Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Take That, Quantum Revisionism!! The Original STAR TREK Time Line Has Been Preserved (On Blu-Ray)!!

great fucking set by Six Demon Bag	May 19th, 2009 09:41:08 PM
the way to watch it...
Second by SingingHatchet	May 19th, 2009 09:42:53 PM
Dang I read it first.
STINO! by SingingHatchet	May 19th, 2009 09:43:24 PM
Just kidding. This is the Real Trek!
Now I can go buy a Blu-Ray drive! by SingingHatchet	May 19th, 2009 09:44:57 PM
Warp Speed to Wal-Mart.
Um... This warranted a full, front-page article? by StarWarsRedux	May 19th, 2009 09:45:36 PM
Sad. Just plain sad and fucking pathetic.
What is HD-DVD? by SingingHatchet	May 19th, 2009 09:45:40 PM
That sounds vaguely familiar... sounds like something Harry would like. I don't know why...
StarWarsRedux by SingingHatchet	May 19th, 2009 09:47:13 PM
Why don't you take your lightsaber and stick it where the sun don't shine? Classic Trek is the definition of GEEK COOLNESS.
No, seriously. A front page article for a Blu-Ray release? by StarWarsRedux	May 19th, 2009 10:03:06 PM
Plenty of other alleged definitions of "GEEK COOLNESS" have already been released on Blu-Ray, and plenty more will come, but how many of them have or will recieve this kind of focus? Not many. Most, if not all, will simply be announced in the usual weekly DVD & Blu-Ray announcements, only to be brought up again for TV show releases and online price-reductions. This site really is indulging in a wholesale Trekkie bias lately. Hopefully it's just a passing fad...
The CGI are perfect examples of what's wrong with movies now by Professor_Monster	May 19th, 2009 10:11:03 PM
If you look at the originals, they only showed what needed to be shown for the story - the CGI versions embellish on unimportant detail and frankly has nothing to do with the story at hand. They take you out of what's going on - even if only for a moment, then set you back where you were before you were interrupted. Like telling someone a story and they have to answer the phone in the middle, then they turn back to you and say "Okay, what now?"
Paramount pays good. by scriptgirl_nipples	May 19th, 2009 10:16:52 PM
Judging by these articles.
Okay, SW Redux by SingingHatchet	May 19th, 2009 10:17:02 PM
I admit I thought the same thing. My thought was... didn't this come out already? Shouldn't this be a side bar item? Slow news day.
AICN is the Sham-Wow of movie web news by Glory_Fades_ImMaxFischer	May 19th, 2009 10:17:56 PM
Buy star trek on our tv articles!!! watch the movie!! we loved the movie!! not because of the movie but because of all the free shit we got!! look at it now, before and after..before and after..oh god we love you thpock!! We love you Thulu!!...Oh and Merrick..Getting kicked out of the top box office spot by a shitty Tom Hanks movie and making (4 Million) less than Wolverine did in it's first week isn't exactly "setting the universe ablaze"
Charlie X? by Carl XVI Gustaf	May 19th, 2009 10:21:51 PM
Xavier?
Shuttle "DRIVER" -- lol @ Merrick's stupidity by Lenny8	May 19th, 2009 10:23:00 PM
Yes, shuttles and spaceships and aircraft and even submarines have "drivers".
Glory_Fades_ImMaxFischer by SmokingRobot	May 19th, 2009 10:24:31 PM
Trek made MORE than Wolverine in each of their respective first weeks. Take your hate, and your lack of interest in truth elsewhere.
I LIKE THE ORIGINALS MORE by BringingSexyBack	May 19th, 2009 10:27:38 PM
I don't like Lucas-style tinkering with the classic look.
Ahh... I like the original sets better. by TheGhostWhoLurks	May 19th, 2009 10:28:22 PM
Television is a time-capsule... and updating the 1960s SFX to contemporary standards not only takes me out of the "illusion" of the show as a cohesive whole, but ruins the joy of watching Star Trek as a part of sci-fi history. But perhaps cheating in this way is only appropriate for the adventures of James T. Kirk. Still, like the original Star Wars, with its visible frames around the Tie Fighters, I prefer the O.G. Trek, flaws and all. Leave well enough alone.
redux by cutest_of_borg	May 19th, 2009 10:31:13 PM
Dumbass. Trek is the new cool. Star Wars is now and forever will be the realm of geeks (thanks to those shiteous prequels).
Has it occurred to anybody else by GiveMeAnFinBreak	May 19th, 2009 10:33:05 PM
That the only sereis which is still 'canon' in this new timeline is fucking ENTERPRISE? I mean, strictly speaking.
