ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
Nothin' but pure science fiction!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Star Trek (TOS) FX Then & Now
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Star Trek on Television
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 11590
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Ah-ha. So, we're back to the initial assumption that this is just a matter or taste. Okay, I'm fine with that. You dislike the faceted plates in the ship's outer hull for the reason you stated..


scotpens wrote:
They're jarring and ugly.

Obviously you admire the beauty of the original design. That's okay . . . but is a Klingon Battle Cruiser supposed to look attractive? Confused

I submit that the "ugly version" is more appropriate for this race of warriors.

As for the enhanced CGI effects which have apparently redesigned some of the scenes they replaced with the wonderful new effects . . . . gosh, I love 'em all! Very Happy

Changing something that's good to something that's better doesn't bother me. In fact, a few years ago I actually gave up watching TOS episodes because I was so unimpressed with the aging, unappealing, and visibly outdated FX I'd been seeing since the 1960s.

Even in the 1960s my standards were higher than most of the FX which this popular series could present.

I have very little fondness for the original special effects, and we've established that you've always been more impressed by them that I ever was. To me, they needed fixing right from start. I can't seem to make allowances for flawed FX because of low budgets or outdated technical expertise.

If something doesn't appeal to me, I can't excuse it because "they did their best".

But when the DVDs with the enhanced FX came out, I was delighted by this sudden improvement in the look of the series! AT LAST the special effects looked as good as I had always wanted them to, all the way back to the 1960s!

But, as we've firmly established here, it's really just matter or taste. Cool

You resent any changes in the way the original FX looked. I've never liked the darn things anyway, so for me the changes are quite welcome.

But I've certainly enjoyed analyzing our differences and presenting my opinions concerning the cause. Cool

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Krel
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 1331

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud, I assumed that the ships were rendered that way, because that was the state of the art at the time. Not because of shoddy or lazy work.

But as Mojo from Foundation Imagining said: CGI allows you to make poor effect quicker. You have to work a lot harder to make CGI look like even poor model work.

I admit that I have no love for the new effects, I don't find them to be an improvement over the originals, and found many to be of video game quality (I also feel the same way about some effects in the CGI Kong movie). I also didn't like some of their designs. Admittedly, a personal view point.

I don't disapprove of CGI. I just think that it is used in the wrong place sometimes. For instance, I prefer painted matte paintings myself. I find CGI ones to have a sameness without the subtle color shading that a painted one has. A lot of that has to do with the way the colors are applied in CGI, they are more of a fill function. They probably could do a CGI matte painting like a painted one, but given the time it would take, it wouldn't really be cost effective.

Back when B5 came out, I was talking to my Brother-in-law (a computer guy) about how I found the colors in CGI to be peculiar. He said that is because with a filmed model, the light is reflective, but in a CGI model or, the light is generated from the model. Probably not the best term, but it's what I can remember now.

CGI gets better all the time, but there are very few CGI images and effects that I haven't, eventually been able to tell are CGI. There is just something that is a little bit "off" to me.

I like CGI, it has made a lot of programs possible that wouldn't have been made, because of the effects costs. It has also allowed them to make a lot of bad choices too. But then a lot of that is also a personal view.

But I do believe that real is better than toon.

David.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 11590
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Nice comments, David. I enjoyed them. Very Happy

I suspect that our differing opinions on CGI stem from the fact that I like both the ultra-realistic CGI and the visibly stylized versions.

Your closing remark helped me understand why I don't dislike CGI when it obviously IS computer generated.


Krel wrote:
But I do believe that real is better than toon.

I'm pretty sure that I'd have a more positive reaction than you to CGI even when it was only "fair", simply because I regard it as moving artwork, and obviously I'm pretty enthusiastic about art. Very Happy

Remember the Saturday morning kids' show from 1994 called Reboot? The very early CGI which that show used would certainly not be consider "realistic".

But to me, it was pure sugar-coated, cream-filled "eye candy"! I still love this colorful and beautifully designed production. Very Happy

The opening credits alone are a feast of sci-fi elements which still knock my woven cotton footwear right off! (To coin a phrase).

Watch the first part of the video below and you'll see a fine example of why I never think CGI is "bad" just because it looks like CGI.


_______________ ReBoot: Ep 01 - The Tearing


__________

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 11590
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

After watching Star Trek: Discovery and seeing just how freakin' awesome CGI can make a science fiction series look, I'm more convinced than ever that TOS could be enhanced with computer generated sets, special effects, and even costumes to actually make it look look remarkably like Star Trek: Discovery! Cool

As for all you folks who don't want TOS to be changed in any way . . . that' fine. Just don't watch the enhanced versions. Confused

But as for me (and perhaps other folks), my standards for what does-and-does-NOT visually impress me over the last 50 years have changed. When I was kid in the 1950s, an old black & white TV looked just peachy. Smile

When I was teenager in the 1960s, I was very impressed by a 24" color TV!

Now I have a 50" HD television . . . and I can't imagine how I managed to watch movies and shows on those crappy old TVs! Shocked

Times change, technology advances, people get older and (hopefully) wiser, and our standards for excellence should NOT remain stuck in the days when we were young, naive, and easily impressed.

Therefore, I'm delighted by the fact that everything innately good about TOS can be retained in enhanced versions — while all the aspects that were hampered by technology which is now a half-century old can be improved.

Isn't that what technological progress and artist excellence is supposed to do?

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Powerslave214
Senior Crewman


Joined: 24 Mar 2020
Posts: 13
Location: Blacksburg, VA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it more than a bit sad that many of the illustrators/art dept. members (Sternbach, Okdua, Drexler, etc.) were willing to work on Discovery and would have given it a design lineage that was a natural continuation, but they were turned down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 11590
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

As I mentioned in an earlier post, some of the set designs in Voyager are, in my opinion, more appealing than those in Discovery, despite the incredible CGI details and scope which were added.

I think that idea is consistent with your comment.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Star Trek on Television All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group