Cool News
Some thoughts on a proposed Special Edition of the original "Star Trek" TV series !!!
Glen here...
...with some thoughts on a recently proposed "enhancement" of the original Star Trek series.
Since Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's astonishing "Trials and Tribbleations" episode, there has been much
discussion about whether or not the original series' effects should be revamped, as "Trials and Tribbleations" showed that just
about anything was possible - as long as the right talent and sensibilities were brought to the table. While there have been
numerous fan discussions and musings about whether or not the original Trek should receive the "Special Edition"
treatment, it has been unclear as to whether or not The Powers That Be have indulged in any serious contemplation of the
issue. It now seems they have, at least to some extent.
Many Trek fans may be aware of an organization called Digital Stream. Digital Stream recently posted images and
footage from said company's FX makeover of an entire episode from the original Trek series. The episode in question
is called "The Doomsday Machine", and features the Enterprise fighting it out with a
gigantic space traveling, planet gobbling, ass-kicking ice cream cone which turns out to be an ultimate weapon left behind from
a long forgotten planetary war. Stills and footage from Digital Stream's efforts can be accessed by HREF="http://www.digistream.com/screen.htm">CLICKING HERE.
Word has recently come to me that Digital Stream is in the process of approaching Paramount about re-doing the effects
for the whole of the original series. They are said to be using "The Doomsday Machine" as a template for this proposal. In
fact, there is some indication such a presentation / proposal is immediate, if it hasn't gone down already. While you will not
find the entire episode on the site linked above, I have seen a good presentation of the entire episode - uninterrupted, properly
edited and mixed. Even if Digital Stream's proposal goes nowhere, it does raise a boatload of significant issues which merit
serious consideration before it's too late (and regardless of who ends up working on such an endeavor). Some of those
questions are posed towards the conclusion of this article.
Digital Stream's efforts on "The Doomsday Machine" closely parallel George Lucas' recent efforts on the Star
Wars Special Editions, but in this case, every primary visual effect has been completely replaced with
contemporary CGI, and smaller effects (like the show's "transporter" effects ) appear to have been subtly enhanced (that the
transporter effects were altered I'm not quite sure about - I noted a blueish tint to the effect I do not recall seeing previously,
but this could be a memory trick).
Also much like Lucas' "Special Editions", the attention to detail isn't always consistent. Examples: a rather clumsy looking
scanner-like prop
has been left untouched, and now sticks out like a sore thumb given the detail evident in the re-conceived space footage. Also,
a backlit Enterprise viewscreen has been left unaltered in this restoration, even though it looks rather unconvincing.
Granted, "fixing" both of these effects would likely require some high-end motion tracking and rotoscope whizbangery --
which Digital Stream may not have had the capability (or equipment) to pull off. None the less, it is unclear whether or not
Digital Stream even noticed these omissions to begin with -- and if they couldn't fix these errors (for whatever reasons), what
else might go by either undetected or unaddressed in future DS installments? Does this make them the right person for this very
large - and serious - job?
Which brings us to the space footage.
I'm not going to go into many specifics here -- as much of Digital Stream's you can see much of Digital Stream's work HREF="http://www.digistream.com/screen.htm">on their web site for yourself. The Enterprise is rendered with more
surface detail and nuance than before, giving the ship a more utilitarian (if less elegant) feel than previously. There was
something about the sweep and simplicity of the ship (as it originally appeared in the series) which was dramatic and sublime,
elements which appear to have been diminished by making the vessel look more functional. Also, artist embellishments -- like
having the bank of "impulse engines" along the back Enterprise's saucer section burn with brightly with red / orange thruster fire and exhaust
-- seem awkward and discontinuous within the Star Trek universe. Changes like these may look better to
some eyes, but such augmentations have little or no grounding in either Trek lore, or the films & series which follow the
original show.
Perhaps the most troubling element of Digital Stream's "Doomsday Machine" efforts is the fact that the CGI replacing the
original FX footage does not look organic within the episode. This isn't merely a matter of getting used to something new. The
new footage, literally, does not possess the same physical qualities as the live action sequences into which it is cut. The color
saturation, film stock (grain on the film, creaminess of photography, etc.) of the new Digital Stream effects
seem to be from a totally different (and detached) time and reality than the footage of the actors on-set.
This often makes the newly inserted effects seem jarring, which in turn diminishes the flow and continuity of the episode's
storytelling. Visual effects must appear to be part of the same universe which the people around them inhabit, and in
Digital Stream's "Doomsday Machine" enhancements, this is not always the case. Many FX are a little too CGI...a little too
modern...and are told with a visual dynamic which does not complement the directoral style of the episode.
These factors are critical if a "Special Edition" of Star Trek is to be mounted. Otherwise, the entire effort comes
across as a gimmick; and suggest there is no love for the effort being undertaken - only a desire to "play" with technical toys &
do something because it is, simply, "cool" to do. Doing a project like this "just because it can be done" isn't enough of a reason
to mount such an undertaking, and would only serve to undermine the memory and credibility of an already troubled franchise in
the eyes of concerned fans.
Which brings us to the two most significant issues of all: should a revamping of the original series be undertaken?
And who should be responsible for lording over such and endeavor?
These are complex questions, whose answers are too mindbending to resolve fully herein. Digital Stream's "Doomsday
Machine" restoration is very imperfect, and...frankly...sometimes sub-standard by my book. It is, however, solid
enough to convince me that upgrading the effects in the original series is a very viable notion, and might work stunningly if
handled correctly. This notion is accentuated by some personal experiences here at AICN - where I have received many
e-mails from readers damning the original series because of one factor alone: the visual effects. More than Shatner bashing,
more than the cheesy sets, the FX in Trek Classic seem to rub many viewers the wrong direction. So yes, I think there
are many reasons the effects in the original Trek series ought to be re-conceived. But the process of doing so should
not be arbitrary or thoughtless.