Needs more ridiculous lens flare. by Flim Springfield	May 19th, 2009 10:33:53 PM

Professor_Monster by Premiere Warlord Bush	May 19th, 2009 10:36:09 PM
I disagree. Primitive special effects distract me a lot more than hyper-realistic CGI. Modern special effects do a lot to immerse the audience in the experience of the film. However, if CGI is overused, then their ubiquity, not their quality, is what is distracting you.
That said... by Premiere Warlord Bush	May 19th, 2009 10:38:43 PM
I prefer the original shots to the remastered ones. The remastered CG shots look like a student project for a high-school multimedia class.
Welcome to last year by lockesbrokenleg	May 19th, 2009 10:45:00 PM
when these episodes were aired on cable at 2 am
GiveMeAnFinBreak... by TheGhostWhoLurks	May 19th, 2009 10:45:45 PM
It's all still canon, since O.G. Spock still exists and now resides in the new Trek Universe. The guy's a living, breathing encyclopedia of all of the Federation's friends, enemies and possible encounters yet to come!
bad old special effects replaced with bad CGI...great by BMacSmith	May 19th, 2009 10:51:15 PM
at least the old shots had that old school cheesy charm. the new stuff just looks swiped from a bland Trek video game. I'm not a CGI hater but if they are just gonna half ass it, dont bother.
Bale says if you are gonna CG it, dont use an amateur! by BMacSmith	May 19th, 2009 10:57:23 PM
whats the point, really?
I agree...the old stuff is campy/retro cool looking.... by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	May 19th, 2009 11:09:15 PM
....new shit looks like sci-fi CG from 1994. Fucking lame.
At least this set gives you the choice... by Vic Twenty	May 19th, 2009 11:13:00 PM
between the new effects and classic effects. Very well done all the way around. That's what she said.
Fuck Blu-Ray and the whole fucking HD thing... by BurnHollywood	May 19th, 2009 11:23:49 PM
Getting sick and tired of these shitty new formats that don't work unless you have the player AND a compatible TV AND all the right cables AND etc, all sold separately. Oh, and there's bound to be a monthly fee for some fucking thing in there somewhere. Fuck you guys up the ass with a big recessionary dick, hopefully attached to a Scandinavian "Pirate Bay" addict.
Blue Ray sucks ass by lockesbrokenleg	May 19th, 2009 11:25:24 PM
It's another rip off format just to get you to buy another DVD with even more shitty extras that were shot with video.
I hate the "broadcast order". by Chief Joseph	May 19th, 2009 11:26:31 PM
I wish they'd put these on the discs in their original production order. It's very obviously out of order in the first season. "Where no Man..." needs to be shown first.
FYI - Netlfix by fyrie	May 19th, 2009 11:29:01 PM
The season one (remastered) is available for HD streaming on Netflix.
Would creatives... by Emit Brown	May 19th, 2009 11:30:40 PM
...please stop redoing the work of others, long past, just to justify their own existences. my god. what's done is done for christsakes. lets be original and apply our talents to something NEW!!!! what an idea?!!! I challenge anyone that agrees with me to write the heads of the movie studios with that plea.
True dat, Chief. by Vic Twenty	May 19th, 2009 11:31:37 PM
That salt-sucking woman almost killed the fucking show. They should have these set in episodic order, not the order some dumbshit executive's kid picked out in the 60s.
I have "re-mastered" the Maltese Falcon. by Continentalop	May 19th, 2009 11:44:58 PM
Because in the original they don't ever swear and that just doesn't cut it for todays audience, I decided to edit in a few f-bombs. I guess the idea that people should let a piece of art stand on its own is no longer fashionable.
Is inserting new CGI shots by Continentalop	May 19th, 2009 11:48:55 PM
The new colorization? I think so.
New movie raped my childhood ! by Trannyformers_Apologist	May 19th, 2009 11:55:17 PM
I don't see how fans of Jar Jar Dicknose's Star Drek would be able to pay attention long enough to sit through 5 mins of the TOS. What no prequel comic or audio commentary with Roberta and Klutzman?
I thought Star Trek transcended by Series 7	May 19th, 2009 11:57:39 PM
cultural boundaries, but I guess its only an American thing you know like Paul Blart or Adam Sandler. Kind of funny seeing that Star Trek is all about crossing cultural boundaries.
How far along did HD-DVD GO? by Series 7	May 20th, 2009 12:04:18 AM
Seems like everything coming out (save for Disney shit) was already on HD?
I don't mind the CGI here by Orionsangels	May 20th, 2009 12:05:53 AM
It's very respectful to Roddenberry's vision. They just tried to recreate what Roddenberry hoped he could do at the time. Also they preserve the original specials effects. If you still wanna see it like. So there's no harm done.
