Star Trek TOS DVD Set: ugh

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by James Evans, Sep 1, 2004.

  1. James Evans

    James Evans Guest

    What happened here? Some of the effects scenes look
    terrible. They are all jumpy and grainy like the crappy local
    broadcasts I used to tape off Channel 46 years ago! Babylon 4 in the
    time rift never undulated as much as the 1701 does here! I mean, if
    you can't get a proper representation of the Enterprise in space near
    a planet, why bother? Did they not master it right or something? Or
    are the negatives just in lousy shape? And where is The Cage? Easter
    egg? ARGH! I paid all that money and this is what I got! Save your
    cash, folks.
     
    James Evans, Sep 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. James Evans wrote:
    > ...where is The Cage? Easter egg?


    It'll be included in the Season Three box, in both its color/B&W and
    full-color forms. Back when the show was issued two episodes to a disc,
    "The Cage" (both versions) made up the 40th and final disc, and Paramount
    seem to be following the same plan with the season sets.

    And no, I'm not sure why, either: the first season seems like a more
    logical place to put it.

    doug

    --
    "If this is not an exercise, could it be a...?"
    --Wire
     
    Douglas Bailey, Sep 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. James Evans

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "James Evans" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > What happened here? Some of the effects scenes look
    > terrible. They are all jumpy and grainy like the crappy local
    > broadcasts I used to tape off Channel 46 years ago!


    That's inherent to the source. It's the best they could do on a small TV
    budget back then.

    Duh.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Sep 1, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <eJbZc.7589$>,
    Joshua Zyber <> wrote:
    >"James Evans" <> wrote in message
    >news:eek:...
    >> What happened here? Some of the effects scenes look
    >> terrible. They are all jumpy and grainy like the crappy local
    >> broadcasts I used to tape off Channel 46 years ago!

    >
    >That's inherent to the source. It's the best they could do on a small TV
    >budget back then.



    Small budget, and no expectation of high-quality viewing.

    They used to show good film prints of the episodes at science
    fiction conventions. When projected onto a large screen, things
    like the wood grain on the bridge set became visible. That simply
    wasn't how it was made to be seen.

    <brag audience="geeks">
    I had the privilege as a teenager, and later as an adult, to visit
    the sets of the original series and of Next Generation. Even to
    a teen, the original set _felt_ like a set, obviously fake plywood,
    etc., though no less fun to play with for that. By contrast, the
    Next Gen set was more detailed, obviously intended for
    motion-picture-quality viewing, with fine details visible everywhere.
    Walking those corridors felt like being in a real place, even to
    a (presumably) more sophisticated adult.
    </brag>
     
    Michael Urban, Sep 1, 2004
    #4
  5. On 1 Sep 2004 12:48:38 -0400, (Michael Urban) wrote:

    >In article <eJbZc.7589$>,
    >Joshua Zyber <> wrote:
    >>"James Evans" <> wrote in message
    >>news:eek:...
    >>> What happened here? Some of the effects scenes look
    >>> terrible. They are all jumpy and grainy like the crappy local
    >>> broadcasts I used to tape off Channel 46 years ago!

    >>
    >>That's inherent to the source. It's the best they could do on a small TV
    >>budget back then.

    >
    >
    >Small budget, and no expectation of high-quality viewing.
    >
    >They used to show good film prints of the episodes at science
    >fiction conventions. When projected onto a large screen, things
    >like the wood grain on the bridge set became visible. That simply
    >wasn't how it was made to be seen.
    >
    ><brag audience="geeks">
    >I had the privilege as a teenager, and later as an adult, to visit
    >the sets of the original series and of Next Generation. Even to
    >a teen, the original set _felt_ like a set, obviously fake plywood,
    >etc., though no less fun to play with for that. By contrast, the
    >Next Gen set was more detailed, obviously intended for
    >motion-picture-quality viewing, with fine details visible everywhere.
    >Walking those corridors felt like being in a real place, even to
    >a (presumably) more sophisticated adult.
    ></brag>


    Cool! The closest I've come to touring any Trek is:

    -TOS: repeatedly poring over the official Enterprise blueprints
    -TNG: Las Vegas' "Star Trek: The Experience"
    -DS9: Same as TNG

    I met Armin "Quark" Shimmerman at ST:TE in LV, btw. He stated the
    mezzanine area was very close to the shooting set for DS9 but he may
    have just been trying to throw the fan-boy a bone.

