TOS-R in Widescreen?

[gastrof]

From what I understand, they did the digital re-creation shots in widescreen so's to give themselves a lot of options.

The current airings of TOSR are in 4x3, and that includes the stations that are running it in HD. (I'm not sure if the redone scenes are in widescreen in the aired version, but the original films certainly haven't had the tops and bottoms cut off.)

I'd be very much surprised if the high def DVDs have the original shots CUT so's to be the shape of a 16x9 TV screen.

Don't worry. They're looking to attract fans, not drive us away.

 

[windwood]

All right then. So if a TRUE widescreen version of TOS could be recreated by going back to the film elements and extracting the image from the safety areas (which means that ALL of the original broadcast image is kept), it would be ok with everyone?

Can Paramount do this? Is it feasible financially?

 

[jayrath]

^ That would be better than cutting screen content, but it still violates the intended, original composition. I suppose I should not be surprised that it's even up for debate -- scenic composition is a difficult concept, and the state of arts education in this country is awful.

To state the obvious: TV shows and movies are not filmed in the style of cell phones held up at concerts. Otherwise it would only take an hour to film an hour-long show.

Props are located carefully on screen; actors are located carefully in front of sets and in relation to each other; the distance from the camera to the actors is carefully chosen; focus (or depth of field) is carefully selected; and it's all then carefully lit (for lens focus and to best feature only those compositonal elements that are most important to the scene). Colors are weighed against the four corners of the frame, as well as light and dark areas. It all ideally balances, shot by shot, scene by scene, and also within an entire program or movie -- for dramatic effect.

And then all-important is the selection of the width and height of the shot. That's the difference between a close-up, medium shot, etc. This is no small matter -- it's what pioneer filmmaker D.W. Griffith is celebrated for inventing (with inspiration from French and Italian filmmakers) even today.

On-screen, the hopeful result reflects a shared, single desire on the parts of the cinematographer, director and editor.

If you think I exaggerate, I'm still leaving out film speed, the grain of the film chosen, lens selection and "hot" versus "cold" light.

Why else do you think it takes so long to film episodic television and movies? These are artists and craftspeople.

We're all so slavish to the actors' recollections and opinions. Why must we ignore and even repudiate the choices of the film crews?

We are more and more moving into interactive media. "Star Trek" fans want to be cutting edge once again, in making their favorite program at least somewhat interactive -- malleable, to meet new broadcast demands. But it was intended to be fixed, unchangeable, and enjoyed passively.

More than any of this, I worry a lot about the supposed future, when many are predicted to watch TV by phone. MTV is having fits figuring out how to produce content that will even show up in that format. I worry that that end-use will eventually drive production choices even for films originally released to conventional theaters.

In the 1950s, Cinerama and "bigger is better" ruled. That got us pan and scan, and movies got small again.

We're now looking for both more (because of screen sizes in alternate media) and less (because of resolution in alternate media).

This is going to be a huge, industry-wide issue in the years ahead.

 

[windwood]

Why must we ignore and even repudiate the choices of the film crews?

It doesn't completely ignore/repudiate the choices of the film crews because those choices make up 80% or more of the total frame image for this kind of widescreen conversion.

The world library of film/video media gets larger every day, and older works are being buried in film history. I fall asleep trying to watch DW Griffith (and I've tried to stay awake with huge doses of caffeine and pinching myself to stave off slumber). He is important in the study of film, but you couldn't pay me to watch Griffith for entertainment.

Some, like Star Trek, manage to stay relevant despite the onslaught. If a little tweaking in the presentation means that Star Trek TOS continues to hold onto a rapt, wide, appreciative audience, I'm all for it. It's as much about the story and the acting as it is about the visual composition (which I realize does play into the storytelling too).

No work of art is immune from this tweaking, nor should they be. Even Shakespeare, one of the greatest high authors in English literature, has been "improved" upon many times. Films of Shakespearean plays freely change the dialog and plots and have done so with great success. I count Orson Welles "Chimes At Midnight" (a hybrid of several Shakespearean plays) as one of my favorite. As a result, Shakespeare continues to be performed/read as originally intended and gets a bigger audience.

 

[jayrath]

We are agreed.

