WOK Remastered...

[guardian]

Well I guess if you like space shots where you can see through the planets. the ships & space station & if you like a terrible matte painting the director can't even stand and if you love stock footage from the first movie---then don't touch it at all.

But if they can fix the blatant errors without changing the look and feel of the space scenes I don't see an objection--the original exists and will continue to exist.

Also the Chekov eel 'exit' scene---the eel clearly does not come from his ear canal. Rather it exits a fold of his ear--they didn't want to put the fake blood in his ear---they should fix that because they meant for the eel to be IN his ear, right?

 

[Therin of Andor]

guardian said:
they didn't want to put the fake blood in his ear

No, they wanted to be able to use the full-sized, detailed "adult" puppet as the closeup juvenile eel.

The tiny eels they sent into the ears were just bits of slime-covered gelatine on nylon fishing line.

 

[guardian]

Therin of Andor said:

guardian said:
they didn't want to put the fake blood in his ear

No, they wanted to be able to use the full-sized, detailed "adult" puppet as the closeup juvenile eel.

The tiny eels they sent into the ears were just bits of slime-covered gelatine on nylon fishing line.

No you're not following what I was talking about---

I KNOW they used an oversized fake ear to remove the full-size puppet eel---I'm not talking about that.

I am talking about when they show Koenig's real ear in part of the shot.....

They stuck the tiny eel puppet in the FOLD of his ear (not in the actual canal) and it flops to the floor. Even the blood is smeared in the fold of his ear NOT the canal.
It is obvious it is not exiting his body but just placed there for the shot.

That is what could be easily fixed with CGI.
Go ahead and actually watch the scene again and see what I am talking about.

 

[benny]

Why is it that every little mistake in every single movie needs to be corrected via CGI? Films are a product of their time period, their technology and their budget. Who cares if stock footage of the Enterprise was reused from TMP? That was a creative choice by the director to save a buck or two. Why is it such a freaking big deal?

 

[guardian]

And why does the correction of a mistake make some people so upset when the original version is widely available on many formats?

People act as if a small change in a movie they have seen many times and own on DVD or VHS is some kind of a personal attack on their property.

Meyer, for the record, didn't want major changes in the FX of TWOK. Everyone agrees that the original FX were good and should be respected. But some stuff was hurried or doesn't hold up well or in the case of the matte painting just never worked.
It hurts no one if the fx are upgraded consistant with the original style and intent.

Even Steven Spielberg made slight changes to 'Raiders...' (removing an obvious piece of glass separating Indy from some snakes.)

His intent was so that future viewers would be able to mantain the sense of illusion that there was danger to Indy and uphold suspension of disbelief.

Maybe it would be good if some future viewer of TWOK didn't notice that the eel was NOT exiting Chekov's ear but just placed in a fold of his upper ear structure in a hurried manner to avoid the actor going through an inconvienence.
If you don't think it matters--great, watch the original version and enjoy it.

Don't pretend that something you don't want to see and won't watch is somehow going to hurt you or hurt Star Trek or 'historical accuracy or whatever.

why did movie colorization stop for the most part?
Because an overwheming majority of people didn't like it or didn't want it.

So if people don't want older movies to be slightly adjusted or improved they will boycott future releases and they will stop doing it.
Vote with your purchase power and quit belittleing those of us who would like to see some minor improvements.

 

[benny]

#1. I didn't belittle. I asked a question.

#2. What has happened with Star Wars? George Lucas made changes to them and they have become what people think about when Star Wars is mentioned, not the originals. That's the problem. Is repainting the Mona Lisa just as acceptable as making changes like this to TWOK?

#3. Original style and intent. The guys redoing TOS now went in with those same thoughts. We can not know what anyone intended to do back in 1982 or whenver because, simply, the tools we use now were not available then. They did the best they could with the available technology.

Let's work on Citizen Kane next...or add some new characters to The Wizard of Oz.

 

[guardian]

First you pretend you are not belittleing folks who want minor changes and then you throw in absurd comparisons about changing Wizard of Oz and Citizen Kane.

This is how you think to make a point by comparing the minor changes and fixes I stated and then change the subject to altering classic movies by adding characters? How sad.
You also compare Lucas who has removed/added/changed characters and the intent/motivation of characters with fixing a bad matte and upgrading (with exact shots) the instances where the ships are see-through.

The example I gave of Speilberg simply making a slight CGI change to eliminate an obvious goof wasn't rebutted or mentioned of course.

 

[trevanian]

Holytomato said:
new SFX: :applause:

add Star Trek: First Contact warping, and shield flares.

Have you even SEEN ST2? The shields are ALWAYS down (not raised yet, dropped, or inoperative due to nebula) during the battle scenes (ditto for SFS.) There' s no point putting fx in that contradict story points, is there?

Not much point in doing anything to TWOK, unless you want to make it so Khan's buddy doesn't close his eyes well after he dies with them open. And if you're gonna be that picky with a 1982 flick that cost only 13 mil (not a ton even back then), well, there's probably no pleasing you.

 

[cardinal biggles]

guardian said:
Maybe it would be good if some future viewer of TWOK didn't notice that the eel was NOT exiting Chekov's ear but just placed in a fold of his upper ear structure in a hurried manner to avoid the actor going through an inconvienence.
If you don't think it matters--great, watch the original version and enjoy it.

I've seen TWOK at least a dozen times and never noticed that. If it's ruining your enjoyment of the film, I feel truly sorry for you.

 

[Oso Blanco]

guardian said:
Even Steven Spielberg made slight changes to 'Raiders...' (removing an obvious piece of glass separating Indy from some snakes.)

That how it starts. But where do we stop? I'd say, the line must be drawn here! This far, no farther!

Movies are always a product of their specific time era, leave them just as they are! If people want to see a movie just for perfect FX, then they should go see a 2007 movie!

 

[benny]

guardian said:
First you pretend you are not belittleing folks who want minor changes and then you throw in absurd comparisons about changing Wizard of Oz and Citizen Kane.

If you want me to belittle you...

Point out in any of my previous posts here where I belittled you. Please.

The example I gave of Speilberg simply making a slight CGI change to eliminate an obvious goof wasn't rebutted or mentioned of course.

I didn't rebut it because I don't have a problem with removing the glass between the snakes and Indy. It is barely noticeable and 99% of the viewing public would never know the difference. Start changing the look of space shots filmed in 1982 by using CGI instead of models and people will notice.

Besides that, talented people worked on every aspect of the film for a long time and now you want to throw away their work just because we have the technology to do so. It's kind of a slap in the face, don't you think?

 

[guardian]

Kind of sad you can't let people express their opinions without mocking them---

'ruined my enjoyment' etc.
Putting words in people's mouths is the losers way of debating something.

TWOK is a great movie. I watch it all the time. I even enjoy seeing something new each time (including the flubs)
This is supposed to be a discussion about perhaps some slight FX upgrades for the nearly certain remastering.
No one who has ever favored these types of upgrades has ever advocated getting rid of the original versions.

As in TOS-R, any future remastering will only spur people to re-watch or watch TWOK for the first time and that is a good thing.
Hundreds of thousands of people are watching TOS again on TV who figured they would never watch it on broadcast TV again. It's a great idea and hopefully might drive interest for the new movie.

'Purists' who keep railing against any changes for Trek are just posers who are trying to pretend they are more loyal and better fans than those folks who want to see changes, FX upgrades and re-cuts.

I have never heard anybody here advocate the removal of the original versions for print or availability,
but all the purists vociferously denigrate, mock and scream that Trek 'must not be touched' as if somehow their copies of existing Trek will disappear if a new version is released.
How pathetic that no thread involving rematering etc can't be left alone to evolve for those who might enjoy it without some pompous purist ruining it by turning it into a 'don't touch Trek' thread.

You are not a better or smarter Trek fan than anybody else because you act like you are 'defending' Trek against those who would change it.

Oh and Trevanian.....
the thread you quoted was talking about shield flares in the movie First Contact, NOT TWOK.

 

[benny]

^ If you're going to argue this point with me, then use my words to back up your positions. I NEVER said alterations would ruin my enjoyment of the movie. You don't seem to be listening to a thing I say, content only to draw wild generalizations.

You're absolutely right: the original versions will not disappear off the shelves. However, the updated version WILL take the place of the originals in 20 years because people won't know they were redone.

I don't claim to be smarter, better or a bigger fan than anyone else. I never made that claim about Trek or Star Wars and I won't make it about anything else. I am a film fanatic and don't want any piece of art to be changed without the direct involvement of the original creator.

(As for removing the originals from availability...what happened to the original version of SW? They were thrown onto DVD by Lucas in their "original" form, without being cleaned up or given an anamorphic transfer. Fans did not buy them for that reason and fed into Lucas' theory no one wanted them.)

 

[Doug Otte]

guardian said:

Therin of Andor said:

guardian said:
they didn't want to put the fake blood in his ear

No, they wanted to be able to use the full-sized, detailed "adult" puppet as the closeup juvenile eel.

The tiny eels they sent into the ears were just bits of slime-covered gelatine on nylon fishing line.

No you're not following what I was talking about---

I KNOW they used an oversized fake ear to remove the full-size puppet eel---I'm not talking about that.

I am talking about when they show Koenig's real ear in part of the shot.....

They stuck the tiny eel puppet in the FOLD of his ear (not in the actual canal) and it flops to the floor. Even the blood is smeared in the fold of his ear NOT the canal.
It is obvious it is not exiting his body but just placed there for the shot.

That is what could be easily fixed with CGI.
Go ahead and actually watch the scene again and see what I am talking about.

Nope. You're mistaken. They used a common movie trick. The camera starts to zoom in on Koenig's ear, then there's a fast crossfade (or maybe just a cut; can't remember which) to the prosthetic ear. If you blink, you might think it was a constant zoom, but it's two shots merged together.

Doug

 

[guardian]

^Okay, I don't mind making peace with you guys.

First, I agree Lucas was wrong in not making the originals available in decent form.
I've never heard anybody defend his crazy changes and stubborn refusal to horor theoriginal versions which people still love.

Second DVDs & HD-DVDs can easily hold multiple versions of any 2 hour film with 'seamless brancjng' so the creation of a new version won't negate the possibility of seeing the old.

Paramount has shown it is happy to re-release Trek over and over again. So if they release any new version, all they have to do is wait for the fans to demand the original be re-released and more money for them and the fasns are happy. DVD as a format will likely be around for many many years, so it's not like anybody who likes the original versions would have the need to re-buy them anyway.

You say I don't listen to your posts but you keep acting like I am advocating wholesale changes--I am not.
Redoing, shot for shot, the weaker 'new in 82' FX and perhaps asking Meyer how he would have liked the spacedock exit to look if he'd had the money are not major changes. As well as the matte which he really doen't like.

I wasn't referring you in particular, just some folks in general when I said some purists think they are better fans than others by 'defending' Trek. I clearly think some folks wear it as a badge of honor--always raining against any changes. Especially when pro-change folk are never promoting the Lucas-like removal of the originals.

The poster who said it 'ruined my enjoyment' was specifically talking about me, though.

I'd hope no one here would be against any changes as long as the originals remained available.

 

[benny]

Okay, I think we're on the same page now.

I'd like to take it one step further. Why not put both versions of the movie on the disc in the first place without causing a big scene? If Paramount redoes the movies, fine...dedicate the other disc layer or another disc to the original version of the film. It would be a nice gesture to everyone involved.

 

[David cgc]

Doug Otte said:
Nope. You're mistaken. They used a common movie trick. The camera starts to zoom in on Koenig's ear, then there's a fast crossfade (or maybe just a cut; can't remember which) to the prosthetic ear. If you blink, you might think it was a constant zoom, but it's two shots merged together.

He's talking about this, not this.

 

[guardian]

David cgc said:

Doug Otte said:
Nope. You're mistaken. They used a common movie trick. The camera starts to zoom in on Koenig's ear, then there's a fast crossfade (or maybe just a cut; can't remember which) to the prosthetic ear. If you blink, you might think it was a constant zoom, but it's two shots merged together.

He's talking about this, not this.

Hey thanks a million thanks David!!!!

Some people are so quck to presume and so sure they're right that they can't bothered actually looking at what someone is talking about.

If you folks click on the first link you can see the shot I've been talking about and without having to click back you can look down at the 'over-size' ear shot and see the eel is coming from tha ear canal in one shot and the fold of the ear in the other.

I'm not saying it's a big deal, I just noticed it one viewing.

I mean why watch the same movie multiple times if you're not interested in seeing new things each time?
Sometimes I watch paying close attention to the FX or the sets or the score or the acting the lighting. Sometimes I clear my mind & I just try to back in time and pretend I'm seeing it in 1982 seeing it for the first time.

Also I agree 100% that they should always have multiple versions of the movie on the same disc to satisfy advocates or either version or for the curious who like to compare.

 

[Oso Blanco]

guardian said:
as if somehow their copies of existing Trek will disappear if a new version is released.

What about TMP? Neither the theatrical nor the extended version has ever been released on DVD because of the DE!

 

[guardian]

Oso Blanco said:

guardian said:
as if somehow their copies of existing Trek will disappear if a new version is released.

What about TMP? Neither the theatrical nor the extended version has ever been released on DVD because of the DE!

You are right TMP theatrical SHOULD be available on DVD.

That's not an argument that Wise shouldn't have been allowed to do his D.C.

I think it likely in the HD-DVD TMP release they will have the thearical included as a selling point.
Also the difference with TMP is that Wise felt the theatrical wasn't a good version--none of the other movies has that POV coming from the director.
Wise was an editor first and he hated the idea of not having the time for a proper preview screening and final edit.

Lastly as I stated, I am pretty sure DVD will be around for at least a decade or more (HD DVD is really going to be a niche for a long time) so none of the other movies will need to be replaced by folks who now own them.