Your Calls: CGI Made it Better, CGI Made it Worse.

[Albertese]

I'm an 80's kid and was just old enough to remember reruns of Star Trek before there was ever a TNG.

As for the CGI in TOSr, I would say it was a mixed bag, trending towards worse overall. I did like some of the new ships that were introduced. Mudd's ship was okay. Nice to see the Antares. I liked the Medusan ship and enjoyed seeing it again in Prodigy. I didn't like the CG versions of the Planet Killer or the Klingon D-7, or the Fesarius, or the Tholian Webspinners. I did like the ship from "Spock's Brain" but also I liked the original one too. I hated that we got another crappy looking D-7 in "Friday's Child" instead of seeing something interesting with the original glowing green space-plough.

But for the most part I did like the matt-painting replacements, even though the TOS matte paintings are some of my favorites ever.

Overall, I do still prefer to see the original version on my old clamshell DVD collections. But those are in the attic, so usually I'll just stream the TOSr versions on Paramount+ due to laziness.

--Alex

 

[Tallguy]

The change I find the most egregious, however, is in "Amok Time," where they cut out original footage of Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley walking over to the ceremonial grounds just so they could insert a bad CGI landscape that made the Vulcan environment look more like what we saw in STIII. That's stupid fanboy shit. When you're cutting out footage of the original actors to insert your new effects, I think you're officially doing more harm than good.

I'm on the fence about that one. The con is, as you say, altering an original edit. The pro is that they were trying to give the audience the geography to explain why there was no horizon. How successful they were is up for debate.

Yeah, blame Roddenberry for being so greedy and short-sighted in the 70s that he sold off original film clips of TOS to fans.

Did he sell off any of the original elements? It was all from finished reels, wasn't it? I don't see a universe where Paramount kept any of the original components.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I'm on the fence about that one. The con is, as you say, altering an original edit. The pro is that they were trying to give the audience the geography to explain why there was no horizon.

I have never, not once, wondered why there wasn't a horizon in the background during the Vulcan scenes in "Amok Time." But I certainly wonder why in the hell they thought those CGI shots replacing footage of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were necessary whenever I rewatch the episode today.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

All worse. The original told it's stories with its limitations just fine. As I've said a million times before, they should have exactly recreated the original FX or gone balls to the wall revamping everything. Not this halfway thing they did.

They didn't have the option of recreating the original fx on TOS and leaving it at that, because the show had something like eleven shots of the ship that were re-used over and over. I wish CBS Digital had duplicated all of those iconic angles, but even if they had, was never going to be enough. They did do some nice ones, though.

 

[BillJ]

...but even if they had, was never going to be enough.

It ended up being enough for the original 79 episodes.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

They didn't have the option of recreating the original fx on TOS and leaving it at that, because the show had something like eleven shots of the ship that were re-used over and over. I wish CBS Digital had duplicated all of those iconic angles, but even if they had, was never going to be enough.

Yeah, saying that duplicating TOS's classic shots of the ship wouldn't be enough for TOS-R makes no sense, since TOS did just fine with that limited number of shots.

Also, there are WAY more than just eleven shots at that link you posted.

 

[Tallguy]

Yeah, saying that duplicating TOS's classic shots of the ship wouldn't be enough for TOS-R makes no sense, since TOS did just fine with that limited number of shots.

So did TNG.

Also, there are WAY more than just eleven shots at that link you posted.

I'm pretty sure that's the joke. (It better be.)

 

[MaximRecoil]

When I'm in the mood to watch Star Trek I want to watch Star Trek, not some hybrid show that's X% Star Trek plus Y% PlayStation 2 cutscenes.

A large part of the appeal of Star Trek for me is nostalgia. I watched it in syndication every weeknight for years when I was a kid in the 1980s. When I watch it these days I watch it on a CRT TV over an RF connection. That mostly replicates the look of the over-the-air NTSC TV broadcasts I watched as a kid, albeit with perfect reception and a better quality video source (DVD sourced from 35mm film scans instead of Betacam SP broadcast master tapes).

I have no nostalgia whatsoever for anything created in 2006, nor any other year in the 21st century.

For people who like the CGI replacement scenes, where do you draw the line? What if they used CGI to replace the dated-looking control panels with touch-screen panels for example? All those 1960s hairstyles could be updated with CGI too. They could make those flip-open communicators look like sleek iPhones. Since we already have computer speech synthesis that sounds ~natural, we know that the monotone "computer voices" in Star Trek are silly for the 23rd century, so that could be easily "fixed" too. The possibilities are endless.

 

[Tallguy]

For people who like the CGI replacement scenes, where do you draw the line? What if they used CGI to replace the dated-looking control panels with touch-screen panels for example? All those 1960s hairstyles could be updated with CGI too. They could make those flip-open communicators look like sleek iPhones. Since we already have computer speech synthesis that sounds ~natural, we know that the monotone "computer voices" in Star Trek are silly for the 23rd century, so that could be easily "fixed" too. The possibilities are endless.

First off, if the originals are available (and EASILY available, like just as easy to watch the originals as the remaster which is not currently the case, but still way easier to watch than Star Wars) then let your freak flag fly.

As I've mentioned, probably in this thread, I'm not satisfied with the results from TOS-R. But we have tools now that they didn't. What I would LIKE is to see something as close to a restoration of the original FX. I mean, it wouldn't REALLY be. It would be faking it. But again, where's the line? You're cleaning up shots that were OK in one show but a few generations older in another. OK. Do you re-sample stock footage that played at 12 fps instead of 24 so that it looks like it was shot at that speed? How much grain do you take out? Myself, I keep K-7 in both Tribbles and The Ultimate Computer. I also re-use the Botany Bay.

My "perfect" TOS restoration? TOS, but the FX look like the same generation of film as the live action. That's all. Thank you.

EDIT: "it wouldn't REALLY be" (a restoration of the original FX.) WouldN'T. Would NOT be. (Typing, you know?)

 

[MaximRecoil]

My "perfect" TOS restoration? TOS, but the FX look like the same generation of film as the live action. That's all. Thank you.

It never looked like that originally, though. The optical compositing used for the special effects scenes inherently resulted in them being of a different generation than the non special effects scenes.

With big budget Hollywood movies they often mitigated the generational difference between special effects scenes and non special effects scenes by shooting the special effects elements on 65/70mm film (or even 8-perf 35mm rather than the standard 4-perf) and then compositing them onto standard 35mm, which minimized generational grain multiplication and other generational losses.

If they still had the original, pre-composited film elements, scanned them in digitally, and digitally composited them, that would give pretty much the result you want, but I wouldn't call that a restoration, because that's a "better than new" state that the show was never in to begin with. It's a drastically better approach than CGI replacement scenes though, in my opinion.

 

[Autocad]

Overall I don't think it was much improvement with a cgi. Just a little bit. How much prefer the original.

 

[Shawnster]

For people who like the CGI replacement scenes, where do you draw the line? What if they used CGI to replace the dated-looking control panels with touch-screen panels for example?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Id be fine with this. I don't mind the graphic tweaks.

I draw the line at dialog continuity changes. I draw the line at the reinterpreting of dialog and story to fit some new idea of what the story should be instead of what was intended.

 

[Phaser Two]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Id be fine with this. I don't mind the graphic tweaks.

I draw the line at dialog continuity changes. I draw the line at the reinterpreting of dialog and story to fit some new idea of what the story should be instead of what was intended.

Oof. That's heinous. Ruining the beautiful bridge? No, thanks.

 

[Tallguy]

I don't like the aesthetics, but you could take the same effort and make something that a) TOS couldn't do but b) still looked like TOS.

 

[David cgc]

Having just ripped the Blu-Rays to my Plex server and, thus, spot-checking both versions of all 79 episodes, I’ve come around on the CG effects. I always thought the new matte paintings and other touch-ups were great (I adore the e-ink clock, especially), but were let down by the spaceship stuff. While the space scenes could be a lot better (and should’ve been) and were inconsistent even within the rough standard of quality they set for themselves, the originals visual effects are kind of flat and lumpy at best. And at worst, like in nth-generation copies in the third season, the Enterprise is just a white blob with chunks missing from it, and that doesn’t match the live-action photography, either.

It’s nothing I’d recommend for the studio to do anytime soon (not while DS9 and VGR still need to be remastered), but it wouldn’t be terrible to do a re-remaster that went for a more photorealistic, detailed, but still appropriate to the era approach, like the EdenFX test, the clean ship footage we’ve seen in the Roddenberry Vault documentary, or the new Blake's 7 re-release.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

The CGI versions are the only ones available to readily watch for me and… I can watch them. The CGI doesn’t take me out of the story which is testament to the strength of the episodes in and of themselves.

