Full Article Text
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
APRIL 5, 2009
HOME POLITICS MEDIA BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT LIVING STYLE GREEN WORLD CHICAGO
COMEDY 23/6 VIDEO BLOGGER INDEX ARCHIVE
Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Twitter: Follow Us
BIG NEWS : Angelina Jolie | Madonna | Chris Brown & Rihanna | Paul McCartney | More...
LOG IN | SIGN UP
Michael Giltz
Posted August 9, 2008 | 05:23 PM (EST)
BIO
Become a
Fan
Get EmailAlerts
Bloggers'Index
DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
Read More: Dvds, Foyle's War , John Hughes , Lonesome
Dove , Molly Ringwald , Movies, Star Trek, Tom Cruise, Tommy Lee Jones , TV Shows ,
Westerns , Entertainment News
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 maybe delighted to hear that the TV series Star Trekis being released on DVD in a new and"improved" version that cleans up and removesold special effects and inserts brand new onesthat never existed, all to make one of the mostsuccesful franchises of all time...what? Moreaccessible?
It's bad enough when filmmakers do this to their own movies -- Francis Ford Coppola, GeorgeLucas, Peter Bogdanovich and many others constantly fiddle with the DVD releases of theirmovies, revising and re-revising classics again and again. My rule of thumb: a filmmaker can dowhatever they want, but ALWAYS make sure the original theatrical release is available in itsoriginal 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 feellike you're watching old newsreel footage about the Enterprise. But what's most striking is how
Be the First to
Submit
This Story to Digg
Get Breaking News Alerts
Share
Print
Comments
never spam
Popular Stories on HuffPost
Fashion Face-Off!
Michelle Obama And
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy
Finally Meet In
France (VIDEO,
PHOTOS, POLL)
*Video, poll and slideshow
Levi Johnston TalksSafe Sex With Tyra
Banks (VIDEO)
***UPDATE*** 8:30pm:
People.com is reporting
that Sarah Palin has
issued...
Oscar de la Renta
Slams Michelle
Obama's Buckingham
Outfit As Major
Designers FeelIgnored
While Michelle Obamahas made lesser...
Verena von Pfetten 7
Lessons To BeLearned From Carla
Bruni
So here's the thing.There's no shortage of
articles dedicated to thatcertain je ne...
Huff TV Arianna
Discusses MichelleObama's "Fantastic"
Style On CBS'
Madonna Jets Out Of Malawi
More in Entertainment: Farrah
Hospitalized... Madonna Tot's Dad
Found... Choreographer: Rapist?...
WATCH: SNL: Madonna And Angelina
In Weekend Update Adoption-Off
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]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 aneyebrown in manly approval; the way Spock reacts with joy when he realizes Kirk is alive and thentries to mask his emotion and so on. No movie or show EVER survives because its special effectswere cutting edge. Great characters and great stories are what endure -- whether the effectsremain 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 videoand told him how he had NO IDEA of what the movie was really like and how this editing andpanning and scanning ruined every frame of the film and was like removing the drums and bassfrom 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 StarTrek, 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 hadMoby-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 artfor 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 theyaren't really watching Star Trek. And some sliver of pleasure derived by watching a series that wascrafted 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 takingout 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 namedHoneysuckle Weeks). Foyle is unquestonably one of TV's great characters and if the series isn'tquite in the absolute top rank, it's damn close. And fans of mysteries should certainly consider itessential 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 thecommercial 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
"Washington
Unplugged"
Arianna was on CBS'
"Washington...
Alex Leo The "Real
Housewives Of New
York City" Flowchart
Of Hate
I'm a little embarrassed tolove this show as much
as...
"BRUNO" TRAILER!
Calamity, African
Babies, ChaseScenes And More
(NSFW VIDEO)
IT'S HERE! The trailer for
this July's Sacha BaronCohen...
NATO Leaders Focus
On Afghanistan, But
Most Reject Obama's
Plea For Troops
(SLIDESHOW)
STRASBOURG, France
— On the eve of the
NATO...
First Lady Fashion At
Friday's NATO
Concert (PHOTOS)
Another night, anotherfashion opportunity forNATO leaders and their
spouses! See...
Diana Palin, SarahPalin's Sister-In-Law,
Arrested ForBreaking Into Home
ANCHORAGE, Alaska —Police say Alaska Gov....
John Oliver Explains
The Real Reason You
Never Touch The
Queen (VIDEO)
John Oliver was upset
enough to drop his
monocle when he...
Obama Teases
Reporter From India
During Press
Conference (VIDEO)
Obama held a conferencepacked with press fromaround the world on
Thursday. He called...
Jim Cramer DeclaresThe Depression
"Over" (VIDEO)
On Thursday's episode of
"Mad Money" host Jim
Cramer declared that the
depression...
