Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Star Trek - Special Edition

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the ooooo-weeee-ooooooooo dept.


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."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Next up for 'improvement' (1)

rednip (186217) | about 8 years ago | (#16115559)

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

Re:Next up for 'improvement' (5, Funny)

GungaDan (195739) | about 8 years ago | (#16115581)

"Where will it end?"

The moon, Alice.

Re:Next up for 'improvement' (2, Funny)

PDXNerd (654900) | about 8 years ago | (#16115775)

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!)

Re:Next up for 'improvement' (-1, Offtopic)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | about 8 years ago | (#16115823)

You should know you have just admitted to a serious crime in much of the United States.

Re:Next up for 'improvement' (4, Insightful)

Ubergrendle (531719) | about 8 years ago | (#16115639)

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.

Re:Next up for 'improvement' (4, Funny)

ptomblin (1378) | about 8 years ago | (#16115693)

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.

CBS raped my childhood! (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 8 years ago | (#16115561)


Re:CBS raped my childhood! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 8 years ago | (#16115625)

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....

Re:CBS raped my childhood! (4, Interesting)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 8 years ago | (#16115678)

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: []


NIMOY: Yeah. The big, the big bucks.

SHATNER: Money. The money gets you fired up.

TOGETHER: The biiiig bucks.


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

NIMOY: Yeah. But seriously, folks.

Re:CBS raped my childhood! (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 8 years ago | (#16115814)

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 [] .

Re:CBS raped my childhood! (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 8 years ago | (#16115866)

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.

How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16115562)

How about walkie talkies instead of hand phasers?

Re:How about... (1)

legoburner (702695) | about 8 years ago | (#16115618)

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.

Re:How about... (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | about 8 years ago | (#16115674)

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."

Re:How about... (2, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 years ago | (#16115839)

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

Well, at least... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 8 years ago | (#16115692)

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'.....

I'm easy to please. (4, Funny)

nosredna (672587) | about 8 years ago | (#16115567)

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

Re:I'm easy to please. (4, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | about 8 years ago | (#16115612)

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

Re:I'm easy to please. (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 8 years ago | (#16115628)

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

Re:I'm easy to please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16115659)

Re:I'm easy to please. (1)

revlayle (964221) | about 8 years ago | (#16115730)

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


Re:I'm easy to please. (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 8 years ago | (#16115800)

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

Re:I'm easy to please. (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | about 8 years ago | (#16115833)

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

Re:I'm easy to please. (5, Informative)

MindStalker (22827) | about 8 years ago | (#16115632)

Luckily if you actually read the official site ( 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.

Re:I'm easy to please. (1)

Shimmer (3036) | about 8 years ago | (#16115718)

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

Re:I'm easy to please. (1)

MindStalker (22827) | about 8 years ago | (#16115732)

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...

Re:I'm easy to please. (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 8 years ago | (#16115752)

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.

Re:I'm easy to please. (0)

dnoyeb (547705) | about 8 years ago | (#16115820)

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?

Kirk shot first! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16115570)

But it was with the green alien lady.

Say it aint so (4, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | about 8 years ago | (#16115575)

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

Re:Say it aint so (1)

thebdj (768618) | about 8 years ago | (#16115796)

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 least the waist line will be taken care of...

Beam me up, Scotty (2, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 8 years ago | (#16115587)

There's no intelligent posts down here.

Klingon foreheads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16115589)

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

Re:Klingon foreheads (2, Interesting)

Sqwubbsy (723014) | about 8 years ago | (#16115637)

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?

Re:Klingon foreheads (1)

nightsweat (604367) | about 8 years ago | (#16115785)

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

Re:Klingon foreheads (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | about 8 years ago | (#16115821)

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.

Kirk shot first!! (1)

BigIrv (695710) | about 8 years ago | (#16115593)

ooops, wrong star thingy

Product placement (2, Funny)

Teresita (982888) | about 8 years ago | (#16115607)

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

Bah (1)

Cisko Kid (987514) | about 8 years ago | (#16115614)

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.

Re:Bah (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 8 years ago | (#16115719)

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.

Re:Bah (1)

spauldo (118058) | about 8 years ago | (#16115770)

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.

Other changes: (1)

Peter Trepan (572016) | about 8 years ago | (#16115617)

  • 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.

This is an outrage! An ... um... wait a minuht. (1)

Ahnteis (746045) | about 8 years ago | (#16115809)

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?

Please God, NO! (4, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | about 8 years ago | (#16115620)

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)

Re:Please God, NO! (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 8 years ago | (#16115685)

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.

It's not the cheese (5, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | about 8 years ago | (#16115773)

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.

Re:Please God, NO! (2, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 years ago | (#16115786)

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?

Re:Please God, NO! (1)

jeblucas (560748) | about 8 years ago | (#16115824)

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.

Re:Please God, NO! (1)

Vellmont (569020) | about 8 years ago | (#16115837)

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.

