Seems CBS has plans for what many fans have hotly debated for quite some time now: redoing the f/x for TOS as part-and-parcel of transfering the series to HD.

Think about it.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/rumormill.html#082806

Hoping it's BS.

There's already a thread created about this subject from yesterday afternoon:

Hey John P! NOW your life's complete (http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=156449)


Just sayin'.

Hoping it's BS.
Are we talkin' Boloney Sandwiches Mr. John??? :D

If hank is reading this - yes, baloney sandwiches. that's the ticket! ;)

Up until now I assumed the rumors were false, but a client at CBS Home Video has since confirmed the overall gist of what's been reported on Ain't It Cool, Dark Horizons, The Digital Bits, and elsewhere.

Like it or not, TOS is getting a CGI face-lift.

An updated version of the Ain't It Cool story can be found below...

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=24344

I avoided posting this on the other thread which, last I checked, was getting kinda nasty. This is obviously a subject many of us are passionate about, but let's try to keep the party civil.

What would be cool is if you could toggle between the 2. The original original series fx, and the new original series fx. Something like in the invader zim dvd where you can toggle between the fully drawn and painted (probably a better term somewhere) animation and the basic story board.

Knowing the new fx are there, if you were a TOS purist, would you peek?

Well, this ought to end the debate about the correct paint
scheme for the ENTERPRISE. If the filming model
isn't seen anymore, we won't have to argue about which paint
job is cannon.
Everyone will have to make their models look like a computer
animated cartoon to match what will be on the screen.
Maybe we will be able to ask the CGI team what colors they
used and paint our ships accordingly.

I have some Dr Who episodes on home video, wherin they redid some of the effects in CG as an extra which you could watch separate from the episodes. I found that a neat idea. But thank god they didn't actually replace the original, um, 'cahrming" effects.

Well I think I would like to see what they do, I would have to agree I don't want to see a 42 minute version of the show...of course maybe its only 42 minutes without the effects...that would be special wouldn't it!

Hopefully they will have a sponsor that will take less air time for commercials or run it like Sci Fi did back when they did the digital resoration shows a few years back.

Gotta wonder...will CBS be doing this with Lost in Space?

heiki pondered:
Gotta wonder...will CBS be doing this with Lost in Space?
Good idea!
Maybe they can fix the Jupiter 2 and make it look more
like a viable spacecraft!


(Ducks and runs) :tongue:

^^ Now THERE"S a show that needs updating. Oh, wait, nobody is watching so who cares? :lol:

LiS needs a lot more than a CGI facelift. I love the B&W first season. The other two...umm...err...

Good idea!
Maybe they can fix the Jupiter 2 and make it look more
like a viable spacecraft!


(Ducks and runs) :tongue:


The CGI should be used on the REST of the series EXCEPT the special effects shots.

A walking talking CGI "carrot" just wouldn't be the same.

Damn, that Batmobile looks like an old car! Heck, it was built in 1966 on a ten-year-old concept car frame! What superhero would drive a 50 year old car?! They really need to replace it with a CGI 2006 porsche. How can today's kids accept seeing such an old car? I'm sure replacing it will bring in new viewers. That IS all that's important, after all. :freak: ;)

Damn, that Batmobile looks like an old car! Heck, it was built in 1966 on a ten-year-old concept car frame! What superhero would drive a 50 year old car?! They really need to replace it with a CGI 2006 porsche. How can today's kids accept seeing such an old car? I'm sure replacing it will bring in new viewers. That IS all that's important, after all. :freak: ;)

John,

Just what bug crawled up your butt and died?

What would you do if a 40 year client came up to you and said 'we want to update these graphics you did for us years ago because your hand drawn artwork wasn't up to what our vision really was at the time. We liked the concept you gave us, but now, thanks to computers it looks possible to make it more like we envisioned.'

This isn't about replacing one car (spaceship) with a different one, its about replacing shots where you could see stars behind the spaceships. Its about seeing only the production version of the Enterprise instead of two or three different one in the episodes.
Without even seeing the final result, your dismissing the effort.