Premiere Warlord Bush by Professor_Monster	May 20th, 2009 12:14:48 AM
CGI when used is ALWAYS overused. A medium shot turns into a wide angle sweeping pan of buildings and commotion - what they did to Trek with the new shots is the same they did to Star Wars:Special Editions. The story stumbles over the gaps needed for the new panoramic Tatooine shots or Space Battles.
YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! by most excellent ninja	May 20th, 2009 12:23:24 AM
Can't fucking wait.
The difference by Anything But Tangerines	May 20th, 2009 12:25:55 AM
Old school low budget effects are sometimes very cool, always agreeably quaint. Distracting in a good way ; Contemporary low budget effects are sometimes passable, always disappointing. Distracting in a bad way. I'm willing to bet some of the work on the Next Generation looked more natural than this untextured shiny glop.
i dont think the cgi looks very good... by Westonian	May 20th, 2009 12:26:00 AM
in fact....it looks like shit.
i dont mind them updating the fx for an edition, but by BMacSmith	May 20th, 2009 12:31:07 AM
dont do a shitty job of it. Like DGDB said, it looks like CG from 94. some of the old shots look better than the new. what is that one with the shuttle coming out of the Enterprise? god that's awful. anyone with a basic knowledge of 3d art programs can tell that's some seriously amateur shit.
It supposed to look like shit by Orionsangels	May 20th, 2009 12:42:26 AM
It supposed to look like special effects from the late 60's. It's not supposed to look realistic. It's trying to live up to the look and feel of the series.
It's not supposed to NOT look realistic. by Orionsangels	May 20th, 2009 12:43:39 AM
Wow what a bad part for a mistype. At my main point.
Oh wait I didn't mess up haha...cocain is a helluva a drug. by Orionsangels	May 20th, 2009 12:44:16 AM

Professor_Monster bullshit by most excellent ninja	May 20th, 2009 12:52:37 AM
look at Children of Men and Batman Begins and Dark Knight where they use CGI to extend things and do impossible things. Ie erase cameras for a single take shot so they can go in deeper then cut to another shot where originally the camera filming that deep camera shot can be erased.
orion it doesnt look like fx from the 60s by BMacSmith	May 20th, 2009 12:56:29 AM
it looks like cheap bullshit from Lawnmower Man. it fails miserably. Why would they change the fx just to make it look the same anyway? its just bad FX without the retro charm.
there are plenty of great CG shots in movies, you just dont noti by BMacSmith	May 20th, 2009 12:57:47 AM
the best ones are the ones you never notice. kinda sad. its like being an offensive lineman in football, you only get noticed when you do something wrong.
fuck region coding by Kobaal	May 20th, 2009 01:02:48 AM
Australian release date = 2017
Once again, the joyless, heartless mod of AICN votes "we hate it by poddie	May 20th, 2009 01:07:33 AM
First of all, the new set offers BOTH versions of the effects. So why the fuck is everyone so pissed that they don't like the new effects? So what! Watch the originals if they float your boat! Just be prepared for incredible amounts of grain and poorly composited opticals. Second, the examples shown here are actually some of the poorest of the new effects. I get the impression that these were pulled when the first set of remastered eps came out. Rest assured, the CGI improved greatly as they went, and they did NOT complete the remasterings in order. Complaints that they have only added unneeded info are so far off that the complainers clearly haven't seen the episodes. Many of the replaced shots were incredibly unclear in their original form due to reuse of shots that don't quite work or budget limitations. Look at nearly any scene of a ship docking, shuttles landing, ships in battle, or two ships interacting. Most of the time you can't even tell WTF is happening in the old shot. So, once again, all you loser haters can please go on pissing and moaning and missing out on cool stuff because it's not "cool" to actually like anything. Elitest fucking snobs.
Like the CGI... by BurnHollywood	May 20th, 2009 01:08:08 AM
It should look kinda cheesy, or else the transitions to the old Desilu plywood sets would be too jarring.
Nope, no thanks... by MediaGold	May 20th, 2009 01:16:27 AM
I've already spent $400+ on TOS DVDs, wayyyy too much for 3 seasons of 40 year old (albeit excellent) television programs. No mas, ya vultures.
