Slashdot Mirror


Star Trek - Special Edition

Deathlizard writes "Confirming rumours from last month, Trekkies will finally join their Star Wars brethren and get a taste of the 'George Lucas Treatment' this year. CBS will be rebroadcasting The Original Star Trek Series for it's 40th anniversary. The catch? New Digital Graphics." From the article: "Digitally created images will replace the miniature-scale models used for exterior shots of the various spacecraft on the show, including Kirk's Starship Enterprise and the enemy war vessels of the alien Klingons and Romulans. Shots of distant galaxies and planets also will be touched up with computer graphics to give them greater depth. The flat matte paintings used as backdrops on the surface of the strange new worlds visited by the Enterprise crew will be digitally enhanced to add texture, atmosphere and lighting."

282 comments

  1. Next up for 'improvement' by rednip · · Score: 1

    Next up for 'improvement': The Honeymooners in Color. Where will it end?

    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    1. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Where will it end?"

      The moon, Alice.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    2. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by nosredna · · Score: 3, Funny
    3. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by Ubergrendle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It didn't end with Fred Astaire selling a vaccum cleaner. Zombie Hepburn will be eating brains of people on Rodeo Dr very soon, while Gap ramps up its fall campaign.

      The only way to redirect this abberant behaviour is a) don't pay attention, and b) for god's sake don't BUY anything related to it.

      Part of the charm of watching old Tom Baker Dr Who or ST:TOS episodes is to see how _good_ the shows were with such primitive budgets. I will go on a shooting rampage is someone tries to add CG backdrops to the scenes in I, Claudius.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    4. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by ptomblin · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only way to redirect this abberant behaviour is a) don't pay attention

      Of course, your comment will sound better when Paul Anka's singing it.

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    5. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by PDXNerd · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's time for another good idea/bad idea.

      Good idea: Remastering old video and shows to a modern digital standard.

      Bad idea: Mixing old video and new video while violating Roddenberry's standards.

      (I have some old home movies of me as a child naked, perhaps I can digitally enhance certain elements of my naked body as a 2 year old. I just didn't have the capabilities back then to express my, uh, manhood and now that I do, let's DESTROY the old memory and create a new one!)

    6. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever shot the videos would have committed the crime, not him, jenius (misspelling intentional).

    7. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      He's guilty of possesion and possibly something harsher if he shows anyone.
      God, somebody PLEASE think of the children!

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    8. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by Jonny_eh · · Score: 1
      I will go on a shooting rampage

      That is not cool, it's too soon man!
    9. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      The moon, Alice.

      OK, now you owe me a beer (and a new keyboard)....

    10. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1

      Woah! Too MUCH color!

      (ducks for cover)

      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    11. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      You're probably referring to the shooting in Montreal two days ago, and I can understand how you could take some, albeit misguided, offense at my comment. I don't really see how the two are relevant, though, as its clearly been demonstrated through numerous slashdot RIAA and MPAA articles in the past that hollywood advertising execs aren't people.

      apples and oragnes, really.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    12. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ".. Roddenberry's standards. "

      HAHAHAHahahaha...og, you crack me up.
      All the goods stuff was not done by Roddenberry. Who lost interest in the show and started doing other things..

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by kimvette · · Score: 1

      nudity is not automatically pornography. Duh. It's all in the context.

      Video of a childbirth? Pictures of a newborn? A home video of you taking your clothes off and running around the house giggling while your mom chases you to put your clothes back on your mischievous ass? Not porn.

      Video of some old guy diddling your weewee? Porn.

      Common sense, folks.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    14. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Acutally that is not true ether. There are a number of photographers who have been charged with child pornography for taking just such pictures. Such as one a few weeks ago where a parent took a few pictures of her 4 year old little girl in the bath tub. They took the pictures to a one hour photo shop. The photo shop called the police and the mother was charged with production of kitty porn.

      It all depends on the fucking prud that is the current DA at the time.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    15. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by Golias · · Score: 1

      So are you saying I can be arrested for my CD copy of Led Zeppelin's "Houses of the Holy", which features naked children on the cover?

      Or the DVD of Superman (the first of the Christopher Reeves films), in which you can clearly see a little boy's penis for a couple seconds?

      More proof that it's getting to be time for Libertarians to form a new country somewhere.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    16. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      How about Rodger Dean's first artbook, "Views"? There's two kids (painted) in the back coverart for Yes's "Yesterdays" album. Not only do we have both a boy and a girl nekkid, but the boy is urinating on some rocks. Why isn't someone prosecutionizing both Dean and Atlantic records?
              I just got divorced recently. Several people who had been through one advised me to get rid of anything like that, ASAP, before the Ex mentioned it to her lawyer in an attempt to win a better settlement or something. One friend asked if I had any underground comix, and said it was common knowledge that old Zaps or Furry Freak Bros could get you in trouble in a divorce - I don't know if he had any personal experience of that or not.
                My Ex's a lot better person than that. We had an amicable enough divorce over irreconcilable differences, no real financial issues, the kid's 23 and didn't really figure into it, we still get along well, and nobody in the legal profession gave either of us the third degree, or even the first, over anything at all.
              But... I saw half a dozen divorce settlements in the court that day which were simultaniously getting nasty, with couples argueing and fighting before they even got called forward (the judge actually bumped us up in line and had us go back to chambers and handle it all privately, and remarked that there wasn't another couple on the docket that day where he felt comfortable with being in the same room without an armed ballif present). Later, we hung around to watch for a bit and wait on paperwork. In two of those six divorces, the spouse brought up something that basically played a surprise "Won't somebody think of the children" card. One of them made a big fuss over a Traci Lords video - not an adult video made when she was underage, but an PG-13 rated video made when she was in her late 20's or so. Her lawyer talked like Traci was the perp in some kiddy stuff, not the victim, but fortunately, the judge wasn't ignorant on that point and essentially cut counsel off at the knees.
      The other of the two really bad cases tried to convince the judge that her 15 year old girl might be in danger if he allowed visitation, because her ex had an unmarried older brother (who was presumably 'queer', or so I inferred by her repeatedly emphasizing how he was unmarried at such an age), (and 'everyone knows' gay males like to molest female children, right?), and as she put it "kids that young don't know anything about good touching vrs. bad touching yet". Based on that, I won't be surprised if someone does get arrested over "Houses of the Holy", or less.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    17. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      The Honeymooners in Color.

      Good, maybe they can finally put some coloreds in the show.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:Next up for 'improvement' by Lotharus · · Score: 1
      the mother was charged with production of kitty porn.

      Please, won't someone think of the KITTENS!
  2. CBS raped my childhood! by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Well, lets at least HOPE that they didn't destroy all the originals when they did the updating and enhancement.

      Also, at least so far...they didn't apparently alter the actual story like some directors out there have done....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the interview I saw with Shatner and Nemoy was the best perspective I've seen on any of this entertainment news.
       
        If you ask them what still gets them fired up about the late producer Gene Roddenberry's creation after all these years, you get an answer that -- underneath the glibness -- is very telling:

      SHATNER: Money.

      NIMOY: Yeah. The big, the big bucks.

      SHATNER: Money. The money gets you fired up.

      TOGETHER: The biiiig bucks.

      Seriously?

      SHATNER: Yes, that was serious. We were very serious about that.

      NIMOY: Yeah. But seriously, folks.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Okay, wise guy. Just relax and take it easy. Paramount is not "raping your childhood", or even improving the effects. (Much.) All they're doing is resampling the film for HD broadcasts. Unfortunately, a lot of the effects shots and audio will stand out as REALLY bad in High Definition, so they're recreating much of it.

      What do I mean by "recreating"? I mean that they're matching the original shots (from what I've seen, mistakes and all) so that the jump to HD doesn't make them look like cheap models with sparklers on them. The theme song is being re-recorded to match the original exactly, but using modern sound capture technologies. The sound effects will be redubbed over the audio of the characters, again to take advantage of modern sound systems.

      The result is that it will look like Star Trek, feel like Star Trek, and be like Star Trek. It will just look a little better on HD, while SD viewers will notice that the picture is a little cleaner and the audio a bit crisper. Go see for yourself.

    4. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      i'm just playing. i've seen so much 'horror' in the last month or so over star wars and now this that i'm just really tired of it. read down in this thread and see where a '60s sci-fi show is compared to the mona lisa or classic literature. it blows my mind.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    5. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, wise guy. Just relax and take it easy. Paramount is not "raping your childhood", or even improving the effects. (Much.) All they're doing is resampling the film for HD broadcasts.

      They're doing a bit more than that.

      But unlike with Star Wars, I'm all for this. There's one crucial difference: the original version is still available, and always will be. Nobody's suddenly denying the existence of the original model-based Star Trek, or telling anyone they "lost" the original negatives, or calling the new version "the Star Trek we had always meant to make".

      There's another big difference: the dramatic content was not changed. Only the FX shots have been changed/cleaned up. I wouldn't have had such a problem with the Star Wars Lucas treatment if he hadn't also gone and made it so Greedo shot first, or Hayden Christensen appeared at the end of Jedi (a face Luke wouldn't even recognize!), or whatever.

      I don't mind updating films and TV shows provided the original is preserved for archival purposes and made available in some form to the public. And I don't mind the updates themselves provided it only applies to the technical aspects of the film rather than the content.

      It sounds to me like this is a worthwhile update to the original Trek, and I'll be watching. (I'll also be buying once it's inevitably released on an HD video format.)

    6. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by Stormwatch · · Score: 1
      read down in this thread and see where a '60s sci-fi show is compared to the mona lisa or classic literature.


      What's the big deal about Mona Lisa? It's just a portrait. A really well-done portrait, sure, and Leonardo da Vinci was a polymath genius, but that is just a painting of some woman, of little meaning in itself.

      Star Trek has excellent storytelling, and inspired changes in arts, society, and technology. Clear winner IMNSHO.
    7. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by Jugalator · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      In Soviet Russia, children rape CBS.

      Sometimes I wish I lived in Soviet Russia.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    8. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Yea. does the Mona Lisa even trigger any emotion in someone? It's not like Michelangelo's David or the numerous other works of art that show some aspect of what it means to be human. Love, anger, tormoil, pain, or joy. Ideally if there is a human being in a work of art you should empathize with that representation some how. You should be thinking, I've felt that way before or I wonder what that person is thinking, etc. If people do not empathize with the human figures in your artwork then it's not really world class art, it's just plain art.

      Maybe if we knew for certain if the mona lisa was a painting of a real person, or a self portrait of Da Vinci as a woman it would be slighlty more interesting. But even then I don't think any of us look at it and think much of it.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    9. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect? They're both Jewish.

    10. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by Bull+SR · · Score: 1

      >Okay, wise guy. Just relax and take it easy. Paramount is not "raping your childhood", or even improving the effects. (Much.) All they're doing is resampling the film for HD broadcasts. Unfortunately, a lot of the effects shots and audio will stand out as REALLY bad in High Definition, so they're recreating much of it.

      All I want to know is, will Mariett Hartley get two belly buttons?

    11. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think the producers and executives involved need to be
      kidnapped and taken to secret CIA prisons overseas, where they would
      be forced to watch "Star Trek: Enterprise" on shuffle until their
      eyes began to bleed.

      --
      Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
    12. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      Re-sampling and film cleanup is one thing. Frankly, if that's all they were doing, then I don't think anyone would be against that.

      Most of my problem with what they are doing here is the Remastering. When I start hearing digitized ships, planets, effects, even remastered voices, that starts to sound scary to me. I can understand if the models and the like look horrendous is HD. but since they never Broadcast in HD, we don't know how they would look. The original effects may be OK looking (albeit Outdated, but it is a 40 year old show after all) in HD.

