Star Trek (original)

Discussion in 'TV on DVD and Blu-ray' started by John*Wells, Sep 23, 2005.

  1. Jason_V

    Jason_V Producer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    5,389
    Likes Received:
    635
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Real Name:
    Jason
    That is true. However, that episode and subsequent adventures in the Mirror Universe have an Alliance of races enslaving humanity and using humans as slaves. In essence, even though humanity may be "alive" and there may still be an Earth (I don't think we ever know that for sure), but it is a radically different Earth. More timeline talk: TNG's "Parallels" shows an alternate timeline where the Borg were successful in assimilating Earth. Why is that not a problem for you in the same way Vulcan being destroyed in another timeline is a problem?
    See, there WAS a reason for Vulcan to be destroyed. More than one, actually. The backstory is that Spock (a Vulcan) promised to say Romulus and miscalculated. Badly. Therefore, Nero sees Spock as the reason why Romulus and his family are gone. In the end, this is a revenge story as well. Eye for an eye and all that jazz. Plus, by destroying Vulcan, there is an emotional connection with that planet and many fans. It was a smart thing for Orci and Kurtzman (again, NOT Abrams since he received NO credit on the script) to show this is not the Prime Unuverse.
    DS9 ran into a similiar problem. They wanted to show the Dominion with a foothold on an established planet and thought about Vulcan for the emotional reasons, but nixed it. Instead, Betazed got invaded.
    Humbly apologies, but it's not just my opinion. It's a fact backed up by canonical evidence in comics written by the movie writers and in the final result.
    Those diehard fans, and I've heard from a lot of them, range from having rational problems with the movie to being silly. JJ and Paramount did not make the movie for diehard fans. Diehard fans abandoned Trek around the time of Voyager. We were not enough to sustain the franchise. So they had to create a bigger tent, which is the only smart, rational and educated thing to do.
    From a whopping 15 minutes of footage released and a handful of stills, you're able to deduce this is going to be a revenge movie in the vein of Khan. That can be spoken for: parts of Star Trek IV, V and VI; Generations, First Contact and Nemesis; and WAY too many episodes to count across all the incarnations. I don't see how this is a bad thing, to be honest.
    How do we know the new movie hasn't done that? We don't know who Cumberbatch is actually playing. It could be Khan. It could be Mitchell. It could be anyone. That discussion, though is much better for the Into Darkness movie thread over in the movies section.
    Now that is a logical and understandable problem for a lot of people in the movie. Here's my counterpoint: when Pike beamed over to the Nero's ship, he put Spock in command and commissioned Kirk as first officer. Afterwards, with the fleet destroyed and Spock having relieved himself of duty, Kirk was the senior officer. And then, under his command, the Enterprise managed to save Earth and destroy Nero. How was Starfleet supposed to have dealt with that? "Gee, thanks, kid. You did all this stuff and even saved your commanding officer, but we're busting you back down to Ensign and reassigning you?" I agree this is a problem in the movie, but I understand why it was done this way.
    I respect that people have a problem with the movie and I applaud anyone who has seen it who has a problem with it? Why? Because you took the time to actually watch before saying you don't like it. That makes conversations like this all the easier to have. However, as I've stated in other threads here for a while now, Trek had to evolve. Like it or not, things had to change. I didn't love every change made to TNG during it's run and in the movies (it's my first real-time Trek). But I understand the costumes and sets and actors and stories had to change to keep with the times. That's one of my biggest problems with Enterprise, which I've stated in the BD announcement thread.
    But I like to think my Trek tent is big enough to TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, the new timeline, comics, books and video games. If it's not, I'm removing myself from a universe that has entertained me for many, many, many years.
     
  2. younger1968

    younger1968 Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    221
    Real Name:
    paul young
    You make some excellent arguments. I am true and through trekkie that does not like how abrams and his crew have changed the direction. I realize that something had to be done to re-image the star trek brand, especially with the new generation of fans.The movie images/trailers/right up so far have been very evasive. I am drawing no real conclusion until i see the film.
     
  3. younger1968

    younger1968 Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    221
    Real Name:
    paul young
    i have both re-mastered and the original star trek on dvd. I find it hard to watch the original unmastered episodes, especially ones that have a great deal exterior shots. I decided to watch mirror, mirror episode with spock and his goatee.
     
  4. JoeDoakes

    JoeDoakes Cinematographer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,513
    Likes Received:
    655
    Real Name:
    Ray
    Do you mean unremastered or unrestored? I think Paramount originally issued Star Trek on single disks that proably used the same transfers as they had for VHS. Then they issued Star Trek in restored complete seasons. Then they issued remastered complete seasons, based on the restored versions, that added some new special effects and did things like change the look of the planets. The blu rays have both the restored original broadcast versions and the remastered versions.
     
  5. Nebiroth

    Nebiroth Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    41
    That's right. The single-issue releases of the original series were in the very early days of DVD, and they did not go back to the original film elements or do any sort of restoration, so there was a very large amount of print damage, dirt etc evident. When DVD first started appearing the improvements in quality were almost entirely due to the fact that given the same source, DVD will always give you a better copy than VHS did and that was enough to be a selling point. As time went on, collectors accepted DVD quality as the normal standard and began to expect more, demand increased for DVD's taken from the highest possible source copy. The second wave of releases, the boxsets, were better but still not of the highest possible quality. Personally I prefer the original work; the new effects never felt quite right to me although I know a lot of people like them. I accept they are done in a sympathetic way but even so they always jar when they appear. I would also say that remastering is a bit of a misnomer. These episodes are editted and are in essence completely new works, since the original effects scenes are - for the most part - entirely removed and replaced. For myself I consider a work remastered when you create an entirely new master of the original work. That is all. It may also have extensive restoration, that is, restoring it to as close to the original pristine work - for example, removing things like dirt of film damage. The third wave of releases including BluRay, produced the highest possible quality reproductions of the highest possible quality originals, ie the original elements. But the main intent was to bring them up to par for high definition broadcast - not for DVD or BluRay. Star Trek was an obvious choice to attreact people into taking out subscriptions for high definition TV (and indeed, to buy the TV's themselves to watch it on). Moreover, the original series was made on film and thus the source material was also in high defintion. The glaring problem was that of the effects, which not only looked dated but also had much poorer image quality, due to the way the shots were made, using multiple overlays. As to the "re-imagined" Star Trek, I thought the movie was unrelentingly awful! Possibly the most ugly incarnation of the Enterprise ever seen with interiors that for some unknown reason had 23rd century technology apparently working on the same principles as a Victorian steamship, the only thing missing were the stokers shovelling coal.
     
  6. Jason_V

    Jason_V Producer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    5,389
    Likes Received:
    635
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Real Name:
    Jason
    This is all why it was a brilliant move to include the original versions of the episodes alongside the redone/remastered/reedited/whatever versions with the new effects. CBS pleased everyone with the disc releases.
     
  7. PatrickGoodluck

    PatrickGoodluck Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    4
    Real Name:
    Patrick
    It's good to hear that someone else shares the same views as I do regarding this issue. It still bothers me to this day that the original sound effects were replaced or removed on the dvd remastered set. Why?! When I watch Star Trek now, I prefer to watch my uncut off-air recordings from cable which were recorded before it was tampered with. I don't have the BluRay set or seen the movie, so I can't comment on that... but I trust your views on this, Richard.
     
  8. TV_Fan

    TV_Fan Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    34
    Real Name:
    Chris H
    I feel the same way as well. I only have the original releases and have not seen the remastered releases. I have no interest in seeing the remastered releases. They are something entirely different from the Star Trek I watched when I was younger.
     
  9. Regulus

    Regulus Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,564
    Likes Received:
    392
    Real Name:
    William Hughes
    I have the Blu-Ray Sets of ST-TOS, which have both the Original and the Remastered Episodes. I have no preferences and watch both versions. Ditto with "Colorized" Movies. Several Movies i own have both versions, give me a handy "Backup" in case something happens to one of the disks. To each their own.
     
  10. AndyMcKinney

    AndyMcKinney Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,339
    Likes Received:
    340
    Location:
    Kentucky, USA
    Add me to the camp of people who prefer the original SFX. It's really too bad that Gene and Majel stole from the Star Trek film vault way back when just to make a fast buck with Lincoln Enterprises. If they hadn't, CBS could've re-composited the FX shots from the original elements. We might also have had a deleted scenes package (as on the Battlestar Galactica set), a collection of unused film trims, and maybe we could have even had the movie-length The Cage that Bob Justman and Herb Solow mentioned in their book (Paramount considered adding back in all the deleted scenes from it to be released as a theatrical and recoup some costs, before it was decided to do another pilot). Oh, what might have been! In some cases, the new effects are okay, but there are several episodes (probably the earliest-worked-on) where the CG looks way too "fake" and unconvincing. There are other instances where the new effects go beyond the original stated purpose of "being true to the originals" and take things a bit too far. Decker's ship in The Doomsday Machine looks nice, though I think they ruined the Doomsday weapon itself and made it a little too clean/defined. So, I'll stick with the original effects (on Blu-Ray, though) even with the lower visual quality. The show is a product of its time and should look like it. That's why I had no problem with the work done on Star Trek: the Motion Picture. They actually took the proper care to make all the new stuff look like it would have in 1979, and didn't do anything that would've been impossible with 1970s FX technology. Star Trek: Remastered, however, (IMO) crossed that line.
     
  11. younger1968

    younger1968 Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    221
    Real Name:
    paul young
    I like the original series that i have on dvd. However, the images that were updated for the doomsday machine or naked time or ultimate computer, etc were very good. I think there will always be people that are on the fence as it relates to changing of the images.
     
