| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pow
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3424
Location: New York
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:29 pm Post subject: A question about digitally enhanced FX |
 |
|
I love the remastered visual effects done for Star Trek(TOS).
Are there any other sf TV shows you were a fan of but have to admit that the FX have not aged well & would like to see 'em remastered? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1876
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most any of the kids' series from the '50s. Although I've never had a problem with the Commando Cody efx, except maybe when the ships were flying in "outer space", surrounded by a bright sky and clouds.
_________________
...or not...
WayneO
----------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 465
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Question |
|
|
| Pow wrote: | I love the remastered visual effects done for Star Trek(TOS).
Are there any other sf TV shows you were a fan of but have to admit that the FX have not aged well & would like to see 'em remastered? |
None.
Remastered effects draw attention to themself in a most distracting way. I hate the remastered effects done for Star Trek. Trek is from the 1960s...and every once in awhile they throw in those remastered effects that shoot me 40 years into the future to remind me that people with no direct connection to the original show have taken it upon themselves to change the work of men from an earlier generation. I honestly find it quite distasteful.
This is one reason that I think the LOST IN SPACE Blu-rays were perfectly produced. They resisted the temptation to screw around with things. Every show is a period piece representing the best work of artists working within the limitations of the budget and technology of their time. I don't want some college boy messing with it two or three generations later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17108
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's odd how differently we feel about the new FX in Star Trek TOS, Brent. I'd given up watching the series because every time one of those crappy FX scenes came on screen I was suddenly yanked out of the 24th century and catapulted back to the 1960s, when spaceships on strings were photographed on grainy film.
That's not what I wanted back in the 1960s and it's certainly not what I want now. So, I was delighted to see scenes like the one on the left turned into the one of the right.
And I'm of the opinion that the film crews who had to settle for the FX we saw back then weren't all that crazy about the results either.
I don't want be 40 years in the past, watching an old TV show with plywood sets and unimpressive FX. I want to be in far future, seeing wonders that weren't possible to put on film in the 1960s on that weekly show's humble budget.
Wonders like these.
I agree with you when you said, "Every show is a period piece representing the best work of artists working within the limitations of the budget and technology of their time."
But if you can take something that was 60% good and still enjoyable and then replace the 40% that's badly flawed because it was the best they could do at the time, why not do it?
I hope I haven't seemed disrespectful of your opinions, Brent. I just don't understand them in this case. I mean, we're both eager to upgrade the appearance of our favorite movies and shows by getting the newest Blu-ray versions and playing them on the most advanced equipment, right?
To me, "upgrading the FX" is just an extension of upgrading your television to a 21st Century home theater.
But I guess that's just me . . .
I guss I figure if you really want to preserve the original look of these old shows, why not watch them on this?
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Fri Dec 30, 2022 2:40 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 465
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bud Brewster wrote: | | I don't want be 40 years in the past, watching an old TV show with plywood sets and unimpressive FX. I want to be in far future, seeing wonders that weren't possible to put on film in the 1960s on that weekly show's humble budget. |
Then why are you even watching 40 year old shows?
Sci-fi on TV has constantly evolved for new audiences. Why tamper with original creative works? If you want to see something shiny and new, then watch something shiny and new.
I don't find revisionism to be an admirable pursuit. I don't want people "fixing" things from their grandfather's generation.
People should use their dubious talents for the creation of new works. "Fixing" old TV shows is one step removed from fixing old books. Don't fix your grandfather's creation...create something new yourself. One man's version of fixing is another man's version of vandalism. I don't want to see original creative works vandalized and their original look tampered with for the sake of satisfying an audience without the patience to appreciate the time in which they were made.
The new Trek effects look ridiculous. Not bad...just jarringly out-of place. Fortunately, much like colorization, this is a bad idea that never really took hold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1876
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: Question |
|
|
| Brent Gair wrote: | | Every show is a period piece representing the best work of artists working within the limitations of the budget and technology of their time. I don't want some college boy messing with it two or three generations later. |
I would ascribe the attribute of artistry more to the "college boy" than to the technician working for the studio. The college boy is doing it out of love. The efx technician may love his work, but he's getting paid by the hour. He'll likely do what he can in the time allotted with the budget allotted and call it "good enough".