      The real test will be the Tribble Episode. I don't want to see any DS9 crew members inserted anywhere in that episode, Cameo or otherwise, just to make the DS9 Episode tie in better with the original episode it was based on. I'm not sure if Paramount can avoid that temptation with a fully digital copy of the episode sitting on a hard drive just waiting to be exploited.

    13. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Ship hits the Fans!"????? Actually seeing the trailer, all they have done is really cleaned things up (a lot). I didn't know that they were taking from film. Sure, put it on digital and clean it while you are at it. The new *does* look better than the old, but really, the new looks like it looked if it was in a theater. The old looks like it looked on the old RCA black and white tv my folks had when I was 4 (and I figured out how to turn the T.V. set on and change channels). That was (more than just a few) years ago. I'm older than my dad was at the time (yikes). You can bellyache about 'raped childhood' all you want, but I don't want star trek looking like crap in HDTV. I want it to look good, so when my kids say 'what did you watch', I can get the HDTV version of trek and show it to them and they don't say 'ewww, how could you watch that!'.

    14. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was Roddenberry, you asshole.

      And it's called sarcasm.

    15. Re:CBS raped my childhood! by tajmahall · · Score: 1

      There's another big difference: the dramatic content was not changed. Ah yes, all the good old 60s sexism and chauvinism still intact!

  3. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about walkie talkies instead of hand phasers?

    1. Re:How about... by legoburner · · Score: 1

      Probably get some sort of sponsorship tie-in with Motorola now complete with funky modern phones. Still... if there was a phone on the market with stun/kill settings I'd probably get it.

    2. Re:How about... by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 4, Funny
      Still... if there was a phone on the market with stun/kill settings I'd probably get it.
      They're all like that now, just slow-acting. The settings are "stun with bill" and "kill with brain tumor."
    3. Re:How about... by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Funny
      The settings are "stun with bill" and "kill with brain tumor."
      You've obviously never dropped a bag phone on someone's head.

      It has one setting: blunt force trauma
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  4. I'm easy to please. by nosredna · · Score: 4, Funny

    As long as Kirk shoots first (or only, as applicable) I'll still be happy.

    1. Re:I'm easy to please. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as Scotty throws the first punch at the Klingon for saying that the Enterprise should be hauled away as garbage, I'll be happy. :P

    2. Re:I'm easy to please. by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      As long as it's not Mudd's companions of indeterminate gender, I'll be happy.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:I'm easy to please. by MindStalker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Luckily if you actually read the official site (startrek.com though the site seems to be down so I can't give you the actual part concerning this show). They state that they are making extra careful attention to not change the plot or feel at all. Mainly they are cleaning up the grainy film and turning it into HD, and taking the models and redoing them to look exactly the same. Several mentions on their site on how they actually had to cut back the effects to match the old style as to not make the changes obvious.

    4. Re:I'm easy to please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:I'm easy to please. by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous. "Redoing them to look exactly the same"? Why bother?

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    6. Re:I'm easy to please. by revlayle · · Score: 1

      As long as Spock still calls Bones "Illogical" first, i'll be....

      OH NEVERMIND!!

    7. Re:I'm easy to please. by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      They want it to be in HD and and dolby digital sound mainly. Most important, for the DVD and eventual HD-DVD release. Do you think people would shell out that kinda money for the original originals...

    8. Re:I'm easy to please. by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      for the same reason they made the show in the first place -- to get people to watch (and more will with the 'new' graphics) and make money selling advertising. i'm amazed at how many people here seem to think that star trek came to be as something other than a commercial venture first and everything else is incidental.
       
      i guess you could argue that roddenberry somehow used the system to slip something worthwhile through -- but bottom line is it only existed as long as it was perceived as a means of generating cash.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    9. Re:I'm easy to please. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      As long as the ladies still have short mini skirts, I'll be happy!

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:I'm easy to please. by dnoyeb · · Score: 0

      Why not fix up Shatner's bad acting. What about his now famous, rediculous flying kick? And I detected many instances of emotion from Spock.

      If they are going to sanitize it, why stop with just props?

      The more 'flaws' you remove, the more people will notice the other flaws. I think its better left alone. Hell, TNG was propwise superior, but who can match the depth of the original series?

    11. Re:I'm easy to please. by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      I can just see Jammie Hynaman doing a cameo, with Adam Savage stumbling over the bridge...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    12. Re:I'm easy to please. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      I can just see Jammie Hynaman doing a cameo, with Adam Savage stumbling over the bridge...

      Hah! That sounds like a great idea for a Youtube video! Show some footage of the Enterprise rocking violently from some sort of explosion (doesn't really matter), then have Kirk pop in with, "Spock! What was that?" Cut to Jamie and Adam pasted into a Star Trek science lab background. Play some sort of "sorry about that guys, we didn't expect an explosion that big" clip.

      Comedy gold! :D
    13. Re:I'm easy to please. by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If they are going to sanitize it, why stop with just props?

      Because the props can be changed without changing the show.

      Frankly, I'm amazed at all the bad reactions here. It looks like they are going to show Lucas what he should have done: Update the special effects to what the orginial would have done had they had the budget/tech they wished for, but not change the story or feel of the show other than that. Done well they could actually give us a 'better' original Trek than the orginal. Leave the stories, the plots, the acting, but bring the visuals up to what we would expect from a decent show.

      (Oh, and Shatner's acting wasn't actually all that bad. (Though it wasn't great.) It was just incredibly easy to parody.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    14. Re:I'm easy to please. by rlp · · Score: 2, Funny

      As long as Scotty throws the first punch at the Klingon for saying that the Enterprise should be hauled away as garbage, I'll be happy. :P

      So where can I get the T-shirt?

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    15. Re:I'm easy to please. by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      In other words, Kirk will still be fat and bald,...

    16. Re:I'm easy to please. by falcon5768 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it's being done in HD. While the live action can hold up pretty well to HD (as it was shot on film), the SFX look like hell. I have actually seen shots of the FXs for the original done in HD and it was complete dog shit. This is a needed improvement.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    17. Re:I'm easy to please. by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Update the special effects to what the orginial would have done had they had the budget/tech they wished for.

      Sadly this is what lucus has stated many time is exactly what he did. Apparently the only reason the old ones were any good is because he DIDN'T have the technology to add all sortsa cutsy CGI. Think about all the cutsy stuff they managed to put in even the original Jedi. Now imagine if Lucas had had that kinda budget for A New Hope.

    18. Re:I'm easy to please. by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      So am I, but it would be nice if they digitally enhanced the girls tits - they just aren't up to the siliconed standards of the new milenium.

      Oh, yeah - get rid of those dumbass sideburns, too.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    19. Re:I'm easy to please. by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1
      As long as Kirk shoots first (or only, as applicable) I'll still be happy.

      Actually, they're replacing his phaser with a walkie-talkie.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    20. Re:I'm easy to please. by Ucklak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As much as you want to bitch about your opinion of William Shatner's acting, no one else could have embodied the character of Captain Kirk as he.
      Jeffery Hunter, while probably a better actor, would have been as forgotten as the captain of Time Tunnel by now.

      Face it, the entire cast of Gilligans Island will be known as those characters forever as much as Thomas F Wilson will be forever known as Biff Tannen. Those performances would be nothing without the contributions of those actors. How many Gingers were there?

      Star Trek would be just another crappy 60's Sci Fi show without Shatners contribution.

      Probably the best actor to reinvent himself each decade would be Lee Majors.
      He has been iconic in his roles in Big Valley of the 60s, the Six Million Dollar Man of the 70s, and the Fall Guy in the 80s and was married to THE hottie of the 70s.

      The only one who comes close (and forgive me) would be David Hasselhoff of Knight Rider and Baywatch fame. (and I can personally attest that Hoff is a wuss in real life)

      Most of the Trek episodes weren't that good anyway so any 'bad acting' fixing isn't going to matter. I'd like to see how they fix the western episode and if they remove the wires from those creatures in the halloween episode.

      If you were an actor, how would you handle the following episodes:
      -evil twin episode
      -evil twin in another universe episode
      -old age episode
      -episode with a guy in love with a bunch of lights
      -a greek god episode
      -episode where a main character loses his brain
      -halloween episode
      -western episode
      -Nazi episode
      -Chicago gangster episode
      -Indian episode
      -Abraham Lincoln episode
      -Hippie episode
      -episode where they're all in an empty room with some chick that heals
      -the episode with the midget in some greek setting with the first interracial kiss

      Yeah, god bless William Shatner and the stuff he had to go through.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    21. Re:I'm easy to please. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Do you think people would shell out that kinda money for the original originals...

      Done and done.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    22. Re:I'm easy to please. by zambotsu · · Score: 1

      In other words, Kirk will still be fat and bald,..

      So you will be crawling back to him for some of that sweet, sweet candy?

    23. Re:I'm easy to please. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "a means of generating cash."

      So what? If it's good, and people made money off of it, that's good, right? I'll leave as an exercise for the reader whether Trek is "good" or not, but that's orthognal to its money-making potential.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    24. Re:I'm easy to please. by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      I might be weird, but I can't get into attractive women on old shows or movies. I always start thinking about how old they'd be now and it just turns me off. My mother was born in 1959 so any woman on that show would be older than my mother! Now that is just weird.

    25. Re:I'm easy to please. by Orion_ · · Score: 1

      They state that they are making extra careful attention to not change the plot or feel at all.

      And they neglect to state that they are cutting out nearly 15% of each episode to make room for more commercials. Sounds like a plot and/or feel change to me.

    26. Re:I'm easy to please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that the PC police have been attacking skirt lengths on the Enterprise so skirts will be lengthened digitally.

    27. Re:I'm easy to please. by The_Rook · · Score: 1

      "As long as the ladies still have short mini skirts, I'll be happy!"

      even better. now they can make them shorter!

      --
      when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
    28. Re:I'm easy to please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Oh, and Shatner's acting wasn't actually all that bad.(Though it wasn't great.) It was just incredibly easy to parody.)


      He's actually not a bad actor - discounting TJ Hooker which sucked in EVERY way, have you ever seen any of his other work? I mean, other than roles like the ridiculous "Miss Congeniality" and other campy roles?

      I've read that Roddenberry specifically directed him to over-emote, to camp it up, that Star Trek was supposed to be fun and not take itself too seriously. If that is actually true, then Shatner actually did a damn fine job. If that claim is untrue, then, well, obviously he did a crappy job. I tend to believe what I read though, because Shatner's other work is pretty good.

      $.02
    29. Re:I'm easy to please. by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Hu? No they are releasing the full versions on DVD, and have shortend syndicated versions that match up with the already shortend for syndication version already being shown. You really can't get away with 55 minute tv show anymore.

    30. Re:I'm easy to please. by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      yeah, when i see an attractive woman and think of my mom, i kinda get weirded out, too.

    31. Re:I'm easy to please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always start thinking about how old they'd be now and it just turns me off.

      With me, it's more the opposite effect. But to each his own, I guess.

    32. Re:I'm easy to please. by VTMarik · · Score: 0

      Well, you can if you get sponsors who are genuinely interested in a show, or if you extend the time slot that it shows in from 1 hour or 1.5 hours. Take a 55min show and stick in the requisite number of commercials, voila! A filled 1 and a half hours.

    33. Re:I'm easy to please. by htnprm · · Score: 1

      Well said. It boils my blood when people rip in to actors for poor acting, particularly when they are criticising the actor's trademark style or methodology. Rather than saying "Bill Shatner can't act", how about thinking, "This is who James T. Kirk is. This is what he would act like if he were really James T. Kirk".

