![ALL SCI-FI Forum Index](templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif) |
ALL SCI-FI The place to “find your people”.
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
![](images/avatars/3.jpg)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17149 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:48 pm Post subject: Old movies and TV shows with enhanced FX |
|
|
________________________________
While I was watching Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) on TNT recently I started thinking about just how far the whole Star Wars franchise has come in the last 40+ years.
The interesting thing is that if someone who'd never seen any of the movies before tried to experience them all in the order the stories takes place chronologically, this is what they'd watch.
Star Wars Eposide 1: The Phantom Manace
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Solo: A Star Wars Story
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi
Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker
That sounds like a thrilling experience for a science fiction fan who wanted to view the whole saga in the proper order!
The only problem is . . . that would suck.
The sad fact is that each movie was made for the specific time in which it was made, and for the specific culture of that period.
Star Wars: A New Hope stunned the world and became a global phenomenon when it came out in 1977. And yet, young audiences today who'd never scene it before would wonder why it was ever so popular!
Why?
Because both film-making and our society has gone through tremendous changers in the last 40+ years. Audiences have come to expect a very different movie experience, and Hollywood has acquired techniques that produce miracles on the movie screen!
To put it bluntly — what dazzled audiences in the late 1970s will bores audiences in the 2020s.
That said, consider this perplexing phenomenon.
George Lucas made valiant efforts to jazz up his first three movies with beautiful new special effects which updated the look of these great movies! Great idea, huh?
Unfortunately the stubborn (and aging) "movie purist" objecting to these changes! In their opinion, Star Wars wasn't broke, so George did need to fix it.
The same thing happened when the Star Trek TOS DVDs were released with beautiful new versions of the special effects. Hell, I wasn't impressed by the original FX in the 1960s, so I loved the improved ones.
Therefore, the question we should all ponder is this.
Whenever the fans of classic movies or TV series object to changes being made — like the Star Wars and Star Trek enhancements — are they objecting to the changes because they aren't artistically superior to the original . . . or are they simply objecting because they have a nostalgic love for these movies and shows?
Ladies and gentlemen of All Sci-Fi, I do not reject an artistically superior NEW version of a classic movie or TV series just because I have fond memories of the original.
If a work of art can be improved . . . by God, improve it!
As an artist and a published author, I frequently re-evaluate my paste efforts. And, through the miracle of modern technology, I gleefully modify, revise, and enhance them to my hearts content.
I've never been happy with the painting below, because I did a poor job with the background. I painted it from one of a group of 35mm slides I shot right off a movie screen when Forbidden Planet was shown at a art house theater, back in the 1980s.
The dark background didn't show up well on the slide, so the painting suffered because of this.
However, a few years ago I used Paint.net to paste the figures of Adams and Morbius over a screen shot from the movie which showed the same scene. Then I tinkered with the background to make it look a bit more "painted".
The result was this!
My point here is that I did the best I could when I did the painting, but years later I was able to improve it.
That's why I'm baffled by the folks who stubbornly resist the notion that cinematic endeavors which impressed them when they were younger should not be improved with modern techniques.
Face it, folks. Nostalgic affection is not a proper judge of artistic merits.
In other words — just because you were impressed with something when you were younger does not mean it was really good . . . or that it shouldn't be improved.
So, the moral of this story is this: if somebody starts messing around with a movie or a TV series you love, give yourself a chance to embrace the changes they make. If they did a good job, you might grow to like it!
And it you don't, then just ignore the damn thing. ![Rolling Eyes](images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif) _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Pow Galactic Ambassador
![](images/avatars/39.png)
Joined: 27 Sep 2014 Posts: 3434 Location: New York
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2021 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a fan of remastered visual effects for movies or television, Bruce.
I was excited when I first heard that they were going to upgrade the effects for ST:TOS. First episode I thought of benefiting from this was "The Doomsday Machine." And I was not disappointed.
