Blogs & News
Anonymous Critic
Star-Trek Re-Mastered: Unnecessary
September 27, 2006
We have seen the future, and it looks like the past … but with better music and special effects.
CBS/Paramount Television is celebrating the 40th anniversary of “Star Trek” by digitally re-mastering the original series with all new, state-of-the-art CGI effects and re-recorded music, along with an upgrade to high-definition (HD).
This was an unnecessary move.
“Star Trek” with William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, et al, has been a syndication staple for 40 years. It’s one of the most fondly remembered TV series of all time, spawning legions of fans and a dynasty of both big- and small-screen spin-offs, including ten movies and five separate TV series, including an animated version that featured the voices of the original cast. An eleventh movie, slated for 2008 and directed by J. J. Abrams (of “Lost” fame) has been announced.
The newly enhanced version of the series recently debuted on over 200 stations. What did they change? For starters, The Enterprise and all the other starship models have been replaced with CGI. The opening sequence, along with William Shatner’s immortal voiceover, has been recreated. Background scenes, planet and galaxy shots and exteriors in general have been re-created.
Yes, it’s true.
I’ve seen the second remastered episode, “The Devil In The Dark,” (the episodes are not shown in their original order; instead, they’re selected from a list of favorites chosen by fans), which didn’t seem to have a lot of added effects in it. There is a noticeable upgrade in the quality of the color and sound, even watching it on a non-HD station. And the enhanced opening is tastefully done and true to the original.
In short, nothing we’ve seen here is offensive.
But just because you can, doesn’t always mean you should.
While an HD-makeover is certainly appreciated, let’s face facts: “Star Trek” is fondly remembered for every little nuance, every little shot — including those circa-1966 glimpses of The Enterprise we grew up with.
But like George Lucas “enhancing” parts of Star Wars, and Ted Turner wanting to colorize the classic black and white films in his voluminous library, sometimes “re-mastering” an icon isn’t a great idea.
I understand the need to attract new audiences to classic material. There are plenty of movies and series that may seem dated in the effects-laden, high-tech world we live in these days. “Star Trek” occupies a legendary place in American pop culture. And sometimes, what becomes a legend most is leaving it exactly the way it’s so fondly remembered.
Send to a Friend
Recent Comments
December 6, 2006 at 01:50 AM
Catch A Phrase... Both Endearing and Annoying
lizzy: "well about this gem "i did not have sexual intercourse with that woman." president bill clinton about his affair with..."
December 5, 2006 at 03:42 PM
Where Are My Shows?
LANI: "Hi - Any info on shows that really were mostly brilliant-but-cancelled? Such as WEST WING or JUDGING AMY or CHRISTOPHER..."
December 5, 2006 at 01:46 PM
MASH: No more
Linda : "Writing that MASH was not (is not)funny ranks right up there with saying this Administration knows what they are doing..."
December 5, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Catch A Phrase... Both Endearing and Annoying
Lindsey: "So may Simpsons not listed. Don't have a cow man. Hi-didly ho neighborinos I didn't do it Eat my shorts..."
December 5, 2006 at 11:24 AM
Wonderfalls
Brian: "I knew the show was too good to last.Clever and fun just doesn't sell over mean and obnoxious these days.I..."
December 5, 2006 at 08:33 AM
MASH: No more
dumbod: "Actually, there were two MASH's. The first had McLean Stevenson and Wayne Rogers. It was funny and somewhat more true..."
Comments
j31578 wrote:
Actually, the need to upgrade to HD was a necessity if the show was ever to be swown in a few years. TV stations must upgrade to an HD signal and the a lot of shows will also have to upgarde to be shown. Star Trek has a vested interest in maintaining its broadcast status if it wants to continue to grow, (after 40 years!). Star Trek just happens to be one of the first, and of the highest profile, shows to get the upgrade. The next couple years will show this continuing trend.
posted at September 30, 2006 09:01 AM
jon wrote:
I've always loved the show and will watch it in its old format and enjoy the awful effects or see the episodes I love enhanced to be a little more slick and find satisfaction either way. Just so long as they don't digitize Shatner's hair or completely remaster his girdle out of the picture, some purity must remain!