      As for the changes, TOS was not about the effects. TOS was story/character/social commentary driven. I've already got TOS on DVD, so I won't be buying them. I'd imagine most of those in the market for TOS on DVD will have already bought them as well. I doubt anyone who wants them would have gone "Y'know. I'd like to buy TOS on DVD, but the effects are a real let down". It's all about the money.

    34. Re:I'm easy to please. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      LoL...

      I have a related reaction. Girls under 30 remind me too much of my daughter. Women who are 35 to 50 seem red hot to me now.

      As far as the old shows go- Sally Kellerman was hot as a psionic babe and will always be for me (hell she was hot to me in Back to School when I was 30). She just has the most fantastic personality. And she's older than my mom! But she was only 29is during star trek!

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    35. Re:I'm easy to please. by trezor · · Score: 1

      by dnoyeb (547705) on Friday September 15, @09:19PM
      If they are going to sanitize it, why stop with just props?

      And in that moment, George Lucas Jr. was born.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    36. Re:I'm easy to please. by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I'm amazed at all the bad reactions here.

      havent you yet noticed the trend that no matter what is posted to slashdot, it is immediately subjected to a torrential deluge of bitching, nit picking and outright sour grapes?

      The guy who runs linspire said on lugradio that you could give away free money and someone on slashdot would criticise it.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    37. Re:I'm easy to please. by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      What's even weirder is when *I* see an attractive woman and think of your mom.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  5. Kirk shot first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it was with the green alien lady.

  6. Say it aint so by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

    Next they'll be digitally editing Shatner's hair and waist lines.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Say it aint so by thebdj · · Score: 1

      Actually, there isn't much more they could do about those digitally. I think they are just going to find a body double to re-shoot scenes and digital paste Shatner's head on it...at least the waist line will be taken care of...

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    2. Re:Say it aint so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next they'll be digitally editing Shatner's hair and waist lines.

      They also probably should edit out all the moments where Sulu is glancing at the "captain's log".

    3. Re:Say it aint so by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

      Actually, Kirk will make reservations for all accomodations on planet excursions, trysts with alien princesses etc. through priceline.com by naming his own price.

      To boldly go where no man has ever gone before.... drive, amigo, drive.....

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    4. Re:Say it aint so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Next they'll be digitally editing Shatner's hair and waist lines.
      Even technology has its limits.
  7. Beam me up, Scotty by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's no intelligent posts down here.

  8. Klingon foreheads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are they also going to digitally enhance the Klingons so that they have the the right forehead texture ?

    1. Re:Klingon foreheads by Sqwubbsy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Depends on which forehead you adhere to (sorry for the pun): Episode TOS 3x11: Day of the Dove or TNG 4x15: First Contact? Doesn't it?

    2. Re:Klingon foreheads by nightsweat · · Score: 1

      Like Worf said in the TNG Tribbles flashback episode - "We don't talk about that."

      --

      the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    3. Re:Klingon foreheads by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      DS9 actually, and there was also an episode of Enterprise that went into exactly why the change happened.

      So, they can't actually do it without breaking canon.

    4. Re:Klingon foreheads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the tribbles will be cuter.

      *ducks*

    5. Re:Klingon foreheads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Enterprise" is *not* canon

    6. Re:Klingon foreheads by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they can't actually do it without breaking canon.

      You mean the revised canon.

      Roddenberry always said since the first movie with Klingons in it, they always looked like that, he just didn't have the budget to do them right back then. He also retconned all the books out of the official history and all of the animated series except some elements of the backstory of Spock's childhood. (Animated Klingons also looked human.)

      That was the official canon until the DS9 episode, after Gene had no more say (being dead does that), and they found they still couldn't afford to CGI the Klingons.

      And how can you watch "Mirror, Mirror" now knowing that despite Mirror-Spock reforming the Terran Empire, the human race ends up subjugated by an alliance of Klingons, Cardassians, and Bajorans?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    7. Re:Klingon foreheads by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You could have made then pink with rainbow hair and and tusks, and if you gave him money, he would ahve said "Thay always looked like that..."

      Please.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Klingon foreheads by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      And how can you watch "Mirror, Mirror" now knowing that despite Mirror-Spock reforming the Terran Empire, the human race ends up subjugated by an alliance of Klingons, Cardassians, and Bajorans?

      The same way I can watch "Space Seed" knowing that despite what seems like a good solution at the time for the problem of what to do with Khan, he'll eventually regain control of a Starfleet vessel and cause all sorts of havoc ending with the deaths of Spock (temporarily) and David Marcus, a political headache for the Federation in the form of the Genesis planet, and the destruction of the Enterprise, among other things. This sort of extension and modification of prior resolutions of storylines isn't an entirely new thing for Trek, it seems...

    9. Re:Klingon foreheads by EGSonikku · · Score: 2, Funny

      Khan...well, the 1990's were a tough period for us 10 years ago, what with the Eugenic wars, supermen, and launching of sleeper ships and all...

      --
      - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
  9. Kirk shot first!! by BigIrv · · Score: 1

    ooops, wrong star thingy

    --

    --Good morning fellas; Hand me that thing; Boy, this work's hard; Guys, break's over.
  10. Product placement by Teresita · · Score: 1, Funny

    They're going to digitally insert "Sprint" onto all the communicators to help recoup costs.

  11. Bah by Cisko+Kid · · Score: 0

    I think that changing any of the older shows on TV is just a waste. Sure, it will bring in tons of money but when a show gets changed it does not have the same impact as the original. They change what was a main feature of the series. Can't they get a new idea instead of ruining a good old one.

    --
    I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.- Douglas Adams
    1. Re:Bah by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      You are very confused on the concept. Making money is the point and you readily admit that will happen-- so by definition they are not ruining it. They are doing what makes sense when you produce television purely for the purpose of generating revenue.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:Bah by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Bringing in a ton of money is the point. Paramount and CBS are corporations, after all.

      Spending all the development effort on something that'll bring the same amount of money would be a waste to them. They only care about impact as far as how much money they can make off of it. Besides, there's nothing stopping them from developing new ideas at the same time they've got other people working on this.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    3. Re:Bah by atokata · · Score: 1

      You are very confused on the concept. Making money is the point and you readily admit that will happen-- so by definition they are not ruining it. They are doing what makes sense when you produce television purely for the purpose of generating revenue.

      So, do you really believe that, or are you just taking a contrary point for shits and giggles? Should all media be remade and redone, to increase the profits of the companies which control the rights to said media? Should Sony change the lyrics to Beatles songs, and re-release them, in order to make money?

      Regardless if you perceive Star Trek as art, or just a campy old TV show, you can't deny that it's a piece of world culture at this point. To change it, even for the best reasons, is simply unacceptible. To change it simply for profit is not only greedy, but short sighted and crass.

      I know-- we should re-film all the Hitchkok movies in color, using prettier actors! Those will sell great! Or, how about we go back and cut out all the hippie nonsense in "Easy Rider"-- and film a new ending where they all become accountants. That'll sell some tickets! Let's re-write and sell 1984, this time without the memory hole, and a happy ending.

      If people want to make new art, then go out and make new art. Just changing things we already have is disingenuous and creepy.

    4. Re:Bah by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      i do believe it and i don't think people would pay to see your examples. if they would, you'd probably see it done. and i wouldn't really have a problem with it. but i think the major disconnect here, from the comments i've gotten in the thread are that a lot of people see star trek as an important piece of art and i don't. but beyond that -- rehashing classics has been around for a really long time. technology has just spead up the turn-around.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    5. Re:Bah by atokata · · Score: 1

      Rehasing classics, by way of new productions: Yes. I've personally seen at the very least three different versions of "Hamlet."

      Replacing bits of classics, while leaving other bits intact, skewing the line between what is new and what is original: Unacceptible. Shouldn't do it; terrifying implications.

      Now, this is just Star Trek we're talking about here, so don't think I'm getting too frothy at the mouth. My objection is this: Sure, they're only changing the special effects now; but how about when they decide to re-release 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn'-- this time without anything objectionable! Or, let's digitally 'remaster' famous rock protest songs... only this time, we'll make them sing in *support* of Vietnam!

      I know that I'm almost to move into tinfoil-hat territory, but I really believe that the editing and remixing of classic art, culture, literature, etc, should not be socially acceptible. People who want to do alternate performances, fine. People who want to do covers, fine. Even people who want to write books using characters from other books are fine. What's not fine is blurring the line between what's original, and what's remade. Enough gradual changes, and people will forget whatever made the orignal worth knowing; and that scares me.

      So even though this is just Star Trek, I'm seeing it as a slippery slope. In my mind, the show was just fine with it's original special effects, because the whole point was the story and dialog. No one's expecting an honest-to-god analysis of what aliens or starships or computers look like, in the same way that a cardboard and plywood set in Hamlet wouldn't make people say, "That doesn't really look like Denmark! My suspension of disbelief is totally shattered now!"

  12. Other changes: by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 1
    • Kirk's belly will be enhanced with washboard abs.
    • Extra CGI appendages will be added to each attractive alien go-go girl.
    • Embarrassing "we worship the Son" episode will instead end with a CGI explosion.
    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

  13. Please God, NO! by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The flat matte paintings used as backdrops on the surface of the strange new worlds visited by the Enterprise crew will be digitally enhanced to add texture, atmosphere and lighting.
     
    Obviously the dorks at CBS/NBC/ABC or whomever seem to have missed the point: It's the cheese that makes Trek taste so good after all these years.
     
    TOS is a classic, in part, because we get to sit back and see the innovation Roddenberry and crew had enough insight to bring to the surface but not enough FX abilities to make it convincing (even back when TOS was in first run). Aside from Shatner's bad acting what else will we have to cheer for?
     
    Frankly, this blows. If people like it I have nothing against it but I will not be party to it either. This is akin to updating all the antiquated language and references in, let's say, War of the Worlds and try to make it new and accessible to a new fanbase... Oh, sorry! (See! I've proven my own point)

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:Please God, NO! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Goddammit, Shatner was not a bad actor. If he was a bad actor, he wouldn't have been able to portray Captain Kirk.

      Is there any -- ANY -- doubt in your mind that Shatner was completely and fully Captain Kirk? No, goddammit, and that's why Shatner was not a bad actor.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    2. Re:Please God, NO! by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Funny
      Aside from Shatner's bad acting what else will we have to cheer for?
      The fact that he meets attractive alien cultures and inevitably sleeps with their women?
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Please God, NO! by jeblucas · · Score: 1

      Oh great. Now it look as "real" as Babylon 5. The models always looked a zillion times better than anything but the most EXPENSIVE digital images. Even the expensive ones can look crappy--see Star Wars Episode 1. Just because some guy uses Bryce instead of painting on glass doesn't make the planets look more real.

      --
      blarg.
    4. Re:Please God, NO! by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Obviously the dorks at CBS/NBC/ABC or whomever seem to have missed the point: It's the cheese that makes Trek taste so good after all these years.

      That's funny. I always liked TOS because of the good writing, acting, characters, and storyline. The effects weren't great, but it's not like we're talking about Land Of The Lost here. I also like the TOS doesn't take itself too seriously, something that was lost on TNG. As long as the new effects don't look worse or out of place with the rest of the series, I'd love see them.