I've loved the enhanced visual on the other episodes just as well. I only wish they'd remaster other classic sci-fi TV series such as the original Twilight Zone & Outer Limits.
We've all stated this before: as long as the updated visual effects do not compromise the story in any way, shape, or form, then let's go for it.
A friend of mine once said that had Rod Serling or Gene Roddenberry had access back in their day to the awesome visual effects we have nowadays, you know they'd have gone for it hands down!
I'm guessing that fans that do not want one thing altered with the dated visual effects are just what you have pointed out. Nostalgic. It reminds of the first time they saw an episode of a TV show they came to be devoted fans.
Perhaps it reminds them of the home they grew up in, their parents and siblings, friends, school, all of it is a warm memory for them.
I fully understand, I get it. But they can always stick with the dvds with the original visuals can't they?
What they don't get to do is demand all remastering stops because they don't personally like it.
Some of us do.
All we ask is you get your dvds with the original effects if the enhanced visuals offend you. Which I don't get.
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
scotpens Starship Captain
![](images/avatars/8050714195fe19c1d12ac0.gif)
Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 882 Location: The Left Coast
|
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
For me, it has nothing to do with nostalgia. I wouldn't mind the digital effects in the remastered Star Trek if they were actually an improvement on the originals. But for the most part, they're not. As I remarked in another thread, the CGI Enterprise looks at best like good game animation.
As for Star Wars, George Lucas has potchkeyed with the original movie so much that now it's virtually impossible to obtain a copy (either a film print or a Blu-Ray or DVD) of the film as it was first shown in theaters in 1977. That's not good.
Link: https://www.inverse.com/article/3942-why-finding-the-original-1977-star-wars-verges-on-the-impossible |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
![](images/avatars/3.jpg)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17149 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
Okay, I'll wave the white flag.
It's obvious that we clearly have very different taste concerning the aesthetic appeal of special effects whenever CGI is concerned.
I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you to learn that even the earliest forms of CGI — like the children's show called Reboot, possess an artist style that still appeals to me greatly.
Of course, the Star Trek FX are much more sophisticated and detailed, even though they still have the look of "artwork" rather than models. That's exactly why I like them.
Apparently I find the look of "good game animation" much more appealing than you do, whereas the original TOS special effects didn't even impress me in the 1960s.
So, like they say, "There's no accounting tastes" — neither mine nor yours.
As for Star Wars: A New Hope, naturally I like the enhancements for this same reason, and I have no desire to watch the "original version" again — although it rocked my world back in 1977 when I flew to New York and saw it in 70mm and stereophonic sound at a Manhattan theater with stadium seating.
My ex-wife and I flew to the Big Apple, courtesy of my employer, Eastern Airlines. (I was a humble baggage handler with "pass privileges".)
When the trash compactor first activated, the sound of it rang out from the theater's rear speakers, and I actually thought for an instant there had been a terrible auto accident outside!
None of the theaters in Atlanta were showing Star Wars in that lavish manner. In fact, it wasn't even scheduled to open for another two weeks — while every talk show and late night host in America was praising this new sci-fi movie that was such a big hit.
Amazingly enough, a year later a run-down theater installed stereo sound and then showed it for months to sold-out crowds! ![Laughing](images/smiles/icon_lol.gif) _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Pow Galactic Ambassador
![](images/avatars/39.png)
Joined: 27 Sep 2014 Posts: 3434 Location: New York
|
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I must respectfully disagree with scotpens.
On Youtube they have a number of ST:TOS episodes with a comparison of the original visual effects and the enhanced ones.
They have the screen split down the middle with the original effects on the left and the remastered on the right.
For me the enhanced visuals are superior in 99% of the cases.
Some of the outstanding improvements to me are the quasar phenomenon from "The Galileo Seven," anything with "The Doomsday Machine," "The Tholian Webb" vessels, the Fesarius in "The Corbomite Maneuver," to name but a few.
Other wonderful touches have been introducing the star ship Antares on "Charlie X." On the original episode we never get to see the Antares at all...even though it has pulled up alongside the Enterprise!
