I look at it like renovating a house | Report this post to moderator
By: cnathanw (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 08:22:50 on Jan 26, 2012

You want to keep up the value and relevance of the property and tastes do change with time. Changing out effects on these shows, so long as they aren't performance altering, can rejuvenate the story. So long as the original always exists, I don't mind the tinkering.

Personally, I'd love to see someone CGI the new 2009-E bridge around the old crew - just to see if it can be done, and how it would look.

Reply

Quote

That's what they should be doing | Report this post to moderator
By: sb2004 (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:53:24 on Jan 25, 2012 | (1)

I'm a vocal critic of TOS Remastered, and have posted here and elsewhere that I don't agree with people redoing original effects simply because of changing tastes.

When effects are redone, it should be done judiciously. As here - they used original elements as much as possible and only parachuted in new stuff when absolutely necessary. Unlike TOS where they did wholesale replacement of CG (as well as music tracks). That was unnecessary. If they keep this "light touch" and don't decide to make editorial changes, then that gives me increased confidence regarding the rest of TNG Remastered, as well as the inevitable DS9 Remastered and Voyager Remastered (Enterprise should not need remastering, especially its final season which was shot in HD).

Put another way - yes, the jellyfish creatures in Encounter at Farpoint look stupid. They looked stupid back in October 1987. But they are what they are and what they were. You shouldn't change what has become part of Trek history any more than you shouldn't replace an actor who maybe did a poor job in some episode with a CG-inserted replacement. I saw someone complain that they should have inserted Sisko and Dax into Trouble with Tribbles. No.

Al

Reply

Quote

models vs cgi | Report this post to moderator
By: steveleenow (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 00:38:01 on Jan 25, 2012

I actually thought they did their best work when they used CGI to enhance stuff shot with existing models. The models have weight to them, and a lot of CGI back then, and a lot even today, feels CG. It almost has a shinny weightless sheen to it and it doesn't feel real. But when they used CG to improve the look of the ships it helped a lot, and I think they did this near the end of TNG and for a few years on Voyager (although I think there was a point on VOY when they abandoned the model altogether).

Even the recent film HUGO had many real sets and traditional approaches to FX which made it feel more grounded, then say some of the CG sets in the Lucas Star Wars prequels (although a lot of that stuff was pretty darn good).

This CG sheen has me worried with the new BSG but I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that they digitized the sets before they tore them down, so they will have real life references to use when they recreate those sets digitally for the new series.

--------

- Steve Lee

http://www.steveleenow.net/

Reply

Quote