      If you want a series with bad acting, bad writing, and mediocre effects that no one watches anymore look no further than Buck Rogers. If all sci-fi fans were interested in was cheese and bad effects, this show would be in syndication everywhere. Buck Rogers is rarely played. I think I recorded an episode on my DVR that played at 3 in the morning several months ago. It was interesting to see how bad the show was, but I'd never watch another episode.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Please God, NO! by pmc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there any -- ANY -- doubt in your mind that Shatner was completely and fully Captain Kirk?

      Spock - Logical Alien
      McCoy - Emotional Physician
      Scotty - Engineering Miracle Worker
      Kirk - William Shatner

      With Kirk you think of the actor, with the others you think of the character. That's why Shatner is a bad actor.

    6. Re:Please God, NO! by east+coast · · Score: 1

      With Kirk you think of the actor, with the others you think of the character. That's why Shatner is a bad actor.
       
      Exactly! I still have a hard time not seeing Spock when I see Nimoy in a non-Trek related role. When I see Shatner? Hell, all bets are off.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    7. Re:Please God, NO! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Babylon 5 looked fake because it was the very first sci-fi show to use CGI. Look at Firefly to see what good models actually look like.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    8. Re:Please God, NO! by patrixmyth · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Battlestar Gallactica was just as bad as Buck Rogers. I watched them both regularly, and was as excited as anyone to see the new BG series come out. I bet anyone who ever owned a poster of Farrah Fawcett in a wet t-shirt can still tell you who said "Beedy-Beedy-Beedy". I don't give up hope that a new Buck Rogers series won't happen, either. Heck, if they make the lead character gay they can use the same costumes from the original series, and explain why he hangs out with a deep throated midget named Twiki, to boot. They can play the series on LOGO. Hey man, this could work, Lance Bass can play Buck and finally make it into space, afterall.

      If someone can go back and airbrush out the canteen character, though then yeah, that would be great. Thanks.

      --
      "Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
    9. Re:Please God, NO! by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      Oh great. Now it look as "real" as Babylon 5. The models always looked a zillion times better than anything but the most EXPENSIVE digital images. Even the expensive ones can look crappy--see Star Wars Episode 1. Just because some guy uses Bryce instead of painting on glass doesn't make the planets look more real.

      I'm not sure what you're talking about. I was introduced to Babylon 5 last year and I thought it looked great, especially considering it was made back in a time where CG was still a new and unrefined art. And computer-generated terrain using Bryce or something similar DOES make more convincing planets than fucking paintings on glass.

      No offense but you sound like a technophobe who automatically dismisses everything computer-made.

    10. Re:Please God, NO! by jeblucas · · Score: 1

      See, I would rather think about the story and characters while watching a story unfold than marvel at how much the CG team could accomplish with $2500 and Video Toaster. Babylon 5 looks fake. Why didn't ST:TNG use CG for the ships in flight? Because the models look better. Even with the big budgets of movies they used models. The first movie to jump whole hog into animation over models? The Phantom Menace-and it looked fake. (I distinctly recall the Gungans vs the Droids scene on that big grassy field--it looked like a cutscene from StarCraft). Firefly, admittedly better than Babylon 5, still doesn't look real enough to me. There's no sense of mass with the digital creations. Maybe I'm too exposed to video and computer games, but it ruins my sense of disbelief to see effects on par with the The Last Starfighter. I'm underwhelmed.

      --
      blarg.
    11. Re:Please God, NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why didn't ST:TNG use CG for the ships in flight? Because the models look better."

      You forgot to end your sentence with "...in 1987."

    12. Re:Please God, NO! by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "Obviously the dorks at CBS/NBC/ABC or whomever seem to have missed the point: It's the cheese that makes Trek taste so good after all these years."

      I know some people in their early twenties, who fell of the sofa laughing at what the see as totally lousy effects (explanations as to why it looks like that are not relevant) perhaps they may give it a second chance after a brushup?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  14. Ah, well by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Informative

    At least we still have the motivational posters...

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  15. The hippie episode was priceless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they going to digitally alter the scripts to make them less cheesy?

  16. And to improve the acting. by Kenja · · Score: 3, Funny

    And to improve the acting, Kirk will now be played by Jar Jar Binks. Thanks to the wonders of digital compositing.

    "Mesa shout, Kahn?"

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:And to improve the acting. by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Shatner was not a bad actor. See my other post. Shatner WAS Captain Kirk, and that's a actor's job.

      A bad actor will never let you believe that he's the character. Shatner was 100% convincing as Kirk.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    2. Re:And to improve the acting. by Kenja · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of what one of the writers on Futurama said about Zap Branigan, just think of what it would be like if Shatner rather then Kirk was the captain of the Enterprise.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:And to improve the acting. by RecordHigh · · Score: 1

      And to improve the acting, Kirk will now be played by Jar Jar Binks. Thanks to the wonders of digital compositing.

      ...or, perhaps, "digital composting" would be more accurate.

    4. Re:And to improve the acting. by Absentminded-Artist · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. I haven't laughed so hard in ages!

      --
      The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
    5. Re:And to improve the acting. by speckledpig · · Score: 1

      "Brisky mornin' tribbles!!!!"

    6. Re:And to improve the acting. by trazom28 · · Score: 1

      You're not nice.. you made me nearly choke on my drink of water. :-) Thank you for that laugh!!!

      --
      {} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
  17. Dupe, dupe, dupe by mcmonkey · · Score: 2, Funny
    1. Re:Dupe, dupe, dupe by toomz · · Score: 1

      Might I direct your attention toward the post. ...

      See anything familiar?

      --
      If a chair is thrown in a forest, and there are no witnesses, did Ballmer still do it?
  18. Understatement by Marcus+Erroneous · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope it's a labor of love where they replace the crude effects with superior ones without letting themselves get carried away. Hopefully they won't go the Hollywood route and let the effects overwhelm and upstage the episodes. The real test will be if the episodes look better, but someone has to point out the changes.

    --
    You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi
    1. Re:Understatement by Minwee · · Score: 1
      Well, as always there is a preview online.

      See if you can spot the minor changes, particularly in how the interactions between the lead characters have been subtly emphasized.

  19. CBS?! *splutter*... by alispguru · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone who saw these episodes when they originally appeared (I was 10 at the time - I got a special dispensation from my parents to see the third season even though it was past my bedtime) knows they came out on NBC. How did CBS get to show them, much less get permission to tart them up?

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
    1. Re:CBS?! *splutter*... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      How did CBS get to show them, much less get permission to tart them up?

      TV executives and tarts?
      I suspect money is the enabler.

    2. Re:CBS?! *splutter*... by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re:CBS?! *splutter*... by oneiron · · Score: 1

      The major networks have all since been gobbled up by giant media conglomerates like Viacom and Vivendi. Viacom actually owned CBS for a while until 2005 when they split. Star Trek happens to be a Paramount property, and Paramount was also owned by viacom.

      Welcome to 2006...media conglomerates buy and sell your favorite creative properties almost daily.

    4. Re:CBS?! *splutter*... by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . .they came out on NBC. How did CBS get to show them. . .

      Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around. . .

      KFG

    5. Re:CBS?! *splutter*... by daitengu · · Score: 1

      It's actually being sold to syndication, not being broadcast on a huge network. My local Fox station is playing at *gulp* 1:30am Sunday Morning.

    6. Re:CBS?! *splutter*... by Monsterdog · · Score: 1

      Well, I could rattle on about syndication and so on, but the thing here is that Desilu (which actually produced the series) was swallowed up by Paramount, which itse;f was swallowed up variously by Gulf & Western and eventually Viacom, which also owns CBS. The episodes aren't being shown on the CBS network though. They're running in syndicated slots on a number of stations, some of which are former UPN outlets -- such as KTTU in Tucson, AZ.

  20. this is not the george lucas treatment by maynard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    TOS is still available via DVD, it will be rebroadcast in its original form on TV LAND... there's just no comparison to Lucas' repeated muddling of the Star Wars plot and effects. The only reason Lucas has decided to sell the original unmodified trilogy is because so many people downloaded or bought used laserdisc copies, rather than buy his recent updated box set.

    I mean, I grew up with TOS and think it's kinda cool CBS will rebroadcast it in HD - but I'm not clamoring for it either. I just think the comparison between Paramount's changes tp TOS vs. what Lucas did to the original Star Wars is just plain unfair.

    *shrug*

    1. Re:this is not the george lucas treatment by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. You know, if someone wants to go back and clean up the film quality, enhance the special effects, etc., then I don't really see it as a big problem. Even if they go pretty far with it, it could be a little bit of a creative act, like a partial remake. I think the analog with music would be that instead of covering a song (which is like a remake) they'd be doing a remix, and insofar as it's understood as such, it's kind of neat.

      My objection to Star Wars re-editing is only in that it seems to be aimed at re-writing history. The content has been changed, not just the special effects. Actors have been replaced, and events have been altered, sometimes for the purpose of political correctness. On top of that, there seemed to be an effort on Lucas's part to suppress the originals.

      So the complaint shouldn't be against using old art to make new art, but against destroying old art and distorting history for the sake of ego, financial gain, or political correctness.

  21. God damn it all to fucking hell! by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 0, Troll

    What is wrong with these Hollywood shitheads?

    Would you go back to "The Scarlet Letter" and update it so Hester Prin had her clothes updated to the Scarlet Letter had a higher threadcount?

    Maybe we should tweak "The Last of the Mohicans" so we get speeches about how much purer the water would be if people don't pollute it?

    Or let's take "A Streetcar Named Desire" and colorize it, then digitally drop Brando by 5 pounds to make him more modern.

    The reason why "Star Wars: A New Hope" was cool was by pure accident of love and attention to detail with the resources they had. Now, it's an altered piece of shit that tries to moralize how Han Solo wasn't a bad man - he was just "sort of bad" (which makes his ultimate redemption and turning to the "good guys" pointless, and loses the power of showing that anyone can change for the better).

    "Star Trek" for it's time was cheap, and cheesy, and even silly - but they were serious about what they were trying to do: show a future of humanity where people of all races could work together. Sure, it had its flaws. Yes, the costumes and sets were, by today's and possibly even that time period, hokey.

    But that's what made it work! If you want to make a new "Star Trek" series a la "Battlestar Gallactica", by all means do so. Want to release a new DVD set that doesn't rape the fans with 2 episodes per $30 DVD? I'm all for it. Add in commentary? Sure. Why not. I even like the fan-made Star Trek idea where they had two versions: one in color, the other in black and white to show how people back in the 60's would likely have seen the episodes back in a time when few had color TV's.

    Don't go changing things just because you think you can. I still have no plans on buying the "Star Wars Remixed with Crappy Laserdisk rips" for that reason. Things work sometimes *because* of the flaws, not in spite of them. So sorry, Universal. As George Takei said to William Shatner:

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

    Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

    1. Re:God damn it all to fucking hell! by nizo · · Score: 1
      ...that doesn't rape the fans...


      I think the analogous Trek term would be "...that doesn't make the fans feel as if they have been molested by Captain Kirk...".

    2. Re:God damn it all to fucking hell! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      *sigh* yet another person who just doesn't realize that remakes are always better than the originals, CD's sound better than LP's, Dodge is better than Chevy, the movie is always better than the book, sequels always surpass the original, and the best thing that ever happened to black and white movies was digital colorization. You luddites are slowing us down, technologically AND culturally.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:God damn it all to fucking hell! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      Would you go back to "The Scarlet Letter" and update it so Hester Prin had her clothes updated to the Scarlet Letter had a higher threadcount?
      I would update the book so that it wasn't so damn boring.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    4. Re:God damn it all to fucking hell! by iabervon · · Score: 1

      "Star Trek" for it's time was cheap, and cheesy, and even silly - but they were serious about what they were trying to do: show a future of humanity where people of all races could work together. Sure, it had its flaws. Yes, the costumes and sets were, by today's and possibly even that time period, hokey.

