DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
Oh, if only Casablanca were in color! If only Charlie Chaplin's City Lights had spoken dialogue! If only Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood were in 3-D! If any of those sentences make any sense to you, then you may be delighted to hear that the TV series Star Trek is being released on DVD in a new and "improved" version that cleans up and removes old special effects and inserts brand new ones that never existed, all to make one of the most succesful franchises of all time...what? More accessible?
It's bad enough when filmmakers do this to their own movies -- Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Peter Bogdanovich and many others constantly fiddle with the DVD releases of their movies, revising and re-revising classics again and again. My rule of thumb: a filmmaker can do whatever they want, but ALWAYS make sure the original theatrical release is available in its original form, preferably in the same set. Anything else is a lie.
The new Star Trek The Original Series Complete Second Season ($84.98; Paramount) release is a lie. Just watching the first episode -- the fan favorite "Amok Time" -- reveals numerous touches and changes and tweaks and wholesale additions. The title sequence has been changed, with a new sleeker ship identical to the old but far more detailed on display. The planets seen in establishing shots seem to be more vivid and detailed as well. Most notably, when Kirk, McCoy and Spock visit the planet Vulcan for a marriage rite, there's a new shot of the location that shows a dramatic stone bridge that people are crossing to a site that is high up in th sky on a lonely peak, with a major city visible far away. It's eye-catching and well-done and very likely if Gene Roddenberry had been able to afford such a shot at the time, he would have wanted it.
More subtle are those new shots of the ship. Go to the excellent boxed sets released just four years ago, and you can see the ship floating through space - the ship itself is so grainy, you almost feel like you're watching old newsreel footage about the Enterprise. But what's most striking is how foolishly unnecessary these changes are: the core of the show is Kirk and Spock and McCoy, the way McCoy is surprised when Spock announces a beautiful woman as his wife and Kirk raises an eyebrown in manly approval; the way Spock reacts with joy when he realizes Kirk is alive and then tries to mask his emotion and so on. No movie or show EVER survives because its special effects were cutting edge. Great characters and great stories are what endure -- whether the effects remain effective (as with the original King Kong or the Ray Harryhausen movies) or are quickly revealed as hokey (as in, say, Flash Gordon serials).
Does it matter? Isn't worrying about spiffing up an old TV series just the fuddy-duddy moanings of a critic? I used to berate my brother for watching movies that were chopped and cropped for video and told him how he had NO IDEA of what the movie was really like and how this editing and panning and scanning ruined every frame of the film and was like removing the drums and bass from a Rolling Stones album or chopping out a third of a panting from its frame. He didn't care. But now that it's so much easier to see movies in their original aspect ratio, he and everyone else expects movies to be presented that way. Unfortunately, the opposite is true with this faux improvement of Star Trek. It's getting easier and easier to slap in new effects (as well as cheaper). Colorization never made any money -- not because regular folk cared one way or the other but because the process was so ugly. Soon, they'll be broadcasting new episodes of I Love Lucy in fake color and people won't even realize it's been changed.
Does it matter? Heck yes. Every grainy image from Star Trek gives you a subliminal idea of when it was made and by who; it lets you know the resources they had to tell the stories they wanted. The classic Dr Who series in the UK usually had aout $20 a week to spend on special effects. (And half of that went to tea from the looks of it.) Those lame effects are key to the charm, in a way. On Star Trek, their top-notch effects for TV were well-regarded at the time. And they are essential to enjoying and appreciating the show that was made.
You can't improve a book by condensing it or dumbing down the wording for kids. I was horrified recently to see my nephew (about 8 years old) reading a dumbed-down version of Treasure Island, a book any intelligent kid can read IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM right around that age. They also had Moby-Dick, a book which isn't a kid's book by any stretch. What's the point of having them read, "Hi, my name is Ishmael"? You are destroying history when you distort and change a work of art for any reason. Doing it to a TV show that has proven so wonderfully durable is just insane. Yes, people won't notice unless you point it out. And that's the danger. They'll never know that they aren't really watching Star Trek. And some sliver of pleasure derived by watching a series that was crafted 40 years ago in its original form will be lost forever.
(To top it off, they preserved one aspect of the superior 2004 editions -- the one aspect I didn't like. The packaging is cute and clever and almost laughably awkward and difficult to use. Simply taking out a DVD from the packaging is an annoying pain in the neck.)
