TOS is my favorite show of all time. I enjoy the later shows up to ENTERPRISE to varying degrees, and respect the fact that they tried to do their own thing, without strip-mining or rewriting the original show. Okay, fine.
NuTREK, on the other hand, BEGAN
They are not written by, or acted in, by people who love the franchise. If they don't love it then I won't love it. Hard pass.
It's been trapped by people who don't want to make Star Trek, but do their own thing and pretend it's Star Trek
I have to disagree--I like the Remastered Edition. I have the BluRay disks and streaming versions, as well as the original DVD-resolution versions. In HD, the original effects are unwatchably bad. The grain, the matte lines, the holes in the mattes of the ship, all just look awful. When I want to see TOS warts and all, I can watch that in standard def on my iPad, and it looks fine. But on a big screen, I like the Remastered Edition much better. Plus it's fun to play "Spot the Tiny Okudas" in various episodes.I'm of the opinion that it all started in 2006 when it was decided to redo the original series with replaced cgi. Now that's all that's shown, and it's almost cringe inducing. It was the first step in realizing they could mess with a beloved property and get away with it.
I agree, and they didn't try to go too far with it, thiugh I guess some may disagree. I also like the director's cut of ST:TMP, which also had updated effects, but they tried to match them to the existing movie. I think it was in the supplemental materials of the DVD that I watched a featurette on the effects. They explained why and how they made the change.sI have to disagree--I like the Remastered Edition. I have the BluRay disks and streaming versions, as well as the original DVD-resolution versions. In HD, the original effects are unwatchably bad. The grain, the matte lines, the holes in the mattes of the ship, all just look awful. When I want to see TOS warts and all, I can watch that in standard def on my iPad, and it looks fine. But on a big screen, I like the Remastered Edition much better. Plus it's fun to play "Spot the Tiny Okudas" in various episodes.![]()
I didn't care for the TMP director's cut. The VFX were fine, but I disliked the new edit and the new sound mix. I've ranted about it at length elsewhere on this board (which thread escapes my memory at the moment) so I won't belabor it here, but I do prefer my 4K edition of the theatrical cut. They removed the pipe stand from the shot of the E leaving dry dock, and that's all that really bugged me about the film anyway.I agree, and they didn't try to go too far with it, thiugh I guess some may disagree. I also like the director's cut of ST:TMP, which also had updated effects, but they tried to match them to the existing movie. I think it was in the supplemental materials of the DVD that I watched a featurette on the effects. They explained why and how they made the change.s
Like replacing the matte painting of Vulcan because their sun is shining brightly on the avtors, yet the matte painting showed a dark sky, and completing the statue of the figure - the practical scene shows two large feet, but the matte painting chops it off at the legs.
I think they also used an older mac desktop computer to replace the shuttle craft flying and landing at Starfleet (I think), in part to match the older look of the movie. And they used cg to beyter match the terrain surrounding V'ger in the long shot at end.
I don't buy it for a second. Anyone can say they're a fan. It's when they PROVE it, by making shows that actually pay homage to and are in line with the originals, that matters.That is simply untrue. SNW is clearly a product of people who are fans, both in front and behind the camera. If you don't share their taste that's fine but besmirching their motives like that is uncalled for.
Star TrekSNW.I don't buy it for a second. Anyone can say they're a fan. It's when they PROVE it, by making shows that actually pay homage to and are in line with the originals, that matters.
We can all clearlyy see where this is headed. Everyone knows the new stuff doesn't even somewhat resemble the original. To argue that you like the new stuff does not answer that question or add to that debate or discussion, you are just saying you like the new stuff where the majority of all people currently breathing do not.
Anyone can say they're a fan. It's when they PROVE it,
The ratings clearly show that. Saying you like it does not increase the ratings nor change the scale.
Star Trek The Official Fan Club Membership KitYep, here we are once again, where we have to listen to someone gatekeeping on what the definition of a fan is.
Got news for you guys: a fan is a fan because they say they are. Period. Just because they don't adhere to three old seasons of what was originally very low-ratings TV doesn't mean you get to imperiously rule on who is and isn't.