I think the tweaked bridge above actually looks very nice. Cleverly done.

 

[TRON JA307020]

I can't give a blanket endorsement of the 2006 TOS-R fx. But I like a lot of them.

If there's enough interest in the topic, maybe we suss out a consensus on some of the episode calls. Which shows engender the most agreement? Here are my votes to start us off:

CGI is Better:
• The Corbomite Maneuver: trying to escape cube, and tractor beam fight with Balok's vessel.
• Mudd's Women: the asteroid field and Mudd's ship.
• Charlie X: we see the Antares.
• The Conscience of the King: cool new angles of the ship in orbit— a modern facelift.
• Miri: the planet looks more realistic.
• Court Martial: the Enterprise shows storm damage and the ion pod's blown socket.
• Tomorrow is Yesterday: CG reveals how we head to sun at warp 9 and not get there.
• Operation: Annihilate!: satellite deployment, very cool.
• The Cloud Minders: Stratos looks marvelous.
• Wink of an Eye: Scalosian city skyline looks real, where before we had a dim painting.
• Is There in Truth No Beauty?: rendevous with Medusan ship.

CGI is Worse:
• Balance of Terror: CBS Digital's first effort, and the Enterprise doesn't look real enough.
• Shore Leave: orig was a rare case of orbiting right to left, and TOS-R switched it back!
• The Ultimate Computer: starships too far away at vital times; I miss orig shot flying in formation.
• The Trouble with Tribbles: orig shot approaching K-7, and orig K-7 itself, were fantastic.
• The Lights of Zetar: orig was just right, more isn't better.

Tough call, both fx are great:
• Space Seed
• The Galileo Seven
• The Alternative Factor: that phaser shot, such a Kodak moment!
• The Doomsday Machine: maybe it's nostaligia, but I love the AMT Constellation.
• The Immunity Syndrome
• The Omega Glory
• The Tholian Web: orig fx were Emmy-nominated.

I still prefer the original effects for the most part especially the enterprise model but like you there are a few bits I like. The Doomsday Machine and Amok Tilme are probably the ones I enjoy the most.

 

[Shawnster]

Other nice touches are the satellites in Operation Annihilate and the missing ion pod in Court Martial.

I do like replacing the Botany Bay model for the Antares type freighter in The Ultimate Computer and replacing the Tholian looking ship with the VW microbus looking ship in Mudd's Women and The Way to Eden.

 

[Qonundrum]

I'm an 80's kid and was just old enough to remember reruns of Star Trek before there was ever a TNG.

As for the CGI in TOSr, I would say it was a mixed bag, trending towards worse overall. I did like some of the new ships that were introduced. Mudd's ship was okay. Nice to see the Antares. I liked the Medusan ship and enjoyed seeing it again in Prodigy. I didn't like the CG versions of the Planet Killer or the Klingon D-7, or the Fesarius, or the Tholian Webspinners. I did like the ship from "Spock's Brain" but also I liked the original one too. I hated that we got another crappy looking D-7 in "Friday's Child" instead of seeing something interesting with the original glowing green space-plough.

Definitely could be hit or miss . "The Enterprise Incident" fleshed out both Romulan and Klingon design ships, something that might have been in the original f/x had the Romulan model still existed; I recall reading it was destroyed but that might not be true?

The amoeba f/x in "The Immunity Syndrome" are just too good for the time and still have a little extra nuance compared to the CGI. The TOS-R edition tries to emulate the look and show semi-translucent gelatinous layers, but doesn't quite pull it off.

But for the most part I did like the matt-painting replacements, even though the TOS matte paintings are some of my favorites ever.

Seconded.

Overall, I do still prefer to see the original version on my old clamshell DVD collections.

Is the attic temperature- and humidity-controlled? If not, the heat and humidity that can form in attics might cause repairable problems with the discs, such as warping or data layer adhesive drying out and separating.

Ditto for all things electronics, especially if they are not wrapped in plastic with a silica gel packet to absorb water (and those can only absorb so much moisture over time as well.)

 

[Henoch]

Oof. That's heinous. Ruining the beautiful bridge? No, thanks.

KIRK: I miss my old chair.