Oh, that's not true at all. An example that comes to mind apropos is Robert Wise's million-years-later director's cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. New effects, some judicious editing.

Still the most atrocious movie. But improved.


There are many examples. It's case-by-case.

Whatwhatwhat?? They Special Editioned TOS? BOO. Case by case my ass!

Yeah, they did. Over two years (2006-2008) for re-release of the show into broadcast syndication. The changes are mostly in replacing model and matte shots with CGI. I've watched a couple episodes of the remastered stuff and nothing immediately jumped out at me as truly awful or game changing.

You can view a gallery of side-by-sides here.

Wow. I had no idea. And those shots are kind of...cool. Conflicted!!

Yeah, I was conflicted, too. Till I saw an episode. Then sold.

I respect that the people who cleaned up and polished TOS tried to remain true to the original. I also appreciate the beauty and coolness of the redo. But TOS is a product of its time and should be appreciated as such. As hokey and bad the sets, costumes, models, effects, etc. are, the scifi is great and the stories still stand the test of time.

When I began introducing my children to Trek I started them out with TOS. They've grown up in a world of CGI and near realistic special effects. So showing them how things used to be done, before the days of CG, was also part of the experience. And when 10-year-olds can fall in love with a cheesy looking TV show that's 30 years older than them...that's something special. It teaches them that there's more to scifi, and even movies/tv in general than the state of the science behind the tech that made it.

Yes. Cool special effects and big explosions are fine, but they are not what makes good science fiction.

BTW, thanks for that link, Alex. I am the most excited to watch the re-jiggered episodes.


I should get around to that sometime in 2010.

In your opinion. Obviously those who enjoyed the movie have a different opinion. I get that you didn't like the movie but do you have to constantly bash on those who did by implying we don't know what makes good science fiction or a good movie? "Good" is subjective.

I don't think JWBear was bashing or implying that others don't know good scifi. I think he was speaking generally that good scifi is more than just cool special effects. He was agreeing with my post directly above.