone.
Sept. 16, 2007, 12:51 p.m. CST
by Real Deal
Otherwise you end up with what everyone else here is talking about. The new FX in SW clashed with the look and were even distracting from the storyline in some places. This fits perfectly. If you watch the interviews with the crew this is what they were striving for. A look that would fit the rest of what's on the screen. They didn't want to go too far. Now in my opinion at first they were too conservative. They seem to have loosened up since then. By the way I've also watched the clip you're talking about. This fits better. Plus they've added nice little touches like the rock bouncing off the Constellation in " The Doomday Machine ". It bounces off the hull silently. Just like it would.
Sept. 16, 2007, 12:56 p.m. CST
by Real Deal
What Fan stuff are you talking about? New Voyages? I have the latest with Sulu and their Enterprise doesn't look as good. But on the other hand CBS digital had the real original model to scan.
Sept. 16, 2007, 2:12 p.m. CST
I'm here in LA and "Star Trek" is on its second season and still no HD? If not here, then where? Also, is the HD still in the 1:33 full frame ratio...or do they stretch it out...or simply do a real zoom? Anyone know? Thanks.
Sept. 17, 2007, 9:44 a.m. CST
looks much worse than models, cartoony, and really, really, cheap.
Sept. 17, 2007, 12:04 p.m. CST
by Evil Chicken
One day these will all be released on HD/DVD. On that day I will sell a kidney, purchase the proper equipment, pick up a copy of the entire series and watch it while the stitches heal. Soon... oh so soon.