TypeORedPill (July 6, 2008 at 9:25 am)

Thanks for that info. Battlestar Galactica sfx is the best.

Jimbo8012 (June 30, 2008 at 6:18 pm)

Medhiv83, I don't think you could be further from the truth if you tried!! Do you realise how much Paramount is spending on the new Trek film? Over $150 million. That's over twice the budget of any previous Star Trek film. I have doubts they'll even break even but with JJ Abrams directing...who knows?! I expect that it'll be an effects tour de force! As to your point of attracting new people to the franchise...of course that's one of the reasons for the remastering. Why is that wrong?

Jimbo8012 (June 30, 2008 at 2:22 pm)

As stated previously, the re-mastering had to be done for HD-TV. Whilst I'm not disputing that some of the effects aren't the highest quality CGI there is nonetheless, a trade off. It would look somewhat incongruous if next to some incredible new CGI they kept all the other footage containing poor quality plastic sets etc. I think the way they've incorporated the effects is tasteful and believable. Simply put,it makes sense to do the remastering from a business and aesthetical perspective.

Jimbo8012 (June 30, 2008 at 1:55 pm)

It never ceases to amaze me how many morons there are on this planet. The remastering had to be done for High Definition. If you watch the episodes on HD-TV rather than on Youtube, you'll be amazed at the difference. Moreover, if you look closely, you'll see a vast difference between the quality of the non-effects footage and the effects footage of TOS pre-mastering. The changes had to be implemented otherwise it would have looked absolutely terrible.

CyprusCorners (June 30, 2008 at 3:02 am)

Bad case of "George Lucas".Then there's the rest of the show, from a good effect to carboard sets and bad uniforms.

audiotrax2000 (June 29, 2008 at 5:03 am)

If this was a home hobby I'd say great job - since it's being done to replace the original, this has to be one huge crime against a cultural work of art. Most of the cgi looks terrible, dated and flat compared to the 60's footage, and carries none of the weight and charm of what was accomplished back then on a limited budget. This is totally tasteless, and I agree it will look awful next to the orinal fx shots in 20 years. Stop messing with this!! :(

thechekov1701 (June 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm)

Some good transformations there but to be honest it's the stories and characters which made Star Trek so great not the visual effects. Still the planet scapes really impress me in the remastered but the ships just look very grey and lack detail.

cometaa12 (June 5, 2008 at 5:57 pm)

Paramount needs a new series instead of messing up the original that started it all. Some of the re-mastering is good but some of it looks like trash. The planets are fine but the ships look too detailed , look at the Botany Bay its all brown it's supposed to be gray!

drsjohnny (June 3, 2008 at 4:14 pm)

indeed i can't wait to find out what they look like than hopefully i'll be alive still than since i am only 21 lol

Zube1337 (June 3, 2008 at 7:40 am)

Some part from the TOS really quite funny.The TOR really make it more realistic.