      So why can't a show feature both people of different races able work together and modern special effects? Is there some reason that a depiction of racial cooperation has to look dated and unrealistic?

      It's not like the point of "Star Trek" is that the special effects are cheesy. Changing them is irrelevant to the actual content, and improves the appeal. It's not like they're suggesting turning Uhura into a white guy. Or, more in keeping with the original point, making Chekov an Arab who seduces the male aliens.

    5. Re:God damn it all to fucking hell! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know who modded this post Troll. It's right on the money.

      And let's not forget "ET", where the federal agents get walkie-talkies instead of guns. Yeah, right. But Spielberg had the decency to put both versions on the DVD, so fans can choose which to watch. Lucas, on the other hand, has delayed releasing the original trilogy as long as he could. Finally, the fans forced him to, yet all he releases is an old LD transfer. You can't tell me that wasn't a deliberate jab at the fans. I can just hear him saying, "OK. You bastards want the original trilogy? I'll give you the original trilogy, but it'll be the worst possible transfer short of copying it off a VHS tape. And you morons will still buy it, because it's all you get, until I decide to release a better transfer later, just so you'll buy it again."

      Now we have this. Hey, I've got an idea. How about just cleaning up the film and releasing the show unaltered, just as it was originally seen. But NO, we can't have that. If we do that, these Gen X and Gen Y folks won't watch, since the original, unaltered show isn't hip enough for them. We have to jazz it up a bit. You know, make it cool.

    6. Re:God damn it all to fucking hell! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're examples are a bit off. Star Trek is not classical literature buddy, its a campy sci-fi show.

  22. Animated series by Shimmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the bigger news is that they're finally releasing the animated series on DVD. I have good memories of these cartoons from when I was a kid, but I never had a chance to watch more than one or two. I'm looking forward to renting them - it's almost like having new episodes of the original series to watch.

    --
    The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    1. Re:Animated series by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      the animated series on DVD. I have good memories of these cartoons from when I was a kid, but I never had a chance to watch more than one or two. I'm looking forward to renting them - it's almost like having new episodes of the original series to watch.

      Yeah... I saw some in the late 90s....

      Nostalgia will do wonderfull things to your memories :-\

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Animated series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are they going to replace the animation with CGI?

    3. Re:Animated series by realinvalidname · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the animated series produced by Filmation, whose masters were all destroyed and replaced with PAL tapes, meaning the NTSC versions will play fast?

  23. Sulu, fire phasers! by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    Will the new digital phasers still point away from each other, yet somehow converge on their target?

    Because it's not real TOS Star Trek if they don't.

    1. Re:Sulu, fire phasers! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      This is Lieutenant Sulu of the Enterprise, with... The Doors.

      You know that it would be untrue
      You know that I would be a liar
      If I was to say, to you
      Uhura, we couldn't get much higher
      Come on baby, light my FIRE!

      (Funny stuff. ;-))

    2. Re:Sulu, fire phasers! by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      I'm not even sure they're going to make it so the phasers are the same color or same graphical effect from episode to episode... by the look of it, they're basically trying to make painted backdrops look less painted. I'm having a hard time seeing this as a bad thing. While I wouldn't mind terribly if they 're-tuned' the phasers, I don't think they're even going to do that. They certainly wouldn't take it as far as Voyager, where you could see the phaser arrays activate, see shields flash, etc.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:Sulu, fire phasers! by gooman · · Score: 1

      Phasers!!!
      Aren't those like space guns?

      Quick, edit them out and replace them with walkie talkies.

      Won't someone think of the children?

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
  24. Laugh or cry? by HatchedEggs · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure which to do...

    either way, nerds around the world will unite and make this a succesful venture. Guys, there has got to be something better to waste time on.

    --
    Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
    1. Re:Laugh or cry? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      But it worked out so well when Red Dwarf did it!

      Oh wait... the Red Dwarf special editions were broadcast once ever and never seen again, and aren't available on DVD. So... yeah, great use of that money.

  25. Bah by Warshadow · · Score: 1

    Ugg they did that for Red Dwarf and ruined it :/ Some thigns are supposed to be cheesey

  26. Campiness Appeal by moehoward · · Score: 1


    I guess they have not figured out that the campy-ness of the show was a big part of the appeal. That and the fact that you were sort of forced to use your imagination to buy into some of it.

    It sort of seems to me like they are saying: "We want to make that Klingon more realistic." Um...

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
  27. enjoyment by b1gk1tty · · Score: 0

    I think this will suck the soul out of the thing. It was exactly these low-tech touches that make it what it is. The imagination required to watch and enjoy these shows will be stunted. They'll be come the same old eye-candy type of sf show that's already prevalent. Granted it's the same dialog and all... but it will distract from the essence of the experience.

    Or so I believe.

  28. George's Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George Lucas has such a great record of improving classic SF films, doesn't he.

    Dave Edwards.

      Log Buffer

  29. George Lucas Playbook by danielDamage · · Score: 1

    Well, then probably they're going to follow in Lucas's footsteps by waiting several years and releasing a new edition with the untouched and retouched versions side by side. Suckers.

    --
    Slices, dices, eats your lunch.
  30. Well, at least... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    According to the article:"Right down to placement of stars, it is being resimulated to be exactly what was there in the first place."

    Well, that's cool....hehee...I can't remember who it was, I think maybe Dennis Miller who asked "Did you ever get really stoned, and watch the beginning of Star Trek, and try to figure out which star became the Enterprise?"...hehehe...priceless.

    I like that and his idea for a more existential setting for the phaser...instead of just 'stun' and 'kill'.....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  31. You can still see the originals at least by linzeal · · Score: 1
    Many of cannot believe the lack of care given the original masters from Mr. George Lucas. At least Gene Roddenberry during his life and after has had his work preserved and published unaltered.

    Is there a society that preserves TV and movie media like archive.org preserves the internet? Will a distributed P2P Storage Area Network ever be possible, like a huge ongoing TIVO?

  32. while we're updating things... by Chriscypher · · Score: 1


    Let's give the mona lisa more modern clothing and make her thinner.

    I'm sure this will give that old classic more "modern appeal".

    --
    "You have liberated me from thought."
    1. Re:while we're updating things... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Dude, there have been ENDLESS redoings of the Mona Lisa, including nude versions. There's a nude one in the Carrara Academy in Bergamo, Italy dating back to the 17th century.

    2. Re:while we're updating things... by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's give the mona lisa more modern clothing and make her thinner.

      This time around, they aren't pulling a Lucas:

      From what I've seen, this is more like repairing all those cracks in the varnish and bringing back the original colors through the years of fading. Technical enhancement, nothing done to the subject of the work.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  33. Yes... but by Kesch · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are they ... going to ... fix up ... the choppy audio ... coming from ... Shatner's ... microphone?

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    1. Re:Yes... but by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no, but the will add Shatner doing poetry with rap songs.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. There is room for improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should improve the communicators pins on the crew's chests... They are sooo ugly!

  35. This is what we want to hear by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
    "Nothing really has changed except for the fact that it's just prettier to look at," John Nogawski, president of CBS Paramount Domestic Television, said in a recent conference call with reporters. "Right down to placement of stars, it is being resimulated to be exactly what was there in the first place."


    That is the way it should be. Clean things up, enhance colors, tweak minor items, but in the end, LEAVE THINGS THE WAY THEY WERE! (You hear us George!?)

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:This is what we want to hear by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Weeeelll... they not changing the story (Kirk will still shoot first). I'm sort of curious to see what they do. I was skeptical when I thought it was just going to be new space stuff and the same old "planet of the styrofoam rocks", but I think it might work better if they touch those up as well.

  36. not pulling a Lucas by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    I hear that it is indeed a labor of love.

    The person I spoke with says they won't touch the plot or dialog. It's just to clean things up in a way of honoring it.

    Also, the syndication episodes, he said, run about 43 minutes, while the whole episodes were originally 51-52 minutes.

    http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article /25055.html

    1. Re:not pulling a Lucas by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the people who did the original effects, which were groundbreaking at the time, feel "honored" by the "clean up".

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    2. Re:not pulling a Lucas by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Also, the syndication episodes, he said, run about 43 minutes, while the whole episodes were originally 51-52 minutes.

      Yes. When the SciFi channel first got broadcast rights to TOS a few years ago, they aired the original eps whole for the first time in decades. Very interesting to see the extra bits that had been snipped for time.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:not pulling a Lucas by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it's not they that are being honored as much as the spirit and institution of the series.

      I can see where your sympathy is coming from and I, too, have some for the original effects artists if they might be upset by this. I think it would be awesome if some of them were actually working on this newer version, though I think the chances are slim.

    4. Re:not pulling a Lucas by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Also, the syndication episodes, he said, run about 43 minutes, while the whole episodes were originally 51-52 minutes.

      Let me guess... they were originally both running as 1 hour shows?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  37. Not just a CGI makeover by aarku · · Score: 1

    It's also remastered from the original 35 mm prints. It looks a heck of a lot sharper... you know you want to see Shatner sharper...

    1. Re:Not just a CGI makeover by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      ok but riddle me this - in nyc NBC will carry it at .. 3:35am in a timeslot to 430am.  The
      original episodes ran 50 minutes and a few seconds.  So how much are they gonna cut out? 15 mins?
      20 mins? Kinda lame if you ask me

  38. Differences by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but the difference here is that real Trek fans won't get their panties in a bunch about it because they embrace technology at every turn. That's what separates the men from the boys. Errr... I mean the Trekkers from the Jedi.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  39. Not the end of the world. by deadhammer · · Score: 1
    See, I like TOS. I don't see this as being the end of the world, because one of two things can happen here.

    1. This will somehow (unlikely) be an absolutely brilliant edit job that enhances and artistically reimagines the amazing wonder of the original classic series.
    2. (More likely) It will suck donkey yamsack.
    One of these two scenarios is going to happen. Unlike Star Wars, if item #2 comes to pass, then we can simply ignore it. Gene Roddenberry isn't around to "tape over" the originals and absolutely refuse to sell them, hell they're still shown on TV. So if it sucks, we can go about our day.
    --
    I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
  40. Full Circle by cbhacking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So... now that, for the first time since 1987, there's no commercial Star Trek shows in production, they've to "bring back" the classics? I'm not actually upset by them retouching the backgrounds, etc. so much as that after the fiasco of Enterprise, I was hoping for something more progressive, rather than going back and retouching footage from my parents' generation.

    On the other hand, one could argue that, at the very least since DS9, Trek has gone downhill with every successive series. Maybe they think they just need to get back to their roots? If they can combine the original story with enough modern SFX to keep viewers happy, this re-run might even beat out the original showing for ratings.That would certainly be good news for trek fans; if the show still has following, we're a lot less likely to go through a repeat of the '69 to '87 dark age.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  41. "Special" edition? by Aelcyx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does this mean they ride in the short Enterprise?

  42. Better than Trek 2.0... by hal2814 · · Score: 1

    I'll take a CGI chop job over the Spock Market any day.

  43. It's not the cheese by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hear this argument about Doctor Who all the time and I call bullshit either way.

    You like to think that you like Star Trek (or Doctor Who) because of the cheese, but you didn't. If you saw these shows as a kid, you fell in love with them because of the memorable characters, engaging plots, the strong moral messages, and (yes) a sense of wonder at the imaginative settings, creatures, and situations. Seriously. You fell in love with these shows because you liked them -- don't try to intellectualize your way out of it now that you're all growed up.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:It's not the cheese by aeoneal · · Score: 1

      You speak truth - thank you!