posted at October 2, 2006 01:06 PM
Kali39 wrote:
As long as they follow the example of STTMP and NOT Star Wars: The Version Where Greedo Shoots First, we'll be all right. The enhanced version is not bad (though why they bothered with "Devil in the Dark" escapes me - there are only a few shots of the Enterprise and you can't do much with styrofoam caves and Shatner staring at a blank wall). The REAL problem is an age-old problem: the episodes are the same 7% chopped-up versions that aired on The Psychic Friends Network (formerly SciFi). You think celebrating 40 years, they'd run them complete, wouldn't you? And they didn't upgrade the end credits so it's real obvious what's been changed and what's not. Sad, really. Such a missed opportunity. At least, until the Definitive DVD comes out.
posted at October 2, 2006 06:23 PM
Allen wrote:
The purists need to get a grip. The old bad quality SFX version is still out there, if you want to see that. Don't ruin it for the rest who want this. I've been a fan since the 60's and love the new effects. They have been tastfully done. And well done. Now I can show them to my kids without hearing "Daddy, Why can I see the stars going through the space ship?"
posted at October 2, 2006 08:11 PM
Dean wrote:
People need to do their homework before making statements. There is NOT going to be a required switchover to an HD signal. The switchover will be to a *digital* signal, which is completely different. That said, neither would require that the programming be remastered and altered. That's just silly. You can watch non-HD programming on an HD signal, and digital signals carry non-HD programming all the time. It's the standard for cable, in fact. Original versions of Star Trek will be able to be included in television programming for the foreseeable future, just like every other old program. Do you really think every program on networks like TVLand would have to be remastered to HD compliance? There is no way you could be that naive.
If you want perfect SFX and digitally animated starships, by all means, go watch anything from TNG to Enterprise. The original Star Trek should be left as it was. It's like taking a classic Shelby Mustang and ripping out the guts so you can put in new seats with lumbar support and a cd/dvd player. And then, for good measure, maybe you can put spinners on instead of the original wheels. After all, they look really good, don't they?
Bah. Call me a purist if you wish, but I think classic television should be left like it was originally made, whether you kids like the FX or not.
posted at October 5, 2006 07:51 AM
Ray Sills wrote:
It's true that the digital broadcasting "switchover" (whenever that occurs) will not -require- HD programming. In fact, stations may transmit, if they desire, up to 4 standard definition programs on the same channel.
The Star Trek makover was probably a case of "doing it because we can" and there's no reason why both the new versions and the old versions can't co-exist. Choose what you prefer to watch.
posted at October 6, 2006 06:16 AM
Tim wrote:
I hate it when people bitch about remakes or remasters. It looked like crap, fix it. The should remaster the original Star Wars Trilogy, hell remake it would be better. If you don't like it, simply don't watch it. But let us have it if WE want it
posted at October 7, 2006 11:42 AM
Edgeoforever wrote:
Absolutely agree!
As my handle indicates, I am a dedicated trekker. The original series is a jewel in the rough - for the great stories, great acting and yes, corny sets and special effects. It proves that sci-fi can be great even without techonoly. It's a shame they want to obscure this important lesson. This way, they'll be free to make script free/special effects only bombs that are barely different from video games and are instantly forgettable.
posted at October 26, 2006 02:19 PM
Chad wrote:
The Purist mentality is about nostalgia and that is it. I completely support this and I don't think it is a waste of money or time to give a polish to a classic. I'd rather they remaster it than remake it, that's for certain.
posted at October 30, 2006 07:37 PM
Steve Savage wrote:
Leave it alone! One thing that modern CGI-laden movies are lacking is a soul. Star Trek does have bad SFX but so what? It is a time capsule, not something to be embarassed about.
There's a difference between remastering something (removing scratches, color adjusting, sound re-synchronization) and ruining it by replacing the CGI with modern computer graphics.
A classic burns itself into your mind and the worst thing you could do is change a classic.
Leave Star Trek alone!
posted at November 5, 2006 09:22 PM
Dude wrote:
Shut up.
It's Star Trek, it's on TV and it's something we havent seen before. Enjoy it while it lasts.
posted at November 17, 2006 08:16 PM
Post a comment