    The Merry Piper
    Remove Your Coat To E-Mail
    [http://tmpiper.livejournal.com/]
     
    The Merry Piper, Sep 1, 2004
    #5
  6. James Evans

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Michael Urban" <> wrote in message
    news:ch4uh6$as4$...
    > <brag audience="geeks">
    > I had the privilege as a teenager, and later as an adult, to visit
    > the sets of the original series and of Next Generation. Even to
    > a teen, the original set _felt_ like a set, obviously fake plywood,
    > etc., though no less fun to play with for that. By contrast, the
    > Next Gen set was more detailed, obviously intended for
    > motion-picture-quality viewing, with fine details visible everywhere.
    > Walking those corridors felt like being in a real place, even to
    > a (presumably) more sophisticated adult.
    > </brag>


    Ironic, then, that the post-produced-on-film TOS is able to be
    remastered from the original film elements for optimal picture quality,
    while the post-produced-on-80s-analog-video TNG looks much worse.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Sep 2, 2004
    #6
  7. James Evans

    Con Guest

    > > ...where is The Cage? Easter egg?
    >
    > And no, I'm not sure why, either: the first season seems like a more
    > logical place to put it.


    My own educated guess is that the disc set for the 3rd season will
    have more "room" for such extras, since that season was several
    episodes shorter than the 1st two seasons. Also, we are lucky if we
    do get "The Cage" at all... let's not forget, that episode was
    technically NEVER actually broadcast in its entirety. It is not an
    official episode of the Original Series at all. Sorry, it's true!

    Con
     
    Con, Sep 8, 2004
    #7
  8. James Evans

    jayembee Guest

    "Con" <> wrote:

    > Also, we are lucky if we do get "The Cage" at all... let's not forget,
    > that episode was technically NEVER actually broadcast in its entirety.


    Yes, it was. It was "never actually broadcast in its entirety" *on
    NBC*, but it's been broadcast in syndication. Hell, I taped it off of
    Boston's WLVI about 10 years ago. It played as part of their regular
    cycle of STAR TREK reruns.

    > It is not an official episode of the Original Series at all. Sorry, it's true!


    But given that it's been released on VHS/Beta and LD along with the
    rest of the series, as well as released with the first DVD issues of
    the series, it's reasonable for consumers to expect it to be released
    in the new season sets.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Sep 8, 2004
    #8
  9. James Evans

    Steven Wandy Guest

    >> > ...where is The Cage? Easter egg?
    >>

    A friend of mine who is a DVD NUTCASE (collects EVERYTHING) has the original
    ST DVD series. The Cage was released on the last DVD of the set so he is
    assuming it will be on the Season 3 set. (Don't ask why???)
     
    Steven Wandy, Sep 8, 2004
    #9
  10. James Evans

    Bob Flaminio Guest

    Steven Wandy wrote:
    >>> > ...where is The Cage? Easter egg?
    >>>

    > A friend of mine who is a DVD NUTCASE (collects EVERYTHING) has the
    > original ST DVD series. The Cage was released on the last DVD of the
    > set so he is assuming it will be on the Season 3 set. (Don't ask
    > why???)


    It's actually quite, er, logical. The TOS DVDs are ordered by broadcast
    order, not production order. Technically, "The Cage" was the last TOS
    episode "broadcast", as it was not shown on television until long after
    the series was over. Ergo, if you number your episodes in broadcast
    order, "The Cage" becomes Episode #80, and therefore would go into the
    Season 3 set.

    Personally, I'd've much rather that they order them in production order,
    and have "The Cage" as the first episode, "WNMHGB" as the second, Balok
    on the third, and so on -- but no one asked me :-(.