On "The Ultimate Computer" the original episode mere used stock footage of the Botany Bay from "Space Seed" to appear as a ore freighter. In the remastered we got to see an original design for the freighter.
The planets are done much more accurately; some even have majestic looking rings around 'em.
Sure, every now and then a remastered effect isn't substantially superior to the original ones.
In "The Immunity Syndrome" the gigantic space cell looks pretty darn good from the original episode when compared to the newer visual which is still good.
But I am delighted that they've remastered all the episodes from ST:TOS. But hey, to each their own.
And Bruce, that's a marvelous painting that you did from Forbidden Planet! You are a very talented gent. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Gord Green Galactic Ambassador
![](images/avatars/42.jpg)
Joined: 06 Oct 2014 Posts: 2948 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BUD, your story about seeing STAR WARS for the first time was great! It reminded me of my own experience seeing it for the first time.
The novelization of the movie was out a month or so before it was due to hit the screens. The book was under the "George Lucas" byline but I later learned it was really ghost written by the prolific Don Glut. The story was a fantastic "space opera" romp and I was instantly hooked! I couldn't believe it could be translated to the screen!
The movie was screened first in foreign countries before its' American debut and it was going to be shown in Canada.
I drove up to Toronto and bought a newspaper to find a theatre scheduled for a showing and hightailed to get a parking space as close as I could. I bought tickets for my wife and myself and rushed to find seats. The movie had just started so I missed the opening and the "crawl" so the first sceen I saw was the runner ship being overflown by the Star Destroyer and from there on it was magic! I just knew it was going to be a hit...And I got to see it two weeks before it opened in the States!
It was just PERFECT the first time and the effects were far superior to what had been done before! The updated and enhanced versions were good in their own right (EXCEPT for the fiddling about "Did Han fire first". He did!).
I can accept enhancements as just what they are. Same with colorizations. Same with Directors cuts etc. They are variations on a theme and interesting ones at that, BUT the original versions are just that....the original product of the best the producers could attain...either through the "state of the art" or budget considerations and retain the original vision. _________________ There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
![](images/avatars/3.jpg)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17149 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
Gord, the story about your first viewing of this great movie is just as wonderful as mine. Fantastic!
In fact, you reminded me of one important aspect of my pre-viewing experience which I omitted from my own story.
Like you, I acquired the paperback novel before seeing the movie, and I read it while working for Eastern Air Lines, loading suitcases onto airplanes and chomping at the bit as I waited eagerly for this incredible movie to finally open in Atlanta!
____________
Admittedly I later regretted reading the novel first, because it inspired such amazing images that I was actually a little disappointed by the climatic scenes depicting the Death Star battle!
Here's why.
The Time magazine article that came out prior the movie's nation-wide release described how Lucas used WWII footage of dog fights to inspire the way the X-Wings and TIE fighters battled each other.
Unfortunately, the original Star Wars FX in the climax were not at good as I'd hoped — especially after the rest of the movie set the bar so high for the FX.
I later learned that Lucas was running out of money towards the end of the production, and the FX for the Death Star battle suffered because of this. But the enhanced FX which were created later fixed this problem, and I prefer them to the original versions.
However, like all good Star Wars fans, I hate the change which George made in the cantina scene when Han blasted Greedo before he even had a chance to shoot Han! ![Sad](images/smiles/icon_sad.gif) _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
![](images/avatars/3.jpg)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17149 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2021 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
POW wrote: | For me the enhanced visuals are superior in 99% of the cases.
Some of the outstanding improvements to me are the quasar phenomenon from "The Galileo Seven," anything with "The Doomsday Machine," "The Tholian Webb" vessels, the Fesarius in "The Corbomite Maneuver," to name but a few. |
Agree, Captain POWer!
My defense of the CGI FX has focused too much on the look of the starships, but Scotpens has shown me that in some cases that aren't as improved as I'd thought!