Scientists Find
Rocket Fuel
Chemical In Infant
Formula
ATLANTA — Traces of a
chemical used in rocket
fuel were found in
samples of...
Least Wasteful Cities
In America
(SLIDESHOW)
It's great to love the cityyou live in, and better to
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
Reality Star Jade
Goody Buried In
Lavish...
Robert De Niro
Nanny Sues For
$40,000
Demi Moore's
Twitter-Based
Suicide Intervention
"HGTV's $250,000
Challenge": Families
Vie For Mortgage...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 fora teen flick. Some Kind Of Wonderful is a slightly more adult Hughes confection, though still set inhigh school and again elevated mostly by a cast that includes Eric Stoltz and the pining Mary StuartMasterson. 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'sDay 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 morevaluable, 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, thisnew edit and the European/cable version as well that's circulated for years. But nothing justifiesNOT including the original production that was such a ratings hit and wildly acclaimed. How hardis it to understand that if a TV movie or miniseries or TV show is worth putting out on DVD, it'sworth 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 blinkof 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 weekslater); 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 theearlier 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 canenjoy 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 DVDsinside 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 teambehind those movies; and finally if you're loving the glimpses of China during the Olympics, pickup Wild China ($29.98 and $39.98 on Blu-Ray; BBC) for a closer look at that country's diverse
wildlife.
More in Entertainment...
Cars
Women's
Rights
Michelle
Obama
Europe
Newspapers
Bank Of
America
War Wire
Video
Financial
Crisis
MORE BIG NEWS PAGES
»
Books by this author
A cabin of one's own: New
England's MacDowellColony celebrates 100years of artistic utopia.And the gay and lesbianartists who prosperedthere celebrate ... (Thenational gay & lesbiannewsmagazine)
by Michael Giltz
Affairs to remember:Farley Granger beddedAva Gardner, ShelleyWinters, and LeonardBernstein. In hisautobiography, IncludeMe Out, Hitchcock's muse... (The national gay &lesbian newsmagazine)
by Michael Giltzlove it for a reason like
being green!
FastCompany...
HUFFPOST'S BIG NEWS PAGES
This Blogger's Books from
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
Michelle Obama's Clothing
Has Sean Hannity All Out OfSorts
RICHARD POPLAWSKI,Pittsburgh Gunman, Kills 3Police Officers
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld: DoesIran Harbor Osama binLaden?
John Demjanjuk, Ohio ManAccused Of Being NaziGuard, Avoids Deportation
Comments 50 Pending Comments 0
HuffPost Stories Surging Right Now
Ads by Google
50 Hottest Sci-Fi Women
UGO.com Counts Down The 50 Hottest Women
Of Science Fiction- W/Pics!
UGO.com/Top-50-Hottest-Sci-Fi-Girls
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
View Comments: Newest
First Expand All
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
IMWorf See Profile I'm a Fan of IMWorf permalink
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 abouttransferring TOS to HD, and also the worst. Take a look at the existing DVD release, and notice howthe live-action stuff looks great, and the special effects look awful. Now imagine all bad those effectsare going to look compared to even better live-action footage, once all those flaws have beenmagnified 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," andyou can easily tell which ones they are even on the SD DVD.)
EdwardEdwards See Profile I'm a Fan of EdwardEdwards permalink
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
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 PM on 08/24/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
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...
Helzapoppin See Profile I'm a Fan of Helzapoppin permalink
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 fiascois a prime example. Lucas could have gone back and cleaned up a lot of glitches in the original effectsbut instead left those flaws and inserted his annoying new slapstick cg creatures. Waste of time. I wonteven 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.
ramblingjohnny See Profile I'm a Fan of ramblingjohnny permalink
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 quitefrankly have you ever watched TOS on HD? It was a painful experience before the Remaster hell evenTNG look like crap on HD. A fan would overlook it but the remastered edition is aimed at enlarging thebrand audience.
Chrisallalone See Profile I'm a Fan of Chrisallalone permalink
Thanks for writing this blog, Michael. When we heard about the plan to release these new versions, myhusband went out and bought all three seasons on DVD, for the same reason you cite -- they're goingto 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 andsocial commentary (including the occasional gaffe like the deeply sexist "Turnabout Intruder") wereshaped 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.
mredder4 See Profile I'm a Fan of mredder4 permalink
How does that song go again? "moneymoneymoney-money... MONEY!"
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 toothers, but hey, that at least stimulates dialogue, which is good for ST in a way.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
Of course, they expect a major reboot from the new film version overseen by JJ Abrams. Idon't expect any radical rethinking a la Battlestar Galactica, however, though that's certainlythe gold standard at the moment for reviving a franchise.