  12. JMFabianoRPL

    JMFabianoRPL Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    14
    Well at least CBS offers the original and new versions, unlike a certain other space franchise which pretends that the original movies never existed. That said, what's the closing logo survival rate on these sets? (CBS, since taking over Paramount, has been notoriously bad at this)
     
  13. Nebiroth

    Nebiroth Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    41
    Strictly speaking, the BluRay releases. The DVD of the fully cleaned up and restored episodes featured only the replaced effects sequences; not the originals, even though they could have used the DVD functionality that lets a viewer sleect things like alternate views. This is exactly what has been done in the Doctor Who DVD's - you can elect to watch the as-originally-broadcast or updated-effects versions at will. That is the correct approach. The only way to obtain the fully cleaned up Star Trek but with original effects is BluRay. All DVD releases feature either unrestored episodes with original effects or cleaned up episodes with replaced effects. You cannot have both. And, indeed, Paramount took the first two sets of releases out of print, so if you did not already have either of those, you had to buy the third release - new effects only version.
     
  14. Guest

    "The City on the Edge of Forever" has an error on blu-ray. All of the shots of the tricorder scene are the remastered effects only. It does show the angles to change, but when you press it, nothing happens. They obviously intended on having the original effects, but made a mistake.
     
  15. Jason_V

    Jason_V Producer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    5,389
    Likes Received:
    635
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Real Name:
    Jason
    Very true. DVD has been off my radar for 5 years except in certain situations. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.
     
  16. younger1968

    younger1968 Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    221
    Real Name:
    paul young
    I will always be a trekkie fan. I just do not like what Abrams did with the brand. Yes, Star Trek needed to change or re-brand itself, but it has been at the defense of the diehard fans. I have watched the trailers for into the darkness and it looks good, but i am not sure i am going to go see it as does not spike much interest too me.
     
  17. Joel Fontenot

    Joel Fontenot Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 1999
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    147
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Real Name:
    Joel Fontenot
    That's not at all correct or accurate about the original single disc DVDs. They were absolutely remastered from new transfers.

    Certainly there was not the same level of restoration work as the later "remastered" HD-DVD/Blu-rays with the new effects, which came from new scans of the negatives, digitally cleaned up, and re-color timed. But most assuredly new at-the-time film transfers and not the same transfers as the VHS (and the Laserdisc releases, btw) from the mid 80's. Those first DVD sets had much better color saturation, was much cleaner, and where better resolved than any previous VHS/laserdisc release.

    If they did simply dump the old analog 80's transfers to DVD back in 1999, there would have been screams and howls right here on this forum at the time (and there weren't - I was here then). And, trust me, old analog transfers don't look better on DVD. Just check out any of the DVD releases of The Quiet Man before Olive finally released a half-decent DVD and Blu-ray version last month, all the older ones are from the same transfer done for the 1994 VHS and laserdisc 40th Anniversary release (a good 10 after the ones for Star Trek were done for the last set of VHS/laserdisc issues) and they all look like fuzzy mush - exactly as the VHS from '94 does.

    I have several of the Star Trek TOS laserdiscs that I used to compare with the DVD issues once I started buying them (and I bought all 40 of the DVDs, while I only managed to by about 8 of the laserdiscs). The difference was much greater in clarity and image quality than what could be accounted for in just a change in format.

    Are those first single disc DVD issues perfect?

    No. Of course not.

    There were editing problems with a few episodes missing a few short scenes, the color could get a bit over-saturated at times (i.e., the red uniform shirts), and the remixed sound did have issues too, here and there. But it was the first time we finally hear the original song, "Goodnight, Sweetheart", in a home video release of "City on the Edge of Forever". And, I'm sorry, but print damage and dirt was not that much of an issue at all with these DVDs either - other then the printed-in dirt and such in the original optical effects shots (but they are there in the Blu-ray, too).

    And then, of course, Fox showed Paramount how to do TV on DVD right in 2000 by releasing "The X-Files" as full season sets. But Paramount had already committed to 2 episodes per single disc releases (as they did with the laserdiscs).

    I did sell off my entire DVD collection after I got all 3 season sets of the Blu-rays, though.
     
  18. younger1968

    younger1968 Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    221
    Real Name:
    paul young
    I am a huge Star Trek fan ever since i was a kid. I used to get Star Trek TOS on Spacecast.ca, but it has been removed from their playlist. It is too bad that spacecast has decided to focus on shows like Castle

    It should be interesting to see what happens in the next 3 years as Star Trek will become 50 years old!. I would suspect another movie would be coming out or something special for Star Trek!!
     
  19. benbess

    benbess Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,147
    Likes Received:
    442
    Real Name:
    Ben Hufbauer
    Even before the 50th, I'd like for them to do a TV show. In fact, I'm puzzled they haven't up until this point.
     
  20. Ethan Riley

    Ethan Riley Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,581
    Likes Received:
    346
    I just hope they don't take four years between movies. That was ridiculous. Two years is about right. And anyway, is Abrams even doing the next one? Sounds to me like he's moved on to another galaxy, far far away, and I don't mean the Shrek Universe...
     

Share This Page