THen why fucking bother? by BMacSmith	May 20th, 2009 01:19:57 AM
who were the marketing geniuses responsible for this? Producer: Hey guys, we need you to update the FX, but they need to be shitty like the old series. Just whip up some shitty untextured models and throw some procedurals in the background, cuz nothing says 60s Trek like low budget 90s CG!! Don't worry, these dumbshits will buy anything if we slap something new on it. and Poddie, i know it has both versions, and i dont really care anyway. Its just fucking retarded to throw bad CG FX in place of bad film ones. I'm not upset if people think this is a great idea. Im asking anyone to answer, "what is the point?" i get that its just another excuse to suck money out of some Trekkie's wallet, so i cant blame them for doing it. Its immoral to let a fool keep his money, after all.
Amen, poddie. by Steve Young	May 20th, 2009 02:04:36 AM
THIS IS HOW REVISED FX SHOULD BE DONE. The original FX, particularly in space, were always distractingly vague. This was not an artistic choice; this was a budgetary choice. The new FX are PERFECT. They give a greater sense of the action, a better sense of awe, without being SO good as to distract from the 60s sets and colors. (Those of you who complain about how "mid-90s" they look are missing the point - if they looked any better, they'd clash with the rest of the action.) Besides, the original FX are preserved here for historical interest. So why the hell is anyone pissing and moaning? It's not like Jar Jar is dancing around the bridge, or giant space lizards are floating over the action during space battles.
Squire of Gothos by jsm1978	May 20th, 2009 02:09:32 AM
I think they actually did retcon him into being a young Q in the books.
Don't be an asshole orion by Continentalop	May 20th, 2009 02:33:14 AM
Share in the white goodness.
I don't care if they are great or bad CGI by Continentalop	May 20th, 2009 02:47:18 AM
Maybe the original Star Trek series FX were imperfect and not what they creators had wanted, but it is what they worked with and because of that it influenced a lot of their creative choices. The direction was based on what they could accomplish back then; so was the editing, cinematography, and dozens of other things. They might have made a cut from a medium shot to a close BECAUSE they didn't have a good wide shot or were limited by set designs – but now that you decided to throw in a wide panorama you now throw off the pacing and entire reasons why the director chose to shoot these angles and put them in this order. When you are tinkering with these things now you are not improving the original version, you are undermining the rationals and reasons why they choice to shoot them the way they did. Plus this is a slippery slope – first we improve the special effects of older movies to meet modern standards, will we then change them to fit modern moral standards. Maybe change the title cards in Birth of a Nation so it isn’t so racist, or how about editing out the grapefruit scene in Public Enemy or the scene from Philadelphia Story were Cary Grant pushes Katherine Hepburn down.
if you dont these shots are distracting by BMacSmith	May 20th, 2009 02:51:52 AM
then there is nothing more i can do to help you.
if you dont THINK these shots are distracting by BMacSmith	May 20th, 2009 02:52:19 AM

Yeah, good effects would suck by Gwai Lo	May 20th, 2009 03:26:52 AM
I mean who wants CGI that's seamlessly integrated into the existing footage when we can have CGI from the same Amiga 2000 that rendered Lawnmower Man. Are you people nuts? This is like fixing a rip in your shirt with duct tape.
BMacSmith by Gwai Lo	May 20th, 2009 03:32:26 AM
I totally didn't read this talkback before making my Lawnmower Man comment. Nice work thinking of it first.
Has no noticed that... by Fortunesfool	May 20th, 2009 04:03:23 AM
They've made 16:9 versions of the original 4:3 frame. Which means they've cropped the original image for the benefit of widescreen tv's. What's the fucking point of that?
Continentalop by most excellent ninja	May 20th, 2009 04:09:01 AM
maybe we can change the guns in ET to walkie talkies...
Is that true? They cropped 4:3 to make 16:9? by V'Shael	May 20th, 2009 05:05:54 AM
That's a bit shit, if true.
The new CG is terrible by kwisatzhaderach	May 20th, 2009 05:19:04 AM
Whats the point? Nice to see some posters above agree with me.
Quit whining FFS!!! by Snake-eyes	May 20th, 2009 05:21:50 AM
Couple of points to those sad folk on here who seem to thrive on needlessly bitching about anything and everything... a) Your grainy stock footage, wobbly models, poor optical fx, matte backgrounds are still there for you to drool over if you dont like the new stuff. So relax! b) Having bought this set myself i can tell you that the 'style' of CGI used here is DELIBERATELY old skool and retro looking, and most importantly, it blends in almost seamlessly - which was the whole point dumbasses! I mean jesus christ, if you think this cgi looks 'out of place' or 'wrong', how do you think modern 'whizz-bang, lense-flare overkill, jerky cam' CGI would look spliced inbetween Kirk and co. walking around horrendously fake-looking polystyrene sets?? Seriously, wake up people! c) Those people comparing this to the Star Wars Special Editions can literally go fuck themselves, go on... stop reading this and go fuck yourselves right now! It's NOTHING like those abominations! If Luca$ had applied the same logic to his special editions that Paramount and co. did here, they wouldve been jaw-dropping! As it is, they're not, they're shit! And any true Star Wars fan knows this, just as any true Star Trek fan knows that this set is brililant! d) A final word to all the BluRay/HD-haters... HAHAHA!!! You idiots! When will you accept the blatant fact that if youre a lover of films(and tv-shows for that matter), and dream of seeing your beloved films/shows in their best possible incarnation, then Bluray is currently the BEST format available - end of story! I've never once, not for a second, regretted making the plunge. It's glorious! Only a narrow-minded FOOL would think otherwise. /rant over!