I'm not saying its going to be great, it may actually suck. But the effort cannot be condemed as long as the original version of the show is available.
Even with the regular DVDs your watching the show in better quality than what was available with the original broadcasts. AND if its about story and not about visuals as what some people are so emphatic about, then again, what does it matter?

BTW: Having Trek back on TV might, just might, get you that 1/350 TOS Enterprise kit.

and you could replace the Thunderbirds with new snazzier designs that the fans would love just like the movie...........uh, never mind.

John's complaints might be worth something if they were changing the design of the enterprise. But since they're not. *sticks tongue out* :P

Obviously, if you guys can't understand someone objecting to this, there's no way I can explain it to you.

Maybe some day, if you run into some of the special effects technicians who worked on the original show, you can say "Hi, hey, I'm glad all your hard work was replaced with flashy new effects by people who had nothing to do with the original show, because, frankly, your work sucked wet pigeon farts!"

John,
What would you do if a 40 year client came up to you and said 'we want to update these graphics you did for us years ago because your hand drawn artwork wasn't up to what our vision really was at the time. We liked the concept you gave us, but now, thanks to computers it looks possible to make it more like we envisioned.'


What do you think? I'd be pissed off and insulted, like I'd expect the original Trek effects people to be now.

Notice they're not asking the ORIGINAL artists to update their work, they're taking it completely out of their hands and hiring new people to replace all their hard work.

I have always applied my "period piece" philosophy to all art. And yes, I consider television to be art (that means some good art and some really bad art).

I've never spelled out that philosophy but the concept is pretty simple: art is the product of a certain vision created at specific time and place using the resources available to the artist.

Televisions is a collaborative efffort. I read in another thread on this subject about the replacement of matte paintings with CGI. That prospect alone horrifies me. Matte painting is one of the true, great arts of Motion picture and TV...and it's a dying (if not already dead) art. The idea that the work done by a matte painter 40 years ago is about to replaced by CGI is not an idea that I can't imagine being tolerable to anyone who respects the creative process.

Every piece of art has a statement, no matter how small, about the people who created it and the about the world that they lived in. Trek is small time capsule from 1966. Every episode tells us a little bit about the people who lived then, their philosophies, and the tools and techniques that they used. The integrity of that work may not be important to some. It might be important to some of the men who created it and thought that they were making a lasting contribution to television art.

As I've said so often...even said this just a few days ago...art is subjective. As John P said, if you can't understand why people object to "updating" art, no explantion will suffice.

OK, folks. This is being said w/my Moderator Hat on (and in case y'all missed it, Hank made me a moderator here)....

First off, I'm just as guilty of letting this exact subject get me "passionate" in the past and getting pissy about things related to it.

That being said, you folks who're gettin' all passionate and insulting now need to step back, take a deep breath and build a model, play with the kids/dog/wife and remember that it's just a TV show, this is an internet forum and at the end of the day it's not a Life Or Death event. We'll all live on and continue to build models - those of us who actually do such - and the world will continue to spin. There's no need to be insulting to others - either directly or otherwise - just 'cause they have an opinion different from yours. They might not agree w/yours, but they've got the write to express it same as you.

So, back off a bit, folks. Turn down the Tension Meter a couple notches - preferrably off of "11" and down to about... "4" - and remember to respect each other's thoughts and opinions.

Thanks.

Now, back to the discussion! :)

I have always applied my "period piece" philosophy to all art. And yes, I consider television to be art (that means some good art and some really bad art).

I've never spelled out that philosophy but the concept is pretty simple: art is the product of a certain vision created at specific time and place using the resources available to the artist.

Televisions is a collaborative efffort. I read in another thread on this subject about the replacement of matte paintings with CGI. That prospect alone horrifies me. Matte painting is one of the true, great arts of Motion picture and TV...and it's a dying (if not already dead) art. The idea that the work done by a matte painter 40 years ago is about to replaced by CGI is not an idea that I can't imagine being tolerable to anyone who respects the creative process.