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 PM on 08/13/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 AM on 08/13/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 AM on 08/12/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 11:52 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 08/11/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
jamesspada See Profile I'm a Fan of jamesspada permalink
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 thattakes 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.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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 makeso much money and are jsut easier to sustain than a weekly series. Really, another decadewithout a new ST series on TV is a good idea given how they ran the show into the ground.
recless See Profile I'm a Fan of recless permalink
Truthfully, I prefer the new version. I can't help it but I wasn't around for the original, and after gettinginto 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 warfootage 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 likethe Honor Harrington series, where the ships and their use plays a big part of the role. It also doesn'thelp Star Trek that Paramount screws up timelines and histories with shows like Enterprise.
BlackJAC See Profile I'm a Fan of BlackJAC permalink
HONOR HARRINGTON started getting repetitive by the end, at least in terms of all the battlesequences: task forces composed of four dozen megabattleships apiece and twice as manyfrigates or cruisers or destroyers on each side, each firing several hundred missiles, most ofwhich get intercepted by point defense anyway. The number of planets they would've had tomine hollow and depopulate to get the materials and crew for all those ships...
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
Thanks for the perspective (though it depresses me). I haven't read any of the HonorHarrington books; I'll have to check them out. (And I hope you've checked out the HoratioHornblower books by Forester or the Aubrey/Maturin books by Patrick O'Brian. Or if you'vegot to have a sci-fi/fantasy trapping, the really clever new Napoleonic era w dragons books byNaomi Novik.
deckard70 See Profile I'm a Fan of deckard70 permalink
"The classic Dr Who series in the UK usually had aout $20 a week to spend on special effects...Thoselame effects are key to the charm, in a way."
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 betterquality 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 newafter I told him (since they still look cheap -- just CGI cheap rather than 8mm grainy film cheap). So, Ithink that's proof enough that the new effects blend in well enough.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
I had no idea about the Dr. Who fiddling. Thanks for letting me know. (In general, I think theDr. Who releases have been so sporadic and crazy -- they've got thousands of episodes; forheaven's sake, just release a boxed set w every Tom baker Who, etc and be done with it.) Iagree that the new effects are well done and blend in seamlessly. That's exactly what bothersme -- unlike bad colorization, you won't know something is up and without careful labeling (at
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 08/10/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
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. Andsince reruns on TV will invariably be the new improved editions, the originals that proved sodurable and entertaining for the past 40 years will disappear from view. Yes, you can add innew effects and newcomers won't notice. But why?
bcw See Profile I'm a Fan of bcw permalink
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 cameranegative (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 ofquality of the rest of the footage. You can even see this problem in the dissolves from one scene toanother. 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.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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.
robiform See Profile I'm a Fan of robiform permalink
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 themany charms of "Star Trek" (the original series) was the very cheesy special effects. Well, it was thelate sixties, and Gene Roddenberry didn't have the budget that Stanley Kubrick had for "2001: A SpaceOdyssey". As for the original "Star Wars" movies, I don't think that the enhanced versions added all thatmuch to the overall enjoyment of them, and I was very glad when the first three movies were releasedon 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" whenbeing with old friends!
YMCA See Profile I'm a Fan of YMCA permalink
Agreed. I like seeing Star Trek effects revamped. It's awfully cool.... but, I will always have theoriginals 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 Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
Thanks for reading. I couldn't agree with you more, of course. And it's hugely different issuewhen the driving creative force is dead and therefore not available to sign off on thesechanges. I don't care if his widow and the keepers of the flame approve, it still ain'tRoddenberry saying "go ahead." Finally, the big point you make that agree with is that thesechanges absolutely do NOT improve the movies/tv shows. Even when modest tweaks areoverseen by the director himself and do seem to be an improvement (such as on The LastPicture Show), the original version should be included because THAT'S the one that won theOscars ad the acclaim.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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 originallyseen it on. (Does that mean I have to eat a Swanson's frozen dinner as well?) Mind
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 08:02 PM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 07:19 PM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 06:57 PM on 08/10/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
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 5decades and spun off numerous TV shows both live action and animated andnumerous feature films with another on the way and a billion in merchandising andbooks and spin-off books by the dozen might very well disappear forever. Ony thenew "improved" versions will be shown on TV and there's every reason to think theoriginals will not be made available on DVD. The new boxed set ONLY contains thenew versions. Do a hand puppet version of every episode for all I care -- but alwayskeep the original classic version front and center. Otherwise you're erasing history.
BarrySandrew See Profile I'm a Fan of BarrySandrew permalink
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 ticketsales, 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 thatexisted in the past. "It's A Wonderful Life", which we color produced for Paramount Pictures last yearwas 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 HolidaySeason we expect Universal's new color release of the Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire classic, "HolidayInn" will also find a very enthusiastic audience. It looks stunning in color and certaily enhances thesinging 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.