most excellent ninja by Continentalop	May 20th, 2009 05:22:49 AM
Why did you have to remind me of that? It's like seeing Solo fire first instead of Greedo. WTF?
Picked it up at Walmart for $59.98 CDN which is... by Mistahtibbs	May 20th, 2009 06:15:18 AM
...51.98 USD. Yay, Canada! MT
V'Shael? No. Still 4:3 but glorious HD! by Mistahtibbs	May 20th, 2009 06:16:18 AM

Fortunesfool? by Mistahtibbs	May 20th, 2009 06:23:50 AM
While the shots shown by Merrick are 16:9 the actual discs are all 4:3. Oh, and if CGI has your knickers in a twist you can always watch the original effects that are included on the discs. Hell, you can toggle between the two on the fly if you want. Interesting to see such detail in the shots. Lots of, what I would call, EXTREME CLOSEUPS!©" of the actors faces...this WAS TV in the 60's after all. And if you're all upset about the CGI or the Bluray...nobody cares. Remember that. Nobody cares about your opinion. Now go find a life. And I mean that with all the love in my heart. MT out.
Fortunesfool? redux... by Mistahtibbs	May 20th, 2009 06:25:06 AM
Sorry about that. Only the first sentence was directed at you. The rest was for the whiners and complainers. sincerely, MT
so its not the original series. by alice 13	May 20th, 2009 06:42:20 AM
some of the new stuff looks awful. in TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY the shot of the ship was shown that way because it was the pilots pov as he approached it. pretty cool to see the enterprise as seen from the ground. not any more.
So is colorization okay now, too? by tonagan	May 20th, 2009 07:05:45 AM
Because I remember when everybody hated that.
so so funny by Bouncy X	May 20th, 2009 07:07:25 AM
one of the bigest complaints over the star wars special editions was the fact we werent given a choice. now here they DO give you a choice, you never ever have to watch the new effects if you dont want, the old show in its original state is on there too.....and they still complain. heelarius.
Hey, if they didn't crop the original frames by V'Shael	May 20th, 2009 07:37:03 AM
then I'm cool with it. This may be the box-set I actually shell out money for.
Saw Trek last night... by Kid Z	May 20th, 2009 07:39:40 AM
...moderately entertaining despite massive plot holes and the worst script ever written since Plan 9 From Outer Space. Seriously, those drooling morons who wrote it, and Transformers should, in an ideal world, never work again. Also annoying was the 1950's DC Comics version of "science". However the cast was great and actually managed to pull the whole thing out of "trancendent fail" territory. I'll happily catch it again on Netflicks when it comes out on Blu-Ray.
The Man Trap... by Kid Z	May 20th, 2009 07:43:16 AM
... proving once again that all sentient females in the universe are, at the end of the day, life-sucking parasites. Better stop, I'm sounding too Dave Sim here.
Next up, the Super Deluxe JJ Abrams version... by Kid Z	May 20th, 2009 07:44:33 AM
...in which all the eps have added lens flares, shaky-cam and plot holes galore!
I'd like to get this. by rev_skarekroe	May 20th, 2009 07:47:53 AM
But I don't have a Blu-Ray player. So fuck it.
This set is pretty great by Arteska	May 20th, 2009 07:51:18 AM
and frankly the few cranks whining about this set getting some special attention in the context of this movie season are more than a bit silly. As for people carping about HD and BluRay you simply have not seen the difference. If you are a film lover there has never been a better way to see films at home. The years of substandard broadcast quality and degraded home video options have literally conditioned you in ways you can scarcely perceive. A lot of effects work in older films that people would consider "dated" actually is pretty incredible and much more seamless when the movie is in HD. Something about the degradation of resolution has the effect of really making discrete optical elements stand out from each other. Take that away and you can see what fantastic work those craftsman were able to achieve years ago. If price is the issue I can hear the complaints but that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile format. Hopefully it will become more accessible because there has never been a better way for movie fans to experience stuff at home. I also don't get the complaints about the new effects for these episodes since you can toggle back and forth to the original version if you want. Do you just like to hear yourself complaining?
