ALL SCI-FI

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

While I was watching Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) on TNT recently I started thinking about just how far the whole Star Wars franchise has come in the last 40+ years.

The interesting thing is that if someone who'd never seen any of the movies before tried to experience them all in the order the stories takes place chronologically, this is what they'd watch.

Star Wars Eposide 1: The Phantom Manace

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Solo: A Star Wars Story

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi

Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker

That sounds like a thrilling experience for a science fiction fan who wanted to view the whole saga in the proper order!

The only problem is . . . that would suck.

The sad fact is that each movie was made for the specific time in which it was made, and for the specific culture of that period.

Star Wars: A New Hope stunned the world and became a global phenomenon when it came out in 1977. And yet, young audiences today who'd never scene it before would wonder why it was ever so popular!

Why?

Because both film-making and our society has gone through tremendous changers in the last 40+ years. Audiences have come to expect a very different movie experience, and Hollywood has acquired techniques that produce miracles on the movie screen!

To put it bluntly — what dazzled audiences in the late 1970s will bores audiences in the 2020s.

That said, consider this perplexing phenomenon.

George Lucas made valiant efforts to jazz up his first three movies with beautiful new special effects which updated the look of these great movies! Great idea, huh?

Unfortunately the stubborn (and aging) "movie purist" objecting to these changes! In their opinion, Star Wars wasn't broke, so George did need to fix it.

The same thing happened when the Star Trek TOS DVDs were released with beautiful new versions of the special effects. Hell, I wasn't impressed by the original FX in the 1960s, so I loved the improved ones.

Therefore, the question we should all ponder is this.

Whenever the fans of classic movies or TV series object to changes being made — like the Star Wars and Star Trek enhancements — are they objecting to the changes because they aren't artistically superior to the original . . . or are they simply objecting because they have a nostalgic love for these movies and shows?

Ladies and gentlemen of All Sci-Fi, I do not reject an artistically superior NEW version of a classic movie or TV series just because I have fond memories of the original.

If a work of art can be improved . . . by God, improve it!

As an artist and a published author, I frequently re-evaluate my paste efforts. And, through the miracle of modern technology, I gleefully modify, revise, and enhance them to my hearts content.

I've never been happy with the painting below, because I did a poor job with the background. I painted it from one of a group of 35mm slides I shot right off a movie screen when Forbidden Planet was shown at a art house theater, back in the 1980s.

The dark background didn't show up well on the slide, so the painting suffered because of this.





However, a few years ago I used Paint.net to paste the figures of Adams and Morbius over a screen shot from the movie which showed the same scene. Then I tinkered with the background to make it look a bit more "painted".

The result was this!





My point here is that I did the best I could when I did the painting, but years later I was able to improve it.

That's why I'm baffled by the folks who stubbornly resist the notion that cinematic endeavors which impressed them when they were younger should not be improved with modern techniques.

Face it, folks. Nostalgic affection is not a proper judge of artistic merits.

In other words — just because you were impressed with something when you were younger does not mean it was really good . . . or that it shouldn't be improved.

So, the moral of this story is this: if somebody starts messing around with a movie or a TV series you love, give yourself a chance to embrace the changes they make. If they did a good job, you might grow to like it!

And it you don't, then just ignore the damn thing.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Pow]

I'm a fan of remastered visual effects for movies or television, Bruce.

I was excited when I first heard that they were going to upgrade the effects for ST:TOS. First episode I thought of benefiting from this was "The Doomsday Machine." And I was not disappointed.

I've loved the enhanced visual on the other episodes just as well. I only wish they'd remaster other classic sci-fi TV series such as the original Twilight Zone & Outer Limits.

We've all stated this before: as long as the updated visual effects do not compromise the story in any way, shape, or form, then let's go for it.

A friend of mine once said that had Rod Serling or Gene Roddenberry had access back in their day to the awesome visual effects we have nowadays, you know they'd have gone for it hands down!

I'm guessing that fans that do not want one thing altered with the dated visual effects are just what you have pointed out. Nostalgic. It reminds of the first time they saw an episode of a TV show they came to be devoted fans.

Perhaps it reminds them of the home they grew up in, their parents and siblings, friends, school, all of it is a warm memory for them.

I fully understand, I get it. But they can always stick with the dvds with the original visuals can't they?

What they don't get to do is demand all remastering stops because they don't personally like it.
Some of us do.

All we ask is you get your dvds with the original effects if the enhanced visuals offend you. Which I don't get.

[scotpens]

For me, it has nothing to do with nostalgia. I wouldn't mind the digital effects in the remastered Star Trek if they were actually an improvement on the originals. But for the most part, they're not. As I remarked in another thread, the CGI Enterprise looks at best like good game animation.

As for Star Wars, George Lucas has potchkeyed with the original movie so much that now it's virtually impossible to obtain a copy (either a film print or a Blu-Ray or DVD) of the film as it was first shown in theaters in 1977. That's not good.

Link: https://www.inverse.com/article/3942-why-finding-the-original-1977-star-wars-verges-on-the-impossible

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

Okay, I'll wave the white flag.