Every piece of art has a statement, no matter how small, about the people who created it and the about the world that they lived in. Trek is small time capsule from 1966. Every episode tells us a little bit about the people who lived then, their philosophies, and the tools and techniques that they used. The integrity of that work may not be important to some. It might be important to some of the men who created it and thought that they were making a lasting contribution to television art.

As I've said so often...even said this just a few days ago...art is subjective. As John P said, if you can't understand why people object to "updating" art, no explantion will suffice.
That is rather well said. :thumbsup:

Yeah, "What crawled up your butt?" is such a great way to have a discussion. :rolleyes:

This is a modelers' board, right? How can modelers be FOR replacing Richard Datin's glorious, gorgeous, iconic masterpiece of a physical model with a computer cartoon?

Yeah, "What crawled up your butt?" is such a great way to have a discussion. :rolleyes:
John,

It was a generic "play nice" statement. PLAY NICE being the operative words here from EVERYONE. I hadn't visited this particular thread for the better part of 24 hours and only skimmed it initially when I signed on this morning.

That being said, EVERYONE needs to dial back their tension meters.

This is a modelers' board, right? How can modelers be FOR replacing Richard Datin's glorious, gorgeous, iconic masterpiece of a physical model with a computer cartoon?
As long as it's done w/respect for the original work and mimics that work with the same frame-for-frame type of movement and image, what's honestly wrong w/it? As I understand it, it's almost as difficult to take that original footage and clean it up to the point where it looks much better than it does as it would be to just use CGI versions of everything.

And has been asked before - why would you folks who are so dead set against a CGI rendering of those same scenes be so adverse to them being re-worked since the originals are still quite available on DVD and VHS? It's not like they're destroying all those copies of DVD's and VHS tapes that reside in your homes, are they? You'll still have the originals and those of us who aren't adverse to having the CGI additions will get what they want, as well. Nobody loses!

What do you think? I'd be pissed off and insulted, like I'd expect the original Trek effects people to be now.Well, it depends on how much ownership (spiritual, not financial) the artists took of their work. A lot of them probably looked at it as a job. A job well done to be sure, but a job nevertheless. If they looked at TOS as the best work of their careers, I'd worry about their careers. (TOS FX ain't 2001: A Space Odyssey FX) Basically, I don't expect the original special effects artists to view their work the same way the fans do.

Notice they're not asking the ORIGINAL artists to update their work, they're taking it completely out of their hands and hiring new people to replace all their hard work.If I were a miniature artist, and was not hired to do CG revisions, I think I'd understand. Now if I were a designer, I'd like to be consulted, but if the new work done were not in my field, I would understand being left out.

Don't get me wrong, John -- I don't like the idea of losing the original TOS look, but I think that in making our passionate arguments, we're also making some (possibly inaccurate) assumptions about the original artists.

I have always applied my "period piece" philosophy to all art. And yes, I consider television to be art (that means some good art and some really bad art).

I've never spelled out that philosophy but the concept is pretty simple: art is the product of a certain vision created at specific time and place using the resources available to the artist.

Televisions is a collaborative efffort. I read in another thread on this subject about the replacement of matte paintings with CGI. That prospect alone horrifies me. Matte painting is one of the true, great arts of Motion picture and TV...and it's a dying (if not already dead) art. The idea that the work done by a matte painter 40 years ago is about to replaced by CGI is not an idea that I can't imagine being tolerable to anyone who respects the creative process.

.

I saw a segment about the new Trek on MSNBC, it addressed the matte paintings specifically, according to it the matte paintings won't be replaced but will be enhanced with effects like moving clouds and people moving in the foreground to make them look less like a static painting. They showed an example, I'm not enough of a fan to know what episode the shot was from, but it showed a building that looked vaguely Taj-majal-ish, the improved shots showed people walking at it's base and a busier sky, but it was still obviously the same matte painting. And more importantly, even with the improvements it still looked more like a 60's matte painting than a CGI shot.