The quality on the Bluray is really something... by Mistahtibbs	May 20th, 2009 08:37:31 AM
...as Arteska said, if you're a movie fan you should be jumping at the opportunity to watch movies, TV shows (especially Trek) in the HD format. The Trek Season 1 Bluray is impressive. The quality looks great and if you don't like the updated effects you can watch the originals in their 1960's glory. It's win/win for everyone. As for Bluray costs. Decent quality players are likely going to be below $150 USD (and hopefully CDN) by this Christmas, and if you shop around Bluray discs deals are easily found at Amazon, Walmart, Futureshop/Bestbuy, Blockbuster (used NOT new - their new prices are ridiculous) and elsewhere. This truly is a great time to be a movie lover. Now I just have to convince my wife that the purchase of a 1080p Front Projector - for that true "Big Screen Experience©" is a necessity. Wish me luck. heh. MT
This was the single greatest marriage of CG and classic cheese e by :-o	May 20th, 2009 08:56:04 AM
Oddly enough this is what Star Wars should have done.
It is great but... by Knobules	May 20th, 2009 09:30:41 AM
A few, very few but you will notice it. scenes can be borderline cartoony CGI. Still, Its mostly great and worth the $. It can be jarring to see a perfectly rendered space shot followed by a guy in a Gaileo 7 monkey suit. Its just Trek I guess.
"Barrier" around the galaxy... by Kid Z	May 20th, 2009 10:37:59 AM
... that gives you psychic powers STILL not as dumb as "red matter" and "a supernova that threatened to destroy the galaxy". Just sayin'...
I love the remastered versions. by Azlam Orlandu	May 20th, 2009 11:35:45 AM
They're improvements without being intrusive.
fanfilm cgi looks better by MADE_IN_ENGLAND	May 20th, 2009 12:35:44 PM
WTF
re: and you're not likely to see it by Muki	May 20th, 2009 12:36:39 PM
looking any better for a rather long time. Not that long, at least not until quad hi-def comes out in 2015. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Finally some news about real Star Trek... by AsimovLives	May 20th, 2009 12:47:42 PM
... instead of an endless parade about that fake ass Star Trek forgery bullshit that Jay Jay Abrams made.
Did anyone else notice? Merrick agrees with Harry about T4! by JasonPratt	May 20th, 2009 01:05:03 PM
Or maybe that's been noted already. I've been out a few days...
JasonPratt by AsimovLives	May 20th, 2009 01:30:26 PM
I'm yet to understand what's the use of Merrick in this site. He is the biggest non-personality here.
AsimovLives by BMacSmith	May 20th, 2009 02:14:15 PM
go masterbate to your William Shatner dolls and shut the fuck up already. we get it. youre a hater. the vast majority of critics and regular moviegoers disagree. deal with it. get therapy if you must, but please, get a life.
by MikeTheSpike	May 20th, 2009 05:44:43 PM
Ha. Star Trek is cool and Star Wars is for losers. Who'd have thought?
More gleeful Merrick bashing. by MikeTheSpike	May 20th, 2009 05:52:43 PM
Everyone complaining about this being a top-shelf item... it's not supposed to be. The "official" AICN gang knows it. Even Harry, of all people, sighs when Merrick sticks this shit in the middle of the page.
People BUILT models for this show, but somehow by lockesbrokenleg	May 20th, 2009 06:48:36 PM
it's okay to replace the hard model built work for some shitty CG? Lame.
by poddie	May 20th, 2009 06:54:09 PM
BMacSmith, the only one who is retarded here is you. If you read my original post, you might have picked up on the fact that I (and many others) like the new effects. DO YOU THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE FUCKING POINT OF DOING THEM??? Or do you need someone else to take a crack at explaining that basic point of logic to you? Just because YOU don't like the new effects and are blind as a bat and can't see the obvious visual improvements in the HD Blu-rays (which AGAIN, INCLUDE the original effects if you so desire), doesn't mean that everyone else that does appreciate them is a fool and that "it's an excuse to suck money out of Trekkie's wallets". This is a common internet trap... "anyone who disagrees with my opinion is a fool and there can be no possible reason to disagree with me". I have no problem with you having your opinion, and no problem with you not buying them, but when you call everyone who disagrees a fool you are clearly an intolerant jackass loser. Fortunesfool: Way to live up to your name... if you had bothered to WATCH the Blu-rays or broadcasts (or even just look up the specs or read a review) you would know they did NOT crop them. They are both presented in 1.33:1 aspect ratio. The new shots were rendered at 16:9 to afford them the flexibility to present them that way later if they desire. I actually like the Xbox Marketplace releases where the original material is 1.33:1 and the new effects are shown at 16:9... I don't think it's distracting at all. Now I'd like to pass down one more tip for all the people who feel the need to bitch endlessly about EVRYTHING. NOTHING is perfect, because there is no universal definition of perfect. If they did everything exactly as you would like it, you would likely be the ONLY one who is 100% satisfied. Because there's something called taste and it's OK for it to vary. I'm now going to try and resist reading this again because all the knuckle-dragging whiners really piss me off.