It's obvious that we clearly have very different taste concerning the aesthetic appeal of special effects whenever CGI is concerned.

I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you to learn that even the earliest forms of CGI — like the children's show called Reboot, possess an artist style that still appeals to me greatly.





Of course, the Star Trek FX are much more sophisticated and detailed, even though they still have the look of "artwork" rather than models. That's exactly why I like them.

Apparently I find the look of "good game animation" much more appealing than you do, whereas the original TOS special effects didn't even impress me in the 1960s.

So, like they say, "There's no accounting tastes" — neither mine nor yours.

As for Star Wars: A New Hope, naturally I like the enhancements for this same reason, and I have no desire to watch the "original version" again — although it rocked my world back in 1977 when I flew to New York and saw it in 70mm and stereophonic sound at a Manhattan theater with stadium seating.

My ex-wife and I flew to the Big Apple, courtesy of my employer, Eastern Airlines. (I was a humble baggage handler with "pass privileges".)

When the trash compactor first activated, the sound of it rang out from the theater's rear speakers, and I actually thought for an instant there had been a terrible auto accident outside!

None of the theaters in Atlanta were showing Star Wars in that lavish manner. In fact, it wasn't even scheduled to open for another two weeks — while every talk show and late night host in America was praising this new sci-fi movie that was such a big hit.

Amazingly enough, a year later a run-down theater installed stereo sound and then showed it for months to sold-out crowds!
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Pow]

I must respectfully disagree with scotpens.

On Youtube they have a number of ST:TOS episodes with a comparison of the original visual effects and the enhanced ones.

They have the screen split down the middle with the original effects on the left and the remastered on the right.

For me the enhanced visuals are superior in 99% of the cases.

Some of the outstanding improvements to me are the quasar phenomenon from "The Galileo Seven," anything with "The Doomsday Machine," "The Tholian Webb" vessels, the Fesarius in "The Corbomite Maneuver," to name but a few.

Other wonderful touches have been introducing the star ship Antares on "Charlie X." On the original episode we never get to see the Antares at all...even though it has pulled up alongside the Enterprise!

On "The Ultimate Computer" the original episode mere used stock footage of the Botany Bay from "Space Seed" to appear as a ore freighter. In the remastered we got to see an original design for the freighter.

The planets are done much more accurately; some even have majestic looking rings around 'em.

Sure, every now and then a remastered effect isn't substantially superior to the original ones.

In "The Immunity Syndrome" the gigantic space cell looks pretty darn good from the original episode when compared to the newer visual which is still good.

But I am delighted that they've remastered all the episodes from ST:TOS. But hey, to each their own.

And Bruce, that's a marvelous painting that you did from Forbidden Planet! You are a very talented gent.

[Gord Green]

BUD, your story about seeing STAR WARS for the first time was great! It reminded me of my own experience seeing it for the first time.

The novelization of the movie was out a month or so before it was due to hit the screens. The book was under the "George Lucas" byline but I later learned it was really ghost written by the prolific Don Glut. The story was a fantastic "space opera" romp and I was instantly hooked! I couldn't believe it could be translated to the screen!

The movie was screened first in foreign countries before its' American debut and it was going to be shown in Canada.
I drove up to Toronto and bought a newspaper to find a theatre scheduled for a showing and hightailed to get a parking space as close as I could. I bought tickets for my wife and myself and rushed to find seats. The movie had just started so I missed the opening and the "crawl" so the first sceen I saw was the runner ship being overflown by the Star Destroyer and from there on it was magic! I just knew it was going to be a hit...And I got to see it two weeks before it opened in the States!

It was just PERFECT the first time and the effects were far superior to what had been done before! The updated and enhanced versions were good in their own right (EXCEPT for the fiddling about "Did Han fire first". He did!).

I can accept enhancements as just what they are. Same with colorizations. Same with Directors cuts etc. They are variations on a theme and interesting ones at that, BUT the original versions are just that....the original product of the best the producers could attain...either through the "state of the art" or budget considerations and retain the original vision.
_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

Gord, the story about your first viewing of this great movie is just as wonderful as mine. Fantastic!

In fact, you reminded me of one important aspect of my pre-viewing experience which I omitted from my own story.

Like you, I acquired the paperback novel before seeing the movie, and I read it while working for Eastern Air Lines, loading suitcases onto airplanes and chomping at the bit as I waited eagerly for this incredible movie to finally open in Atlanta!

____________

Admittedly I later regretted reading the novel first, because it inspired such amazing images that I was actually a little disappointed by the climatic scenes depicting the Death Star battle!

Here's why.

The Time magazine article that came out prior the movie's nation-wide release described how Lucas used WWII footage of dog fights to inspire the way the X-Wings and TIE fighters battled each other.









Unfortunately, the original Star Wars FX in the climax were not at good as I'd hoped — especially after the rest of the movie set the bar so high for the FX.

I later learned that Lucas was running out of money towards the end of the production, and the FX for the Death Star battle suffered because of this. But the enhanced FX which were created later fixed this problem, and I prefer them to the original versions.