Michale32086 See Profile I'm a Fan of Michale32086 permalink
{{{{{{{{{{{Michael, regarding Star Trek... I suggest (only a suggestion mind you) sit back and enjoy it forwhat it is... pure entertainment.}}}}}}}}}}}}
WHAT!!!! Yer saying it's not REAL!!!!!?????
It's Tal sha'Ya for you!!!
Michale.....
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
Barry, you're the Devil!!! Just kidding.I'll bet you're really talented and love the
movies and appreciate more than most the art behind the lighting and look of blackand white movies so you understand that black and white movies aren't "missing"color any more than an Ansel Adams photograph is missing color. You're also rightthat the better they get at colorization the more likely people won't notice or careabout the difference. Thus, they'll look at a colorized Laurel & Hardy short or acolorized Modern Times or It's A Wonderful Life and not realize that no matter howsuccessful or entertaining it is, they're NOT looking at Frank Capra's Wonderful Life
but YOUR VERSION of Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life. This is no small thing.
Many countries (like France, bless 'em), have laws against this sort of thing. Youcan't even show a cropped movie on TV. The one positive I can say about yourbusiness is that you imply every release you do includes a new print of the film inblack and white. Would you refuse to do a release if they didn't include the originalversion? Finally, as for entertainment, so often the directors making these endlesstweaks are NOT making it more entertaining. Artistic hoo-haw aside, the originalversions of Star wars are MORE FUN. What's your favorite black and white movie?Citizen Kane? Would you colorize it? Would you do a coffee table book of Ansel
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 08/10/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
Adams photos tinted in color?
LiberalBuzz See Profile I'm a Fan of LiberalBuzz permalink
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 newerversion better.
If you go to Startrek.com they give a whole rundown of what was done and what they left alone for a
variety of reason.
I LOVED Lonesome Dove. Well done westerns are a thing of beauty.
Silverado is another one.
Quigley Down UnderA few others as well but those three come to mind first.Hughes movies were great.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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 somthingnotable: you have BOTH versions. Great. If the new DVD set let you choose classic originalor souped up new edition, I would have (little to) no objections. But when you can buy theentire series and that new version is ALL you can get, they're erasing the past. Soon, youwon'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 likeCasablanca was always in black and white. But thanks for reading, and glad as a real fan youalso bought the original version.
LiberalBuzz See Profile I'm a Fan of LiberalBuzz permalink
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 Trekkershappy because he figured they would scream the loudest. When he saw thedifference with the new movies he was immediately taken with the idea of doing justthat, but just wasn't sure because of the hard core fans.
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
WernerPatels See Profile I'm a Fan of WernerPatels permalink
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
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 07:03 PM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 AM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 AM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 AM on 08/11/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
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.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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 theorginal version will be to spend huge amounts of money on used sets sold on eBay. Theseries 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?
sino53 See Profile I'm a Fan of sino53 permalink
What's controversial about the remastered episodes is that the SFX artists changed the choreographyof 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.youtube.com/watch?v=5EDTrLjsRk4
Which episodes do you recognize from these clips?
Michale32086 See Profile I'm a Fan of Michale32086 permalink
}}}}}}}}
Which episodes do you recognize from these clips?}}}}}}}}
Amok Time
Space SeedCorbomite ManeuverWhere No Man Has Gone Before (or) Is There In Truth No BeautyThe Paradise Syndrome
The Immunity Syndrome
The Ultimate Computer
The Doomsday Machine
The Tholian Web
The Trouble With TribblesWink Of An EyeCourt MartialBalance Of TerrorTomorrow Is YesterdayAll Our Yesterdays
Michale.....
Michale32086 See Profile I'm a Fan of Michale32086 permalink
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.
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 PM on 08/09/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 PM on 08/09/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 09:27 AM on 08/10/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
HOME POLITICS MEDIA BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT LIVING GREEN STYLE WORLD CHICAGO COMEDY FUNDRACE
ARCHIVE
Advertise | Login | Make HuffPost your Home Page | RSS | Jobs | FAQ: Comments & Moderation | FAQ: Huffpost Accounts | Contact Us
Copyright © 2009 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. | Archive | User Agreement | Privacy | Comment Policy | About Us | Powered by Movable Type
Comments are closed for this entry
Michale.....
BlackJAC See Profile I'm a Fan of BlackJAC permalink
"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-ations."
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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.
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in or
Ads by Google
50 Hottest Sci-Fi Women
UGO.com Counts Down The 50 Hottest Women
Of Science Fiction- W/Pics!
UGO.com/Top-50-Hottest-Sci-Fi-Girls
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 07:53 AM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 03:53 PM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 08/10/2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
APRIL 5, 2009
HOME POLITICS MEDIA BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT LIVING STYLE GREEN WORLD CHICAGO
COMEDY 23/6 VIDEO BLOGGER INDEX ARCHIVE
Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Twitter: Follow Us
BIG NEWS : Angelina Jolie | Madonna | Chris Brown & Rihanna | Paul McCartney | More...