Haters & New Trek by Kid Z	May 20th, 2009 08:51:55 PM
I've dissed New Trek a little since hearing spoilers and seeing it yesterday. But, I'm just a snarky MF'r and I diss everything. I enjoyed the flick, not immensely, but it was a welcome diversion. Of course the script was shit, the "science" ridiculous and it had enough plot holes to singlehandedly suck that (chortle) "galaxy-killing supernova" into a singularity all by itself, no (heh) "red matter" required. Still, the cast saved it and it was an enjoyable summer movie. So I'm not a "hater", better to describe me as a "liker" (didn't love it, wasn't awed by it... but I did like it). However, the real argument should be: Is Trek now nothing more than a mildly enjoyable diversion, or can it be something more? And will it, under the guidance of JJ Abrams?
Officially on my Christmas List by Evil Chicken	May 20th, 2009 09:13:11 PM
But then again so is a 1080p LCD 42’ (at least) and a Blu-Ray player / Playstation 3. Ah, the dreams of Avarice…
New FX but same old sets, costumes, hair ... by zacUpquark	May 20th, 2009 09:44:59 PM
Just as with Star Wars, they throw away significant work done on the old show just beacuse new FX are EZ but all the other old "cheeze" is still there ... thank the gods.
So even if you hate the remastered stuff... by white_vader	May 21st, 2009 12:41:38 AM
why the fuck aren't you jumping up and down for joy ANYWAY? The Xbox live crap was only 720p, which is less than HALF the info of 1080p/full HD. The HD-DVD ONLY gave you the remastered stuff, with no choice. Now you're getting the old stuff better than it's ever looked before (and you can just IGNORE the remastered fx). Way CHEAPER than ever before. No wonder you all live in the basement. That's where everybody wants you. Fucking whiny unprofessional pantywaists.
P.S. by white_vader	May 21st, 2009 12:46:05 AM
I meant to ask whether there was nothing else to whine about today, 'cause that's the only reason I can think of. Amateurs. And yes I know I'm repeating earlier posts (hopefully concisely), but obviously it hasn't sunk in...
poddie - then you have no standards or taste by BMacSmith	May 21st, 2009 03:37:27 AM
you actually think that looks good? explain that to me. Only a fucking imbecile would look at that shit and be impressed. it is utter fail. it fails at being retro, it fails at improving the visuals. the only thing that fails harder is your pathetic excuse for trying to justify its total failure. I suppose if you somehow think Lawnmower Man is the epitome of great CG, then i could understand why you would like it. but in that case, youre a bigger idiot than i thought. btw, i wasnt talking about the fancy blu-ray bells and whistles, so dont bring that in to this.
white_Vader you are a dumbshit too by BMacSmith	May 21st, 2009 03:42:56 AM
just because people point out how utterly fucking stupid and pointless the new "improved" FX look doesnt make them whiners. THe other shit is nice, but that doesnt change the fact some idiot wasted a lot of time and money. im not a hater. Im not a huge Trek fan, but I like new Trek, old Trek, next Gen Trek, and whatever else. Im sure this is great to uber fans. but the bad FX is still just plain dumb.
yeah BMac they absolutely are whiners by white_vader	May 21st, 2009 05:25:39 AM
when they don't realise the intent was to address the main shortfall of the original fx in failing to propel the narrative because of technical limitations, which is what the new stuff does in providing context (Enterprise in relation to shuttle, Enterprise in relation to sun, prison not looking like electrical power station, shining light organisms looking human scale instead of supered flashlights etc.) where previously there was none. While staying true to the general 60s aesthetic. If you disagree that they achieved this, fine. But your infantile splutterings of "just plain dumb", "utterly fucking stupid" and "pointless" don't say you appreciate what they were trying to do but believe they failed, they say you're a fucking whiner trying to be more indignant than everyone else (tall order in a trek tb) for a moment of internet infamy. They also say you probably haven't even watched them. You go girl. I daresay if they used what you term "good" cg a million more whiners would emerge saying it doesn't fit the cigar-case, giveaway scale look of the original stuff. And your "good cg is invisible" is inane. So only digital set extensions count as good? Most cg or practical fx work will ALWAYS be obvious/visible by virtue of context, no matter how far into the future you go and how much fx improves. If there's an alien in the shot it's a fair guess that it's not a 'real' alien, whether rubber or pixels. And when an animal starts talking and exhibits human traits and body language/movement, our brain will ALWAYS tell us it's "wrong", no matter how well it's done. ALWAYS. And you're quite the expert on Lawnmower Man. Dumbshit indeed.