As such, who should do it?
Clearly, painstaking effort must be made to make sure no harm would be done to the original series by revamping its
effects (by adding in more effects, changing some settings, etc.). I guess the phrase I would invent for this is "Integrity
Control". Digital Stream's "Doomsday Machines" pointedly accentuates this one essential notion. Several brief examples:
there were many shots in DS' "Doomsday Machine" which were simply awkwardly blocked and staged. Digital Stream's
Doomsday Machine's redesign is surprisingly simple-minded given the complexity with which it could have been approached
(see below). There is awkward discontinuity in their work: on the Enterprise viewscreen, background starfileds "spin" in a
subtle pinwheel as The Doomsday Machine flies off into the distance. Why are the stars spinning? The Enterprise isn't
spinning. Visual dynamics are fine enough - but they have to make sense!
As such, it seems that...ideally...a restoration project like this would need a slew of overseers, each watching out for a
specific area of technical concern. Perhaps a someone skilled as a Director of Photography should be drafted, to make sure
all new shots all look right (in a photographic sense ). Said individual could assist in the selection of lensing, match new & old
lighting, etc. Basically, a "Photographic Continuity" manager, if you will.
Secondly, a Visual
Effects Supervisor should be brought in to bridge the gap between suits and whichever effects house(s) got this gig. He would
know effects and what is (and is not) possible given a specific episode's restoration budget (which could easily run away if not
managed properly).
Finally, someone needs to be in-charge of evaluating the original series from an editorial perspective. Such a person might
be able to work in conjunction with
those designing and executing the effects to determine what kind of shots would work best, how and where they should be
inserted, etc. (ex.- "I'd love to cut in a shot which pushes on on this viewscreen a bit - it would really raise the tension level in
the scene...") A Trek historian would be needed, to make sure any potential redesigns and augmentations make
sense. The same person or people might also be able to shed light on the original aspirations of the technical folks working on
the original series (many ideas must have been conceived, but never executed due to technical or budgetary limitations).
This group of people would also be responsible for fundamental conceptual choices. For example: should a new
Doomsday Machine be a design pulled out of thin air? Or, would it make sense ot return to episode author Norman Spinrad's
original concept of an immense, detailed, busy, battered and frightening amalgam of antennae and parts?
Should a re-worked original series be built around the notion of cleaning and enhancing already existing FX? Or, should the for the series
FX be re-built from the ground up? Should CGI be used...can modelwork (more closely resembling the original material) be afforded...should it be a combination of both? How deeply should fan feedback & opinion influence affect a Trek SE? How
detailed would an SE be? Should only the obvious effects issues be addressed? Or, should subtle background details in
scenes be altered or incorporated? These are critical questions which would profoundly impact our understanding of,
acceptance of, and memory of the original Star Trek series -- and the operating expenses of the gang assembling the
"Special Edition".
But who would do it?
When all was said and done, George Lucas had the last word on the Star Wars Special Editions because the
projects were his to do with as he pleased. The Star Trek scenario is different, as its parentage is currently not as
clearly defined. Should The Powers That Be attempt to recall (whenever possible) the folks who conceived, blocked, and
executed the original series' FX and pair them with modern techno-wonderkind to make an SE happen? Should the folks who
have written various Trek histories (factual / historical accounts of the making of the show, as well as the reference &
histories of the Trek universe itself) be assembled in an effort to determine which "Special Edition" approach would
most closely match the original desires and intents of the show's creators? Would the people in suits be smart enough (or
responsible enough) to let the right people make the right choices? Or would they want it done quick & dirty, just so that extra
buck or two comes a little faster?
And, one of the trickiest questions of all: should any Trek Special Edition be seen as the definitive version of the
series (in the same way Lucas subsequently buried the original versions of the Star Wars trilogy in favor of their
Special Edition successors)? There are many people (myself included) who would love to see a Special Edition of the original
STar Trek series, but would not want to see the original form of the show dismissed eternally. Such a notions seems
dishonest to history, and to the people who massive amounts of work on the show - some of which was astounding for its
time.
Difficult potentialities. But, in light of the uneven Digital Stream enhancements evident in their proposal reel, and
Paramount's frequent mishandling of the Trek franchise, these are questions which need to be seriously considered.
No matter what one thinks about the original Star Trek series, it is a piece of history - and a show which means a great
deal to a great many people. Yes, the series deserves to be the best it can be - and messing around with the effects (and so
forth) might well be a means to this end. But in the same was the original series deserves to be the best it can be, it deserves
to have such a makeover executed properly -- with love, attention, and genuine effort expended towards making a
Trek "Special Edition" something future generations will look upon favorably, and something which will not besmirch
the memory of the work which is being revised...
Glen
If you send a message to the above address & it bounces back to you,
address!
Or call:
(512) 347-1992
Mail can be sent to:
Glen Oliver
P.O. BOX 160812
Austin, TX 78716-0812
USA
P.O. BOX 160812
Austin, TX 78716-0812
USA
Austin, TX 78716-0812
USA
USA
-
+ Expand All
-
old. Charming. Like it is.
-
Colorization by any other name...
-
While I like the idea of sprucing up the effects on the original series, I'm not sure that CG is the way to go. I think that they should use the wonderful new model Greg Jein Built for "Trials And Tribbs" and simply re-photograph the ship from all of the exact same angles as the original shots and re-insert them in place. I'm afraid that the temptation to over use the new CG toys will lead to instantences of "creating shots - we- always- wanted -to-see" as opposed to updating the shots that were there.
