That Wacky Redhead

[Brainbin]

Do you want to share more specific reasons for why that's your opinion? Because I also grew up with the original TOS and I like the remastered version a lot. And I am certainly the sort of person to get into "They changed it, now it sucks!" when a remastering is awfully done (see, or better yet, don't see, the Red Dwarf Remastered episodes...) To my mind they managed to capture the feel of the original, and not throw in too much whiz-bang change for the sake of it--often just recreating the original shots in CGI rather than making the Enterprise fly upside down through a cartwheel just because they can.

I can understand why ONLY having the option to see the remastered version would be annoying though--most TV channels in the UK showing TOS still show the original version, except Virgin which shows the remastered one.

As it happens, I did have a whole rant prepared on this very topic, because I feel very strongly about it, and since you asked so nicely...

My primary objection is from a creative perspective. To my mind, this is as grave a crime against art as Ted Turner and his colorization was twenty-five years ago. And as e_wraith pointed out, where does it end? When the technology improves further, will more changes be made? Including to parts of the episodes that were not changed this time? And which parts would those be? Because these effects are eventually going to age, just like the original ones did. So they'll have to be re-done again - making this "remastering" a total waste of time and manpower. We've seen it happen with Star Wars, and this is no better than what's being done to those films.

Indeed, in some ways it's even worse, because at least George Lucas had a key creative role in the production of all three original films, even if he didn't actually direct the latter two. The original effects creators had virtually nothing to do with the remastering of Star Trek (as many of them had sadly passed by then). Sure, they trotted out Herb Solow and Bob Justman and a few other producers to "endorse" it after the fact, but let's not pretend they had any say in what was done. In fact, Paramount seems to be patting themselves on the back that they had Michael Okuda in charge of the remastering, which means absolutely nothing, because he had zero involvement with that show. He is no more qualified to work on it than anyone else in the industry, no matter what he or the studio seems to think. In fact, I find his involvement revolting, because he is editing out the work of others and replacing it with his own, in the classic Orwellian style. Consider those gorgeous matte paintings that are now absent in the "remastered" versions. Real people painted those, on real canvas, and now their talent and hard work has been callously replaced. Same with all the model shots. Real designers, builders, and cameraman worked meticulously on those, but their work means nothing. Michael Okuda has always been the effects designer on Star Trek (in all its incarnations).

And what has replaced it? Generic, dime-a-dozen CGI. Which ties into what you were saying before:

To my mind they managed to capture the feel of the original, and not throw in too much whiz-bang change for the sake of it--often just recreating the original shots in CGI rather than making the Enterprise fly upside down through a cartwheel just because they can.

I have to disagree. Virtually every episode contains new effects shots - which are invariably too kinetic and fast-paced - completely out of sync with the visual style of the late 1960s. We'll look at my favourite episode, "The Doomsday Machine". Unfortunately I can't provide you with the original effects, but here is a reel showing the remastered version. First of all, the swooping that the Enterprise is doing in most of these shots is completely at odds with the music, which is scored for a slow-moving leviathan (remember, the soundtrack is one of the last things created for an episode - Sol Kaplan was composing for the original effects). I will grant you that many of the original shots are replicated - fleetingly - only to be interrupted by the swooping and the dive-bombing. Funny how we were talking about replicating atmospheric flight conditions before, because here they are, in an episode with absolutely no excuse for them. But you know what? I might have forgiven all this, if the effects were decent. They're not. I checked Memory Alpha: the episode was released in 2007, but those effects look years older than that. The asteroids, in particular, are unacceptable. Take a look at the dirt clod bouncing off the Constellation at 1:23. There's also a sequence starting at 2:17 which is actually quite pathetic. "It's veered off!" Sulu announces. No, Sulu, the Enterprise is flying away from it at an angle. The planet killer isn't moving. And this is one of the most effects-heavy episodes of the series! It should have been a triumph.