However, the enhanced planets and space backgrounds are (to me) extremely well done in many scenes, such as the examples you cited above. _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Pow Galactic Ambassador
![](images/avatars/39.png)
Joined: 27 Sep 2014 Posts: 3434 Location: New York
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree Bud, the enhanced planets were superior looking to the original look of planets on the show.
The remastered iteration put in such nifty details of having rings around a planet which they did not---or were unable--- to create on the original show.
I was always impressed with the planets as seen from outer space on Space: 1999 over ST:TOS original version. I felt they were beautifully done when the series first aired in 1975. It was only six years after Star Trek:TOS demise, so I'm assuming that the special effects technology hadn't progressed in that area enormously to give Space: 1999 a significant advantage over ST.
Then again, who knows? Perhaps a mere six years did allow for huge advancements in that area of effects.
I just know that the opening titles for Space: 1999 showing planets and nebulae remain stunning looking to this day.
I only wish we could say that about the scripting.
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Krel Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2021 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going to disagree with all of the above. Big surprise, huh Bud. I've watched a few of the S.T., and the CGI effects look like they came from a video game to me. G.L. meddling with S.W. is not my cup of tea, and I really don't see any improvement to the series.
On this Mike Verta's YouTube video it is shown how you can make "Star Wars" 4K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3W_O-tp0_g
It is very labor intensive, and it is doubtful that the Mouse will ever put out the money. But one can hope and dream.
David. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Pow Galactic Ambassador
![](images/avatars/39.png)
Joined: 27 Sep 2014 Posts: 3434 Location: New York
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2021 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just saw the trailer for the new sci~fi film Monsters of Man.
The visual effects for the robots was darned impressive.
I read that the movie's producers were able to produce this movie for around 2-3 million bucks!
As we see advancements with visual effects and they become more and more sophisticated we'll see producers capable of providing astonishing FX on lower budgets.
Actually we're seeing it already on the CW & streaming superhero TV shows. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Krel Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2021 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For "The Mandalorian" they had Dark Trooper robots. Everyone assumed that the Dark Troopers were CGI. It turned out that he robots were actually costumes. They found the reflective black surfaces of the robots too hard to do with CGI.
But the show is fond of using models and even stop motion effects in addition to CGI.
David. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
![](images/avatars/3.jpg)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17149 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
KREL wrote: | I'm going to disagree with all of the above. Big surprise, huh Bud? I've watched a few of the S.T., and the CGI effects look like they came from a video game to me. G.L. meddling with S.W. is not my cup of tea, and I really don't see any improvement to the series. |
Well, now . . . that brings up a very good point, David. I don't think I've mentioned this before, because I don't remember anybody shouting —
"What a minute! You like the changes for WHAT reason?"
So, with that in mind, grab your socks and hang on. This might come as an emotion shock.
It isn't always a matter of the "the old FX look bad, so I like the new ones better." It's actually a matter of . . . well . . . I'm just plain damn tired of the old ones!
(What? )
Yep, tired of 'em. When you've been watching Star Wars for almost 50 years and TOS for almost 60, you just can't get real thrilled by the same old FX over and over.
So, when somebody comes along and gives you something NEW to see in a series or movie you've watched practically do death . . . even if it's NOT better, at least it's NEW!
But of course, I'm on record as thinking they are better in many cases — because I like the look of CGI. Therefore, I get the thrill or both better FX and new FX. (By they way, how come you guys keep saying, "It just looks like video game CGI"? I think gaming CGI is spectacular these days! )
Anyway, Krel and Scotpens seem to object to the Star Wars and TOS CGI FX partly because they're new, and they feel that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Plus, they also object to CGI because "it ain't as good as the original, since I'm not hot for CGI like our nutty buddy, Mr. Brewster!"
So, there you have it, guys. I'd literally gotten so tired of Star Trek TOS that I no longer watched the reruns, and I had no interest in owning the DVD's.
But when I discovered how much I loved the new enhancements, it rejuvenated my enthusiasm for the stories and characters. It spiced up the series by giving them what I consider to be much more exciting special effects.