Also out this week:
Foyle's War 5 -- The fifth and final batch of shows from the British mystery series ($49.99; Acorn) set during World War II and starring Michael Kitchen in a career-capping performance as Foyle. Kitchen is so smart and low-key in this series, half the fun is watching him squeeze mountains of meaning out of a word or two or just a quizzical look. Famously, he always urged them to cut down Foyle's dialogue to the absolute minimum. If the show had gone on any longer, Foyle might have become mute. Typically, these last three episodes involve such war topics as shell shock, suspicion of German immigrants, spies and the such. Without tying up the loose ends too nicely, there's a wonderful sense of finality as V-E Day looms, right down to the convincing air of confusion for some characters whose lives have been defined by the war and aren't quite certain they want it to end (notably Sam, Foyle's driver played with pluck by the beautifully named Honeysuckle Weeks). Foyle is unquestonably one of TV's great characters and if the series isn't quite in the absolute top rank, it's damn close. And fans of mysteries should certainly consider it essential viewing.
I Love The 80s -- It seems like a silly bit of branding -- slapping an "I Love The 80's" logo on a bunch of movies doens't really make any sense. And yet, these movies do seem to be of a piece and fitting reminders of an era when Hollywood moved from the idiosyncratic flicks of the 70s to the commercial crowd-pleasers of the 80s. It doesn't mean they're always good, however. Footloose is much more dated and silly than I expected, especially that slow-motion game of chicken between tractors that seems laughable now. Pretty in Pink, like most John Hughes films, has some great performances(hello, Molly Ringwald -- who I can't believe is now playing a mom on TV) in the service of a standard plot, though this movie's awareness of class seemed revelatory at the time for a teen flick. Some Kind Of Wonderful is a slightly more adult Hughes confection, though still set in high school and again elevated mostly by a cast that includes Eric Stoltz and the pining Mary Stuart Masterson. Top Gun was a fluffy bit of nonsense even at the time but one look at the magnetic Tom Cruise shows why it was such a blockbuster. And for years I resisted the charms of Ferris Bueller's Day Off, despite my deep respect for Matthew Broderick. But it just gets better and better with age and is surely the crowning achievement of John Hughes, alongside The Breakfast Club. No wonder it inspired not one but two TV series. All moves are $14.98 from Paramount.
Lonesome Dove ($19.95 and $39.99 on Blu-Ray; Genius) -- One of the all-time great TV miniseries and one of the all-time great Westerns from TV or movie (and one of my favorite books -- so good, I've always avoided the prequels and sequels for fear of spoiling its pleasure). And now finally, it's available on DVD in the widescreen format it was apparently shot in originally. The miniseries was not, to my knowledge, shown letterboxed. And the original DVD was cropped, although it admitted to being changed from the proper aspect ratio, which always intrigued and annoyed me. Now we can finally see Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones in this brilliant summing up of the Western experience. Blu-Ray should NOT cost twice as much as regular DVD, but if you're gonna splurge this is one title to do it on.
The Executioner's Song Director's Cut ($19.99; Paramount) -- It's a banner week for Tommy Lee Jones, who has one of his other landmark performances released on DVD in a new edition. They've provided only a director's cut and if you read my Star Trek rant above, you know what I think of that. Typically, they trumpet the fact that it's a "director's cut" as if that makes it more valuable, but don't even bother to include the name of director Lawrence Schiller on the box. Another major, Emmy winning TV event, they should have included the original TV version, this new edit and the European/cable version as well that's circulated for years. But nothing justifies NOT including the original production that was such a ratings hit and wildly acclaimed. How hard is it to understand that if a TV movie or miniseries or TV show is worth putting out on DVD, it's worth showing the original, extant version that made its mark?
