|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jan 17, 2013 13:57:11 GMT -5
Over at Blastr:Rare interview with Trek's 1st Captain reveals hopes for a series
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Feb 20, 2013 1:44:51 GMT -5
Over at io9:It turns out being a Redshirt is less perilous than you think A recent still from Star Trek: Into Darkness shows Benedict Cumberbatch surrounded by redshirts. This, we surmised, could only mean one thing. Anyone with a hint of SF-savvy knows that the grisly fate of a Starfleet crew member clad in crimson is as certain as Cumbermouth's tubercle is sharply... More » io9.com/5985337/it-turns-out-being-a-redshirt-is-less-perilous-than-you-think
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Feb 20, 2013 7:32:23 GMT -5
I've long suspected that the red shirt thing was a lot of hype mainly taken from memory of a few episodes where casualties were high (like "The Apple").
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Feb 20, 2013 9:48:00 GMT -5
Based on that photo, where no regulars are involved, all those guys are toast.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Feb 20, 2013 16:42:59 GMT -5
Based on that photo, where no regulars are involved, all those guys are toast. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Feb 20, 2013 18:52:07 GMT -5
Read the novel Redshirts. You will be entertained. It just makes a story of what we have all thought while watching episodes of TOS. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 26, 2013 11:30:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Mar 31, 2013 14:47:16 GMT -5
Wish they had explained how it *tried* to be a training video! I can't imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 8, 2013 14:14:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 9, 2013 9:24:42 GMT -5
I wonder what it is made out of. I remember awhile back, I think you posted a picture of Gallileo Seven today, and it was a hunk of junk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Apr 9, 2013 13:39:20 GMT -5
I love that episode, but don't recall it word for word. Was that big thing really called a phaser?? In the comments section of the article, someone called it a phaser rifle. That makes more sense.
At imdb.com, referring to this episode, someone complained that completely acceptable shots of an eleven foot model of the ship were replaced with lame CGI. Is that true? Was it changed back?
|
|
|
|
Post by TK on Apr 9, 2013 13:47:03 GMT -5
I love that episode, but don't recall it word for word. Was that big thing really called a phaser?? In the comments section of the article, someone called it a phaser rifle. That makes more sense.
At imdb.com, referring to this episode, someone complained that completely acceptable shots of an eleven foot model of the ship were replaced with lame CGI. Is that true? Was it changed back? I think they were called phaser rifles. As to the CGI, all the episodes were "remastered" several years ago and all of the effects redone. this is the only version now shown on television in syndication. I'm annoyed by all the unnecessary CG ship shots too. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Apr 9, 2013 13:58:35 GMT -5
Gosh, that's heartbreaking! I'm sorry to hear about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 9, 2013 15:49:47 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't think any change they made to TOS was NOT an improvement. I think they did a really good job there.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 10, 2013 2:15:15 GMT -5
I wonder what it is made out of. I remember awhile back, I think you posted a picture of Gallileo Seven today, and it was a hunk of junk. Yeah, because the idiot who bought the Shuttle craft left it outside and exposed to the elements for YEARS before he gave up on it and another buyer came along. As for the phaser rifle, it looks like a plastic toy. I'm sure the years have taken a toll on it also. The picture of it looked like it's faded a bit in places, as one would expect after nearly fifty years. (Did I really just say a half century? Shit, how time flies.) What I'd like to know is why that rifle was never used in the TV series again after WNMHGB. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 10, 2013 2:22:10 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't think any change they made to TOS was NOT an improvement. I think they did a really good job there. With what was available for television CGI then, they did a pretty decent job overall based on what I've seen of the remastered episodes. It would have been nice had they assigned an A-Team to that project though. I'd also point out that while the CGI in "Enterprise" still holds up fairly well, if you look at those episodes now, eight or more years later, it's pretty obvious that CGI effects have continued to improve since then, and that those FX sequences would have looked even better had they been done today, or within the last couple of years. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 10, 2013 12:09:44 GMT -5
They also made some conscious choices to limit things. They wanted to retain the identity from the original episodes, so things weren't re-designed that probably could have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 10, 2013 16:15:26 GMT -5
They also made some conscious choices to limit things. They wanted to retain the identity from the original episodes, so things weren't re-designed that probably could have been. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 12, 2013 11:17:36 GMT -5