-
"and suggest there is no love for the effort being undertaken - only a desire to "play" with technical toys & do something because it is, simply, 'cool' to do." Thanks Glenn. Before any restoration and altering of the original series should be done (if ever) they should concentrate on the writing and directing of their movie franchise because it (in my humble opinion) SUCKS. Concentrate on the new....not the old... Been there done that....ho hum... --McK
-
Anyone who has seen the recent DVD releases of the original series or the recent Sci-Fi chanel special edition can see the GLARING differences between the quality of the live action shots and the special effects shots. The live action shots look AMAZING!! Its hard to believe they were filmed when they were. The special effects shots, however look horrible. They are grainy and poorly composed. It bothers me that a film like "Forbidden Planet" (10 years OLDER than the original series) has far superior effects. I don't support radical redesigns. But, I would love to see some really interesting angles and more realistic implementations. And, Glen, I don't know what you mean by saying that there is no basis for having a bank of impulse engines glowing red. Every starship design SINCE the original series has encorporated visible impulse engines. It seems to me, the only reason they weren't there originally was because there was no money. The bad effects on the original series was not a choice, it was the best they could do with the money they had. I say go for it...although I do agree that "Trials and Tribelations" looks better than the CGI...
-
DANIEL wrote: "And, Glen, I don't know what you mean by saying that there is no basis for having a bank of impulse engines glowing red. Every starship design SINCE the original series has encorporated visible impulse engines." The impules engines in the Digital Stream SE literally have rocket exhaust coming out. FOr that there is no basis...((I should hjave been clearer)) **Glen**
-
Well, they took the first three series of Red Dwarf and did a similar thing: new effects, added stuff in the background, etc.
And it didn't work.
It looked out of place.
Like Star Trek, the picture quality of the new footage didn't match the old stuff very well.
BUT... they did convert the audio into stereo + surround, which was excellent! -
All should remember, that while the FX on the original series were relatively cheesy, by the TV standards of the day they were quite good. For comparison, take a look at any of its contemporaries, say Lost in Space. Also, if I remember correctly, Star Trek was the most costly production of tis day. As to a Special-Edtitionization, I agree with Glen's assessment.
-
I've been racking my brain since DS9 bowed out, trying to figure out a viable way to reinvigorate the franchise. The films, in their current format (TNG stars + director + b-list guest actors + "Soldier"-quality fx = $70M budget = no real net profit), are fiscally untenable. Voyager would do the greatest favor to the franchise by finally, irrevocably, blowing itself the hell up and erasing itself from our collective memory. But this is a franchise that *should* continue. There's still a lot of possibilities in the ST universe, if only the producers would take some actual chances and a new generation of excellent writers were brought in to breathe new life into the concept.
But this might be a "safer" -- not to mention more cost-effective -- way to expand the franchise's appeal, and hopefully raise its profile, while some time goes by for fans to decide what sort of idea would be best suited for a new series incarnation and while Paramount takes some much-needed time to pull its head out. Maybe in four or five years, when Star Wars begins its final assault on the popular culture, everyone will be ready for a new crew, a new starship, a new mission, and hopefully even a new idea or two. In the meantime, let's get going on the Special Edition episodes and see what sort of visual mastery we can bring to bear before we roll out a completely new series, shall we? I mean, with the problems Paramount is having with its most successful franchise, what the hell has anyone got to lose?
And, by the way, I'm now a dad. Bubblebrat (a.k.a. Rebecca Linn Cromack) was born at 8:45am Saturday, September 11th. (To anyone who remembers / cares about one of the original AICN Forumers.)
Briefly,
Bubblehead.
r.cromack@homco.com
-
Glen, you should reconsider your even PARTIAL and WARY support of this idea. What is it supposed to accomplish? To make the FX "just a little" less dated? Surely you can't modernize them completely--as you said, they'd then clash with all the surrounding material. TOS has lots of charm, but it is so completely a product of its time--in costumes, storylines, with-it-hippyisms, etc.--that any attempt to bring its FX into the 90s will only result in a schitzoid mess! One episode of DS9 as a fun gimmick was enough. Paramount: Leave it alone and find some other way to churn a quick buck...
-
Regarding the exhaust...yeah, that sounds like a bad idea. I have seen the clips, but not of that. Didn't mean to sound like I was jumping down your throat. I just really feel that this is the right thing to do. I know that many are nostalgic and don't want to see these things changed, and please understand that if the effects were even up to the level of Forbiden Planet, I wouldn't advocated a change. But, really, watch the DVD's and tell me some new shots wouldn't improve the experience. And I'm not advocating any Greedo shoots first sort of changes...just something to keep me in the story so that I'm not jarred every time a fuzzy, static ship flies by...
-
Okay, I've seen some of the clips, and I have to admit my first reaction is "Cool!" Of course, "Doomsday Machine" was always one of my favorite episodes, so I'm biased.
The clips I saw only showed the Constellation's impulse engines doing the flame-glow thing. Considering that the ship was blown half to hell, and only moving at all due to Mr. Scott's "miracle worker" status, couldn't this have been an intentional sign that the engines weren't working normally?
Of course, if the Enterprise's impulse engines were also glowing, that's different. -
I agree with Glen that the primary consideration is who would have artistic control of such an endeavor. But consider this: Creative control of each of the shows has seemed to pass to a series of cliques, each subsequent group with more political savy and less artistic talent. Remaking TOS would be a plumb assignment, and would thus pass to the most powerful group. Do we really want the creators of Voyager in control of this?
A quality remake of TOS might be something cool to see. However, I think it highly unlikely, given the current leadership of the franchise, that we would see an acceptable outcome. I'd much prefer to see this idea quietly disappear than to see the hack job I think we'd end up with.
