.jpg) |
| Original visual effect. Copyright relevant owner |
More years ago than I can now recall, I purchased all three seasons of the original Star Trek, each of which came in their own plastic box that wouldn't have looked out of place in the show itself (which I think was the idea). Recently, I bought them again, though this time the three came in one box and featured enhanced visual effects. They're bloody good from what I can see from a quick fast-forward through the first broadcast episode (which I believe was the sixth to be made), called The Man Trap. Thought you'd all like to see a few before and after screen grabs, so here they are! Whaddya think, Crivvies?
.jpg) |
| Enhanced visual effect |
.jpg) |
| Original visual effect |
.jpg) |
| Enhanced visual effect |
.jpg) |
| Original visual effect |
.jpg) |
| Enhanced visual effect |
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
14 comments:
I prefer original effects on my vintage shows. I don't mind if they offer enhanced stuff, it doesn't offend me or anything. But I prefer to watch the original intact as much as possible, though it can be fun to compare. The Star Wars movies still feel off to me when I see the enhanced versions of the original trilogy.
I think if I was buying all three series for the first time, I'd have gone for the originals, RJ, but as I already have them, I thought it would be nice to see what they've done with the enhanced episodes. Truth to tell, as nice as they are, unless you were doing a comparison between both versions (or were seeing ST for the first time), the new effects don't really look out of place. Viewers would probably just subconsciously think that what they thought of as '6os effects were of a high standard.
The original special effects were fine and didn't need updating. I recently watched the Dr Who adventure 'Invasion Of The Dinosaurs' from 1974 and the special effects were pretty dreadful so they could certainly do with some modernising (but the BBC didn't have much money to spend back then and I didn't mind the poor effects when I was 8).
Yeah, CJ, but there's fine and then there's really excellent. Besides, it's obviously just a way to sell something to people who have already got it (like me), but with a tweak or two to make it slightly more interesting. I've got the Doctor Who TV episodes where The Daleks invade Earth, and the DVD has a choice of effects - you can view it with the originals, where a swinging disc on a string sways and wobbles above a photo of London, or a TV Century 21-style Dalek spacecraft gliding smoothly over the city. Thing is, the new effects are made with a bit of grain to fit in with the rest of the episode without looking out of place.
I really like the new effects; the improvements to the Doomsday Machine, or The Galileo Seven, of Amok Time, or The Tholian Web are all stunning, and I'm sure if the money had been available to do the remastered effects back in the day had been available, Roddenberry would have gone for it. The recent remastered effects on Star Trek The Motion Picture are also superb, although less obvious.
Yeah, I've got that version of the first movie as well, B. Trouble is, even though the effects are better, it's still a boring film. Saw it in my local cinema at the time, was bored rigid, watched the new version on DVD years later, was still bored out of my skull.
I think the original effects were good enough and when they are remastered in HD they look stunning. Like Gerry Anderson models and backgrounds, I find it amazing how good they look for 60 years ago on a budget. Is there an option to switch between original and new effects like on some of the Doctor Who DVDs? Were these new enhanced effects just a reason to get the fans to buy them again? I'm buying the Doctor Who Blu-ray sets at the moment, after that I will not buy them again no matter what spin they put on it. Unless they discover missing episodes of course. Enhanced quality and space saving are good reasons to buy again but for me not enhanced effects. As mentioned, I didn't like the Star Wars Special Editions either. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's all about the money, money, money..... 🤑
I couldn't swear to it, M, but I think when the new effects were first completed and released, there was an option for switching between the originals and the new. At least, that's the impression I had when I first heard about what had been done - could be completely wrong though. As to whether it can be done on the new set I've got, I don't really know 'cos I haven't examined the DVD options to see if it's possible. I suspect the new effects were for two reasons: Someone in charge wanted to see the episodes looking as good as they can, and then, of course, to make money. The latter reason probably explains the 'Teleubbies' Daleks - to create new merchandising opportunities for the BBC.
Kid, last night there was an article in The Guardian (online) which rated the Doctors Who as follows:
1) David Tennant
2) Tom Baker
3) Matt Smith
4) Patrick Troughton
6) Sylvester McCoy
8) William Hartnell
9) Peter Capaldi
10) Jon Pertwee
I know I've missed some out but I can't remember where they were placed - anyway I thought you might be interested and I assume you don't agree with William Hartnell being only #8. In my opinion Tom Baker should be at #1 and Jon Pertwee at #2.
I think Hartnell's Doctor should be number one, though not on the strength of his performance or personality, but because the original idea of his Doctor (strange, enigmatic old man, not quite sure whether he's good or bad) was the best. As far as the charisma of the leading actors go, I'd say the top three were Pertwee, Baker (Tom), and Tennant.
I actually like the enhanced visual effects in Star Trek. At least they didnt do a Star Wars and replace actors and add extra scenes. As for Hartnell I agree totally with you. He was the Doctor as was portrayed as a strange ,enigmatic old man not the grinning over confident cock sure of himself buffoon they turned him in to.
I'm off to my bed for a lie-down, LH, 'cos I'm not used to people agreeing with me. The new Doctor looks like we're going to be in for more of the same as regards grinning buffoon. I'll wait and see if the episodes are at least entertaining, but there doesn't seem to be any sense of real peril from the trailers I've seen. Even original producer Verity Lambert said (when she was still with us) that everyone looked as though they were all having a whale of a time in then-recent episodes with Sylvester McCoy.
Jules N
Interesting re the enhanced sharpness of the Star Trek imagery, Kid. I enjoy both as one is the bona fide original (matching the audio of the theme), and the other a ‘What if…’ l love the technicolor-look palette of the original series, as l also love ‘Forbidden Planet’ and its colour and set design, reflecting the era and its available technology.
Incidentally, maybe everyone knows this story, but it was new to me around five years ago:
Nichelle Nichols, who played Uhura, had tired of her role and wanted to get back onto the stage. Handed in her letter of resignation to Gene, who gave it back to her and said ‘Think about it over the weekend’. She went to a party, and was told that there was someone there to se her - she was taken to a room. Lo and behold - Martin Luther King is sitting there. He told her that what she was doing on the show was doing was very important for other African Americans - and so she stayed.
Apocryphal? Apparently not, and what a ripper of a story!
Yeah, it's quite a well-known story, JN, and though there's no reason to doubt that MLK may well have said that to her, I wouldn't rule out her 'tarting it up' a bit by adding the resignation angle. It's always possible she just stayed for the money, but that's not quite such an 'inspiring' story. Yes, JN, you're right - I'm such a cynic.
Post a Comment