LOG IN | SIGN UP
Michael Giltz
Posted August 9, 2008 | 05:23 PM (EST)
BIO
Become a
Fan
Get EmailAlerts
Bloggers'Index
DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
Read More: Dvds, Foyle's War , John Hughes , Lonesome
Dove , Molly Ringwald , Movies, Star Trek, Tom Cruise, Tommy Lee Jones , TV Shows ,
Westerns , Entertainment News
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 maybe delighted to hear that the TV series Star Trekis being released on DVD in a new and"improved" version that cleans up and removesold special effects and inserts brand new onesthat never existed, all to make one of the mostsuccesful franchises of all time...what? Moreaccessible?
It's bad enough when filmmakers do this to their own movies -- Francis Ford Coppola, GeorgeLucas, Peter Bogdanovich and many others constantly fiddle with the DVD releases of theirmovies, revising and re-revising classics again and again. My rule of thumb: a filmmaker can dowhatever they want, but ALWAYS make sure the original theatrical release is available in itsoriginal 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 feellike you're watching old newsreel footage about the Enterprise. But what's most striking is how
Be the First to
Submit
This Story to Digg
Get Breaking News Alerts
Share
Comments
never spam
Popular Stories on HuffPost
Fashion Face-Off!
Michelle Obama And
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy
Finally Meet In
France (VIDEO,
PHOTOS, POLL)
*Video, poll and slideshow
Levi Johnston TalksSafe Sex With Tyra
Banks (VIDEO)
***UPDATE*** 8:30pm:
People.com is reporting
that Sarah Palin has
issued...
Oscar de la Renta
Slams Michelle
Obama's Buckingham
Outfit As Major
Designers FeelIgnored
While Michelle Obamahas made lesser...
Verena von Pfetten 7
Lessons To BeLearned From Carla
Bruni
So here's the thing.There's no shortage of
articles dedicated to thatcertain je ne...
Huff TV Arianna
Discusses MichelleObama's "Fantastic"
Style On CBS'
Madonna Jets Out Of Malawi
More in Entertainment: Farrah
Hospitalized... Madonna Tot's Dad
Found... Choreographer: Rapist?...
WATCH: SNL: Madonna And Angelina
In Weekend Update Adoption-Off
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]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 aneyebrown in manly approval; the way Spock reacts with joy when he realizes Kirk is alive and thentries to mask his emotion and so on. No movie or show EVER survives because its special effectswere cutting edge. Great characters and great stories are what endure -- whether the effectsremain 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 videoand told him how he had NO IDEA of what the movie was really like and how this editing andpanning and scanning ruined every frame of the film and was like removing the drums and bassfrom 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 StarTrek, 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 hadMoby-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 artfor 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 theyaren't really watching Star Trek. And some sliver of pleasure derived by watching a series that wascrafted 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 takingout 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 namedHoneysuckle Weeks). Foyle is unquestonably one of TV's great characters and if the series isn'tquite in the absolute top rank, it's damn close. And fans of mysteries should certainly consider itessential 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 thecommercial 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
"Washington
Unplugged"
Arianna was on CBS'
"Washington...
Alex Leo The "Real
Housewives Of New
York City" Flowchart
Of Hate
I'm a little embarrassed tolove this show as much
as...
"BRUNO" TRAILER!
Calamity, African
Babies, ChaseScenes And More
(NSFW VIDEO)
IT'S HERE! The trailer for
this July's Sacha BaronCohen...
NATO Leaders Focus
On Afghanistan, But
Most Reject Obama's
Plea For Troops
(SLIDESHOW)
STRASBOURG, France
— On the eve of the
NATO...
First Lady Fashion At
Friday's NATO
Concert (PHOTOS)
Another night, anotherfashion opportunity forNATO leaders and their
spouses! See...
Diana Palin, SarahPalin's Sister-In-Law,
Arrested ForBreaking Into Home
ANCHORAGE, Alaska —Police say Alaska Gov....
John Oliver Explains
The Real Reason You
Never Touch The
Queen (VIDEO)
John Oliver was upset
enough to drop his
monocle when he...
Obama Teases
Reporter From India
During Press
Conference (VIDEO)
Obama held a conferencepacked with press fromaround the world on
Thursday. He called...
Jim Cramer DeclaresThe Depression
"Over" (VIDEO)
On Thursday's episode of
"Mad Money" host Jim
Cramer declared that the
depression...
Scientists Find
Rocket Fuel
Chemical In Infant
Formula
ATLANTA — Traces of a
chemical used in rocket
fuel were found in
samples of...