The same thing happened when the original Star Wars trilogy was re-released to theaters in 1997 with the first of the Lucas-made changes. I went to see them with my 14-year-old son, who was a huge fan after watching them frequently on video tapes his whole life!
He was dazzled by the experience, and so was I. At last! New scenes in a movie I'd watched repeatedly when it first came out, and even more often on Betamax tapes!
Therefore, In addition to liking the look of CGI FX, one of the big differences between me and the anti-enhancement folks is the fact that I don't object to change just-for-the-sake change.
Variety is indeed the spice of life. ![Very Happy](images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif) _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Pow Galactic Ambassador
![](images/avatars/39.png)
Joined: 27 Sep 2014 Posts: 3434 Location: New York
|
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2021 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This discussion regarding computer-generated imagery got me to wondering just how early did this incredible game changing visual tool first pop up on television?
Here's some information I came up with about early CGI.
Babylon 5, the movie/pilot was first broadcast on February 22, 1993. This was the very first sci~fi TV show to utilize CGI regularly instead of models as was traditionally done before. The late FX master, Ron Thornton, convinced B5 creator J. Michael Straczynski to go with CGI instead of the originally planned model work.
Seaquest DSV premiered as a weekly TV show on September 12, 1993. The show also regularly used CGI instead of models and was one of the earliest to do so.
Babylon 5, the series would debut on January 26, 1994 with CGI.
1987 saw the debut of a sci~fi show that Bud & I remain huge fans of: Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future. On that live action Saturday Morning series CGI was used to depict the mechanical Bio-Dreads.
"Quarantine" was a February 7, 1986 episode of a reboot of The Twilight Zone. I recall watching it at that time and being impressed by the CGI scenes of a large US space ship returning to Earth & an asteroid. It was early CGI. Unsophisticated by today's standards but cool to see in 1986. Good episode, too.
Today I just read an article about The Electric Company children's TV show that ran from 1971 to 1977.
According to the piece, one of the notable things about the show was their extensive & innovative use of early CGI.
Never having watched the series I don't know anything about scenes utilizing CGI and how it looked. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Krel Guest
|
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's funny how things can turn around. B5 used CGI because it was cheaper than physical effects, which they could not afford. The same for ST: TNG, CGI became cheaper than physical.
But now physical effects have become more cost effective for some types of SPFX than CGI.
The late Bill Pearson said in a lecture that two of the things he was known for in the business was SF guns and space suits (spacesuits?). He was approached by the Producers of "Moon" to make the space helmets, and he asked about the SPFXs. He was told that they were going to use CGI, but asked him how much model effects would cost. He figured it out and sent them an invoice of how much it would cost. He received a phone call asking him if he left a couple of zeros off the sheet. When he told them, no that is what it will cost, they quickly hired him.
As I wrote, on "The Mandalorian", they went with robot costumes, because with the design of the robots CGI would have been too expensive, and taken too long.
These reasons are why physical models are coming back. Also the people making the movies and shows grew up with model work, and want to use it in their productions.
CGI is not going away, but as one effects person said, he believes it will become a combination of the two, melding the strengths of the two.
Rick Baker shut down his shop because of how CGI has taken over the creature costuming and effects. Rather than putting contact lenses in actor's eyes, they CGI in the creatures eyes. Good for the actor, but not so good for the shop that made the lenses. Some creatures are full CGI, while others are CGI over the actor. They even use CGI on physical costumes to hide the operator.
Sometimes CGI is used because it is high tech when physical would be better. The prequel to "The Thing" had used physical effects for the creatures, but then the studio decided that CGI was the thing to use, and had ALL of the creatures replaced with CGI overlays. Good money after bad with that movie.
My problems with the Star Wars films aren't so much the CGI, as all the "improvements" in the stories, that weren't actually improvements, but detriments.
I don't dislike CGI. I like it when it is used properly. I just disapprove of it in some circumstances.
David. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|