Over at TrekNews.net:TV Guide Celebrates 60 Years With Special STAR TREK Cover This year, TV Guide celebrates its 60th anniversary with six collectable covers — one of which features William Shatner as Captain Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as Spock. The special Star Trek cover is composed of a mosaic of TV Guide covers from the 1960s. Other 60th anniversary covers include I Love Lucy, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Cosby Show, The Simpsons and LOST. Star Trek premiered on September 8, 1966 on NBC. The issue is available on newsstands now. via StarTrek.com www.treknews.net/2013/04/10/tv-guide-60th-anniversary-star-trek-cover/
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 4, 2013 13:39:55 GMT -5
Something has been bugging me lately, particularly this past week concerning the Blu-ray releases of the original series. I have this annoying compulsion to collect shows and movies on disc. I've cut back on that annoying habit to mostly just SF shows and movies suited to my own personal interest. I have the original DVD releases of TOS on DVD, and I then bought the remastered DVD Sets of all three seasons with the newer CGI effects. Lately I've been getting the itch to buy the TOS Blu-ray Sets, but I've been holding back on pulling the trigger on that because I'm still out of work after more than a year and can't find a job. TOS on Blu-ray, while attractive for the entire series at around a hundred dollars (it's gone up to a little higher than that more recently), is nevertheless not a vital purchase given my current circumstances though obviously. There are more important things for me to worry about right now, and it would be excessive on my part being that I already have the original DVD releases of the series, along with the later remastered releases also on DVD with the new effects work. However, even beyond all this, what's been bothering me is that all three sets: original DVD, Remastered DVD, and now Blu-ray, are all in 4:3 pillar box format. So the question has been floating around my brain as to whether this series, along with the later shows such as TNG for that matter, will ever be released in a 16X9 viewing format as well. And then I just ran across this: What is the Aspect Ratio of TOS Remastered?TOS was shot on 35mm film and produced for standard TV (4:3 ratio). The CBS Digital team is making the new CG effects in 16:9 to be ready for potential future widescreen versions. However for the time being it is broadcast in 4:3 with ‘pillar boxing’ when shown on HD channels (with the new CG shots ‘cropped’ to match the live action). The HD DVD and Blu-ray versions also have this pillar boxing.trekmovie.com/tos-in-hd/So as much as I loathe the above website aside, it nevertheless provided me with a piece of valuable information. They (the studio) may very well release TOS in 16X9 widescreen format at some point in the future, and since Trek is a cash cow they like to pull out of a drawer and dust off every now and then to rake in some bucks, they probably will. And well, all I can say is that this is a disincentive for me to buy the current 4:3 pillar boxed set on blu-ray. Does anyone here have any additional thoughts on this that you would like to add? I know, for instance, that TK hates the idea of progress and would like things to remain as originally produced and released. He's a true and rigid purest in that regard. However, he also doesn't own a flatscreen HD television at present, and like me, his attitudes might well, and probably would, change once he actually gets one and finds himself looking at it for any length of time to watch his shows. I was the same way once upon a time. People may recall that I had pretty much zero interest in moving to HD, until the TV set I was using died and I found myself having to go out and buy another one. And the simple fact is that once you have one, it spoils you. You grow accustomed to the superior HD picture, and anything being broadcast in standard 480i quality, which is probably also being shown in 4:3 pillar box format at that, is rather annoying. You want that extra sharpness in the picture, and you want it full-screen. BBCAmerica has been accommodating its viewers in that regard with their broadcasts of classic "Doctor Who" episodes, so why has CBS/Paramount not also been moving in that direction with the various Trek series'? I lamented this last week after seeing the Fathom Events showing of "Best of Both Worlds" in a theater, and which I subsequently also picked up this week on blu-ray when it hit shelves in Best Buy (there were only two copies of it on the shelf in the store I went to, and I bought one of them). But the downer of that release is also that it's in 4:3 pillar box format, which I hated sitting there watching on the big screen in the theater Anyway, thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 4, 2013 16:49:41 GMT -5
I'm not fully against the idea of progress. I just don't think sacrificing the original framing of something equals progress. Though I'll agree to an extent that you do get used to higher def and old tech looks bad in retrospect. It's so noticeable now when I just tape something quick off the TV as compared to DVD. but then, there's some stuff sometimes I don't want to see in super clarity. Or sometimes I want the option of both. I almost never pop in a VHS copy of First Contact, but every now and then I might. It's like how I have some albums on CD and vinyl and both have their merits.