Ah, well (4, Informative)

TopShelf (92521) | about 8 years ago | (#16115624)

At least we still have the motivational posters [] ...

The hippie episode was priceless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16115629)

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

And to improve the acting. (3, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | about 8 years ago | (#16115636)

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

"Mesa shout, Kahn?"

Re:And to improve the acting. (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 8 years ago | (#16115713)

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.

Re:And to improve the acting. (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 8 years ago | (#16115741)

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.

Dupe, dupe, dupe (2, Funny)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 8 years ago | (#16115642)

dupe of url, url, url 3 []

Re:Dupe, dupe, dupe (1)

toomz (175524) | about 8 years ago | (#16115772)

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

See anything familiar?

Understatement (2, Insightful)

Marcus Erroneous (11660) | about 8 years ago | (#16115646)

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.

not pulling a Lucas (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | about 8 years ago | (#16115710)

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. /25055.html []

Re:not pulling a Lucas (1)

LordNimon (85072) | about 8 years ago | (#16115784)

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

Re:not pulling a Lucas (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 8 years ago | (#16115854)

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.

CBS?! *splutter*... (2, Interesting)

alispguru (72689) | about 8 years ago | (#16115650)

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?

Re:CBS?! *splutter*... (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 8 years ago | (#16115816)

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.

Re:CBS?! *splutter*... (3, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | about 8 years ago | (#16115819)

CBS bought Desilu. []

Re:CBS?! *splutter*... (1)

oneiron (716313) | about 8 years ago | (#16115884)

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 conglomerates buy and sell your favorite creative properties almost daily.

this is not the george lucas treatment (2, Insightful)

maynard (3337) | about 8 years ago | (#16115654)

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.


Re:this is not the george lucas treatment (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about 8 years ago | (#16115864)

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.

God damn it all to fucking hell! (0, Troll)

Dark Paladin (116525) | about 8 years ago | (#16115655)

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.

Re:God damn it all to fucking hell! (1)

nizo (81281) | about 8 years ago | (#16115726)

...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...".

Re:God damn it all to fucking hell! (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 8 years ago | (#16115761)

*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.

Animated series (2, Interesting)

Shimmer (3036) | about 8 years ago | (#16115656)

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.

Sulu, fire phasers! (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about 8 years ago | (#16115660)

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.

Laugh or cry? (1)

HatchedEggs (1002127) | about 8 years ago | (#16115665)

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.

Re:Laugh or cry? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about 8 years ago | (#16115701)

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.

Bah (1)

Warshadow (132109) | about 8 years ago | (#16115671)

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

Campiness Appeal (1)

moehoward (668736) | about 8 years ago | (#16115683)

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...

enjoyment (1)

b1gk1tty (670514) | about 8 years ago | (#16115688)

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.

George's Record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16115689)

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

Dave Edwards.

  Log Buffer []

George Lucas Playbook (1)

danielDamage (838401) | about 8 years ago | (#16115691)

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.

You can still see the originals at least (1)

linzeal (197905) | about 8 years ago | (#16115695)

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 [] preserves the internet? Will a distributed P2P Storage Area Network ever be possible, like a huge ongoing TIVO?

while we're updating things... (1)

Chriscypher (409959) | about 8 years ago | (#16115698)

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".

Yes... but (3, Funny)

Kesch (943326) | about 8 years ago | (#16115702)

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

There is room for improvement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16115706)

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

This is what we want to hear (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 8 years ago | (#16115708)

"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!?)

Re:This is what we want to hear (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 8 years ago | (#16115792)

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.

Not just a CGI makeover (1)

aarku (151823) | about 8 years ago | (#16115711)

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...

Differences (1)

eno2001 (527078) | about 8 years ago | (#16115723)

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.

Not the end of the world. (1)

deadhammer (576762) | about 8 years ago | (#16115737)

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.

Full Circle (2, Insightful)

cbhacking (979169) | about 8 years ago | (#16115747)

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.

"Special" edition? (3, Funny)

Aelcyx (123258) | about 8 years ago | (#16115759)

Does this mean they ride in the short Enterprise?

Better than Trek 2.0... (1)

hal2814 (725639) | about 8 years ago | (#16115764)

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

Why not? (2, Insightful)

blackholepcs (773728) | about 8 years ago | (#16115779)

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.

Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16115787)

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.

This is still 'news'? (1)

Shrubbman (3807) | about 8 years ago | (#16115794)

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.

Did they fix the "swoosh" sound? (1)

Animats (122034) | about 8 years ago | (#16115803)

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

I say...Why not. (1)

caldroun (52920) | about 8 years ago | (#16115807)

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.

To be the devils advacate for a moment. (1)

Churla (936633) | about 8 years ago | (#16115825)

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.

But is it Art? (1, Insightful)

tacocat (527354) | about 8 years ago | (#16115841)

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.

DVD? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about 8 years ago | (#16115855)

"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...

60-min or 90? (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | about 8 years ago | (#16115867)

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>