What I take to be all-important is the creators' intent. TOS was shot and directed for the alleged 80 percent that all the crew knew would be on screen.

I don't want to get into Shakespeare or Welles here -- though I would love to discuss them in a different forum. I directed Welles' only unproduced play a few years ago, and I think I have some unique insights.

As for D.W. Griffith, yes, his work is barely watchable today. But then look at what came before. He took huge steps forward, and if we now see his direction as commonplace, that's only because the language of film we have now reflects his innovations. What was once unique and even shocking is now standard -- thanks to Griffith.

If TOS must be consigned to screenings by film historians, so be it. I don't think we should endlessly tamper with any filmed dramatic work, merely to make it pleasant for audiences decades later.

Once upon a time, people actually enjoyed films, novels and other works that they had to work a bit to understand.

I really have no problem with TOS-R, or widescreen or any of this manipulation. What bothers me tremendously are current producers' opinons regarding today's audience. I would hate to think that young people are babies for whom even entertainment must be blended and spoon-fed, and made the least difficult for the most-common demographic denominator.

If so, what will happen to opera, to classical music, to plays? They're entertainment, too, and have pleased thinking audiences for centuries.

I don't mind working a bit, visually and intellectually, to enjoy dramatic works. Perhaps I am just an old, old minority.

 

[Doug Otte]

Hear, hear, Jayrath. I agree with you completely, but maybe we're in the same age "demographic."

Windwood, you're right that the modification is going to happen anyway, and some viewers will enjoy it. We can't fight the trend, but my only hope is that the original versions are retained and are available. I'm sure members of this forum are sick of me, but I don't see any evidence that the original, unaltered ST will be made available in an HD format.

Doug

 

[USS Mariner]

Doug Otte said:
I'm sure members of this forum are sick of me, but I don't see any evidence that the original, unaltered ST will be made available in an HD format.

Doug

That is be the case; it's too costly an effort to do it any other way.

If they honestly wanted to restore the original episodes in HD as filmed, it would easily take several years to complete. You'd have to restore the original audio mix (which last showed up on the Laserdiscs, as abeakerfullofdeath can attest,) clear up the FX work (essentially)by hand, ensure a clear, vibrant, and consistent picture throughout the series, and probably a few other things I'm not remembering right now.

Compared to the above, adding whiz-bang 2007 effects and a throwing a helter-skelter restoration job (neither of which are the TOS-R staff's fault, mind you) at the over-medicated masses is much easier on CBmount's wallet. As for the "scanned" versions of the episodes that are used as base material for the TOS-R edits, I can safely bet that they are far from "restored" before actual editing work is done on the whole episode. It's simply a matter of deadlines.


To all those who will now accuse me of cussing our the TOS-R Staff, I have two things to say:

1.) Fuck you. Fuck you, and learn how to read English, starting with Dick and Jane, working up to college level. Obviously, you didn't get it the first time.

2.) They can't actually do much without CBmount giving either their approval or spending resources to give them access to the proper experts (not only technically, but also those who've worked on the series who have no ties to the company, as well as those experts who have devoted much of their own effort to researching the history of the series.)

It really doesn't matter if the staff has "the wrong ideas" about TOS, because they were fucked from the word go with no budget and no outside help. Doing everything in house was the obvious sign that CBmount never considered this muhc more than a glorified Direct-To-DVD effort.

The TOS-R team has done an excellent restoration of the picture for the most part but, especially recently, they can't restore all of the footage because they're too busy doing everything else. Having a dedicated restoration crew (especially by people who have experience in that line of work) would have make this job easier by a hundred-fold, but it would have cost the executives a one-week delay on their H3.

 

[Outpost4]

3...2...1...

 

[Mallory]

Mariner Class said:
To all those who will now accuse me of cussing our the TOS-R Staff, I have two things to say:
1.) Fuck you. Fuck you, and learn how to read English, starting with Dick and Jane, working up to college level. Obviously, you didn't get it the first time.

Take it easy man. People are entitled to their opinions and no one is going to rip you for having yours.

 

[Corran Horn]

I'm all for an HD presentation, and even updating the effects, but giving Scotty a decapitation in that scene just to make it widescreen looks pretty bad. The scene was framed for a television screen and it looks silly zoomed in on.

