Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Star Trek TOS Special Edition Starts Sept 16th.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1107 replies to this topic

#21 of 1108 OFFLINE   David Williams

David Williams

    Screenwriter



  • 2,290 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2001

Posted August 31 2006 - 09:57 AM

Quote:
I don't follow the CBS, yet syndicated bit. Which is it- network or syndication?

It will be syndicated. Paramount and CBS are owned by the same parent company, Viacom. Their TV product is branded as CBS Paramount.
"Only two things are infinite––the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the universe." ––Albert Einstein

#22 of 1108 OFFLINE   Dave Mack

Dave Mack

    Producer



  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted August 31 2006 - 10:43 AM

We should keep this thread about the broadcast airings and the other one about the potential HD or BD discs themselves...
So if this is local CBS it will have to be shown non prime time I assume. Either 1:30 am (after the late shows) or on a weekend?
Posted Image

#23 of 1108 OFFLINE   Dave Mack

Dave Mack

    Producer



  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted August 31 2006 - 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin
Great.

Two threads to bitch in.

This gives me a cheap excuse to actually watch this show, which I had no interest in at all, despite seeing the films and other series (not Enterprise though)

I hear ya. Me too.

Posted Image


uh oh, from Ain't it cool news...

"...The TREK TOS will be put through a makeover. New FX for all of the space material. A new title sequence. The effects will be brought to us by the same team who handled CATEGORY 7: THE END OF THE WORLD – an in-house FX group at CBS. One source characterized the overall nature of this undertaking as “incredibly cheap”...


Oy, I saw that show and the FX were hardly state of the CGI art......

#24 of 1108 OFFLINE   Todd K

Todd K

    Second Unit



  • 479 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001

Posted September 01 2006 - 02:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian D H
Sorry, but that's an absurd idea. Who cares what space ships will actually look like? The Enterprise is an ungainly mess with a saucer section and two warp nacelles that would fall off if it bumped into anything - but that's our beloved ship!

"Real" space ships won't even have have warp drive because FTL is impossible. If the ships were "real" you wouldn't even have a Federation or a TV show for that matter.

I didn't mean they should come up with something drastically different, just something more in line with the other shows. Even the ship from Enterprise looks more advanced than the one from the original series.

And while I'm thinking of it, I have another idea for them -- they should get the surviving crew together and film new scenes for the episode "The Deadly Years" -- they've aged much differently than they were depicted in the show!

#25 of 1108 OFFLINE   RickER

RickER

    Producer



  • 5,130 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 04 2003
  • Real Name:Rick
  • LocationTulsa, Oklahoma

Posted September 01 2006 - 02:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Malloy
Well... I mean... wtf???

They go to the trouble of HD transfers and then Lucas it all up? Does no one understand the appeal of camp and nostalgia?
I can only hope they do such a horribly cheesy job that it becomes unintentionally funny. You know, crappy CGI on par with a really overwrought Kirk soliloquy.

Whoa, hold on brother. Star trek is not camp. William Shatner may be a ham, but the show was never camp. Lost in Space, yes, Batman 66, yes, but not Star Trek!

#26 of 1108 OFFLINE   GordonL

GordonL

    Supporting Actor



  • 771 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 14 2000

Posted September 01 2006 - 03:07 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack
So if this is local CBS it will have to be shown non prime time I assume. Either 1:30 am (after the late shows) or on a weekend?
Posted Image

According to the article here it'll be on the weekends.

#27 of 1108 OFFLINE   todd s

todd s

    Lead Actor



  • 6,933 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1999

Posted September 01 2006 - 05:08 AM

Well, I may be in the minority. But, I am looking forward to seeing the changes. It will be nice with some of the fixes. And they at least have made the originals available on dvd. S
Bring back John Doe! Or at least resolve the cliff-hanger with a 2hr movie or as an extra on a dvd release.

#28 of 1108 OFFLINE   Scott-S

Scott-S

    Screenwriter



  • 2,042 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2001
  • Real Name:Scott Sturdevant
  • LocationThe Land of Zion

Posted September 01 2006 - 06:43 AM

They are not going to destroy the original when they do this. This isn't like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. It is like taking a digital picture of the Mona Lisa and painting a mustache on the copy. Doesn't change the original at all. The original is going to remain untouched.

So what if they make a different version of TOS? As long as the original art is left untouched, I say make all the different version/copies you want.

Nobody is being forced to watch or buy the new version.

I just don't get the fuss.
-----
Scott

View My DVD Collection
Stop the on-screen Bugs!!!!!!

#29 of 1108 OFFLINE   Dave Mack

Dave Mack

    Producer



  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted September 01 2006 - 07:15 AM

Once again, I think people will be upset if the only versions ever available in HD are the new ones. Which is possible...

#30 of 1108 OFFLINE   Scott-S

Scott-S

    Screenwriter



  • 2,042 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2001
  • Real Name:Scott Sturdevant
  • LocationThe Land of Zion

Posted September 01 2006 - 07:38 AM

The HD versions are going to be Altered by the very act of making them. So the argument is moot. Are they complaining that the HD version will have to be altered to make it 16:9?

Also, They don't have the buy the HD version. The current DVD version is closer the original work than the HD version will be. This means they should not want it to be made into HD in the first place.
-----
Scott

View My DVD Collection
Stop the on-screen Bugs!!!!!!

#31 of 1108 OFFLINE   Ken Chan

Ken Chan

    Producer



  • 3,302 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 11 1999

Posted September 01 2006 - 07:59 AM

I suppose they'll cut even more from the show if it's going to be syndicated. In the 60s, was it 50 minutes of show per hour? Now it's getting close to 40.

When they first showed on SciFi, they were uncut, shown over 90 minutes.

#32 of 1108 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer



  • 14,893 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted September 01 2006 - 09:33 AM

Quote:
The HD versions are going to be Altered by the very act of making them. So the argument is moot. Are they complaining that the HD version will have to be altered to make it 16:9?

Changing effects is one thing, but you're willing to accept 16x9 TOS? No one has officially suggested that the aspect ratio will be changed, but I suspect a lot of people who are all for this will jump ship if that happens. HD does not have to be 16x9. And, if the aspect ratio is left alone, then no, the show is not altered at all simply by being in HD. The show was shot on film, which is higher definition than HD anyway.

#33 of 1108 OFFLINE   Dave Mack

Dave Mack

    Producer



  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted September 01 2006 - 11:12 AM

Saw this over at AVS forum...

"I posted in my local area thread of the "Local HDTV Info and Reception" forum to ask if anyone knew if the updated series would be running in our area in HD. Here's the response I got from someone at the station that'll be carrying it (grumble, grumble... )

Quote:
We at KSTW have the Star Trek series, however, there is no plan by the syndicator, Paramount, to distribute it to us in HD.

Almost all syndicated programming for TV stations across the country comes from a distribution clearinghouse by satellite called Pathfire. All Pathfire can support at this time is SD distribution. We are told there are plans to ramp up the system to carry HD programs for syndicated distribution but we're not there yet. Pathfire uses a store/forward file distrubution system in order to feed some 800 TV stations programming on a daily basis and not eat up a tremendous amount of bandwidth on the satellite system. HD distribution would tax that system for obvious reasons. It's the same reason why we at KSTW take CSI in syndication, but cant' get it in HD yet. Now that a sunset date of analog broadcasting has been set by Congress.....broadcasters and program distributors will have justification to work on HD distribution now.


and the irony continues... They are pitching this as "enhanced in Hd!" and yet they won't even be shown in HD...

#34 of 1108 OFFLINE   DeathStar1

DeathStar1

    Producer



  • 3,291 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 2001

Posted September 02 2006 - 09:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sun
Totally concur, it's a cash-grab by Paramount to milk every single dollar it can from the Star Trek fanbase.


You know, the only high priced Trek series I bought on DVD was Next Gen, and even then it took me two years to buy the whole series. I was more than content to wait for price drops on DS9 (of wich I've only seen the first two, and last two seasons), Voyager(A Mangled show due to executive ineptness, but my first watched Trek from start to finish), and Enterprise (Better than Voyager, but not very exciting).