Now, granted, I couldn't have done any better. But I do know someone who could - and did: Here is the work of one fan, less than three years later. Sadly, he never finished, but I remind you that only one person did this, and was not remunerated for doing so. At the very least, it's the equal of the "official" "remastered" effects, in my opinion. To me, this proves that these effects were done on the cheap, with no special talent or care put into their creation, and confirms how badly they will age in the coming years, and how they were largely a testament to the ego of Okuda. This is just one episode - there are obviously others - but I decided that using one as a case study would prove my point.

But there is a personal element that you touched on with perhaps bothers me most of all:

I can understand why ONLY having the option to see the remastered version would be annoying though--most TV channels in the UK showing TOS still show the original version, except Virgin which shows the remastered one.

One more reason for me to move to the UK, then

Sadly, that's not an option for me where I live, unless I choose to watch the original versions which are thankfully in my possession. It echoes the "Orwellian" point I was making earlier. And it has proven insidious, even spreading into fandom. Memory Alpha, for example, now uses all of the "remastered" effects shots (including the replaced matte paintings) as standard. Even SFDebris reviews the "remastered" versions of the classic episodes, which really does serve to undermine the point of his show, in my opinion.

I do credit Paramount for at least keeping the original versions widely available, though I detest them for making them "secondary" to these "remastered" versions.

And I'm glad to finally have all that off my chest! Here's to hoping that my next update will be out in the next few days...

Also fans of classic Trek should definitely check out the interactive Google Doodle for google.co.uk (I don't know if it's on the other mirrors) for today

It is on at least one other mirror.

It appears to be worldwide! And isn't it just delightful! Even though it's a day early, as the anniversary is September 8th. Never forget!

 

[Thande]

I think it's just a matter of perspective. How much of the remastered series have you seen--when I wrote "they don't make the Enterprise do cartwheels" I was literally thinking "well except for in The Doomsday Machine". I concede your point about the music not being mickey-moused to that kind of different movement aesthetic.

I don't know. I think it's just I grew up fascinated by the idea of seeing more of the TOS era of Star Trek (which back in the 90s, TNG tried to act like it had never happened, at least until the episode "Relics") as a setting, more ships and technology and so on, and I'm used to seeing projects like "The Starfleet Museum" speculating about this. And TOS-R is basically finally being able to do that (in fact one of the space station designs they used in it was done by the bloke from the Starfleet Museum). This makes me squee, although I understand why you might find this disrespectful to do it with the actual original episodes rather than creating a whole new show to do it with.

Also I like the CGI in TOS-R, and--again--usually I am the first to get angry about when model shots are made secondary to bad CGI. Maybe it depends on your TV, but certainly on mine TOS-R seems to well capture the look of the original model shots, just in higher definition. (Again, if you want an example of this done really, REALLY badly, see the Red Dwarf remastered episodes). If you look at the making-of segments on the DVDs, it was clearly a labour of love, the people doing the effects had grown up with the original show and angrily vetoed any attempts by the powers above to make the nacelles glow or that sort of thing. Having said that, I certainly don't think they would consider their work superior or any kind of replacement for the original classic, so blame the networks rather than the remasterers if they're not giving you a choice

Granted, I can see how some people would see it as patronising "the kids won't take the effects seriously so we have to change them if we want to keep repeating TOS", but I saw it as more "an interesting experiment" than trying to replace the original.

 

[vultan]

Brainbin, all this discussion makes me wonder: is there any instance, either real-life or hypothetical, where you would approve of remastering/reediting movies and/or TV episodes?

(I say this because, to play off the Star Wars/Star Trek examples that have been used so far in the discussion, I do recall that remastered versions were made of the pilots of Babylon 5 and Stargate SG-1 years after the fact, but neither really raised much hate from the fan community, possibly because they were done to clean up continuity problems for the most part.)

 

[phx1138]

Canada, too. Looks like they've all got it.

 

[jpj1421]

See, I personally don't mind touching up the images or the sound to make it easier to consume. Recoloring Gone with the Wind for instance. And I don't really mind them making planets look more realistic form space...per se. It's the George Lucasification that I can't stand. Changing things, adding thing, making the screen cluttered with so much background nonsense that you can't focus. That's when things go wrong.

 

[unclepatrick]

See, I personally don't mind touching up the images or the sound to make it easier to consume. Recoloring Gone with the Wind for instance. And I don't really mind them making planets look more realistic form space...per se. It's the George Lucasification that I can't stand. Changing things, adding thing, making the screen cluttered with so much background nonsense that you can't focus. That's when things go wrong.

While I hate movie being colorized, I don't mind if edited out footage is edited back in. Example is the Movie Metropolis, much of the movie was edited for time. Film has only just been restored.

 

[phx1138]

Speaking only for "Remastered TOS", I'm not terribly troubled by what of it I've seen. (It's replaced the "unremastered" on cable here AFAICT.) I also don't see it's improved things much, or any: adding beauty shots of Enterprise for their own sake doesn't help story flow.

 

[Thande]

Speaking only for "Remastered TOS", I'm not terribly troubled by what of it I've seen. (It's replaced the "unremastered" on cable here AFAICT.) I also don't see it's improved things much, or any: adding beauty shots of Enterprise for their own sake doesn't help story flow.

Sometimes they do do things that are unambiguously improvements and that would certainly have been done on the original show if they'd had the money: for example, making sure all the shuttles have unique names and numbers (and they're often destroyed in that episode) instead of it always being the same stock footage of the Galileo NCC-1701/7.

I have yet to see a colourised black and white film that looked tolerable.

 

[phx1138]

Sometimes they do do things that are unambiguously improvements and that would certainly have been done on the original show if they'd had the money: for example, making sure all the shuttles have unique names and numbers (and they're often destroyed in that episode) instead of it always being the same stock footage of the Galileo NCC-1701/7.

I won't argue it; I haven't seen but a couple, like "Doomsday Machine" (& the Machine's "maw" looked better).

I have yet to see a colourised black and white film that looked tolerable.

Nor I. Sometimes, with the oldies, it's hard to tell if there's been bad colorizing, or just a lot of fading, 'cause much of it is B&W, but some looks colored...

Colorization really is up there with pan & scan on my list of things there should be a law against. What's next, colorizing "Citizen Kane"? "Remastering" "Gone With the Wind"? Or "The Wizard of Oz"?

 

[Brainbin]

I think it's just a matter of perspective. How much of the remastered series have you seen--when I wrote "they don't make the Enterprise do cartwheels" I was literally thinking "well except for in The Doomsday Machine".

Another eye-roller was "Tomorrow is Yesterday", which was probably worse than "The Doomsday Machine" when it came to not acting like a spaceship at all. And, again, this refutes your argument that they mostly kept to the original footage. The shots added of the Romulan birds-of-prey in "The Enterprise Incident" actually undermine the episode, in which it is clear that the Romulans are flying about in Klingon warbirds (which only happened because they couldn't afford to do new effects shots).

I concede your point about the music not being mickey-moused to that kind of different movement aesthetic.

Thank you. It's just one small part of the greater example of every other aspect of production clashing horribly with these new effects, at least in my opinion.

I don't know. I think it's just I grew up fascinated by the idea of seeing more of the TOS era of Star Trek (which back in the 90s, TNG tried to act like it had never happened, at least until the episode "Relics") as a setting, more ships and technology and so on, and I'm used to seeing projects like "The Starfleet Museum" speculating about this. And TOS-R is basically finally being able to do that (in fact one of the space station designs they used in it was done by the bloke from the Starfleet Museum). This makes me squee, although I understand why you might find this disrespectful to do it with the actual original episodes rather than creating a whole new show to do it with.

I think this is the heart of our disagreement. Your last sentence hits the nail on the head for me; they have a whole new movie series now, where they can do whatever they want to those characters, and it isn't hurting anybody. But these people are defacing the canon. It's like new editions of the original Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes books, revised by devoted fans, and adding little details that they would have loved to see confirmed. The canon is what it is, warts and all; why can't people just leave it be?

If you look at the making-of segments on the DVDs, it was clearly a labour of love, the people doing the effects had grown up with the original show and angrily vetoed any attempts by the powers above to make the nacelles glow or that sort of thing. Having said that, I certainly don't think they would consider their work superior or any kind of replacement for the original classic, so blame the networks rather than the remasterers if they're not giving you a choice

I haven't seen the making-of segments (I obviously refuse to buy the "remastered" DVDs on general principle), and I admit to being conflicted about their own impressions of their work. Suffice it to say that I definitely don't agree with the conclusions that they've drawn about it. But given your point: I wonder how they feel, given that it's now become clear that there is a concerted effort to replace the originals with these "remastered" versions?

Granted, I can see how some people would see it as patronising "the kids won't take the effects seriously so we have to change them if we want to keep repeating TOS", but I saw it as more "an interesting experiment" than trying to replace the original.

And if that's all it turned out to be (and Beauty and the Beast took this approach very nicely, I must say), then I'd be mildly annoyed at worst. That said, where you are, it does seem "an interesting experiment", because only one channel airs it, so if I was in your place, I'd defintely be less indignant about it (though I would still take offence at the actions of Memory Alpha and SFDebris, among others, but obviously neither the effects creators nor Paramount have anything to do with them).

Brainbin, all this discussion makes me wonder: is there any instance, either real-life or hypothetical, where you would approve of remastering/reediting movies and/or TV episodes?

(I say this because, to play off the Star Wars/Star Trek examples that have been used so far in the discussion, I do recall that remastered versions were made of the pilots of Babylon 5 and Stargate SG-1 years after the fact, but neither really raised much hate from the fan community, possibly because they were done to clean up continuity problems for the most part.)

That's an excellent question, vultan, and thank you for asking it. Looking at my arguments, I can list a few major objections I have with revisions to completed works:

1. A concerted effort to "replace" the original version. George Lucas is obviously Exhibit A for this one.
2. No involvement from the original creative team. Here's where the "remastering" of Star Trek is guilty as sin.
3. Changes which are detrimental to the plot or themes of the original work, or which clash with other aspects of production. The "Han Shot First" category

Ideologically, I have major problems with #1 and #3. Obviously, #2 can't be helped in certain situations (including that of Star Trek), and pragmatism has to win out here (as it's the only one of the three which can't be avoided in perpetuity). As an enthusiast of popular culture, #1 is my nemesis. So, "remastered" versions, which are in a secondary position to the original version (presented as an "alternate" or "extended" cut - the Lord of the Rings movies seem like a fairly even-handed way to do this, and it also does not violate #2; you'll have to tell me if #3 was broken or not), are tolerable, if not welcome. Allow me to share other examples throughout this post...

Canada, too. Looks like they've all got it.

I know that Canada isn't part of the United States, but last I checked, it did fall under "worldwide"

See, I personally don't mind touching up the images or the sound to make it easier to consume. Recoloring Gone with the Wind for instance. And I don't really mind them making planets look more realistic form space...per se. It's the George Lucasification that I can't stand. Changing things, adding thing, making the screen cluttered with so much background nonsense that you can't focus. That's when things go wrong.

Glad you're still reading, and thank you for your input on this issue!

Decades-after-the-fact remastering obviously violates #2, but if they're just touching up the picture and sound quality, then it doesn't violate #3, and if the original version is too poorly degraded, then #1 is moot and I have no further objection. Gone With the Wind is a tricky one, because it was filmed in Technicolor and therefore the saturation needs to be maintained, difficult for one of the oldest major colour films which continues to be widely seen (The Wizard of Oz has the same problem). So I would accept that as a necessary evil. But, say, if they were to replace the matte paintings in those two movies with CGI backgrounds, I would pitch a fit. Why would anyone do that? Well, I'm sure they would have used CGI backgrounds, if they were available at the time... this demonstrates one of the big problems with that line of argument.

While I hate movie being colorized, I don't mind if edited out footage is edited back in. Example is the Movie Metropolis, much of the movie was edited for time. Film has only just been restored.

I have no objection to that (assuming that it was indeed Lang's true vision), so long as the original cut remains widely available.

Sometimes they do do things that are unambiguously improvements and that would certainly have been done on the original show if they'd had the money: for example, making sure all the shuttles have unique names and numbers (and they're often destroyed in that episode) instead of it always being the same stock footage of the Galileo NCC-1701/7.

That's one of the best possible arguments for the "remastering", because I can't possibly rebut it. (At least I can say they were able to film new footage for the show ITTL.)

I have yet to see a colourised black and white film that looked tolerable.

One of the many reasons we should forever be grateful that Ted Turner has fallen from power (at least the rise of AOL was good for something!).

 

[phx1138]

I think this is the heart of our disagreement. Your last sentence hits the nail on the head for me; they have a whole new movie series now, where they can do whatever they want to those characters, and it isn't hurting anybody.

I disagree with this. The new films effectively reset the canon, just as the new "BSG" does. And I don't like it.

The canon is what it is, warts and all; why can't people just leave it be?

IMO that applies to everybody. Use the setting; surely there's enough room in the "ST" universe to do new stories without having to use the "Big 6" (or the "Original 6", if you like).

I wonder how they feel, given that it's now become clear that there is a concerted effort to replace the originals with these "remastered" versions?

Can you say "unintended consequences"?

I would still take offence at the actions of Memory Alpha and SFDebris, among others

Why so? Am I missing something?

I can list a few major objections I have with revisions to completed works

I have more/less the same problems with the remakes, which strike me a flimsy way of doing what you can't get away with in remastering the original. At least OTL's "TNG" didn't pretend to be "TOS" (for all the problems of ignoring "TOS"...).

I know that Canada isn't part of the United States, but last I checked, it did fall under "worldwide"

Tell that to Major League Baseball. Or, as John Cleese says, "When we hold a World Series, we invite the world."

I have no objection to that (assuming that it was indeed Lang's true vision), so long as the original cut remains widely available.

AFAIK, it used an original script. I'd say the same as you about films on DVD: hope they're also available untouched. Except, I've yet to see one before about the '90s that wasn't pan & scanned.

One of the many reasons we should forever be grateful that Ted Turner has fallen from power

Word.

 

[NCW8]

Colorization really is up there with pan & scan on my list of things there should be a law against. What's next, colorizing "Citizen Kane"? "Remastering" "Gone With the Wind"? Or "The Wizard of Oz"?

Wait long enough and some-one will colorize Schindler's List

I disagree with this. The new films effectively reset the canon, just as the new "BSG" does. And I don't like it.

Parallel timelines are part of the canon (or at least part of the TNG canon). I prefer to think that the real Star Trek is just a quantum shift away.

Mind you, there are enough things wrong with the reboot anyway, starting with the fact that Kirk should never have been promoted to Captain that quickly. I think that it would have been more interesting to show the voyages of Captain Pike, starting with the arrival of Lieutenant Kirk.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Lord Insane]

Parallel timelines are part of the canon (or at least part of the TNG canon). I prefer to think that the real Star Trek is just a quantum shift away.

Abrams' official stance is that the original Star Trek is pretty much just a quantum shift away.

 

[Thande]

The shots added of the Romulan birds-of-prey in "The Enterprise Incident" actually undermine the episode, in which it is clear that the Romulans are flying about in Klingon warbirds (which only happened because they couldn't afford to do new effects shots).

Battle cruisers, not warbirds. Don't make the same mistake as Enterprise and Star Trek IX (the latter of which is probably pure trolling, considering how Berman and Braga actually apologised for doing this and admitted it was a mistake, and then Abrams comes along and does the exact same thing)

But you do raise an important point. I hate it when remastering actually undermines the dialogue or concept in the original. Let's go back to my favourite example of remastering done horribly, Red Dwarf. There's a brilliant example of the right hand not knowing what the hell the left hand was doing there. Basically, series 1-5 of Red Dwarf were filmed with model shots showing Red Dwarf and Blue Midget, its shuttle. The ones of Red Dwarf were very good, but for similar budgetary reasons to Star Trek, Blue Midget didn't look very impressive--it basically looked like an upturned bath.

Series 6 didn't feature either ship at all because of its 'lost' plot, and then a few years later series 7 came in using CGI instead, but still neither of those ships was in it. Then series 8 came in and they used (bad) CGI for Red Dwarf and Blue Midget. Both ships looked significantly different from how they used to, but they justified this by saying that Red Dwarf had been rebuilt from scratch from nanobots and "they had restored the ship's original planned design before all the budget cuts". Fine. And Blue Midget now had legs like an AT-ST from Star Wars, which let the Cat do this scene where he gets the ship to dance in time with his own dancing.

EXCEPT AT THE SAME BLOODY TIME, they went back and "remastered" series 1-3 using THE SAME BAD CGI MODELS SO THE LINE ABOUT RED DWARF BEING A DIFFERENT DESIGN NOW MAKES NO EFFING SENSE! (And there's a scene with Blue Midget that now no longer makes any sense because it shows it walking on the surface of a planet when it was flying in the original).

As an indication of how terrible these CGI versions were, note that Sfdebris (whose exclusive use of remastered TOS footage does evoke mixed feelings in myself, even though I like the TOS-R stuff more than you) didn't touch them with a barge pole when he reviewed Red Dwarf Series 1-3/

One of the many reasons we should forever be grateful that Ted Turner has fallen from power (at least the rise of AOL was good for something!).

That and a never-ending supply of those free silvery coasters to put drinks on

I disagree with this. The new films effectively reset the canon, just as the new "BSG" does. And I don't like it.

I agree but if we start that discussion we'll be here all day and distract from Brainbin's timeline.

 

[vultan]

Mind you, there are enough things wrong with the reboot anyway, starting with the fact that Kirk should never have been promoted to Captain that quickly. I think that it would have been more interesting to show the voyages of Captain Pike, starting with the arrival of Lieutenant Kirk.

Fridge Horror: Starfleet was so badly crippled at the Battle of Vulcan that it became palatable to promote someone like Kirk to a command position.

(It's my theory, anyway.)

 

[Thande]

Fridge Horror: Starfleet was so badly crippled at the Battle of Vulcan that it became palatable to promote someone like Kirk to a command position.

(It's my theory, anyway.)

I remember BlackWave taking issue with the fact that I said that Kirk's promotion at the end of Star Trek IX was less plausible and realistic than everything that happened in "Spock's Brain" put together, but I stand by that statement.

 

[jpj1421]

While I hate movie being colorized, I don't mind if edited out footage is edited back in. Example is the Movie Metropolis, much of the movie was edited for time. Film has only just been restored.

Was Gone withe Wind not originally in color? What I meant was touching up degraded images. Black and white movies should stay black and white.

 

[Lord Insane]

I remember BlackWave taking issue with the fact that I said that Kirk's promotion at the end of Star Trek IX was less plausible and realistic than everything that happened in "Spock's Brain" put together, but I stand by that statement.

Throwing in a further time-jump might have made it more palatable. If nothing else, it would explain why we never get to see any real reaction to the majority of Starfleet Academy's graduating class dying in battle. But, this is not the thread to discuss the not-just-old-fan flaws of Star Trek XI.

 

[Thande]

But, this is not the thread to discuss the not-just-old-fan flaws of Star Trek XI.

No, indeed.

 

[NCW8]

I remember BlackWave taking issue with the fact that I said that Kirk's promotion at the end of Star Trek IX was less plausible and realistic than everything that happened in "Spock's Brain" put together, but I stand by that statement.

To quote Father Brown:

It really is more natural to believe a preternatural story, that deals with things we don’t understand, than a natural story that contradicts things we do understand. Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing-room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it’s only incredible. But I’m much more certain it didn’t happen than that Parnell’s ghost didn’t appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand

Kirk getting promoted to Captain isn't impossible, but it is incredible and that's why it's harder to believe in than Spock's Brain.

Cheers,
Nigel.