STOP WHINING by BMacSmith	May 21st, 2009 01:35:38 PM
how else can i fucking explain it to you. it did not, in any way, stay true to the 60s aestetic. it stayed true to a previously nonexistent early 90s CG aesthetic. It also completely failed in its attempt to not be jarringly disconnected from the rest of the show. how could you not be distracted? It is "just plain dumb", "utterly fucking stupid" and "pointless" because it couldnt have achieved what they wanted, probably because they were too cheap. You have every right to like piss poor shit if you want, and i have every right to say if you are so easily amused you have no taste or standards. Fuck off. i didnt say CG you didnt notice was the only good CG, but a lot of it is. its not inane to say that.
BMacSmith by AsimovLives	May 21st, 2009 01:39:08 PM
It's when groupies like you call haters to such people like me who weren«'t impressed with Jay Jay's bullshit that makes me never want to give up in trashing that stupid dumb retard piece of shit pseudo-Star Trek movie. and i'm not a trekkie, but i'm very much the movie geek and i don't take kindly to bullshit such as Jay Jay's Star Dreck. Deal with it.
New effects not good. Well said, Professor_Monster. by kevred	May 21st, 2009 03:26:11 PM
That's what struck me too--the new effects mostly just add extra visual "junk" which, no matter how nicely rendered it might be, doesn't add anything to the substance of the scene. It doesn't deepen, it distracts.
Best analogy for these newly-added effects: by kevred	May 21st, 2009 03:32:49 PM
Y'know, Ringo Starr was a fairly primitive drummer. The other guys were very accomplished, but his basic playing style is just out of synch with today's sensibilities. I mean, since Ringo we've had everyone from Neal Peart to Trent Reznor to Timbaland. The people of today need an updated sound in order to be engaged with this old music. Therefore, we will be assembling a crack team of studio drummers in high-quality digital studios to replace Ringo's parts with more modern, contemporary drumming that we expect will fit much better alongside all the other sounds on the albums which were recorded 40 years ago. And we're saying that with a straight face, putting it on TV and releasing it on DVD. Welcome to Bizarro World.
Toggle to the old effects by Arteska	May 22nd, 2009 01:23:00 AM
and shut the hell up. Harry's balls you women never had a male authority figure in your lives to show you how to be a man did you? A goddam plastic spaceship is no more real than a wireframe one but if one is to you....you can select the one you prefer and never see the other one, except in your mind's eye, which you inexplicably need everyone else to see here in your rantings. Don't you have chores to do?
I don't think anyone really understands BMac's point by Gwai Lo	May 22nd, 2009 02:21:50 AM
The effects look like shit. Plain and simple. There are exactly two ways they could and should have gone. One: do the VFX as well as it is possible to do them today. Two: Do effects that look indistinguishable from what the art direction and production design people would have done at the time with a bigger budget. Instead, bizarrely, they decided to go with CG that looks like cut scenes from Starfox for Nintendo 64. This is a double anachronism. It doesn't look right today, and wouldn't look right in the 60s. It would be a nice treat for someone living in 1992, though. So if that's where all these defenders are living please tell Stanley Kubrick that he only has seven years to live and we need more than one more movie from him. Otherwise, please look deep within yourself, and admit that "bad CGI" is in no way better for verisimilitude than CGI that actually looks passable in our current decade. It's almost the next one, for crying out loud.
No what people don't understand is by Arteska	May 22nd, 2009 08:06:28 AM
that you can, for all intents and purposes, enjoy this set in a manner that makes these new effects not even exist. It's like there is some bizarre indignation that someone somewhere might actually see the version that you don't prefer, even if you can easily avoid ever seeing it yourself. That's some weird psychological territory isn't it? This is the part where parents step in and tell fighting kids to go outside and do something.
The Cage? by wannabemogul	May 24th, 2009 04:28:46 PM
Why isn't The Cage in this set? How am I expected to teach my previously non-Trek-aware wife all about it without The Cage?

Talkbacks

Take That, Quantum Revisionism!! The Original STAR TREK Time Line Has Been Preserved (On Blu-Ray)!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks