flipper wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:35:42 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

Newer methods don't necessarily look more real.

In the first place I said more 'modern' and it doesn't matter how
'well made' or 'realistic' a 1960's das blinken lighten mit switchen
worken computer prop looks as it's still a 1960's das blinken lighten
mit switchen worken computer and not, by modern standards, a very
'futuristic' looking device. I say by modern standards because what we
currently think looks 'futuristic' will, no doubt, seem archaic long
before the first warp nacelle is made.

I see, but I never cared about that because it can never look modern enough.
Any improvements in our lifetime are insignificant steps.


You're myopically obsessed with what you deem 'glaring faults' but
blind to the whole.

I'm not sure what that means.


but TOS
definitely looked better to me than early TNG.

There's no accounting for taste but I suspect you 'prefer' what you
were 'used to'.

Maybe, but I've see lots of NASA footage, and the effect of lighting (I
think it's due to lighting) in TOS looks closer to that.



And even if it did look better the
original should be left alone.

It would appear you have a hidden agenda clouding your judgment.

It's not a cloud - it's a separate issue. You could make fx in
lots of classic movies look more real, but shouldn't.

It clearly isn't "a separate issue" and, according to your logic, one
would never revisit a plot, or anything else, since, once done, it's
'inviolate'.

That's not my logic at all. I just want it to remain looking as it was
intended. What looks better is separate from that.


It's like colorizing Casablanca.

I understand how you could make the analogy but it doesn't hold
for a number of reason with not the least being 'colorizing',
quite frankly, stinks. There is also a 'creative' argument that
the film maker intentionally used lighting and other means to
create mood and effect particular to the medium.

Go ahead and clean up noise, and even clean up the rectangular glow
of the photomask around shuttlecraft, but let the engines sparkle
the same way they always did. Also let the planets look
featureless and cloudy. It's not unreal that way, and certainly
doesn't look "bad".

You put your argument in deep do-do in now 'qualifying' which flaws
and failings you 'allow' to be improved.

I'm not opposed to cleaning up noise in Casablanca. Removing photographic
defects is as far as I would go. It's a question of what they intended.


Frankly, I agree that not every "oh wow that'll look cool" need, or
should, be done but while I also nitpick individual choices I am
willing to look at the whole result and not discard it simply because
not every last single jot and detail isn't the way I'd have done it.

That, btw, is why I wasn't inclined to get into a tit for tat over
'selected' props and effects.

The specifics I pointed to were meant to be examples of some general points,
which I guess boil down to...

....don't make anything appear different from what was intended.
....TNG had a bigger budget, but often looked like they weren't trying.


Just to avoid misunderstanding, I never said TNG was 'better' than TOS
and, in fact, said that TNG, IMO, never reached the quality of TOS and
railed about 'Captain' Picard, among other things. To me the
characters and plot are much more important than, as one example,
whether the planet killer is CGI or remains a painted overlay drug
across the background with stars occasionally showing through the
"solid neutronium' hull.

That would also be an example of what I think could be fixed.


The Doomsday Machine, btw, is another of my all time favorites with
what is arguably the best mental breakdown scene ever done by William
Windom portraying Commodore Matt Decker who's lost his entire crew.

Did you see the SciFi channel broadcast with the interviews? He said he
used to resent Trekkies, but came to appreciate that they were the only
people who remembered anything he did.


Seems you consider Gene Roddenberry not only useless for 'trek
universe imagery' in model and effects but a down right liability for
plot and script.

His TOS scripts were not the best either.


Did he undergo a lobotomy between TOS and TNG?

He obviously became a lot more PC, so maybe.


Do you also whip out a 1967 color TV for the proper viewing
experience?

I would if I could.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.