      May I also mention that Shatner isn't actually a bad actor, just an actor with an easily imitated speech pattern? I was introducing a friend to ST via Wrath of Khan and Voyage Home a couple of weeks ago (it was very difficult for me to imagine how someone gets to be a nerdy 35-yr-old without watching Star Trek, but such was her situation), and she was surprised by how *good* Shatner was in both movies. Hello, these characters weren't memorable because they were played by bad actors.... She's currently working her way through the entire original series.

    2. Re:It's not the cheese by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      I was really turned off by Dr. Who (Tom Baker) in that episode that had the guy that was wrapped in bubble wrap painted brown and green.
      That just looked really bad and I went back to watching 50s Sci Fi movies.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    3. Re:It's not the cheese by east+coast · · Score: 1

      You fell in love with these shows because you liked them -- don't try to intellectualize your way out of it now that you're all growed up.

      So, basically, you're trying to say that if you liked Night of the Living Dead you had to like it for the horror element and there is no way in hell you could have been laughing at it the whole time? Or, at the very least, enjoyed it as entertainment and not a testimony to the truth about zombie/human relations? If this were the case no one over the age of 12 would enjoy horror fiction on this level.

      Get over yourself. Not to say there wasn't good stories and good characters in Trek (Kirk being the least of them, IMHO) but at the same time, as another user pointed out, they didn't even take themselves so seriously that they didn't get a chuckle out of it. I think that Doctor Who took itself a tad bit more seriously than they should have but I still like Doctor who.

      Don't try to intellectualize your way INTO this one; I can enjoy it for any number of factors I decide on and if others decide to make Trek out to be more than it is that's their problem.

      Did I say Trek was childish? Absolutely not. I think you're trying to read something into this that simply isn't there. Go ahead, if it makes you feel better about yourself. I will make my point blunt tho: I am not a Trekkie. I do not hang onto every bit of Trek as if it was provided by the Gods. I can appreciate the depth of Trek as something more meaningful than standard sci-fi, sure, but I can also laugh at Trek.

      Do you really think that they took themselves so seriously that they probably didn't sit around after filming having a few beers and laughing at how cheesy it was? They weren't working on a cure for cancer, they were putting together a TV show. It makes me cringe that there are so many Trekkies who have seemed to have lost hold of the concept. It's actually one of the few things I truly give Shatner real credit for; his ability to laugh at how absurd a majority of the Trek Nation has gotten about a TV show.

      The worst thing behind all of this is that it's not even a cheap shot against Trekkies and any non-Trekkie (and some Trekkies) can see that. The vast majority of people who watch TV can walk away from it without having to defend whatever show they like because someone else enjoys it from a different aspect. If I want hardcore sci-fi I read a book, if I want some light hearted entertainment I watch TV. Even in this case I don't get all up in arms about people who enjoy Larry Niven not because of his science fiction aspect but rather that he tells an intresting story in which science is a little more than a footnote in their minds.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    4. Re:It's not the cheese by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      Bullshit on what you said. Mostly.
      Yeah, I like the things you listed but I LOVE the cheese.
      I watch these shows that aired when I was a kid and I say to myself, "Damn that shit was corny but I still love it." I love the cheese effect specifically because it takes me back to the days when my cousin and I would take old appliance and furniture boxes, cut port holes in them and use crayons to draw control panels inside to make shuttle craft and transporters. Without the flavor of cheese in the old shows the connection to those good old days is broken.
      Leave shit the f*ck alone! Just like Star Wars, I was a teen when that came out and I like it just the way it was made, I like seeing the mattes as the ships attack the death star. I like seeing the mattes and jerky motion of the Enterprise.

      God damn, why can't people leave shit alone the way it was made? I wish there was some sort of copyright they could place on something (retroactively) to prevent modifications, edits, derivative works, or worse, remakes.
      Worse freaking remake in the history of Sci-fi is BSG.. I want to take that zoomed in jerky-cam and beat the freaking director in the head with it.

      I will NOT watch any movie or show that uses zoomed in jerky-cam.. I'm sure they'll find a way to work that effect into the soon to be butchered ST-TOS..

      Now is the time for everyone to go get copies of the original shows, before they yank the old shows from the shelves and replace them with the botched up versions.

    5. Re:It's not the cheese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, It WAS the cheese that hooked me!

      I remember this very, very clearly despite happening 15+ years ago. The episode that hooked me on Dr. Who as a kid was "The Sontoran Experiment". I couldn't stop laughing at how terrified everyone was of this robot who couldn't have been more obviously made out of cardboard and tin foil. Only later, after I was hooked on the cheese, did I ever grow to appriciate the deeper elements of the show.

    6. Re:It's not the cheese by Marillion · · Score: 1

      I think people watch Doctor Who for different reasons. Some like the cheese. Some like the stories. I suspect those who enjoy the cheese would go to auto races to see the crashes. I'm in the stories camp. I've always been able to suspend my disbelief enough to ignore the obvious problems of dressing a man in brown-green bubble wrap.

      I also enjoy how as a 28 year series, Doctor Who is a time capsule of history. Tom Baker being mid to late 70's, Peter Davison being the early 80's and so forth.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    7. Re:It's not the cheese by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now everyone flash back to the episode where the half black and half white guys go back to a world that's been destroyed by hatred and still wnat to kick each other's asses. Hard for me to picture it now but i wonder what kind of impact that had in the 60's.

      Don't forget the first interracial kiss on TV was Kirk and Uhura. Not to mention all the alien chicks Kirk got (white green or gold, if she's hot he's going to go where no man has gone before.. care to see the Captain's log??). Kirk getting all he can regardless of species may look cheesy today, but in an era where blacks were still being lynched for looking at a white girl this probably had a lot of impact. They brought Checkhov on in the middle of the Cold War, figuring that by the time we got to the stars we'd see each others as people not monsters because they lived on the other side of some arbitrary line.

    8. Re:It's not the cheese by UttBuggly · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

      You hit the nail on the head. I'm old enough to remember TOS in first run on NBC. The show was so "out there" for Oklahoma City, where I grew up, that they ran it on Sunday nights at 10:30 p.m. That, and the fact that the Oklahoma University football coach's show got the prime time slot where Trek was supposed to run.

      And when TNG premiered, when did the local NBC affiliate run it? Sunday nights at 10:30! In fact, after the show started getting ratings, they tried to move it to a more lucrative Friday prime time slot and got inundated by calls and letters DEMANDING "their Trek" be put back on Sundays.

      I was enthralled by TOS, even though I had to watch it in the dark with the volume at a whisper because it was school night. Even then, some of the effects were laughable to downright embarrassing. Cleaning up the video and audio is a good thing. I usually reserve my DVD purchase dollars for "cleaned up" re-issues like Lawrence of Arabia, etc. I can't see how this "damages" TOS at all. And, since I do have a 61 inch Sony WEGA HD television, I would be in a position to appreciate the result. :o)

      --
      I am my own gestalt.
    9. Re:It's not the cheese by crazyjimmy · · Score: 1

      [blockquote]I'm sure they'll find a way to work that effect into the soon to be butchered ST-TOS..[/blockquote]
      NO NO NO, for the thousandth time, NO!

      This is different than Star Wars. They're not butchering it. They're not even trying to remove the cheese aspect. If you look at what they're doing, you'll see the same cheesy Star Trek that we all know and love. They're not changing that. They're not aiming for realism. They're aiming to remove mistakes, improve the quality (of the prints), set it up so that future generations, who will care nothing for the authenticity of the jerkiness in the opening credits can still watch the show. We've gotten used to a better quality of post-production, and that's all they're really adding. Heck, they're making these elaborate computer models just so they can REDO the exact same shots. Frame for Frame.

      But you know what? You can just go watch. For Free. This Weekend. Check Your Local Listings. SCI-Fi should be showing it a week from now (if I remember the listings correctly).

      You don't like what they've done. Great. But give it a chance before you declare "They're Butching It."

      BTW - I'm not a trekkie. I care very little for the Post-TOS Star Trek (some of the movies are ok, but TNG killed the series for me). I love the old show and am eager to see what they've done.

    10. Re:It's not the cheese by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      As long as you can find the originals, I wouldn't mind seeing the bridge, engine room, etc, brought up to at least the quality of Wrath of Khan. Just keep the original characters, dialogue, and incidental music, and it would compete with most of the newer shows out there. Internally consistent Klingons might not be a bad idea either, although the old ones had a certain panache. Yes, Yes, the cheesy look has some charm once in a while (I particularly remember an Alien world in the old Jon Pertwee Dr. Who episodes that was a coal slag heap shot through a blue filter), and maybe they ought to just go with a more out-there version of that. However, it would be nice if the environment the actors are in looked as good as it did for the later, unwatchable, versions.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    11. Re:It's not the cheese by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It makes me cringe that there are so many Trekkies who have seemed to have lost hold of the concept. It's actually one of the few things I truly give Shatner real credit for; his ability to laugh at how absurd a majority of the Trek Nation has gotten about a TV show.

      The funny thing is, Shatner seems to agree with me about Star Trek. He doesn't claim to be a big fan of the show, but I've never heard him say "oh ho ho, people love it because it's such high camp. Oh ho ho, what a stupid joke it all is." He, like me, believes the longevity of the show is due to the relationship between Kirk and Spock -- either that, or nobody really knows what makes it so popular.

      I'm not an idiot. When I was a kid, I thought the Horta (the monster that burrows through solid rock) looked like a piece of slightly burnt lasagna. That didn't make me say, "Hee hee hee, I want to watch that stupid lasagna show." I bought the premise anyway, despite the fact that it obviously wasn't "real." It was a sci-fi show. Obviously it was about your imagination.

      Forty years after TOS aired and they're still making rehashes of the same ideas... they're still making TV shows about spaceships that travel faster than the speed of light and beams that can transport people from one place to the other. And you're telling me the original is camp??

      Bottom line, if the only way you can enjoy a dated TV series is by laughing at it, well ... I kinda feel sorry for you. You keep trying to imply that I'm some kind of rabid Trekkie. Unfortunately, it's you who sound like one. You seem to have a lot more invested in your "ho ho ho" than I do in just enjoying the reruns. Maybe it's you who needs to get over yourself. Maybe if you weren't so self-conscious about whether people are going to think you're a Trekkie or not, you could enjoy the show for what it is. As it stands, I'd say your insecurities are getting in the way of enjoying some fine old television.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    12. Re:It's not the cheese by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      I still think you're missing the point. YOU may like the cheesyness of Star Trek, but that's not what's kept it going for 40 years. There's plenty of really cheesy crappy shows our there that no one ever thinks twice about. Name me some that have the staying power of Star Trek.

      Shows stay around because they remain relevent, and are generally good shows. The only shows I can think of that have comparable mass appeal so many years later are M*A*S*H*, Cheers, and The Simpsons. Those are all well made shows with good writing and acting, just like Star Trek.

      --
      AccountKiller
    13. Re:It's not the cheese by TheAmazingJambi · · Score: 1

      M*A*S*H* stopped being a well made show and started turning into a whining preach-fest as soon as Alan Alda got more creative control. Also, Maclean Stevenson and Wayne Rogers leaving didn't help much either, although given they decided to leave on their own, there's nothing the studio could've done about that.

    14. Re:It's not the cheese by east+coast · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So sad you have twisted my words out of context and chosen to ignore anything but that which offends you. I acknowledged that there was some good core stuff with Trek but all you want to see is that I claim that Trek can be fun at the same time. Thanks for not really reading my entire post. Sorry, there's no point dicussing this with you.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    15. Re:It's not the cheese by mseitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's funny. With Dr. Who, I was really turned off by the low budget effect on the first story I saw, "The Horns of Nimon". As I watched more of the show, I got to appreciate it more, and the low effects budget didn't get in the way (although I still think Horns of Nimon is a low point). However, I have also enjoyed the improved effects as the series went on, and have really been enjoying the latest version with modern special effects. On the other hand, I was very turned off by the digitally enhanced releases of the early seasons of RED DWARF. I think making the ship look relatively low tech worked for the setting and the comedy mood. Adding these great, gleaming special effects seemed out of place to me. On a straight space drama, I think it can work with older, lower budget effects. I certainly enjoyed STAR TREK and BLAKE'S 7, even with the limited effects. But I think both will also work well with newer, enhanced effects. So I'm looking forward to the new releases.

    16. Re:It's not the cheese by forkazoo · · Score: 1
      (I particularly remember an Alien world in the old Jon Pertwee Dr. Who episodes that was a coal slag heap shot through a blue filter), and maybe they ought to just go with a more out-there version of that. However, it would be nice if the environment the actors are in looked as good as it did for the later, unwatchable, versions.


      Ahhh, yes... Metebelis III. Yes, it was just a quarry with a blue filter. But, it sure was novel considering that most of the other planets were just the quarry without the filter. (Occasionally, Dr. Who actually did just use the quarry as a quarry...)
    17. Re:It's not the cheese by argent · · Score: 1

      If you saw these shows as a kid, you fell in love with them because of the memorable characters, engaging plots, the strong moral messages, and (yes) a sense of wonder at the imaginative settings, creatures, and situations. Seriously. You fell in love with these shows because you liked them -- don't try to intellectualize your way out of it now that you're all growed up.

      I liked the later Star Trek better than the original, and I was already all growed up before TNG came out. I like Pertwee better than Baker, and I liked them both better than the original Trek even though Trek had much better special effects.

      So, no, it's not the cheese. But it's not the cheesy dialog, hokey plots, and dubious morality. I mean, really, the Federation was just the British Empire retouched with the self-serving isolationism-when-convenient manifest destiny of 20th century America. And the hypocrisy of the "Prime Directive... unless it gets in the way of the plot" bugged me even as a kid.

      It's the baby duck syndrome. It's "there's nothing better on TV, so we're going to call this great". That's all.

    18. Re:It's not the cheese by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Oh, modded off topic while the parent was modded insightful? I must have pissed off a Trekkie somewhere. I'm understanding more and more everyday why people laugh at you guys. Anytime you feel the need to lash out you know where to find me.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    19. Re:It's not the cheese by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

      Shatner is kind of like Leslie Nielsen these days. He's always being the comedian in interviews so it's hard to get down to how he really thinks. But the most serious I've seen him is his interview for the Archive of American Television on Google Video. He realized that interview will probably be his epitaph, so he was very honest about his opinion of the show, and he about as reverent about it as any of the other castmembers.

  44. Why not? by blackholepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm all for them doing a slight overhaul on TOS. As long as its only the ships/planets/space scenes, then I call it an alternative improvement. As long as they keep the originals and have them available as well, theres no harm done. Now, if they start adding creatures running around in the background of planets, Kirk shooting second, or changing the way characters looked (Klingons for example), then I'll probably still watch, but with a bad taste in my mouth. Of course, I'd not mind if they change the viewscreen to make it look less like a crappy splice job. Heck, maybe they can even tweak phaser shots to look like they were actually pointed at the spot where the beam hits, instead of the beam magically changing direction right out of the phasers tip. I know a lot of people don't want these things changed, because it's the cheesiness that gave the show much of its charm. But think of the people who will be introduced to the show for the first time. They will be much more likely to watch the show and become fans if the show is a bit less cheesy feeling. This in turn will hopefully lead to a stronger Trek following, which in turn will hopefully lead to a new series or movies with better writing and so forth. I'm looking at the positive side of this, and hoping for a better future for the Trek franchise.

    --
    Halitosis - (n.) Halle Berry's Camel Toe.
  45. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Star Trek's true value was in its being innovative for that time. The best way to remember it is to preserve it exactly as it is in the best digital form available, not adding fake things having no relation with existing actors and objects. It will become a half-baked-half-fried piece of junk.
    Why is it SO hard for movie studios to put out something innovative today? Did cheap+stunning readily available special effects eat writers' creativity?
    Here's an hint: go read some scifi books from the late 50s to the early 80s and you'll find tons of ideas still unseen (or badly adapted) on screen.
    For the record, the first novel I read about a man who has extracorporal experiences and sees the future of people going to die soon isn't "The dead zone" by Stephen King, but a short novel written by a completely unknown author and published after his death in the late 20s or 30s (yep, I mean 1920 and 1930). Don't remember the name but I'm almost sure it sounded french or belgian.

  46. This is still 'news'? by Shrubbman · · Score: 1

    The revamped episodes start wekly syndication TOMORROW people, it's been all over the 'net for weeks. Check your local listings, it'll typically be where Enterprise was for weekly syndication up till now. Balance of Terror airs tomorrow, tune in THEN decide whether or not to go up in arms. Just remember, they're not gonna stop selling DVDs of the original versions any time soon so it's not like they're pulling a George Lucas on us.

  47. Did they fix the "swoosh" sound? by Animats · · Score: 1

    Does the Enterprise still go "swoosh" when it goes by in vacuum?

    1. Re:Did they fix the "swoosh" sound? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Only when it is burning in a vacuum...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    2. Re:Did they fix the "swoosh" sound? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and there should be no music because no one has an orchestra following them around.

      Jeez people, it's entertainment, I say let it go swoosh, because it was that knid of show.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  48. I say...Why not. by caldroun · · Score: 1

    I think it will be interesting to see what the "new" one looks like. Hey look on the bright side. It is on TV, Cost Nothing, and George Lucas isn't getting money from it.

    --
    "If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
  49. This is an outrage! An ... um... wait a minuht. by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

    A travesty! A shocking disregard for our ...

    >>Extra CGI appendages will be added to each attractive alien go-go girl

    Hold on now. Just what appenda-thingies are we talkin about here?

  50. To be the devils advacate for a moment. by Churla · · Score: 1

    I watched the trailer they put together with some samples. Whereas some of the effects look different and definitely more modern. For the purist the real perk is that they remastered all the episodes from the original filstock they were filmed on. Doing a half and half shot of the same scene you see one half which is sharp, clear, and the colors jump out well, and the other half looks like someone filmed it.. through lard.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  51. But is it Art? by tacocat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't let him get his hands on the Mona Lisa. He'll probably add whitener to her teeth.

    One of the things that I appreciate about these older shows is how much they are able to present of a story with such simple sets. All the glitz just leads to neoronic distractions. Of course some of the alien babes were a bit of a distraction too, but that's also part of the characters of the original show.

    Go back and watch some of the pre-WWII movies and you'll find a fantastic lost technique in movie making. How to make a good movie without 50 gallons of blood, 5,000 gallons of gasoline, and 3 naked babes with 30% silicone by weight. Pretty cool stuff. Too bad people would rather watch digitized snakes on a plane than The Big Sleep.

  52. DVD? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    "Broadcasting it"? Can I get it on DVD?

    Actually if they're re-mastering it in HD, this may be the series that would convince me to make the jump to HD-DVD...

  53. 60-min or 90? by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if they are going to be broadcast in a 90 minute time slot like scifi did awhile back?

  54. ++insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spot on

  55. Killing the charm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Synthetically created materials will replace the original wooden boards used on the exterior of the historic Queen-Anne style house, including the front gable which is trimmed with detailed plaster ornamentation. The street view will be significantly changed with the application of modern latex paint in trendy colors. New windows will be hung at locations other than where the originals were, disregarding the proportions of the structure and its period."

  56. Thank God We Have The Original Original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  57. Mona Lisa by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    As a cookie jar: Clicky

  58. digi trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isnt this like touching up the smudges on the mona lisa. Some things just shouldnt be done.

  59. Star Wars: Specialer Edition by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 1

    I think the best Special Edition commentary can be found on Penny Arcade. I think for those of us who loved the original series it sums up what we think of Lucas's 'improvements' pretty well.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  60. Special Shroedinger edition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Spock: "Jim...Edith Keeler must live."

  61. A New Hope by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
    No, not episode IV. Regardless of how they may change TOS in appearance, the stories, the messages and the morals will still be there. I think this may be a good thing. Our societies all over the world are in a rather dark age at this time. What if Star Trek could rekindle the hope that we're not alone on this planet, but if we are, shouldn't we treat each other nicely?


    It could be 1969 all over again! Wooooooooo.... wooo... woo woo.

    At any rate I'll be pleased to see it on prime time again, possibly reaching a new generation and possibly garnering good will towards others.

  62. but will they make the phasers converge? by OldSoldier · · Score: 1


    Will they make the phasers converge? Never could figure out why the shots of the enterprise firing had the phasers going out at a ~20 degree angle while they managed to converge to a point on the surface of a planet. (as an example think of when they shot Apollo's throne.)

  63. audience by ni42 · · Score: 1

    Who, I wonder, are they marketing to?

    Whether they do a good job or not, this whole "digital remastering" idea has to appeal to somebody... at the VERY least their advertisers. But then, the advertisers must think it's going to bring in more money than broadcasting it untouched.

    I can see why a lot of fans would complain. Perhaps they figure that fans will watch it anyway, but that they really will bring in new audiences who really are turned off by the lack of uber digital hollywood prettiness. Being a geek, though, it's hard for me to imagine these audiences.

    I'm kind of neutral on the idea myself; it all depends on how they do the remastering.

  64. Re:Is a naked picture of yourself illegal? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Actually, that's the exact reasoning they use to arrest teenagers for posting pictures of themselves on the internet.

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife /2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm

  65. The acid test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "They state that they are making extra careful attention to not change the plot or feel at all."

    I'll believe that if they leave in the scenes in one episode where Kirk and a 12year old girl are sexually attracted to each other. The degree of social acceptibility has changed over the years....

    1. Re:The acid test by Salamande · · Score: 1

      Wait...what? You're joking, right?

    2. Re:The acid test by Hamilton+Lovecraft · · Score: 1

      Nope. "Miri". Kirk tells the girl, who is supposed to be just entering puberty, she has a "pretty name... for a pretty girl." Then he holds eye contact just a bit too long, and continues "...*very* pretty." *shudder* Okay, the actress was 19 or so, and Miri herself was at least 100 years old chronologically, but physically and emotionally she was barely pubescent.

      --
      step 3: god dammit, it doesn't work
    3. Re:The acid test by Demolition · · Score: 1

      He's talking about the TOS episode, Miri, in which the title character (a peri-pubescent girl) has a crush on Kirk.

  66. Does anyone remember which book this was? by aeoneal · · Score: 1

    In one of the many "about Star Trek" books there's a hilarious synopsis of a generic episode, with a line that went something like, "Meanwhile, Kirk hasn't been laid in 30 minutes and he's getting twitchy." I nearly died.

  67. examples of remasterings by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    By the way, there's a video you can view from that URL I posted.

    http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article /25055.html

    Look for "Remastering Star Trek video preview."

  68. CBS turned down TOS by aeoneal · · Score: 1

    According to David Gerrold, CBS got first shot at Star Trek, before NBC, and turned it down because - get this - "We already have a science fiction series. We have Lost in Space."