 

[Guartho]

Sorry to resurrect an old topic that's been thoroughly beaten, but I have good reason.

I was over searching StarTrek.com for the release date since I just got an HDDVD player. Right there in the official press release it says:

STAR TREK: The Original Series is a 10-disc collection presented in the original aspect ratio (1.33:1)

So, for the time being, it seems this whole argument has been academic.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So I take it that it would not be realistic to wait for a widescreen version before buying the TOS-R disc sets? That's what I've been doing in the meantime.

I just can't get over the fact that *the effects have already been done in widescreen*. Why would they do that, if they don't eventually plan on releasing the DVDs that way?

I mean, as bloody expensive as the TOS-R first season is...well, you know.

 

[Outpost4]

You might be waiting quite a long time.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If the TOS-R sets were affordable ($179 for ONE SEASON? Gimme a break), I guess it wouldn't be so bad.

 

[Outpost4]

Amazon had them for $133. I don't know if they still do.

No doubt, it's still expensive.

 

[A beaker full of death]

jayrath said:
^ That would be better than cutting screen content, but it still violates the intended, original composition. I suppose I should not be surprised that it's even up for debate -- scenic composition is a difficult concept, and the state of arts education in this country is awful.

To state the obvious: TV shows and movies are not filmed in the style of cell phones held up at concerts. Otherwise it would only take an hour to film an hour-long show.

Props are located carefully on screen; actors are located carefully in front of sets and in relation to each other; the distance from the camera to the actors is carefully chosen; focus (or depth of field) is carefully selected; and it's all then carefully lit (for lens focus and to best feature only those compositonal elements that are most important to the scene). Colors are weighed against the four corners of the frame, as well as light and dark areas. It all ideally balances, shot by shot, scene by scene, and also within an entire program or movie -- for dramatic effect.

And then all-important is the selection of the width and height of the shot. That's the difference between a close-up, medium shot, etc. This is no small matter -- it's what pioneer filmmaker D.W. Griffith is celebrated for inventing (with inspiration from French and Italian filmmakers) even today.

On-screen, the hopeful result reflects a shared, single desire on the parts of the cinematographer, director and editor.

If you think I exaggerate, I'm still leaving out film speed, the grain of the film chosen, lens selection and "hot" versus "cold" light.

Why else do you think it takes so long to film episodic television and movies? These are artists and craftspeople.

We're all so slavish to the actors' recollections and opinions. Why must we ignore and even repudiate the choices of the film crews?

Very well said. Unfortunately, the so-called "professionals" in Hollywood today are clueless as to these artistic elements, so why would we expect the audiences to understand them?

Most probably think a composition like this was an accident -- or rather, they don't think of it at all.

 

[Outpost4]

^ You realize you're responding to a post from two months ago and to someone who hasn't posted in a month, don't you?

 

[A beaker full of death]

No, I hadn't. Comment's still valid, though.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Well, in case someone brings it up again, here's why they went with new FX instead of remastering the original footage: The original effects, even in standard def, look like crap. They were fine on a 60's era set, but today's sets are higher resolution than those old sets, and a lot of stuff that wasn't visible then show up clear as a bell now, like the garbage mattes around the ships, for instance. Crank the resolution up to high def, and it'll become a laughing stock.

So for a HD remastering, all new effects sequences aren't just a new set of bells and whistles, they're the only thing that would make the entire project even feasible.

And like someone pointed about upthread, the original effects elements probably don't exist anymore, so either way, you're stuck with starting over.

 

[BreenLullaby]

jayrath said:
^

Why else do you think it takes so long to film episodic television and movies? These are artists and craftspeople.

We're all so slavish to the actors' recollections and opinions. Why must we ignore and even repudiate the choices of the film crews?

Stop! You're making too much sense to be posting on a message board!!!!

I completely agree about your comment about the cult of the actor within Trek fandom; the actors are the symbols that everyone sees while watching the shows, but it is the writers and directors who usually care the most about the show and who actually have real input as to what is going to be going on within the story.

I have always been disappointed that writers are essentially sut out of conventions while various surley actors get paid $10-70 per autograph by adoring fans.