It may or may not suck, but it didn't look and sound like they were just tossing aside the original artistic work. I guess we'll see on the 16th.

If you go to Zap2It.com, you can probably find when this will be shown in your area. Here in the Twin Cities, "Balance of Terror" will be on channel 45 at 6 pm on the 16th, and then again at 12:35 am on channel 5.

And despite what you may assume from my previous posts, I will be watching it. But I'll approach it as I did Lucas's "enhancement" of THX-1138, as a remake using footage from the original.

Looking at this whole debate, I'm kind of surprised to find myself with the same attitude as many religiously conservative people: This is so obviously wrong, why doesn't everyone see it?

I think that is what this boils down to. This is a disagreement between the sects of the religion of Trek. The debate is getting so hot because both sides care so much. On one side, we have the "sacred text" people who believe the orginials should remain exactly as they are for all time, and the "living document" people who believe it should be continually updated to be relevevant for modern audiences.

This is not directed toward anyone, but I always have trouble with the "it's just a difference of opinion" arguement. Opinions don't spontaneously develop out of thin air. They reflect fundamental approaches and attitudes we have toward the world. In this case, the difference of opinion has to do with our beliefs in how we treat creative works and how they should be approached.

I can understand why people want to see these episodes presented in a way that lives up to the show's postential, and I hope people can understand why some of us see this as a violation of the original material.

And has been asked before - why would you folks who are so dead set against a CGI rendering of those same scenes be so adverse to them being re-worked since the originals are still quite available on DVD and VHS? It's not like they're destroying all those copies of DVD's and VHS tapes that reside in your homes, are they? You'll still have the originals and those of us who aren't adverse to having the CGI additions will get what they want, as well. Nobody loses!

Okay, that's true of right now, this very minute.

But now is not forever.

How about 40 years from now, when the DVDs are shot, DVD players are long gone, VHS tapes are dust, and whoever owns TOS then decides to reissue it for the 80th anniversary? And the only recordings available are the digital files from CBS' 2006 reissue? Audiences won't know they're not wathing the original.

In any case, disrespect is disrespect. They say they're going to respect the original when replacing it. If they respected it, they wouldn't be replacing it.

In your opinion, certainly. In my opinion - based upon all I've read thus far - they're not doing it to disrespect what was originally done and there's disrespect present on the issue.

While I certainly agree that something can be done that totally disrespects a subject, this isn't one of them.

There's definitely no direspect intended.

But when is "in your opinion" not just an opinion? Historically there have been dissenters to large scale acceptance of a popular opinion who in the long run the dissenters were proven right.

Peter Jackson loved the original King Kong,but he didn't opt to retouch the original's f/x. No, he elected to honour the original by retelling the story through contemporary means so that something of the original could be accessible to newer audiences.

An argument against historical revisionism is not just "an opinion."

I'm actually looking forward to seeing what the Okudas have done with the episodes - I wonder how they are going to approach the battle scenes in "The Ultimate Computer."

Which is strange because for some illogical reason the auction of all the filming miniatures - especially the models of the Enterprise - bothers me.

I'm a special effects modeler. I am well aware of the advantages of CGI, and that money rules Paramount. If a profit can be made by selling off stuff that they were paying money to store (and sure they would never use again), off it goes. Remember, the Roddenberrys drove a truck up to the Paramount lot in 1969 and hauled away just about everything related to Star Trek they thought they could sell through Lincoln Enterprises and not have Paramount go to the trouble and expense of suing them
for, and then made a tidy profit for themselves. I'm sure they would have taken the 11 foot Enterprise herself if they could have gotten away with it, and if Roddenberry hadn't irritated Paramount to the extent he had, they may have just given it to him to get it off the lot and make room for something else. They though that it wasn't worth the expense to store, and so off it went to the Smithsonian in 1974, no doubt for a reasonable tax deduction. You can bet they regretted that decision once Star Trek began to rise in the syndication ratings and Trek conventions began to get crowded. Anyone could go to the Air amd Space Museum -free - to see the TOS Enterprise. You can imagine what people would have paid to see her.