    1. Re:CBS turned down TOS by rikkards · · Score: 1

      According to William Shatner's book (can't remember the exact name but it was him recounting the years that they made The Original Series), Lost in Space was a reaction by CBS to Star Trek's conception

    2. Re:CBS turned down TOS by aeoneal · · Score: 1

      Since Lost in Space started in September 1965, and Star Trek in September 1966, I would guess Gerrold's memory in The Trouble with Tribbles was more accurate.

    3. Re:CBS turned down TOS by aeoneal · · Score: 1

      Addendum; possibly Shatner meant Lost in Space's script writers responded to Star Trek themes in their writing.

    4. Re:CBS turned down TOS by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      remember that Star Trek got shopped around a lot before it actually made it to air. I believe CBS's reaction was 'why buy yours when we can make our own?' and in came LoS.

      The book in question, by the way, is probably 'Star Trek Memories.' Been a while since I read it, but it has some good gems. Like the frustration with trying to get the green Orion Slave Girl to look right; they'd film, get the prints back, review, and she's perfectly white. Lather, rinse, repeat. Finally, they go to the film processing guys and say 'look, can we use a filter or something? We just can't get this girl to come out green.' The startled response is something like 'You *wanted* her green? We just assumed you had a shitty cinematographer, and have been busting our humps to fix it!'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  69. Close the iris! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    ooops, wrong star thingy again.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  70. I hope they do not make any changes here too!!! by LoneGNUman · · Score: 0
  71. Station List by daitengu · · Score: 1

    A List of stations that is carrying this can be found here.

    Alternatively, you can go to TVGuide, set up your local guide, and then punch in "Star Trek".

  72. The Red Shirt by MattW · · Score: 1

    So long as they don't change the color of the Red Shirt guy who dies each episode, that's okay.

    1. Re:The Red Shirt by owlnation · · Score: 1

      But if they did it would add an extra air of mystery for new viewers...

  73. If this really bugs you... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Get a life, people! It's just a TV show!

    Hey... you! Yes, you. You don't even have a girlfriend, do you???

    1. Re:If this really bugs you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this girlfriend you speak of?

  74. Whosa are yousa? by paranode · · Score: 1

    "Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!


    How wude."

  75. I hope they dont change the Music by wwillia99 · · Score: 1

    I think it might be better with updated effects just as long as they don't change the music and Shatner's cheesy intro to the show. That is my favorite part of the show. I grew up on the next generation and now i think the old episodes a ten times better

  76. Remember this line? by AndyG314 · · Score: 1
    I am very concerned about our national heritage, and I am very concerned that the films that I watched when I was young and the films that I watched throughout my life are preserved, so that my children can see them.
    -- George Lucas
    --
    If it's dead, you killed it.
  77. The R-r-r-omulans have r-r-r-idges! by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    or calling the new version "the Star Trek we had always meant to make".

    I remember Roddenberry's original explanation for the new look of Klingons in the movies was that Klingons were always intended to look this new way; they just didn't have the budget to do them right in the original series.

    Or afford to pay for artists of sufficient skill capable of doing them that way for the animated series either, apparently.

    ("Heart rate too high, internal organs all wrong, pronounced ridges on the cranium-- Jim, this man's a Klingon!")

    If it weren't for the retconning of DS9 and Enterprise, then I'd expect that in this remastered version, not only the Klingons, but also the R-r-r-omulans would have r-r-r-idges on their foreheads if these were "the Star Trek we had always meant to make".

    Will they be fixing the flying pizza bats in "Operation: Annihilate!" as well?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:The R-r-r-omulans have r-r-r-idges! by jtheisen · · Score: 1

      `When Bashir and O'Brien ask Worf why 23rd Century Klingons look so different he will only tell them "we do not discuss it with outsiders"'

      (taken from wikipedia)

  78. Ummm... more information please by dougzer0 · · Score: 1

    Is there a listing of local channels, dates and times this will be showing by market? I'm in Chicago, cant find any info.

  79. Why can't we all just have what we want? by Jimmni · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit of a fan of TNG and Enterprise, but never could sit through even one episode of TOS because it just looked so awful. Personally, I'm really looking forward to this. Improving some of the cringe-worthy bits sounds like a great idea to me. If you hate the thought of watching this updated version then don't watch it. Simple as that. Why should your personal preferences override mine? What gives you the right to demand that I don't get to see just because you don't want to? There's plenty of room for both. I've watched countless hours of TNG, and it's easily my favourite Trek series. But if they announced they were updating it in an equivalent way I'd not mind one bit. I'd try one episode and if I didn't like it I'd not watch any more.

  80. Doesn't really add anything by Anonimouse · · Score: 1

    The popularity of Star Trek was not really down to special effects. It was down to story lines and the chemistry between the characters. Touching up the eye candy won't effect the story line. Trekkers will remain trekkers. Non fans won't like it any more just because the pictures look prettier. In short it's an ok thing to do , but why bother messing with a winning formula?

  81. space-time is curved by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    Obviously, the phasers work with the warp technology to cause space-time to be curved in such a way that they ultimately converge, you insensitive clod! Gosh!

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  82. No HDTV broadcast, schedule, and afflicate lists. by antdude · · Score: 1

    Star Trek has a list of schedule of episodes and local affliates showing this remastered series. Also, note that there seems to be NO HDTV broadcast due to the hardwares not being ready as reported in my newsgroup thread.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  83. Trailer by antdude · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is the trailer (QuickTime and Windows Media formats) for the remastered version.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  84. Episode airdates, preview here: by guidryp · · Score: 1

    http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article /25835.html

    Preview is very limited. But what I see looks like this was done right.

  85. Teeth by dino213b · · Score: 1

    I am sure you were just joking around, but, just wanted to make sure you knew- Mona Lisa does not have teeth showing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mona_Lisa.jpg

  86. For what it's worth... by Lee+Cremeans · · Score: 1

    I have the 2001 "Director's Edition" of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and they cleaned up quite a few of the not-quite-realised (but storyboarded and planned for production if they hadn't run out of time) special effects in that, with the proviso that it *all* had to look like it could have been done in 1979. They actually did a pretty good job of it, and didn't change the feel of the movie much; it's not like the special editions of Star Wars, where the movie looks completely different.

    -lee

  87. The most important enhancement by Kj0n · · Score: 1

    The most important enhancement will be that Khan now gets a tail. No wait, that's for the second movie.

    And don't forget: Kirk shoots first.

  88. Wrong way by s800 · · Score: 0

    How about we reshoot the acting and keep the old effects shots? No reason to toss out the best part..

  89. The last Mona Lisa by ofermod · · Score: 1


    C'mon!

    Without the seven Mona Lisa's (never mind the "This is a fake" in felt tip on the canvas) Count Scarlioni would have never come up with the resources to travel back in time to warn himself not to engage his hyperdrive, thus causing his space ship to explode and trigger the existence of life on Earth.

    --
    be seeing you.
  90. Obligatory UK question by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

    Which decade do we get to see it, and on what channel?

    1. Re:Obligatory UK question by vidarh · · Score: 1

      SciFi channel have been showing TOS weekdays at 11am for a while now, so if you want the original version you already have plenty of options. I'd bet the updated version will come on Sky One pretty quickly, seeing as they often lag only a week or so behind US broadcasts.

  91. Beam Me Up, Scotty by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    "There's nothing down here but papier mache and aluminum foil."

    "But Cap'n, wha' aboot reports heard o' some loon, with an 'acoustic screwdriver'?"

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  92. Not the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cannot compare this to Lucas. Lucas is still alive and was so when he tinkered with HIS movies. The same cannot be said of Roddenberry. This is no different than colorizing black and white movies. It's all about money.

    I mean seriously, just how spectacular can they make the Enterprise enter into orbit? Are they gonna whip the camera around it like some vomit-inducing machinima? Add a bunch of suns so they can have multiple solar flares?

    I shudder to think what they may do to the Horta.

  93. "Trekkies?" by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    ahem, that's "Trekkens."

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:"Trekkies?" by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Trekkens?

      Could you be more lame.

      It was trekkies in the 60, it was trekkies in the 70s, and it will always be trekkies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  94. Meanwhile... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is replacing its miniature-scale models used in an earlier story with digitally created near-dupes!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  95. It's Trek, Jim, but not as we know it... by F1Rumors · · Score: 1

    Unless they can digitally digitally enhance the acting too, it seems more likely that the "upgrade" is simply going to remove character from the show...

  96. Agreed by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    Nostalgia will do wonderfull things to your memories :-\

    I just watched a couple last week. Anyone who's looking forward to these as "new episodes of the original series" needs to do themselves a favor and get on BitTorrent. Some of the writing is ambitious, but even by the standards of Saturday-morning cartoons of the era, these are pretty lame.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  97. In the immortal words of Lord Vader... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    NO!!!111

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:In the immortal words of Lord Vader... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      No it wasn't, it was "DO NOT WANT".

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    2. Re:In the immortal words of Lord Vader... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny story: the script called for him to say "Yes."

  98. Re:It's the cheese, and the pizza. by Gnostic+Ronin · · Score: 1
    It's kinda both actually. I like Campy stuff. I loved the olskool Batman for just that reason. It looked absofragginlutly stoopid, and it was funny to see just how many things were re-written to have the word "Bat" in front. Batarang, Batoosie (WTF), Batcomputer, etc, and then the rube-goldberg death methods that the baddies would try to kill batman with. I remember a Barbeque setup (I think it's catwoman), putting them behind a shooting gallery (they were saved by bulletproof shoes), and others I can't think of. Camp is a lot of fun, and frankly I'd rather see another campy TV show than a modern "Sci-fi" that thinks it's the shiznit 'cause they can push polygons and use lots of special effects. That's actually one of the charms of TOS. It was an adventure, yes, but they weren't trying to fool anyone. It wasn't ZOMG cgi. And most of the time, the stories themselves weren't all that deep either. I think I missed the deep hidden message of the Witch Planet, and the Gangsta Planet. There were some that had deeper meanings, but most of the time it's probably no deeper than your average Marvel Comic book.

    I guess I'm more traditional. Give me a fun story, and I'll watch it. Give me eyecandy and nothing else, I'll go elsewhere. But the reason that

  99. ooh HD Green Orion Slave Girls!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The green Orion women looks so much more 'snappier' in HD!

    Must have been retouched on a Mac.

  100. This is about as stupid as by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    The colorized movies. Part of the "appeal" of Star Trek the Original series are the campy graphics. Sometimes you can actually see the wires holding things up, where the matte images doesn't line up etc. Leave it alone. Personally, if they want to "revive" star trek, TAKE IT OFF ALL MEDIA AIRWAVES for about 5-10 years, THEN bring back a new movie, without Bergman et al.

  101. 3D CGI for the animated series? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

    Since the soundtrack is the heart of the animation, and the animation secondary, perhaps in the future they can remake the animated series using the old soundtrack with new 3D CGI recreating the animation scene for scene? The animated series has all the original actors doing the voices along with Roddenberry's direction, good writing, original sound effects, and original background music. All we need is to CGI in some new animation now that CGI can look as good as photography (as in the all-CGI Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean).

  102. Re:This is an outrage! An ... um... wait a minuht. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cocks.

  103. They're 'updating' the Prime Directive... by Geminii · · Score: 1

    Enterprise shoots first!

  104. And thats what I don't think i'll like by Snaller · · Score: 1

    That they preserve the feel. I felt about StarWars that it was pretty irrelevant, since they were basically just the same.

    I want them to change ALOT - make it all seem different.

    Guess thats not comming anytime soon :)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating