Saturday, Oct 10, 2009
I recently was loaned some DVDs of the "remastered" original Star Trek show. Only they did a lot more than remaster them. They completely replaced all exterior space shots as well as a number of interior special effects. Some of the new effects looked good. Others betrayed a complete ignorance of physics, perhaps unintentional, perhaps not. And some were simply unnecessary, but the CGI artists just couldn't resist. Even with the best of the new effects, I'm not completely happy about it.
I think about the men (and presumably women) who were responsible for the original effects, and how all of their time, effort and ingenuity has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Nobody will see what they did ever again, and what they achieved was pretty impressive given the era, the technology and their limited budget. But how would you feel if you were special effects man Jim Rugg or somebody who worked at photographic effects shop Westheimer Company and you watched these episodes today? Your grandchild might see your name in the credits and say, "Hey, that was good, grandpa. How did you do that?" And you'd have to admit, "We didn't do that. Everything we did, they took out and replaced." I doff my hat to these unsung workers, who deserved better than to have their footage on the virtual cutting room floor.
I call this the George Lucas Effect, for the man who started this whole, "We can do it better now, so we'll just go back and fix that old movie" trend. Or perhaps in a nod to "retcon," the term in comics which describes retroactive continuity (changing the history of a character), retfx, for retroactive effects. Why not just make something new instead of tinkering with history? What's next? Should they dig out the Wizard of Oz and replace all the flying monkeys with CGI monkeys? Take Forbidden Planet and make a CGI monster surviving in the crossfire of the ship's cannons? Maybe the Crimson Pirate deserves a more realistic pirate ship? Oh, I know! Charlton Heston's parting of the Red Sea would be so much more impressive in a CGI-enhanced Ten Commandments! Plus the Hebrew God's flaming finger carving out the two tablets, the staves turning into snakes, etc.
I think about the men (and presumably women) who were responsible for the original effects, and how all of their time, effort and ingenuity has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Nobody will see what they did ever again, and what they achieved was pretty impressive given the era, the technology and their limited budget. But how would you feel if you were special effects man Jim Rugg or somebody who worked at photographic effects shop Westheimer Company and you watched these episodes today? Your grandchild might see your name in the credits and say, "Hey, that was good, grandpa. How did you do that?" And you'd have to admit, "We didn't do that. Everything we did, they took out and replaced." I doff my hat to these unsung workers, who deserved better than to have their footage on the virtual cutting room floor.
I call this the George Lucas Effect, for the man who started this whole, "We can do it better now, so we'll just go back and fix that old movie" trend. Or perhaps in a nod to "retcon," the term in comics which describes retroactive continuity (changing the history of a character), retfx, for retroactive effects. Why not just make something new instead of tinkering with history? What's next? Should they dig out the Wizard of Oz and replace all the flying monkeys with CGI monkeys? Take Forbidden Planet and make a CGI monster surviving in the crossfire of the ship's cannons? Maybe the Crimson Pirate deserves a more realistic pirate ship? Oh, I know! Charlton Heston's parting of the Red Sea would be so much more impressive in a CGI-enhanced Ten Commandments! Plus the Hebrew God's flaming finger carving out the two tablets, the staves turning into snakes, etc.
Comments
Page
1
« prev
|
next »
Posted Oct 11, 2009 5:20 am PT
Ditto that, it's butchery at best. It was those nuances that made it special back then. Could you imagine if they did that to Thunderbirds or Batman if would absolutely rob the series of it's uniqueness.
Posted Oct 11, 2009 6:16 am PT
Mav,
If it were my guide, I would accept descriptions of the changes in the trivia section. It's on the screen, so it's not notes, and it is something someone who watches both versions of the show might notice. Although Paramount has taken that option away from future viewers. You only get to watch the remastered version if you want to buy it from now on. How ironic that CBS once reportedly turned down Star Trek in favor of its own show, Lost in Space, but now owns Trek since they own the Paramount Television library.
If it were my guide, I would accept descriptions of the changes in the trivia section. It's on the screen, so it's not notes, and it is something someone who watches both versions of the show might notice. Although Paramount has taken that option away from future viewers. You only get to watch the remastered version if you want to buy it from now on. How ironic that CBS once reportedly turned down Star Trek in favor of its own show, Lost in Space, but now owns Trek since they own the Paramount Television library.
Posted Oct 11, 2009 7:45 am PT
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Posted Oct 11, 2009 7:46 am PT
Is it really impossible to purchase the original version? Lots of Star Trek purists loathe the re-mastered episodes, the new effects really are jarring because they kept almost all the interior shots and because the whole FEEL of the show (issues, writing style) is science fiction from the 60s - not some amalgamation for kids who only tolerate CGI.
Posted Oct 11, 2009 7:47 pm PT
You can't get it in DVD format. The only ones they're releasing now are the remastered versions. If you want the original effects, you'll have to buy previously released unremastered DVDs, either used or old stock. Or shell out for the Blu-ray box sets, which include both versions. I await and dread the day when they decide that they have CGI technology advanced enough to fix everything from the look of the interiors (gotta have more texture and tech detail, better lighting, animated displays, more winky-blinkies, you know; can't leave well enough alone) right down to the uniforms, and the only thing they leave unchanged will be the heads.
Posted Oct 11, 2009 8:28 pm PT
I've not quite decided where I sit on this. I'd long planned to replace my Star Trek VHS tapes, but held off from buying the show on DVD until they brought out the remastered versions, when I bought all three seasons. (I've not moved over to Blu-Ray and thought those sets were prohibitively expensive, in the UK at least.) I have to confess that I enjoyed the remastered episodes.
On balance, I probably disapprove of the Lucas/E.T./Bladerunner approach on principle, but I've bought several releases of Star Wars, and the last/best purchase was of sets containing both original and CGId versions of the trilogy. I watch both in turn.
The good people at BBC Video may have the right idea, where they release restored versions of Doctor Who and give you the option to view the episodes with or without improved effects shots, which can also be viewed in isolation as a feature.
On balance, I probably disapprove of the Lucas/E.T./Bladerunner approach on principle, but I've bought several releases of Star Wars, and the last/best purchase was of sets containing both original and CGId versions of the trilogy. I watch both in turn.
The good people at BBC Video may have the right idea, where they release restored versions of Doctor Who and give you the option to view the episodes with or without improved effects shots, which can also be viewed in isolation as a feature.
Posted Oct 14, 2009 7:33 am PT
Page
1
« prev
|
next »
Friends
My Friends
Maverick405