I can understand them ultimately putting out a chopped up widescreen version in the same way they used to put out chopped up 'pan and scan" versions of widescreen movies. I just don't want to see it become the only available version, and hope it's done with a lot of care. I'd still rather see the whole image as originally framed and intended than one edited. And the trend doesn't just stop with "chopping". The DVD of Voyage of the Dawn Treader actually digitally extended every shot from the original widescreen aspect ratio to fill a 16:9 TV. So while it's still techhnically "widescreen" it's not the image that screened in theaters. I refused to buy it for that reason. I can see why it's appealing to owners of 16:9 TVs, and would have been okay with it had both versions been available (like how they used to do "widescreen" and "fullscreen" releases).
For me, the ideal would be HD TVs made in the old 4:3 ratio. That way I could watch old stuff in its proper ratio in the best way possible without black bars that ruin the TV, and could have a 16:9 TV in another room to watch wider stuff.
Honestly, with the added space on blu-ray discs I don't understand why they don't just offer every episode in both formats. Even if it takes up more discs, I think consumers like you would appreciate the option, and it would prevent you from buying things twice. I totally understand the compulsion to collect and for me that's another reason I've delayed blu-ray; those movies won't look good with the stuff I've already been collecting for ten years.
-TK
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 5, 2013 14:30:54 GMT -5
It's on Netflix right now. No need to buy anything--especially something you already own.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 5, 2013 17:02:13 GMT -5
It's on Netflix right now. No need to buy anything--especially something you already own. The Blu-ray Set has extra bonus material that's not a part of the Remastered DVD Set. It also has a different, never aired version of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" that was also cleaned up and made pristine. And there are other nice little tweaks that the earlier sets don't have, such as Picture-In-Picture Commentaries by the Okudas that you can watch and listen to while the episode those were added to are playing. What really doesn't sit well with me about it though is that the next step will probably be their putting them out in 16X9 on Blu-ray as I said, in which case I'd skip the current 4:3 pillar box set. Then I would be adding something to my collection that is not redundant, but it would also pretty much render my original DVD Sets and the Remastered DVD Sets virtually obsolete all the way around. Sure, I could always pull them out on a whim to look at a few episodes in their original broadcast format, but really, once those episodes are out in 16X9 format for viewing, who would bother to go back and watch one of the old standard 4:3 episodes? |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 6, 2013 2:26:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 9, 2013 23:08:00 GMT -5
I've done some further scrutinizing concerning the Remastered TOS Blu-ray sets this week when I've had a few minutes here and there, and I came across some more interesting information regarding them. I'd recommend one read the entire review of the Season 1 set as I did; the reviewer has some interesting observations, although I thought his appraisal of "The Galileo Seven" somewhat harsh. That aside though, for those of you not interested in reading the full appraisal, or who are simply interested in what about it in particular stood out for me, here are a few interesting tidbits:"Most importantly, the Blu-ray edition contains both the new Remastered versions of the episodes and the original versions with their 1960s special effects. The alternate footage is seamlessly branched from each episode, allowing you to toggle between the old and new versions on the fly by selecting the camera icon in the pop-up menu. The Blu-ray also offers the original mono soundtracks that were previously omitted."This is one of the things that really does appeal to me about the Blu-ray sets, as opposed to the remastered sets that I have on Standard DVD: you can actually toggle back and forth between scenes from the original cuts of the episodes to the newly remastered prints, and their special effects scenes, and see the differences between the two as you're watching any given episode. That is a really cool feature in my view, and one that I would very likely make use of.
Then there's this, concerning the three different versions of the episodes that they've already put together, which the other review that I posted from blu-ray.com last week didn't allude to:The Video: Sizing Up the Picture"Befitting a television series produced in the 1960s, the 'Star Trek' Blu-ray set retains the show's original 4:3 aspect ratio, pillarboxed into the center of the 16:9 frame. This includes all of the new visual effects footage, which was technically rendered at a wider 16:9 ratio but is center-cropped to 4:3 here. In fact, in preparing the Remastered episodes, the studio struck three separate high-def transfers: one at a consistent 4:3 ratio (the version available in this box set), one that varies between 4:3 for live action footage and 16:9 for visual effects (X-Box Live users may have downloaded episodes in that format), and one with all of the live action footage cropped and stretched to 16:9. As far as I'm concerned, the 4:3 version is the most appropriate and the only one worth considering."It's also interesting that --in contrast to the opinion I put forth here last week-- this reviewer wouldn't be interested in watching the 16X9 remastered versions of these episodes, which the studio has already converted them to as well apparently. He would instead stick with the original 4:3 aspect ratio, as originally produced (so, a he's purist, like TK, apparently). At the moment, however, I'm still not inclined to go along with him on that. I've watched all the classic "Doctor Who" episodes shown so far on BBCAmerica, which were converted and broadcast in the 16X9 format, and generally speaking, as well as for the most part I would have to say, I really don't see how it harms the viewing experience of those episodes. If anything, I have felt as though it has instead enhanced it in contrast.