Bubblehead has it right: Let the whole franchise die for five years or more, and let all the hollywood power-seekers get bored and drift away. That's the only way we'll get real artists and creativity back into the mix. -
I like the look of some of the pics but the one od Decker stealing the shuttle looks way to CGI to fit in with the rest. I say try one with Trekkies and if they like it decide to do six eps. and then continue from there. If it sucks, then all you've lost is a bit of money, and then you can burn the prints.
-
...on this one, but I think it's a neat idea ONLY if it's done right, which means that now may not be the right time. But if/when the technology would do the series justice, I would support the effort. Worst case, it wouldn't work, but that's not like it would ruin the series. I have both versions of the Star Wars Trilogy on laserdisc, so I have a choice. I don't know about y'all, but I would love to see Balance of Terror with modern effects. I have fond memories of watching TOS in syndication when I was a wee lad, but I'm progressive, and don't live in the past...well, okay, I still listen to 80s music.
-
First off...
George Lucas is a dumb-ass for continuing to f*#k with the original trilogy. Just because you change stuff and add more, doesn't neccessarily mean it's better.
Note to George Lucas: Go create something really new, and I dare you not to over produce it.
Secondly...
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together, after checking out the material at Digital Stream, can only tell these are "proof of concept" pieces to sell the concept to the suits at Paramount. Even if Digital Stream doesn't get the gig, they've reminded the higher-ups that it's still possible, especially after having already addressed all of the continuity and compositing issues in that DS9 episode! Lighten up, Glen! Paramont sure as hell doesn't need you telling them how to best use a technique.
Putting the obvious aside, "Special Edition"-etizing the old girl could get it sold right back into syndication for present day top dollar prices all over again. That fact alone probably guarantees that it will more than likely come to pass.
By the way, what is it with you and Harry? Do you two compete for the "Who can be the biggest blow-hard on the Internet" award All the time?
-
MR. SEE wrote: "Anyone with two brain cells to rub together, after checking out the material at Digital Stream, can only tell these are "proof of concept" pieces to sell the concept to the suits at Paramount." So...let's see. I'm Digital Stream & I'm trying to sell a major studio on a SE concept regarding their most valued franchise. So, I'm only going to do a half-assed job & hope The Powers That Be are dumb enough to believe...and stupid enough to trust...that my **actual end result** will be better than what's in front of them at the moment? When one is selling their capacities and products to someone else, seems to me that one would want to do the best...and most refined...job possible - especially when playing in the big leagues. Otherwise, it's sort of like half an argument: "Well, I AM the right person for the job - but I'll convice you later if you give me a chance?!?!?!?!" ALSO - you message suggests DIGITAL STREAM is just doing this just to convince Paramount (please note the spelling of the company) the idea of an SE is a solid one. Like they wouldn't have a vested interest in working on the project themselves? Which brings me back to my initial statements in this Talkback...
**Glen** -
I think that this is a terrific idea! The only thing that they can do to make it better, is to digitally remove Spock and replace him with CGI wunderkind Jar Jar Binks. Imagine all the wonderful poop jokes and wacky dances from our Gungan pal that will replace the Vulcan's boring logic. Heck, while we're at it, let's remove all the Klingons and replace them with a Gungan army. Yeah! Jar Jar joined the Federation after the Gungans kicked him out because he was clumsy. I hope that someone takes these ideas to heart, as I really feel that they will vastly improve this project.
-
Those red thrusters are not as out of place as you make them sound. The Klingon Bird or Prey in Star Trek 3 had those, and the Enterprise herself burned her thrusters a few times in the movies(I think the first one she did it when they went to impulse for the first time). I don't think that it hurts to do that, especially since that was a nice looking effect. Now, I think this is interesting because I had this same idea about a SE(as a fan, of course). But I thought that they should only do the really lousey looking episodes. Redoing "The Doomsday Machine," and "The Balance of Terror," were the two I was thinking should use the treatment. But maybe they'll do this right. If they do, it'll bring attention back to the original series, and at this point I want to stretch Berman and the Voyager writers' eyes open like "Clockwork Orange," and make them all watch nonstop Star Trek with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.
-
I don't really think it matters whether or not its a good idea. Reality is that if the old eps are updated and then put into syndication, everyone will watch, if only to see what has been changed. I mean, imagine the ad campaigns: "Star Trek! As you've never seen it before!" and whatnot. People would watch. It would make money. As for myself, I'm not sure I trust any Special FX company to do this with the love, care, and attention it deserves, but I have to admit, I'd probably watch it anyway, out of sheer curiousity!
-
This episode has been shown at a convention, and was met with MUCH enthusiasm so you all are aware.
-
A few months back (or years) there was talk about this. What's the news?
-
I wholeheartedly admit that the effects in the original series are far from stellar. By 1960's standards they were but today they seem laughable to some.
But part of the charm of Classic Trek is the primitive feel of it's effects. The rubber aliens with visible zippers, the wobbly shuttlecraft hurtling towards certian doom, and the alien ships that look like glowing Rubik's Cubes. I am so sick to death of retrofitting classic movies and TV shows to fit the modern mold. While I agree a certian degree of clean-up was necessary for the Star Wars films, on the whole I think the added CGI crap ruined them and took away some of the 1970's feel to them. I LIKE that 1960's feel about Star Trek, I LIKE that the effects reflect the time period in which it was created and the technology that was available at the time. At the risk of sounding too cheesy I feel a quote from STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERD COUNTRY is in order, "Just because we CAN do a thing, it does not mean that we MUST do that thing". Yes we have the technology, but it's not necessary to "fix" Classic Trek, since the show was never about effects in the first place, it was the writing that drew it's audience, the effects were simply a tool with which to tell the story. Unfortunately what current Trek suffers from is TOO MANY effects and not enough good stories. Each episode has become so increasingly bogged down with effects, that Trek has become nothing more than eye-candy. Trek should look to BABYLON 5 for a lesson on how to balance great storytelling and eye-popping effects, then perhaps the franchise wouldn't be dying out. -
Cripes, Pisso! A guy works all day, gets home, jumps onto AICN, sees a topic JUST CRYING for a Jar Jar reference, and YOU ALREADY GOT TO IT! Damn it, don't any of you people have jobs? Leave something for me once in a while. There's nothing worse than seeing a Talkback column 3 feet long. It's just no fun being at the bottom of a big list like that.