TV Roundup -- The flood of releases is never-ending. Out recently are Masters Of Science Fiction ($29.97; Anchor Bay), a very good anthology series with top actors like John Hurt, Judy Davis and Brian Denney and hosted by -- of all people - Stephen Hawking and unfortunately gone in the blink of an eye; Get Smart Season 1 ($24.98; HBO), the enjoyable dumb spoof series too stupid to realize (apparently) that it should have come out right before the feature film spinoff, not weeks later); The Hudson Brothers Razzle Dazzle Show ($29.98; VSC), a kids Saturday morning sketch show that numbered John Lennon among its fans; Robin Hood Season Two ($79.98; BBC), the recent BBC spin on Robin Hood that is nowhere near as bad as the New Age-y version from the earlier 80s but not nearly as good (of course) as Errol Flynn's movie; Wayside School Season One ($19.99; Paramount) is a nicely off-kilter animated series based on the books by Louis Sachar; Family Ties Season Four ($39.98; Paramount) was at a peak with Alex dating Ellen and Mallory dating the goofball Nick -- it was downhill from here; fans of Heart and R.E.O. Speedwagon can enjoy concert films captured on the TV show Soundstage in hi-def ($24.99 and $19.99 respectively; Koch); Sunset Tan Season One ($19.98; Lionsgate) proves that not every setting is ripe for reality TV; Masters of Horror Season Two ($86.97; Anchor Bay) is the Showtime horror anthology series that delves into a genre rarely tackled on TV anymore but the DVD set is a bunch of looose DVDs inside a skull that -- just like the Star Trek set above -- is just frustratingly hard to actually use; fans of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz should jump all over Spaced ($59.98; BBC) that has nothing to do with sci-fi and everything to do with slackers and helped launch the creative team behind those movies; and finally if you're loving the glimpses of China during the Olympics, pick up Wild China ($29.98 and $39.98 on Blu-Ray; BBC) for a closer look at that country's diverse wildlife.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
In my opinion, Paramount really had no choice but to do this; and they'll probably have no choice but to do it again with TNG.
The "remastered" Star Trek was done for the ability to release it in HD. In these days of 720p/1080i/1080p, it's important to remember that film has essentially infinite resolution--it's possible to scan a frame of 35mm film at a resolution twice that of 1080p. HD also has better color information than SD, allowing these shows to look better than they ever have before. This is the best thing about transferring TOS to HD, and also the worst. Take a look at the existing DVD release, and notice how the live-action stuff looks great, and the special effects look awful. Now imagine all bad those effects are going to look compared to even better live-action footage, once all those flaws have been magnified by the HD transfer. That's why I say they had no choice.
Of course, the irony is that Season 2 is currently being released only in SD, because HD-DVD is dead and Paramount apparently hasn't ramped up to Blu-Ray releases yet.
(The reason I say that this will have to be done to TNG is well is because the effects for TNG were done on SD video. There's a couple of shots from the TV series converted to film in "Generations," and you can easily tell which ones they are even on the SD DVD.)
There's an elephant in the room, and it's that CGI sucks.
I'm sorry, but if CGI was what it needs to be, NO ONE would be complaining about the updated effects. It would be seamless to the old fan's eyes. You'd see what once was, with more clarity and life. Instead, all I see are graphics from sophisticated PC games chiming in and out.
You know in the WIZARD OF OZ, when they first see it? That 2-D deco painting on the far end of the set? I'd LOVE IT if it were updated to look real and impressive. However: it can't look like a video game. It has to look like it's really there. If it looks 'fake', it's as lousy as the 2-D painting.
Nobody seems to get this...
I dont mind cleaning up original effects, but am firmly opposed to the outright replacing old effects for new ones. I am so sick of producers going back and meddling with the originals. The Star Wars fiasco is a prime example. Lucas could have gone back and cleaned up a lot of glitches in the original effects but instead left those flaws and inserted his annoying new slapstick cg creatures. Waste of time. I wont even watch those altered versions.
I grew up with the original Star Trek with all of its period quirks and imperfections. Cleaning up grainy images is fine, but otherwise leave it alone.
I don't see what the problem they did label this release the Remastered edition. And the original is still out on sale. It not like they did a "Lucas" and took the original release out of circulation. And quite frankly have you ever watched TOS on HD? It was a painful experience before the Remaster hell even TNG look like crap on HD. A fan would overlook it but the remastered edition is aimed at enlarging the brand audience.
Thanks for writing this blog, Michael. When we heard about the plan to release these new versions, my husband went out and bought all three seasons on DVD, for the same reason you cite -- they're going to go away, and the "new" version will become Star Trek.
And yet, it isn't. Star Trek is a product of its time in many ways beyond the FX. Myself, I think that preserving the original images, limitations and all, helps remind the viewer that the show's ideas and social commentary (including the occasional gaffe like the deeply sexist "Turnabout Intruder") were shaped by its times. Context matters.
An acquaintance went to Italy some years back, I believe, to see the Sistine Chapel before it was restored. It was to be made brighter and livelier, and yet he said, "See it now, before they ruin it." Star Trek is no Sistine Chapel (although it did have Christine Chapel!), but it is what it is, and as another old lady born in the mid-sixties, I don't believe it has to look fresh and young to be acceptable. I don't think its looks were really what made it cool, and I regret that they will be gone from sight.
How does that song go again? "moneymone
No flagship show, no successful movies, no more Las Vegas attraction. I believe ST is now limping along on book sales from the psuedo-novels and the minor fees garnered from syndication on low-viewership networks like Sci-Fi and SpikeTV. I say this sadly, as a fan of ST:TNG and DS9.
Let the studios do what they need to to make the venture profitable. They're going to need all the money they can get out of it, at least until they dump the folks who brought us and approved of Voyager and Enterprise. The premise needs a real reboot to become successful again, and if they're smart, they'll take a page out of the BSG playbook to do it. Less tech, more character.
As for fans, well, any fan of ST that is so because of the new versions is still a fan, regardless of what version they saw first. Yes, there will be differences between what some fans have seen compared to others, but hey, that at least stimulates dialogue, which is good for ST in a way.
Of course, they expect a major reboot from the new film version overseen by JJ Abrams. I don't expect any radical rethinking a la Battlestar Galactica, however, though that's certainly the gold standard at the moment for reviving a franchise.
I basically agree, but I don't think this is as bad as colorization. The upside may be that the more money the StarTrek franchise makes, the more likely it is that Paramount will mount a new show that takes place in the 25th century or later, in a setting that allows for a number of different species to interact, as in DS9. This, I'm sure, would prove much more successful than Enterprise.
I think if the movie works, they'll stick to movies for a while before launching another TV show. The shows sort of undercut the excitement behind a movie and the movies can make so much money and are jsut easier to sustain than a weekly series. Really, another decade without a new ST series on TV is a good idea given how they ran the show into the ground.
Truthfully, I prefer the new version. I can't help it but I wasn't around for the original, and after getting into Star Trek with the Next Generation, well... I like the originals but I can't help but find a lot of the effects to be just "campy". Also, a lot of fans are like me... the ships and the tech are what is facinating. Couldn't care who Picard or Kirk or Sisko are kissing, just let me see that Federation/Klingon war footage from DS9 and I'm a happy camper. I've never found any of the characters to be very "deep", not compared to Captain Sheridan from Babylon 5 (as an example). The best sci-fi for me is stuff like the Honor Harrington series, where the ships and their use plays a big part of the role. It also doesn't help Star Trek that Paramount screws up timelines and histories with shows like Enterprise.
Thanks for the perspective (though it depresses me). I haven't read any of the Honor Harrington books; I'll have to check them out. (And I hope you've checked out the Horatio Hornblower books by Forester or the Aubrey/Maturin books by Patrick O'Brian. Or if you've got to have a sci-fi/fantasy trapping, the really clever new Napoleonic era w dragons books by Naomi Novik.
HONOR HARRINGTON started getting repetitive by the end, at least in terms of all the battle sequences: task forces composed of four dozen megabattleships apiece and twice as many frigates or cruisers or destroyers on each side, each firing several hundred missiles, most of which get intercepted by point defense anyway. The number of planets they would've had to mine hollow and depopulate to get the materials and crew for all those ships...
"The classic Dr Who series in the UK usually had aout $20 a week to spend on special effects...
You're not aware that the DVD releases of Doctor Who have new effects, I take it? Not only does the Doctor Who Restoration Team seek out the original film pieces to reassemble the episodes in better quality than when the show originally aired, they also render new special effects for laser blasts and other effects that could not be done properly at the time.
Anyway, the test for Star Trek for me came when a friend saw a few minutes of the improved version. And he did not notice that the effects shots were new, indeed he was skeptical that they were new after I told him (since they still look cheap -- just CGI cheap rather than 8mm grainy film cheap). So, I think that's proof enough that the new effects blend in well enough.
I had no idea about the Dr. Who fiddling. Thanks for letting me know. (In general, I think the Dr. Who releases have been so sporadic and crazy -- they've got thousands of episodes; for heaven's sake, just release a boxed set w every Tom baker Who, etc and be done with it.) I agree that the new effects are well done and blend in seamlessly. That's exactly what bothers me -- unlike bad colorization, you won't know something is up and without careful labeling (at least the Star Wars movies Lucas messd w are called Special Editions) or even access to the classic original versions, fans won't have any idea what they're watching ain't the original. And since reruns on TV will invariably be the new improved editions, the originals that proved so durable and entertaining for the past 40 years will disappear from view. Yes, you can add in new effects and newcomers won't notice. But why?
I think one consideration that is missing from the conversation is the quality of the restored footage. Footage not containing effects can be restored by going all the way back to the original camera negative (if possible) resulting in a pristine shot. Effects shots have gone through numerous generations of optical printing thus degrading them to a grainy, contrasty, desaturated mess. Perhaps one of the factors in the decision to replace the effects shots was that they couldn't be restored to the level of quality of the rest of the footage. You can even see this problem in the dissolves from one scene to another. From what I've seen, the shots containing dissolves in this restored version are noticeably grainier than the rest of the footage. This again is the result of the optical printing process that created the dissolves.
I'll bet that's exactly why some shots of the Enterprise in the 2004 remastered editions look so grainy and out of place. It's a good artistic argument (better than -- gee, why not throw in a bunch of new effects so the kids won't think this show was actually made 40 years ago) but they lose the high ground by throwing in entirely new scenes or adding in shots of the ships in battle completely different from the original. Besides, no one complained about this in 2004 with the excellent remastered versions.
I am of the opinion that if the director/producer wants to enhance a movie or television show, then he/she should also make the ORIGINAL version available on the DVD or Blu-ray as well. One of the many charms of "Star Trek" (the original series) was the very cheesy special effects. Well, it was the late sixties, and Gene Roddenberry didn't have the budget that Stanley Kubrick had for "2001: A Space Odyssey". As for the original "Star Wars" movies, I don't think that the enhanced versions added all that much to the overall enjoyment of them, and I was very glad when the first three movies were released on DVD with both versions available. I'm a firm believer in artistic freedom, but having seen the "original" versions of movies and television shows many times, I like being in a "comfort zone" when being with old friends!
Thanks for reading. I couldn't agree with you more, of course. And it's hugely different issue when the driving creative force is dead and therefore not available to sign off on these changes. I don't care if his widow and the keepers of the flame approve, it still ain't Roddenberry saying "go ahead." Finally, the big point you make that agree with is that these changes absolutely do NOT improve the movies/tv shows. Even when modest tweaks are overseen by the director himself and do seem to be an improvement (such as on The Last Picture Show), the original version should be included because THAT'S the one that won the Oscars ad the acclaim.
YMCA, thanks for reading. It's not about trying to duplicate the 70s (or 60s) experience by watching a show only on the sort of TV people would have originally seen it on. (Does that mean I have to eat a Swanson's frozen dinner as well?) Mind you, that would be fun, especially if I could lounge on a shag carpet. The reason I complain is because the original series that has proven so wildly popular for 5 decades and spun off numerous TV shows both live action and animated and numerous feature films with another on the way and a billion in merchandising and books and spin-off books by the dozen might very well disappear forever. Ony the new "improved" versions will be shown on TV and there's every reason to think the originals will not be made available on DVD. The new boxed set ONLY contains the new versions. Do a hand puppet version of every episode for all I care -- but always keep the original classic version front and center. Otherwise you're erasing history.
Agreed. I like seeing Star Trek effects revamped. It's awfully cool.... but, I will always have the originals on DVD too.
Then again, there is always the argument that you can't experience the way Star Trek was unless you have a 1970's television. So why complain?
Michael,
I respect your comments but you have to understand that purists like yourself are a very small minority of the film, TV and DVD audience. To 99% of that audience, film, TV and DVD is entertainment, pure and simple. The more entertaining the better and if it can be made more engaging, even better. The studios have an aversion to losing money so they never do anything that will reduce theater ticket sales, DVD sales or loss of ad revenue. Their job is to give the audience what they want.
Colorization never made money?... In the early 90's I built a $200 million dollar colorization company that was solely in the business of colorizing films for all the major studios including Turner. Today, the technology and creative talent that is producing colorized product is light years ahead of anything that existed in the past. "It's A Wonderful Life", which we color produced for Paramount Pictures last year was considered an extremely successful Holiday release. (FYI: as with all current colorized releases, the fully restored black and white version is always included with the color version.) This Holiday Season we expect Universal's new color release of the Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire classic, "Holiday Inn" will also find a very enthusiastic audience. It looks stunning in color and certaily enhances the singing and dance numbers.
Michael, regarding Star Trek... I suggest (only a suggestion mind you) sit back and enjoy it for what it is... pure entertainment.
{{{{{{{{{{{
Michael, regarding Star Trek... I suggest (only a suggestion mind you) sit back and enjoy it for what it is... pure entertainment.
}}}}}}}}}}}}
WHAT!!!!
Yer saying it's not REAL!!!!!?????
It's Tal sha'Ya for you!!!
Michale...
Barry, you're the Devil!!! Just kidding.I'
Sorry Michael. Ya know I love ya and love your blogs, but I've seen the difference and I already own the original series.
I LOVE the new effects. I haven't seen anything taken out of context, and if they add a little choreography to the few effects they have cleaned up that's fine with me.
The difference is spectacular. And the way it would look if done today. Do we then complain it should have a more retro look?
So while I generally, let me repeat that, generally, love original works and think they should be left alone there are a few exceptions and this is one of them. I have BOTH versions and I like the newer version better.
If you go to Startrek.c
I LOVED Lonesome Dove. Well done westerns are a thing of beauty.
Silverado is another one.
Quigley Down Under
A few others as well but those three come to mind first.
Hughes movies were great.
Never watched Quigley Down Under; I'll check it out. Messing with a work of art, especially when the driving creative force is gone is highly suspect to me. But you said somthing notable: you have BOTH versions. Great. If the new DVD set let you choose classic original or souped up new edition, I would have (little to) no objections. But when you can buy the entire series and that new version is ALL you can get, they're erasing the past. Soon, you won't be able to buy the original versions without paying top dollar for a used set on eBay. And the look I want isn't "retro," It's the way the series always has looked, just like Casablanca was always in black and white. But thanks for reading, and glad as a real fan you also bought the original version.
Hi Michael, Thanks for being the only blogger who talks to his posters.
I thought you might find this interesting. A good friend of mine worked for Majel Roddenberry and I remember a conversation I had with him regarding the changes which we both liked and he is a real fan of the show.
. So I gave him a holler today and he said that Gene had vacillated between wanting to update the effects with his blessing and keeping the purist Trekkers happy because he figured they would scream the loudest. When he saw the difference with the new movies he was immediately taken with the idea of doing just that, but just wasn't sure because of the hard core fans.
I have not seen this new revamped DVD version, but my general opinion is, "Why not?"
For those who enjoy seeing the original for the umpteenth time, there are always reruns on TV as well as previous DVD sets.
But we shouldn't forget the younger generation. Those who have not joined the world of trekkers yet may be tempted to do so after seeing the original series through the eyes of the 21st century.
I mean, it really shouldn't be a problem. It's not as if the original version was destroyed, never to be seen again.
In a way, it is. The original version won't be shown on TV (they didn't spend all this money to hide these new editions). Plus, older DVD sets will go out of print. The only way to buy the orginal version will be to spend huge amounts of money on used sets sold on eBay. The series has attracted a rabid following for four decades WITHOUT souping up the specal effects or adding scenes. Why feel the need to do it now? But most importantly, it would be very easy to make both versions available on one set, with viewers choosing between the "classic" and "New Coke" editions. So I say, why not do that?
What's controversial about the remastered episodes is that the SFX artists changed the choreography of the scenes, not just enhancing them.
For example, in the famous episode "The Doomsday Machine," the starship Enterprise is now swooping and zooming all around the screen like an X-wing fighter from "Star Wars," or like a target in some video game. That is such a departure from the original version that it takes some getting used to.
As for the the stone bridge, that SFX scene replaced an original live action scene that has now just been discarded altogether.
You can preview some of the upgrades on YouTube at
http://www
Which episodes do you recognize from these clips?
For the record, I was very impressed with the new effects..
As long as they are not re-writing the original episodes, I don't see a problem.
And, it doesn't seem likely that they would actually alter the episodes themselves.
Although they did some amazing things with the DS9 Episode MORE TRIBBLES, MORE TROUBLES.
Michale...
Sino53, thanks for clarifying. I didn't have the time to watch and compare every single episode. The changes to Amok Time were in fact quite modest and therefore more subtle. The Doomsday machine changes sound even worse. Thanks for the link showing people what we're talking about.
Michale - very funny retort as to what episodes you recognized. But adding in new scenes and images sure seems like re-writing episodes to me.
"More Tribbles, More Troubles" was an Animated Series episode and technically a direct sequel to "The Trouble With Tribbles." The DS9 one was "Trials and Tribble-at
}}}}}}}}
Which episodes do you recognize from these clips?
}}}}}}}}
Amok Time
Space Seed
Corbomite Maneuver
Where No Man Has Gone Before (or) Is There In Truth No Beauty
The Paradise Syndrome
The Immunity Syndrome
The Ultimate Computer
The Doomsday Machine
The Tholian Web
The Trouble With Tribbles
Wink Of An Eye
Court Martial
Balance Of Terror
Tomorrow Is Yesterday
All Our Yesterdays
Michale...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