Fortunately, the production is still available for viewing in its original form when enhancements are performed digitally. The enhancements don't destroy the original, unlike pre-digital editing where the original footage might be lost forever.
Plus, where do you place George Lucas in this? He enhanced his own productions with new technology. Some liked it; others didn't. But it was his own creation he modified.
_________________
...or not...
WayneO
----------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert (Butch) Day
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1437
Location: Arlington, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:43 am Post subject: Re: Question |
|
|
| Brent Gair wrote: | | This is one reason that I think the LOST IN SPACE Blu-rays were perfectly produced. They resisted the temptation to screw around with things. Every show is a period piece representing the best work of artists working within the limitations of the budget and technology of their time. I don't want some college boy messing with it two or three generations later. |
Being one of the 40+ people who worked on Lost In Space's SFX, I thank you.
_________________
Common Sense ISN'T Common |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17108
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brent Gair wrote: | | Then why are you even watching 40 year old shows? |
I watched them then because they were good. And I watch them now because they're even better.
| Brent Gair wrote: | | Sci-fi on TV has constantly evolved for new audiences. Why tamper with original creative works? If you want to see something shiny and new, then watch something shiny and new. |
But Brent, I am watching something shiny and new! I'm watching TOS, made shiny and new by brilliant, creative people who used new technology to elevate an old show to the level of a new show.
And as for that "new audience" that science fiction has evolved for ??? well heck, that's me! I've evolved, I've changed, I've developed higher standards. Seriously, why should I be satisfied with the things that impressed me when I was a pimple-faced teenager?
My artwork is 40 years better, my writing is 40 years better, and what I want to see in movies and TV shows now needs to be 40 years better, too.
Star Trek TOS has elements that are wonderful . . . and elements that are not so wonderful, simply because they couldn't do great visuals on a shoestring budget in 1968.
I have no deep affection for the not-so-wonderful elements just because they're 40 years old. Artistic excellence isn't like wine. It doesn't start out humble and improve with age. If it's good, it started out good and stayed that way.
What is good about TOS now was good back then. But what's not so good now wasn't very good back then, either.
| Brent Gair wrote: | | I don't find revisionism to be an admirable pursuit. I don't want people "fixing" things from their grandfather's generation. |
I'm curious. If we learned that all these revisions were being done by old people ??? instead of young people who were "fixing things from their grandfather's generation" ??? would you like them better? I'm puzzled by your objection to a new generation who contributes to the quality of something from the past.
| Brent Gair wrote: | | People should use their dubious talents for the creation of new works . . . Don't fix your grandfather's creation...create something new yourself. |
I'm sure these people are using their "dubious talents" to do both ??? and for the pure love of creating great art.
| Brent Gair wrote: | | I don't want to see original creative works vandalized and their original look tampered with for the sake of satisfying an audience without the patience to appreciate the time in which they were made. |
I appreciate the "time" in which these shows were made, but frankly I've never been that impressed with the special effects in Star Trek ??? even when I was 18, watching them on an old TV like the one in the picture I posted above.
I wanted Forbidden Planet quality FX, even then. And now I have them. That's not vandalism. Brent. That's artistic creation. The show was incomplete. Now it isn't.
| Brent Gair wrote: | | The new Trek effects look ridiculous. Not bad...just jarringly out-of place. |
Wow, that's the biggest point of disagreement between us. The first time I saw the new FX I really expected them to be jarringly different from the other aspects of the show.
But I was amazed at how well they actually blended with the other scenes. My immediate reaction was "Hey, this is how these scenes were meant to look! This is what the show is supposed to look like!"
To me, the scenes that always have been jarringly out of place were those unimpressive special effects in an otherwise great science fiction show.
I respect your opinion, Brent. I just don't understand why you think that the awesome new special effects aren't more true to the spirit of this show about a shining future ??? compared to the old FX, which spoil the magic just a bit.
Please forgive me, Brent, I can't help wondering if you would like the new FX if they had been done 40 years ago. I get the impression that you don't object to them because they aren't good ??? you object to them because they aren't old.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pow
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3424
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would love to see what they could do with new, state of the art FX for the original Outer Limits series. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