Least Wasteful Cities
In America
(SLIDESHOW)
It's great to love the cityyou live in, and better to
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
Reality Star Jade
Goody Buried In
Lavish...
Robert De Niro
Nanny Sues For
$40,000
Demi Moore's
Twitter-Based
Suicide Intervention
"HGTV's $250,000
Challenge": Families
Vie For Mortgage...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 fora teen flick. Some Kind Of Wonderful is a slightly more adult Hughes confection, though still set inhigh school and again elevated mostly by a cast that includes Eric Stoltz and the pining Mary StuartMasterson. 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'sDay 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 morevaluable, 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, thisnew edit and the European/cable version as well that's circulated for years. But nothing justifiesNOT including the original production that was such a ratings hit and wildly acclaimed. How hardis it to understand that if a TV movie or miniseries or TV show is worth putting out on DVD, it'sworth 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 blinkof 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 weekslater); 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 theearlier 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 canenjoy 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 DVDsinside 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 teambehind those movies; and finally if you're loving the glimpses of China during the Olympics, pickup Wild China ($29.98 and $39.98 on Blu-Ray; BBC) for a closer look at that country's diverse
wildlife.
More in Entertainment...
Cars
Women's
Rights
Michelle
Obama
Europe
Newspapers
Bank Of
America
War Wire
Video
Financial
Crisis
MORE BIG NEWS PAGES
»
Books by this author
A cabin of one's own: New
England's MacDowellColony celebrates 100years of artistic utopia.And the gay and lesbianartists who prosperedthere celebrate ... (Thenational gay & lesbiannewsmagazine)
by Michael Giltz
Affairs to remember:Farley Granger beddedAva Gardner, ShelleyWinters, and LeonardBernstein. In hisautobiography, IncludeMe Out, Hitchcock's muse... (The national gay &lesbian newsmagazine)
by Michael Giltzlove it for a reason like
being green!
FastCompany...
HUFFPOST'S BIG NEWS PAGES
This Blogger's Books from
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
Michelle Obama's Clothing
Has Sean Hannity All Out OfSorts
RICHARD POPLAWSKI,Pittsburgh Gunman, Kills 3Police Officers
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld: DoesIran Harbor Osama binLaden?
John Demjanjuk, Ohio ManAccused Of Being NaziGuard, Avoids Deportation
Comments 50 Pending Comments 0
HuffPost Stories Surging Right Now
Ads by Google
50 Hottest Sci-Fi Women
UGO.com Counts Down The 50 Hottest Women
Of Science Fiction- W/Pics!
UGO.com/Top-50-Hottest-Sci-Fi-Girls
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
View Comments: Newest
First Expand All
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
IMWorf See Profile I'm a Fan of IMWorf permalink
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 abouttransferring TOS to HD, and also the worst. Take a look at the existing DVD release, and notice howthe live-action stuff looks great, and the special effects look awful. Now imagine all bad those effectsare going to look compared to even better live-action footage, once all those flaws have beenmagnified 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," andyou can easily tell which ones they are even on the SD DVD.)
EdwardEdwards See Profile I'm a Fan of EdwardEdwards permalink
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
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 PM on 08/24/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
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...
Helzapoppin See Profile I'm a Fan of Helzapoppin permalink
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 fiascois a prime example. Lucas could have gone back and cleaned up a lot of glitches in the original effectsbut instead left those flaws and inserted his annoying new slapstick cg creatures. Waste of time. I wonteven 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.
ramblingjohnny See Profile I'm a Fan of ramblingjohnny permalink
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 quitefrankly have you ever watched TOS on HD? It was a painful experience before the Remaster hell evenTNG look like crap on HD. A fan would overlook it but the remastered edition is aimed at enlarging thebrand audience.
Chrisallalone See Profile I'm a Fan of Chrisallalone permalink
Thanks for writing this blog, Michael. When we heard about the plan to release these new versions, myhusband went out and bought all three seasons on DVD, for the same reason you cite -- they're goingto 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 andsocial commentary (including the occasional gaffe like the deeply sexist "Turnabout Intruder") wereshaped 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.
mredder4 See Profile I'm a Fan of mredder4 permalink
How does that song go again? "moneymoneymoney-money... MONEY!"
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 toothers, but hey, that at least stimulates dialogue, which is good for ST in a way.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
Of course, they expect a major reboot from the new film version overseen by JJ Abrams. Idon't expect any radical rethinking a la Battlestar Galactica, however, though that's certainlythe gold standard at the moment for reviving a franchise.
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 PM on 08/13/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 AM on 08/13/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 AM on 08/12/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 11:52 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 08/11/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
jamesspada See Profile I'm a Fan of jamesspada permalink
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 thattakes 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.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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 makeso much money and are jsut easier to sustain than a weekly series. Really, another decadewithout a new ST series on TV is a good idea given how they ran the show into the ground.
recless See Profile I'm a Fan of recless permalink
Truthfully, I prefer the new version. I can't help it but I wasn't around for the original, and after gettinginto 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 warfootage 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 likethe Honor Harrington series, where the ships and their use plays a big part of the role. It also doesn'thelp Star Trek that Paramount screws up timelines and histories with shows like Enterprise.
BlackJAC See Profile I'm a Fan of BlackJAC permalink
HONOR HARRINGTON started getting repetitive by the end, at least in terms of all the battlesequences: task forces composed of four dozen megabattleships apiece and twice as manyfrigates or cruisers or destroyers on each side, each firing several hundred missiles, most ofwhich get intercepted by point defense anyway. The number of planets they would've had tomine hollow and depopulate to get the materials and crew for all those ships...
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
Thanks for the perspective (though it depresses me). I haven't read any of the HonorHarrington books; I'll have to check them out. (And I hope you've checked out the HoratioHornblower books by Forester or the Aubrey/Maturin books by Patrick O'Brian. Or if you'vegot to have a sci-fi/fantasy trapping, the really clever new Napoleonic era w dragons books byNaomi Novik.
deckard70 See Profile I'm a Fan of deckard70 permalink
"The classic Dr Who series in the UK usually had aout $20 a week to spend on special effects...Thoselame effects are key to the charm, in a way."
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 betterquality 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 newafter I told him (since they still look cheap -- just CGI cheap rather than 8mm grainy film cheap). So, Ithink that's proof enough that the new effects blend in well enough.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
I had no idea about the Dr. Who fiddling. Thanks for letting me know. (In general, I think theDr. Who releases have been so sporadic and crazy -- they've got thousands of episodes; forheaven's sake, just release a boxed set w every Tom baker Who, etc and be done with it.) Iagree that the new effects are well done and blend in seamlessly. That's exactly what bothersme -- unlike bad colorization, you won't know something is up and without careful labeling (at
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 08/10/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
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. Andsince reruns on TV will invariably be the new improved editions, the originals that proved sodurable and entertaining for the past 40 years will disappear from view. Yes, you can add innew effects and newcomers won't notice. But why?
bcw See Profile I'm a Fan of bcw permalink
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 cameranegative (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 ofquality of the rest of the footage. You can even see this problem in the dissolves from one scene toanother. 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.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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.
robiform See Profile I'm a Fan of robiform permalink
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 themany charms of "Star Trek" (the original series) was the very cheesy special effects. Well, it was thelate sixties, and Gene Roddenberry didn't have the budget that Stanley Kubrick had for "2001: A SpaceOdyssey". As for the original "Star Wars" movies, I don't think that the enhanced versions added all thatmuch to the overall enjoyment of them, and I was very glad when the first three movies were releasedon 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" whenbeing with old friends!
YMCA See Profile I'm a Fan of YMCA permalink
Agreed. I like seeing Star Trek effects revamped. It's awfully cool.... but, I will always have theoriginals 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 Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
Thanks for reading. I couldn't agree with you more, of course. And it's hugely different issuewhen the driving creative force is dead and therefore not available to sign off on thesechanges. I don't care if his widow and the keepers of the flame approve, it still ain'tRoddenberry saying "go ahead." Finally, the big point you make that agree with is that thesechanges absolutely do NOT improve the movies/tv shows. Even when modest tweaks areoverseen by the director himself and do seem to be an improvement (such as on The LastPicture Show), the original version should be included because THAT'S the one that won theOscars ad the acclaim.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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 originallyseen it on. (Does that mean I have to eat a Swanson's frozen dinner as well?) Mind
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 08:02 PM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 07:19 PM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 06:57 PM on 08/10/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
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 5decades and spun off numerous TV shows both live action and animated andnumerous feature films with another on the way and a billion in merchandising andbooks and spin-off books by the dozen might very well disappear forever. Ony thenew "improved" versions will be shown on TV and there's every reason to think theoriginals will not be made available on DVD. The new boxed set ONLY contains thenew versions. Do a hand puppet version of every episode for all I care -- but alwayskeep the original classic version front and center. Otherwise you're erasing history.
BarrySandrew See Profile I'm a Fan of BarrySandrew permalink
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 ticketsales, 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 thatexisted in the past. "It's A Wonderful Life", which we color produced for Paramount Pictures last yearwas 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 HolidaySeason we expect Universal's new color release of the Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire classic, "HolidayInn" will also find a very enthusiastic audience. It looks stunning in color and certaily enhances thesinging 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.