-
Those eps are classic & should stay as they are. This discussion reminds me of the habit in the 19th century of museums "restoring" masterpiece paintings...and in the 20th century, we realized what a mess they made of it and moved to correct it back to what it was. The original series still looks good for the time & place it was created. Adding whiz-bang CGI onto it would just make it look awkward (I don't care what anyone promises, there's NO WAY anyone at Paramount or Digital Stream will care enough & spend enough time to get it the way the fans would like). Instead of recycling old material (great as it is), why doesn't Paramount put forth effort towards bringing us a new QUALITY series and/or film? What about the Prequel series? The people who disdain the original series because its effects aren't up to today's standards are the same type of morons who won't watch black & white movies because they're not color. I know STAR TREK and CITIZEN KANE are two different things, but let's have some appreciation for the original works, people!
-
Alright, I have been toying of doing something like this myself for years on a home computer (Trials and Tribbalations was reportedly all done on a single Macintosh).
I am not talking about a pointless "Special Edition" (By the way, can we already lose that title being a replacement to "Director's Cut" or Deluxe version? That name was created especially for the SW trilogy, and has since been overused to nausea).
What I am saying is: Why not make all NEW classic Trek episodes using backgrounds, sets, a mix of new models, occasional voice-overs, and old footage of the Enterprise crew via the technology we have as seen on Trials and Tribbalations. There are quite a few early Trek novels (like Spock must Die) that could be easily adapted for a simple premise. I am not saying to make a whole series this way, but maybe a few episodes that would be really good and congruous with the existing series. -
Never saw the originals, but the remastered first three seasons don't look too jarring at all to me. Frankly, when I saw "Camille," I was wondering what the hell had happened to all those nice exterior shots of the ship.
-
There could be no effect more 'jarring' than watching the crippled USS Constellation jerk across the screen like it's glued to the top of a hand-held black stick (Doomsday Machine). Re-do the FX? Hell yeah! But do it right. Use a mix of models and CGI. Then match the new effects to the new re-mastered live action footage. I love classic Trek as much as the next geek but this is just too cool not to happen. Star Trek was not meant to be quaint and charming folks. It was meant to rock!
-
My Dearest COAXIAL,
Don't get your little fan-boy panties all in a bunch. A work done as a "proof of concept" is by nature work "done on spec" and is produced out of someone's pocket.
Understand? S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N.
Oh, just look it up!
But first consider this:
Q. Why would I, an owner of a digital FX house burn thousands of my company's man hours to deliver an entire finished episode for free, in the hopes that maybe....
A. I wouldn't, not unless the owner of the property were paying me, or I had some other large ($)stake in the project.
If this project's sole reason for being, is to get studio exec.s stoned enough to barf up the real cash, why don't you find out who, if anyone, commissioned the "retro-re-fit" in the first place, isn't that where the real story is?
And as for who'll get the job of "SE"-ing the classic shows, that will be determined by whom ever makes the lowest bid out of their list of effects house candidates. That's the nature of the beast called "Hollywood"... or didn't you already know that.
One more thing, I'll spell however I damn well please, you petty jerk!
-
:-)**Glen**
-
Anyone genuinely interested in improving Trek would restore this episode to Ellison's original script. The version that was broadcast is full of inanities...
-
Glen here...In answer to the numerous e-mails which have been flowing in re: why the Digital Stream web site links provided in the article aren't working right. I don't know why they are not working right, but YES, they are the correct links. I tested them this morning when I initially posted the piece, and have talked to many people who were able to visit the Digital Stream site today through the links I posted. So they *were* working earlier today, but are not now for whatever reason - as there appear to be problems with the DS site. Don't know what else to say...**Glen**
-
Well, working as a web wizard, I can say from the page showing up now on the Digital Stream web site, that the traffic generated by this article, crashed their server.
Until they can do a full restore of their system, the site will be down.
Considering the speed of their system for downloads and so on, I'm assuming this is a small operation. I wouldn't expect to see the site back up until late tomorrow, or else it will sit over the weekend until Monday.
The clips I got before they went down were great, but I have to agree that they have a lot of work to do in matching the grain, and the look and feel of the classic series, or its nothing but another way to make a fast buck.
The other thing this could lead to, is the Special Edition of Space; 1999 or how many other classic series, as the urge to update things that some find annoying.
Classic Trek was state-of-the-art for its time. Does it really need this change? Sure it looks a little cheesy now, but so does The War of the Worlds, and Planet of the Apes and Silent Running. Should we go and change those too?
They are a part of our heritage. Change isn't always good. We watched classic Trek for the stories and the characters. The SFX were just a nice bonus that came in an already nice package.
Biodredd
-
I disagree with the argument that updating these effects are analogous to colorization. The effects look the way they do because of money issues, not artistic choices. And special effects COULD have been done better in 1966-69. They just weren't. Again, I point you to a movie 10 years older, Forbidden Planet. The special effects serve that film very well. I think updating them would be foolish. If Star Trek is not "all about eye-candy" then there should be no harm in supporting the great stories of the original series with the special effects they deserve. I agree that they should match the film quality of the live action shots and that the CGI should not look like a generic video game, but there are sound reasons for taking on this project.