Now that Trek attractions and conventions aren't so crowded, Paramount no longer places any lasting value - at all - on the physical manifestations of Star Trek other than the price that they can get for them at auction to the highest bidder. No value on preserving the original image of the models on screen or their physical presentation and preservation.

That bothers me. Doesn't make sense, but it does.

Obviously, if you guys can't understand someone objecting to this, there's no way I can explain it to you.

Maybe some day, if you run into some of the special effects technicians who worked on the original show, you can say "Hi, hey, I'm glad all your hard work was replaced with flashy new effects by people who had nothing to do with the original show, because, frankly, your work sucked wet pigeon farts!"

You might realize people are discounting your hyperbole and distortions. I LOVE the TOS effects. I'm also looking forward to SEs. That's not to say I'll like what they did in particular, but I'm hoping I will.

This is a modelers' board, right? How can modelers be FOR replacing Richard Datin's glorious, gorgeous, iconic masterpiece of a physical model with a computer cartoon?

Er...now who's being disrespectful? I'm sure the guy(s) working on the effects for this program might be a little put off by that. You do realize there is skill and artistry involved in CG as there is in models.

Okay, that's true of right now, this very minute.

But now is not forever.

How about 40 years from now, when the DVDs are shot, DVD players are long gone, VHS tapes are dust, and whoever owns TOS then decides to reissue it for the 80th anniversary? And the only recordings available are the digital files from CBS' 2006 reissue? Audiences won't know they're not wathing the original.

In any case, disrespect is disrespect. They say they're going to respect the original when replacing it. If they respected it, they wouldn't be replacing it.

We have the advantage of documentation of such facts. Besides which, there are digital files of all the episodes in the original form as well.

In the real long run, I don't think we'll have to worry about only mere fragments of stories surviving. The 20th century is the most documented century by far.

That said, I still wish they'd have limited themselves to just cleaning up (and filling out) the original effects and making the production model the only one used for the production episode effects.

A post at TrekBBS from this weekend:

How goes it? I'm a VFX artist at CBS Digital.

First of all, I just wanted to say thanks to everyone voicing their interest and support. (Personally I figured every trekkie was gonna want us to take a hike!)

Second, as for how long we've been at this? We started the project literally less than 3 weeks ago - tripled our 3D size and haven't slowed down since.

Can't really say much more but I think you guys and gals will be liking what we're doing. I'll pop in from time to time and see how everyone's taking it :P.

Take it easy, all.

- James


Three weeks. Fills me with confidence.

A post at TrekBBS from this weekend:



Three weeks. Fills me with confidence.

Well, assuming it's true, remember it's a post on a bullentin board. We've all seen dubious claims of insider knowledge posted before, remember the retro-fitted UFO's? Or Pee-Wee's highschool classmate that now wields the vest o' power at Best Buy?

Still, the suddeness of the announcement and lack of advertisement & promotion (so far) do seem curious at best, I hope you aren't going to be right about this, but honestly I'm starting to wonder.

Three weeks. Fills me with confidence.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing: all this sounded kind of spur of the moment. And they're supposed to start airing these episodes when?

The special effects had some problems here and there on the original due to hurried schedules. Is the CBS team going to be any different? :confused:

In true spirit of TOS production we're doing everything without enough time. :lol:

Hmmm. Didn't NX01Rob impress on us the amount of time needed to do the CGI effects for Enterprise, particularly the mirror universe episode featuring the TOS Defiant?

Huzz

Three weeks from start to air seems very suspect to me, especially given that they've said the music has been rerecorded with a full orchestra -- I'm highly suspicious.