There's also the following to take into account, even though he doesn't also mention what I'm about to point out in relation to it:"With that said, the show's style does at times limit the amount of detail visible. Every single close-up of an actress, for example, was photographed in soft focus. The difference in focus between the male and female actors may not have stood out as much in standard definition, but here is almost comically apparent."I was not aware that a different method was used to film the male as opposed to the female actors. What's also interesting about that, however, is that if a soft focus was used on the women, why wasn't that method made use of concerning the stunt doubles in various action sequences? For instance, it was blatantly apparently that a stunt double was used for Kirk in the fight sequence with Khan in "Space Seed", so why not soft focus the actor's face in that scene to make it less apparent? Yes, they would have to artificially tinker with the original film elements to achieve some measure of that effect being that the scene wasn't originally shot that way, but in my view it's probably preferable (and I say 'probably' here because there's no way to know without having seen the scene redone in that way) than leaving it the way things stand, with an obviously different actor stepping into the shoes of Kirk in the middle of his being engaged in a fight scene with Khan.
I was also a little surprised to read this:"In addition to its fresh telecine transfer, the show has had much of the dirt and age-related defects from the source elements digitally erased. Not everything was cleaned up, though, and there are quite a few surprising instances of visible dirt and damage. Still, it's much cleaner than we've ever seen it before."I just wonder if that was because the original masters they were using had dirt which couldn't be cleaned away on them, and so they chose to leave those imperfections in the picture, or if it was simply attributable to laziness, or perhaps a combination of the two.
Anyway, there you have it --another interesting review of the Blu-ray sets, with some interesting information not readily available anywhere else, at least not that I've seen anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 10, 2013 8:32:07 GMT -5
"Most importantly, the Blu-ray edition contains both the new Remastered versions of the episodes and the original versions with their 1960s special effects. The alternate footage is seamlessly branched from each episode, allowing you to toggle between the old and new versions on the fly by selecting the camera icon in the pop-up menu. The Blu-ray also offers the original mono soundtracks that were previously omitted." This is a big deal to me, and makes the blu-ray much more attractive now. Though it does make me question why they couldn't also include the 16:9 transfers for those like you who would desire it. "With that said, the show's style does at times limit the amount of detail visible. Every single close-up of an actress, for example, was photographed in soft focus. The difference in focus between the male and female actors may not have stood out as much in standard definition, but here is almost comically apparent." I hadn't thought about it much, but this is a staple of Hollywood style from the '30s through the '60s. I just accept the close-up soft-focus beauty shot stylistically. I've never considered how jarring it might be in HD (score one for analog film, snicker snicker). -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 12, 2013 11:36:03 GMT -5
I remember this surfacing some years back, but I rediscovered it within the last few days and watched it very late last night before going to bed. The Audio is out of sync by about a second, which is kind of irritating, but I figure some of you might be interested in checking this out nonetheless.
Harlan Ellison also shows up at about 24 minutes in, and his usual obnoxious self, and gets put in his place a few times by a couple of the participants (read Doohan and Koenig in particular), which was fun to watch. Also, look at all the smoking going on here --something you don't see on shows like this on TV anymore, which is just a reminder as to how much different television was back then.
The Star Trek Cast
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 11, 2013 18:53:54 GMT -5
A short article, but sweet.
Over at Celebrity Watchdog:
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 12, 2013 9:59:54 GMT -5
I always get a kick out of listening to Ellison talk. Kind of funny if you don't take him too seriously. Talented writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 13, 2013 12:16:51 GMT -5
I'm in a real bind at the moment --a bind that I didn't expect to be in just last week, so I can't spring for this right now. However, I figured I'd let you people know about it just the same in case any of you are interested.
Current Price is $88.99, which is a darn good deal. I've never seen it priced this well.
|
|