-
Star Trek's effects are not the "Look of the Sixties". They're the "Look of Limited Time and Money". Remember, it wasn't long after Star Trek left NBC that 2001: A Space Odyssey (much of whose long production process was contemporary with Star Trek's) hit the big screen. Clearly, there's one right way to do Trek SE and many wrong ways. The right way is to take the existing effects shots, "reverse storyboard" them, and then recreate them with lighting, motion, compositing, and opticals (phasers and explosions and such) done with today's precision. Nothing more. No redesigns, just higher quality photography. Don't mess with the live-action footage, except to fix badly superimposed opticals and the type of mistakes imdb.com would file under "crew or equipment visible".
-
Why do this? Why not put all this creative energy into a new ST series that has the same qualities as TOS: great stories and great characters that you feel for.
G. -
It would be a waste to go back and try and redo the old Star Treks. Nothing at all like redoing the original Star Wars.
For Star Wars, George had always felt they where incomplete. I've heard him say this many times in interviews and behind the scenes specials and all that long before he did decide to make the Special Editions. I think a lot of the redone footage and the re-added scenes are really good, there's only a few parts I had problems with and wish had been left untouched.
The Star Trek episodes where never considered unfinished. Roddenberry never expressed a desire to fix them. I think th technology and money would be better spend on a new ST.
I still like the idea of a ST that takes place thousands of years after the current series where the Federation has fallen and all that.
Give that one a try with some good stories and good characters. -
I think this is an AMAZINGLY bad idea. In my opinion, there is NO COMPARISON between this butchering of Trek and the Star Wars Special Editions. The Star Wars movies are George Lucas' creation, he continued working on HIS OWN material. Someone ELSE coming in and changing Trek violates the creative nature of the original product. I don't usually get angry over this kind of news, but this makes my blood boil!
-John -
If Digital Stream are confident that 'they have the technology' then what they are proposing is going ENTIRELY the wrong way about it! They should offer to put their toys at Paramount's disposal to transplant ORIGINAL SERIES STUFF into VOYAGER, and save it from the spiralling TEDIUM it currently enjoys...(PS Just HOW MANY Shuttlecraft has Voyager got???? They must've crashed / blown up about 2000 so far?!! Is this where all their replicator rations go?)
-
... who thought "Trials and Tribbleations" blew massive chunks?
Just checking. -
I previously saw the test images on Digital Stream's web site & thought they looked cool.
I don't think the eps should be redone. When I was a kid, the special effects in TOS looked good, they look worse now in comparison to what is now possible. On the DVDs, they expecially look bad.
However, from a historical perspective, we should leave the eps as they were originally intended. The audio remix on the DVDs is OK; it doesn't take away from the original presentation, but I think the new efx would do so. -
I diasagree with Daniel Shock's comment that this project isn't like colorzation simply because "[t]he effects look the way they do because of money issues, not artistic choices. And special effects COULD have been done better in 1966-69. They just weren't." The point is they WEREN'T. The TOS eps are what they are. To change them now would be to alter an destroy what we've enjoyed for 30 years. Moreover, directors craft their work based on the limitations at hand. For example, b&W films are hot to take advantage of the fact they are b&W (which makes decisions to alter classic noir b&W's like the Maltese Falcon all the more absurd). The b&w is integral to our conceptions of these movies. Similarly, the cheesy FX are integral to the TOS eps. What's next? Realistic looking Cybermen in Dr. Who??
-
Well, I've heard of the "slashdot" effect, I guess this is the "AICN" effect.
-
Colorization changes the whole body of work. Changing what I imagine amounts to 5 percent or less of an episodes running time won't have the same impact. Star Trek was not the result of one persons vision. It was a group effort. And I feel confident that group of people would have liked to have done it better, and would vote to revitalize their old series. And the historical argument is faulty as well. We arnen't going to go into some dark age of cinema and television in which we forget how bad special effects used to be. The original effects will always be with us. I wouldn't be surprised if future DVD's allowed the choice of new versus old. I'll bet a million bucks that almost no one chooses the old. Special effects are there to serve the story. I think the effects may have served the original series just fine when they were released. But, to revitalize the franchise and get younger viewers interested and to draw back older viewers who have seen them a million times, this is what has to happen. And regarding the poster(s) who wishes they would spend the money on new treks...Have you seen what they've been doing lately? Its called Voyager.
-
Were not HIS. He didn't write or direct them. All he did was sign the checks and work with the special fx boys. As for Star Trek, like with ANH and ESB I will ALWAYS own a copy of the original. (restored if possible) Special fx are not important, but SE become exercises of "Where's Waldo?", trying to figure out what has been changed, and they TOTALLY de-value what originally counted... story and characters. I even object to the "enhanced Fx" and music of B5: The gathering. I have no problem with the "Producers cut" with extra footage (originally cut), but "re-creating something is as lamentable as the "new" Psycho. I can't wait for the "new" Casablanca starring Arnold Schwartznegger, Mel Gibson, and some ditzy starlet whose willing to take her top off, with music by Celine Dion, Jewel and Brittney spears and directed by James Cameron (or Spielberg).
-
Don't do it - and for God's sake if they do - DON'T BUY IT. The TOS episodes are already on their 2nd, or maybe third video release over here! If we, as sci-fi fans, show that there's a real market for rehashing old shows like this the networks will never even bother event trying anything new. New ideas, new programs - that's what Paramount should be aiming their business machine at!