I know I'm going to get lambasted again, but I've only seen 3 episodes of the original series, and only one all the way through...Trouble With Tribbles. I've seen bits and peices of City on the Edge of Forever, and one other.

If they release these new CGI eps and the original un altered eps on Blue-Ray, I may go over to the HD camp.

#35 of 1108 OFFLINE   DeathStar1

DeathStar1

    Producer



  • 3,291 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 2001

Posted September 02 2006 - 09:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_S_H
Changing effects is one thing, but you're willing to accept 16x9 TOS? No one has officially suggested that the aspect ratio will be changed, but I suspect a lot of people who are all for this will jump ship if that happens. HD does not have to be 16x9. And, if the aspect ratio is left alone, then no, the show is not altered at all simply by being in HD. The show was shot on film, which is higher definition than HD anyway.


Personally, I have no problem with it. If they re-create everything except the actors in HD CGI, why not make it 16X9? Just so long as they don't include a CGI Spock for Kirk to talk to in the 16X9 version to make it look continuous, I have no problem with that.

Again, I also hope they include the originals, and CGI's in a blue-ray release, and Lucas will see how easy it is to make all fans happy Posted Image.

#36 of 1108 OFFLINE   DeathStar1

DeathStar1

    Producer



  • 3,291 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 2001

Posted September 02 2006 - 09:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickER
Whoa, hold on brother. Star trek is not camp. William Shatner may be a ham, but the show was never camp. Lost in Space, yes, Batman 66, yes, but not Star Trek!


Kirk fighting a Lizard monster in a very bad rubber suit where the mouth dosn't even move, isn't camp? (non existant angel smiley) Posted Image

#37 of 1108 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer



  • 14,893 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted September 02 2006 - 11:29 AM

How is that camp? It's the technology of the time.

#38 of 1108 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Executive Producer



  • 10,047 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted September 02 2006 - 11:42 AM

Sometimes I laugh a bit though, because of the so-called purist argument of not altering films.

How many films were put out in Mono that are now in Dolby Digital? Or Stereo and upmixed to DD5.1? How about films that were recorded usign Sens-O-Rama that are of course not offerred that way?

Films like "Vertigo" get cleaned up, have the color "enhanced" and have a DTS soundtrack, as well as a re-recording of some music in order to put it back.

How is any of that something that seemingly gets a pass here, but when someone suggests updating special effects, which is the most notable failure of older works, people go ballistic.

Think about it. At one point, hundreds of years ago, someone staged Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet" for the first time. Now, we do it with elaborate stagecraft, set design, etc. Is that update heretical as it's no longer being done on a wooden flat stage exactly as it was presented the first time?

I kind of get the argument some propose that they want nothing to ever change. But it does. Just by putting a movie on DVD, in some ways, important facts about it change. The black level is no longer truly consistent with film. It undergoes a form of compression. Audio is changed. The movie is presented with menus, something it obviously never had in a theater, and the existance of a commentary track is an alteration of it's original presentation.

I have no problem with them takin the old star trek and remaking the special effects. Why not, it's just fiction. If Majel Barret doesn't object, then I don't understand why I should.

I disagreed with Lucas because he effectively ditched the originals and did not allow you to have both. But here, you can easily have both. And I don't see any problem with that at all.

trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#39 of 1108 OFFLINE   Dave Mack

Dave Mack

    Producer



  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted September 02 2006 - 02:57 PM

I think re-mixing audio is different from re-recording audio. And re-filming effects from scratch as well. One reason people were pissed at the remix of JAWS with the goofy new sound FX.

#40 of 1108 OFFLINE   Joel Fontenot

Joel Fontenot

    Supporting Actor



  • 654 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 1999
  • Real Name:Joel Fontenot
  • LocationBaton Rouge, LA

Posted September 02 2006 - 03:18 PM

It won't be 16x9

Here's the article with info from CBS.

The runtime will be shorter than the typical episode run of 51 minutes. So probably more than 5 minutes will be cut from each airing.
Joel


Back to TV Programming



Forum Nav Content I Follow