Judge the bad writing. Judge the agendas. Judge the poor acting and storytelling, and design choices. Judge the music, the effects, anything factually you like.
But stay the **** out of people's hearts and minds. No one is obligated to prove **** to you.
Anyone can say they're a fan. It's when they PROVE it, by making shows that actually pay homage to and are in line with the originals, that matters.
I've seen the cabinet of curiosities, heck, I follow the thread. The cabinet is proof enough that your level of eclectic is legendary but and I say this with all respect, not indicative of the quality of current trek just a testament to your ability to enjoy variety. Let me muddy the view even more with this fine example: I love Drake and Josh, Zack and Cody and the entire cast of iCarly BUT that doesn't mean that I don't see that iCarly is the most bigoted show Disney has produced in decades. It is funny, quirky, hits on all cylinders for the cast performances and delivers one liners that have become part of my family lore: "Why are you asking me, Dora? You are the explorer. You have the map!!!" ..... BUT.... it is still terribly racist, sexist, age biased and just plainly bigoted. If you caught on to "that has nothing to do with the convo", then you have grasped my point. The convo thread wasn't about is it possible to create something unrelated and yet entertaining, it was "Is Trek Dead?" and the answer was already provided by the undeniable separation of old and new and JJ actually saying it out loud so that it really couldn't be denied, "I wasn't really a fan when I was a kid...." so he wrote something else instead which then became the montra of all that followed. I mean this isn't new info. The definition was fan of the old not fan of anything titled Trek because that means I can KK and JJ my way into destroying decades of canon by just pushing out enough new stuff under the same franchise title and now there is no going back, no recovery and we can continue to confuse fan of what. And as always the "you don't have to watch it" is exactly what we already covered. We are not watching it and it is bankrupting because the audience is gone. It isn't about the fact that people didn't have the brain capacity to realize they were not being forced to watch it so I am having a hard time understanding why that line continues to be used. Nope, not forced, and NOT watching, thus the conversation about its death. But that rabbit hole was not my intent at all nor was my rant above. My rant was directed at the obvious moves to bring in communication shaming which always ends up being a backdoor reason to call on mods to get people ejected and topics shutdown because they can't handle someone having a different opinion. If we need to go back to why the term FAN of new trek does not mean the same thing as FAN of old trek while there are some that fall on being a fan of both, we have again ignored everything that was already said many times. If it makes it easier to comprehend we can start using quotes, "fan of old trek, including TOS, (insert your favorites here)" because when someone says fan of trek and we wander off talking about what the word fan means and I am an SW fan so don't tell me I'm not a fan is to purposely ignore the point that what was really being said is the new looks nothing like the old, seems to be never coming back around and because of that is not likely to survive the next budget stock holder's meeting.but.....I like it too...![]()
I just read this article on DarkHorizons about the Section 31 movie and an insight from one of the actors.
"Section 31" Made Because "'Star Trek' Is Dying"
I know I've gone though periods of not watching Star Trek because I was losing interest in the stories. And like Star Wars, they are now both global products that will have good products and bad products. I don't think you should make a bad multi million dollar TV series or movie. It shouldn't happen but it does.
And even though it was a small sample of people, I can't believe that a good majority out there don't know what Star Trek is. Or are unwilling to watch the older shows and will watch something new like Section 31. I don't think I've ever seen a bad remake / update and then thought to check out the original.
Star Trek was before my time, but I watched re-runs on TV like many classic shows. Only in the last decade or so, I watched Forbidden Planet, a classic movie from the 50s. And that's a far better Star Trek movie than the last 3 reboot movies and I'm sure this Section 31 movie.
I'm getting into old Westerns and I'm seeing where Star Trek came from. To the point of noticing the Gorn fight mountains in a bunch of Western TV shows.
I also started watching the original 60s Hawaii Five-O. I mention it because a surprise Star Trek actor has an appearance. If some here haven't seen the Samurai episode, you'll be surprised in the early moments of this clip. It's a good episode too.
I don't think I've ever seen a bad remake / update and then thought to check out the original.