-
DanShock--- The arguments you're making in support of altering the TOS eps are the EXACT arguments used to justify the dreaded colorization of movies. (a) "Only 5% of the ep will change" is pretty much the same as saying that the colorized movie is still essentially the same movie - but then you're conceding the point and trying to say it's just a matter of degree; (b) "the older versions will always be with us" - but they'll be more difficult, if not impossible to find! I rue the day when a B&W citizen Kane can't be found or a "special" City on the Edge" is ALL I can find; and(c) new viewers can't accept the older, inferior, FX. - Well, perhaps true- but then we're denying them the experience that millions have enjoyed- replacing it with a different experience. The bottom line, IMHO, is that you're treading a VERY slippery slope once you start "tinkering" with past art. Be it adding color, extra scenes (CET3K was just fine from day 1), or upgraded FX- why not accept past excellence for what it is/was (warts and all) and move on to NEW vistas (and if Voyager isn't your cup of bloodwine..move on!). When you start changing the "little" "unimportant" things..where is the line drawn? Bad dialogue ("well..it wasn't ESSENTIAL dialogue!") or facial blemishes on the actors ("Doesn't he look better without that messy mole??") or whatever. Preserve the past..move to the future!
-
I saw leave the show the way it was.It was done in the 60s and sure, the effects were as good then and when people look back at stuff now, they may think the same thing. I agree that Lucas was a fool to redo stuff. I say it again, Leave the show the way it is. People who need to see new effects need to get a life.The same with the people redoing them.Why are they even thinking of doing this? For people spoiled on better effects these days.Trek wasnt about effects, it was about the people.Whats next, redoing the makeup to make the people look the way they really do, in the episode, The Deadly Years.What a joke!@
-
Would the Mona Lisa look better with a little glitter paint?
To my mind restoring material that might otherwise be lost forever is one thing. The rereleases of classic B&W movies with restored prints are a case in point. But adding special edition effects is pure revisionism - to wit the money addled brain of George Lucas making Greedo shoot first in the Cantina of Star Wars. I mean, give me a break people, the THX remastering of the original series was bad enough i.e the enhanced 'bonk' of the stormtrooper entering the room where the droids were locked on the Death Star...Every other special edition effect was a mistake and diminished the series. Making art is all about letting go, otherwise nothing would ever be 'finished'. I'm not the most rabid trekkie in the world but the charm of the original show is that it was the best that could be done at the time given the money, talent etc...I mean why not just shoot the same scripts with entirely different casts, sets and actors? That's what's done in the theatre...But to tweak and edit a show that has millions of fans despite no cgi and modern effects? Come on, there are way more important things to do in the world, like wresting creative control of the Star Wars universe out of the hands of George Lucas and giving it to the guy who shot 'Troops'...
Then again, why not revise the Constitution to make it sound a little more hip and now?
-
If some true integrity were applied to this effort, it could work amazingly well. (Big if, I know.) Add just a little film grain (which would be relatively simple) and you could do some stuff that looked positively eerie. As mentioned above, the footage of the actors on set looks damn fine, so you wouldn't have to dirty up the effects much at all for them to blend in. As Glen pointed out, to do it right there would need to be some solid direction. The big question that I haven't seen asked it is this: why would Digital Stream necessarily have to do the job? Paramount could easily say "Thanks for the idea," and just put Foundation on it.
-
to see the damn thing redone. I want to see a whole freakin' space battle redone when I watch it, not just storyboard what was already there. What's the point of redoing "Enterprise flies to the left, Enterprise fires phasers, Enterprise flies to the right" that made up the bulk of the space battles Star Trek showed. Why not do something BIG? One of the things I loved about the "Trials & Tribb's" episode was the shot of Koloth's ship and the Enterprise orbiting the space station. It breathed new life into one of the most overshown episodes from the original series. I think whenever appropriate, there's nothing wrong with enhancing the outside view of whatever battle is taking place.All you people crying about change as if it were the Larry Flint edition of the Old Testament or something should just keep watching your tapes of the old episodes and shut the hell up. There's nothing wrong with bringing Star Treks view of the 23rd century into the 21st as long as attention to detail is properly given as previous posts mention.
-
Oct 01, 1999 7:52:16 PM CDT
The redone gathering may just have done what you say Mckraken
by dolfanar
But that isn't the point. The more "remakes" succeed the more we'll see. We've even begun to see remakes done WITHOUT the participation of the initial author (director in the case of movies, producer in the case of television, and writer for novels). I *DO NOT* want to see Casablanca get the "psycho" or especially the Star Wars treatment, so a hard line must be drawn. Having said that, there is NOTHING wrong with making a COMPLETELY seperate piece of work DIRECTLY inspired from a classic. Despite my utter didain of Independance Day, it DIDn't in any way diminish War of the Worlds or any other of the invasion movies, but what if it had been done as a "new" V? Well in that case a childhood favorite of mine would have been defiled, and I would never consider buying the video or DVD. Just as I will NOT be buying the "new" Star Wars...
-
Oct 01, 1999 8:15:06 PM CDT
Paramount to take Star Trek where TNT tried to take B5 once befo
by dolfanar
It's been confirmed by WWF.com, that Duane Johnson (Rocky Maivia) a Pro Wrestler, will be filming an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, on october 13 and 14. It makes you appreciate JMS all the more doesn't it? So much for any pretense of integrity that Star Trek could lay claim to (As if 2 of DD wasn't enough). Are you SURE you want A-holes who would book a wrestler to do Voyager to come NEAR tOS?
-
Sorry for the mix up... my bad. (You'd think a talkback vet like myself wouldn't do that sort of thing...)
-
I can't seem to be able to access any of the Trek stuff on Digitalstream's page. The link provided in the above article does not work for me and I cannot get anywhere on their homepage.