Qapla'

SSB

It's entirely possible that these CGI folks bought the Defiant mesh from Eden FX (I think it was?) from the "Through A Mirror, Darkly..." episode of ENT. We also don't know who all these folks are that are doing the CGI, what they're "pedigree" is, so to speak. They could be people who worked on Eden FX, Zoic Studios, ILM's CGI department (name escapes me at the moment), etc... We don't know one way or the other.

As to the music, a group of professional musicians such as an orchestra can sit down and hammer out a new score for a series in a week, easy. Especially since we're talking music that's already known. Heck, when I was in band in high school and college it didn't take us - a bunch of amateurs - more than a week to learn learn a new marching routine or piece for concert season and that was with just one hour session, twice a day for four or five days. An orchestral group that works together every day for 8 hours could hammer one piece out a day, easy. Pieces that are on a TV show wouldn't take very long as they're not usually complicated pieces.

Putting the question of quality aside,
It does sound as if someone reminded Paramount
that "STAR TREK"s 40th anniversary was approaching
and they quickly decided to do something to throw the
fans a bone.
If it was planned for a while, there would have been publicity.

That's true - it certainly doesn't sound as if it were planned out months in advance. However, I doubt it was a matter of someone saying "hey, it's the 40th Anniversary of Trek in a couple weeks, should we do something?" More likely that the wheels of progress at Paramount/whoever makes the big decisions just grind slowly.

My only concern is that already mentioned here - the whole "rushed" thing. I'm still keeping a positive line of thinking on this, tho ain't holdin' my breath, either.

The guy on TrekBBS is one of the CBS in-house effects crew - they're who's doing this project. No reason to doubt him. They're not using any pre-existing Enterprise mesh, they've made their own. Reportedly they borrowed the 11-foot model and laser-scanned it.

If they really started on this no more than a month ago then we've got reason to worry. Good cgi work is time intensive and not something you can just knock off.

....they've made their own. Reportedly they borrowed the 11-foot model and laser-scanned it.

ack!! So it'll have a big gaping gash on the port side!!

What do you think? I'd be pissed off and insulted, like I'd expect the original Trek effects people to be now.

Notice they're not asking the ORIGINAL artists to update their work, they're taking it completely out of their hands and hiring new people to replace all their hard work.

Thats assuming that those people were as passionate about that model as what you are right now.

Remember, they were hired to build it.
Obviously, Jeffries designed the ship, and that design IS being 'honored'.

If you are an artist and put yourself out for hire then you are at the whim of those who hired you. Being so passionate about something that you create at the request of someone else simple isn't healthy.
Artists in business are frequently asked to change an redo designs as I'm sure your aware of. So, if a client after 40 years came back to you asking you to redo a piece of artwork using better tools that weren't available at the time and being 'insulted' is the first reaction, then perhaps another line of work is in order. Perhaps its better to be happy they liked your original design enough to revamp it, especially if that company currently is owned by someone else.

Just because something is 'special' to you. (now I'm generalizing) Doesn't mean its special to 'all' of those who worked on it. I frequently work of stuff that I 'like' and am happy to be a part of, but I know its not 'mine'. The realistic thing here is that just because you spend 'time' working of something doesn't mean you pour your 'heart and soul' into it.

Someone earlier posted that this all is 'art'. Yes it is true it is 'art' but its art that various artists brought together by someone with a checkbook. And even though Roddenberry had a 'vision' in his heart, he still had to find people who thought they could make money from that idea. TV is a business, not a utopia.

And to bring a recurring point back, for those who care, the originals are readily available.

My appologies to John and the board if my own 'tension' meter was too high ( I had about 15 in-laws coming over that day). I'm feeling much better now.

BTW: Did anyone stop to think of what Matt Jeffries thought of Franz Joseph taking his 'beloved' design and chopping it apart to make tugs and destroyers and dreadnaughts? Perhaps that was a even greater 'disrespectful' thing to do than whats being done here. But no one thinks about that.