Michale32086 See Profile I'm a Fan of Michale32086 permalink
{{{{{{{{{{{Michael, regarding Star Trek... I suggest (only a suggestion mind you) sit back and enjoy it forwhat it is... pure entertainment.}}}}}}}}}}}}
WHAT!!!! Yer saying it's not REAL!!!!!?????
It's Tal sha'Ya for you!!!
Michale.....
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
Barry, you're the Devil!!! Just kidding.I'll bet you're really talented and love the
movies and appreciate more than most the art behind the lighting and look of blackand white movies so you understand that black and white movies aren't "missing"color any more than an Ansel Adams photograph is missing color. You're also rightthat the better they get at colorization the more likely people won't notice or careabout the difference. Thus, they'll look at a colorized Laurel & Hardy short or acolorized Modern Times or It's A Wonderful Life and not realize that no matter howsuccessful or entertaining it is, they're NOT looking at Frank Capra's Wonderful Life
but YOUR VERSION of Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life. This is no small thing.
Many countries (like France, bless 'em), have laws against this sort of thing. Youcan't even show a cropped movie on TV. The one positive I can say about yourbusiness is that you imply every release you do includes a new print of the film inblack and white. Would you refuse to do a release if they didn't include the originalversion? Finally, as for entertainment, so often the directors making these endlesstweaks are NOT making it more entertaining. Artistic hoo-haw aside, the originalversions of Star wars are MORE FUN. What's your favorite black and white movie?Citizen Kane? Would you colorize it? Would you do a coffee table book of Ansel
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 AM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 08/10/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
Adams photos tinted in color?
LiberalBuzz See Profile I'm a Fan of LiberalBuzz permalink
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 newerversion better.
If you go to Startrek.com they give a whole rundown of what was done and what they left alone for a
variety of reason.
I LOVED Lonesome Dove. Well done westerns are a thing of beauty.
Silverado is another one.
Quigley Down UnderA few others as well but those three come to mind first.Hughes movies were great.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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 somthingnotable: you have BOTH versions. Great. If the new DVD set let you choose classic originalor souped up new edition, I would have (little to) no objections. But when you can buy theentire series and that new version is ALL you can get, they're erasing the past. Soon, youwon'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 likeCasablanca was always in black and white. But thanks for reading, and glad as a real fan youalso bought the original version.
LiberalBuzz See Profile I'm a Fan of LiberalBuzz permalink
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 Trekkershappy because he figured they would scream the loudest. When he saw thedifference with the new movies he was immediately taken with the idea of doing justthat, but just wasn't sure because of the hard core fans.
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
WernerPatels See Profile I'm a Fan of WernerPatels permalink
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
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 07:03 PM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 AM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 AM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 AM on 08/11/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
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.
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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 theorginal version will be to spend huge amounts of money on used sets sold on eBay. Theseries 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?
sino53 See Profile I'm a Fan of sino53 permalink
What's controversial about the remastered episodes is that the SFX artists changed the choreographyof 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.youtube.com/watch?v=5EDTrLjsRk4
Which episodes do you recognize from these clips?
Michale32086 See Profile I'm a Fan of Michale32086 permalink
}}}}}}}}
Which episodes do you recognize from these clips?}}}}}}}}
Amok Time
Space SeedCorbomite ManeuverWhere No Man Has Gone Before (or) Is There In Truth No BeautyThe Paradise Syndrome
The Immunity Syndrome
The Ultimate Computer
The Doomsday Machine
The Tholian Web
The Trouble With TribblesWink Of An EyeCourt MartialBalance Of TerrorTomorrow Is YesterdayAll Our Yesterdays
Michale.....
Michale32086 See Profile I'm a Fan of Michale32086 permalink
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.
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 PM on 08/09/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 PM on 08/09/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 09:27 AM on 08/10/2008
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Leave Star Trek Alone!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-leave-emstar-trekem_b_117937.html [4/5/2009 1:47:16 PM]
HOME POLITICS MEDIA BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT LIVING GREEN STYLE WORLD CHICAGO COMEDY FUNDRACE
ARCHIVE
Advertise | Login | Make HuffPost your Home Page | RSS | Jobs | FAQ: Comments & Moderation | FAQ: Huffpost Accounts | Contact Us
Copyright © 2009 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. | Archive | User Agreement | Privacy | Comment Policy | About Us | Powered by Movable Type
Comments are closed for this entry
Michale.....
BlackJAC See Profile I'm a Fan of BlackJAC permalink
"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-ations."
Michael Giltz See Profile I'm a Fan of Michael Giltz permalink
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.
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in or
Ads by Google
50 Hottest Sci-Fi Women
UGO.com Counts Down The 50 Hottest Women
Of Science Fiction- W/Pics!
UGO.com/Top-50-Hottest-Sci-Fi-Girls
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 07:53 AM on 08/10/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 03:53 PM on 08/11/2008
Favorite
Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 08/10/2008