Can anybody help me out?
I'll have to reserve my opinion until I can see an example of the work.
Thanks. -
Looks like the whole Digital Stream site is down, none of the links work, and the homepage brings www.digistream.com just brings up a "standard" plain page, with no information. Hopefully they'll get it up soon, coz I never got to see the images in question.
-
Well... I'm not really in favour of redoing the effects on T.O.S. - but if it's going to be done anyway, I would want the original, unretouched versions also available to those of us who want the real thing... not some tarted-up "enhanced-for-stereo" colourised mess.
-
I just browsed to it, and got the initial screen that comes with MS IIS! Well, there's the power of BackOffice for you...Why *anyone* would set up a web page on anything other than Apache I've no idea...
-
I've gone through and read all of the comments on this topic ranging from flaming of the new series to critiques of rehashed Star Wars and Babylon 5 shows. Here's what I think: 1) I would agree that IF the Paramount PTB were sensitive enough to put the proper amount of energy, consideration and money into this project there would be a great market for it (and I would be included). However, it would also be VERY important to the Star Trek viewers that the original, non-enhanced version still be available or Paramount would have a riot on their hands. 2) I for one enjoy the spinoffs of Star Trek TOS - all of them! It's not about whether or not the writing is up to par with the original series; it's primarily about the ideals behind the series, and then the quality of the actors and yes, the quality of the FX. Back then they had to do more with scripts and dialogs than any of the new crop of writers and producers do now. 3) I love remakes of old science fiction films! But I agree that they should be done as totally different interpretations. Yes you will have some bad interpretations, but along with the bad comes a really good one now and then.
All this said, I'll restate my opinion in one statement: It would be cool if they did it right, but Paramount should beware the Wrath of The Trekkies if they don't. -
Why not sink all of there energy into making a GOOD Star Trek movie. Or is history all we have left? Why can't the movies be...movies and not long TV episodes?
-
Well if they 'Have the technology' than God bless their little hearts. Absolutely do it I say. I wouldn't go for all CGI ships because anyone with a keen eye could tell. Motion Control models all the way. Will Greg Jeins 'Trials and Tribbilations Enterprise model make it out of drydock and roam the galaxy again?
-
Well, actually the impulse engines are supposed to be rockets. Not chemical rockets, but something on the highest order, like, say mass-to-energy annihilation. A speed-of-light exhaust. A starship can't just bounce around on a warp drive - it needs something to manuever below lightspeed. But, I doubt you'd actually see the exhaust. It'd probably be X-rays! Damned thing would be a weapon in itself. Perhaps a secondary effect would be the energetic exhaust making nearby molecules in space glow, but that's about it.
Now, terminal geekness aside, I think a special edition might be what the original series was: a lot of fun! The old show's SFX are pretty silly now, for those who aren't Trekkers. The effects were the best they could do for the money and the time available. I'm sure the original art directors would have loved to have access to better effects. I doubt they are so enamored of their work that they'd oppose making it better. They often complained about budget constraints. -
Talked with the main man at digistream a Greg Thompson. Here is what he said to me when I asked about the server problems they are having:
"We know the site is down we had to make it that way because the current WWW server cannot handle the traffic generated by this website. We are currently looking into upgrading the server. Thanks for the info."
As said before, this is what happens when you use Backoffice.
-
TNG was rubbish, revamp this instead. Blot out Riker, Troi, and Wesley in every episode and give it some half decent story (you could give that to some TOS episodes as well). Or just burn all the TOS tapes and pretend it never happened.....
-
And called it the first seasons of Star Trek: TNG and Voyager. Let the old show alone.
-
Yeah! I would like to see the Original Star Trek series redone with new cast members. It might happen within a decade or two after this current crop of Star Trek has mercifully left TV and the Movies.
-
I didn't discover the article until after the links went down and it doesn't appear as if they're going to get it fixed anytime soon. If anyone managed to save any of the pictures, it would mean a lot to me to see them. Please e-mail me at: bear1701@mindspring.com
-
1. Got a 404 when I clicked on the link
2. The root page is the default home page for Microsoft IIS -
Why is there this need to fuck with everything?
Just leave it alone. That is how it was done, that is how we all learned to love Star Trek.
If you want cool CGi effects make a new Sci-Fi TV series.
Dr. McCoy is rolling over in his grave. -
It wouldn't suck to re-do the effects for a couple of the old episodes(particularly the ones that were effects heavy). It's this re-doing the entire series that is silly. I mean, we need to get Star Trek back, but just reimagining the original won't do that! To fix the modern problems, Berman must die! Okay, he should be laimed, or sent very far away to a cold and quiet place to live out the rest of his life with an empathic brunette that can't speak keeping him company. Trek is atrophying under his command! It has fallen into the territory of the uber lame! A show with a title like "Buffy" is actually better than Star Trek right now! I held my breath while DS9 was on. At least then we had some good characters, good writing, and a strong narrative. Now there's nothing to savor but Foundation's special effects. Come to think of it, why are we surprised they're talking about redoing the old show's FX? Special FX are all Star Trek has left to brag about! sigh. Maybe the Barge of the Dead with B'ealanna tonight will reenergize my interest. But I doubt it. GIVE THE NEXT SHOW TO PETER DAVID AND LET RON JONES DO THE MUSIC! You heard me, Paramount, fire Berman and grow a pair!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 214 total posts 213 posts
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 160 total posts 160 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 154 total posts 154 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 148 total posts 147 posts
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 269 total posts 80 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 76 total posts 76 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 187 total posts 63 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day… the horror… the horror… -- 49 total posts 49 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 84 total posts 49 posts