However, like all good Star Wars fans, I hate the change which George made in the cantina scene when Han blasted Greedo before he even had a chance to shoot Han!
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Bud Brewster]

[Pow]

I agree Bud, the enhanced planets were superior looking to the original look of planets on the show.

The remastered iteration put in such nifty details of having rings around a planet which they did not---or were unable--- to create on the original show.

I was always impressed with the planets as seen from outer space on Space: 1999 over ST:TOS original version. I felt they were beautifully done when the series first aired in 1975. It was only six years after Star Trek:TOS demise, so I'm assuming that the special effects technology hadn't progressed in that area enormously to give Space: 1999 a significant advantage over ST.

Then again, who knows? Perhaps a mere six years did allow for huge advancements in that area of effects.

I just know that the opening titles for Space: 1999 showing planets and nebulae remain stunning looking to this day.

I only wish we could say that about the scripting.

[Krel]

I'm going to disagree with all of the above. Big surprise, huh Bud. I've watched a few of the S.T., and the CGI effects look like they came from a video game to me. G.L. meddling with S.W. is not my cup of tea, and I really don't see any improvement to the series.

On this Mike Verta's YouTube video it is shown how you can make "Star Wars" 4K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3W_O-tp0_g

It is very labor intensive, and it is doubtful that the Mouse will ever put out the money. But one can hope and dream.

David.

[Pow]

Just saw the trailer for the new sci~fi film Monsters of Man.

The visual effects for the robots was darned impressive.

I read that the movie's producers were able to produce this movie for around 2-3 million bucks!

As we see advancements with visual effects and they become more and more sophisticated we'll see producers capable of providing astonishing FX on lower budgets.

Actually we're seeing it already on the CW & streaming superhero TV shows.

[Krel]

For "The Mandalorian" they had Dark Trooper robots. Everyone assumed that the Dark Troopers were CGI. It turned out that he robots were actually costumes. They found the reflective black surfaces of the robots too hard to do with CGI.

But the show is fond of using models and even stop motion effects in addition to CGI.
David.

[Bud Brewster]

[Pow]

This discussion regarding computer-generated imagery got me to wondering just how early did this incredible game changing visual tool first pop up on television?

Here's some information I came up with about early CGI.

Babylon 5, the movie/pilot was first broadcast on February 22, 1993. This was the very first sci~fi TV show to utilize CGI regularly instead of models as was traditionally done before. The late FX master, Ron Thornton, convinced B5 creator J. Michael Straczynski to go with CGI instead of the originally planned model work.

Seaquest DSV premiered as a weekly TV show on September 12, 1993. The show also regularly used CGI instead of models and was one of the earliest to do so.

Babylon 5, the series would debut on January 26, 1994 with CGI.

1987 saw the debut of a sci~fi show that Bud & I remain huge fans of: Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future. On that live action Saturday Morning series CGI was used to depict the mechanical Bio-Dreads.

"Quarantine" was a February 7, 1986 episode of a reboot of The Twilight Zone. I recall watching it at that time and being impressed by the CGI scenes of a large US space ship returning to Earth & an asteroid. It was early CGI. Unsophisticated by today's standards but cool to see in 1986. Good episode, too.

Today I just read an article about The Electric Company children's TV show that ran from 1971 to 1977.
According to the piece, one of the notable things about the show was their extensive & innovative use of early CGI.

Never having watched the series I don't know anything about scenes utilizing CGI and how it looked.

[Krel]

It's funny how things can turn around. B5 used CGI because it was cheaper than physical effects, which they could not afford. The same for ST: TNG, CGI became cheaper than physical.

But now physical effects have become more cost effective for some types of SPFX than CGI.

The late Bill Pearson said in a lecture that two of the things he was known for in the business was SF guns and space suits (spacesuits?). He was approached by the Producers of "Moon" to make the space helmets, and he asked about the SPFXs. He was told that they were going to use CGI, but asked him how much model effects would cost. He figured it out and sent them an invoice of how much it would cost. He received a phone call asking him if he left a couple of zeros off the sheet. When he told them, no that is what it will cost, they quickly hired him.

As I wrote, on "The Mandalorian", they went with robot costumes, because with the design of the robots CGI would have been too expensive, and taken too long.

These reasons are why physical models are coming back. Also the people making the movies and shows grew up with model work, and want to use it in their productions.

CGI is not going away, but as one effects person said, he believes it will become a combination of the two, melding the strengths of the two.

Rick Baker shut down his shop because of how CGI has taken over the creature costuming and effects. Rather than putting contact lenses in actor's eyes, they CGI in the creatures eyes. Good for the actor, but not so good for the shop that made the lenses. Some creatures are full CGI, while others are CGI over the actor. They even use CGI on physical costumes to hide the operator.

Sometimes CGI is used because it is high tech when physical would be better. The prequel to "The Thing" had used physical effects for the creatures, but then the studio decided that CGI was the thing to use, and had ALL of the creatures replaced with CGI overlays. Good money after bad with that movie.

My problems with the Star Wars films aren't so much the CGI, as all the "improvements" in the stories, that weren't actually improvements, but detriments.

I don't dislike CGI. I like it when it is used properly. I just disapprove of it in some circumstances.

David.