    --
    Bob
     
    Bob Flaminio, Sep 9, 2004
    #10
  11. James Evans

    Jordan Lund Guest

    (Michael Urban) wrote in message news:<ch4uh6$as4$>...

    > They used to show good film prints of the episodes at science
    > fiction conventions. When projected onto a large screen, things
    > like the wood grain on the bridge set became visible. That simply
    > wasn't how it was made to be seen.


    On the original DVD releases you could see air bubbles in the stickers
    that look like monitors around the upper edge of the bridge. One of
    the "Next week..." trailers had Spock falling backwards and his hand
    actually went through the wall of the set.
     
    Jordan Lund, Sep 9, 2004
    #11
  12. James Evans

    JAM Guest

    Con wrote:
    >>>...where is The Cage? Easter egg?

    >>
    >>And no, I'm not sure why, either: the first season seems like a more
    >>logical place to put it.

    >
    >
    > My own educated guess is that the disc set for the 3rd season will
    > have more "room" for such extras, since that season was several
    > episodes shorter than the 1st two seasons. Also, we are lucky if we
    > do get "The Cage" at all... let's not forget, that episode was
    > technically NEVER actually broadcast in its entirety. It is not an
    > official episode of the Original Series at all. Sorry, it's true!
    >
    > Con
    >
    >

    Well, you're not wrong, but...pilot episodes do get included with many
    DVD packages, even if they weren't ever broadcast. It is not uncommon.
    The pilot gets included so we can see what they used to sell the
    series to the network. The Gilligan's Island pilot and the Munsters
    pilot each even had different actors playing some of the key roles. It
    was nice to see what the producers originally thought would be good, and
    what changes were made when the series was actually picked up. The Star
    Trek pilot had the same situation, with only the character of Spock
    being retained. Some pilots are included with longer "director's cuts"
    which also were not broadcast, but again we get to see what the
    producers would like to have broadcast. Malcolm in the Middle and
    Freaks and Geeks are two shows that come to mind.

    I agree with you that there will probably be more room on the third
    season, but I think it would have been more logical to put "The Cage" on
    the first season DVDs.
     
    JAM, Sep 9, 2004
    #12
  13. James Evans

    Troy Heagy Guest

    jayembee <>
    > "Con" <> wrote:
    > > Also, we are lucky if we do get "The Cage" at all... let's not forget,
    > > that episode was technically NEVER actually broadcast in its entirety.

    >
    > Yes, it was. It was "never actually broadcast in its entirety" *on
    > NBC*, but it's been broadcast in syndication. Hell, I taped it off of
    > Boston's WLVI about 10 years ago. It played as part of their regular
    > cycle of STAR TREK reruns.




    Bzzzz...wrong answer. (1) The Cage is about 1 hour 15 minutes long,
    so what you see is an edited version, and therefore NOT broadcast in
    its entirety.

    (2) The Cage was "lost" through the 70s & 80s, and not part of 70s/80s
    syndication runs. As I recall the first time *anyone* saw the show
    was circa 1991 & some of it was just still photos due to missing film.



    The Cage is a relatively new addition to the Star Trek series, and
    therefore considered a "bonus" by the long-term fans, because it never
    aired during the 60s, 70s, or 80s.

    Troy
     
    Troy Heagy, Sep 21, 2004
    #13
  14. James Evans

    Troy Heagy Guest

    "Bob Flaminio"
    > Personally, I'd've much rather that they order them in production order,
    > and have "The Cage" as the first episode, "WNMHGB" as the second, Balok
    > on the third, and so on -- but no one asked me :-(.




    I agree! It seems strange to see Dr. McCoy in that salt creature
    episode, and then suddenly everything changes in "Where No Man"... the
    doctor is different, ship is different, uniforms different, even Spock
    looks younger (and smirks!).

    It's strange.

    If aired in production order, you can rationalize that "Where No Man"
    happened about one year earlier before a ship-wide retrofit.
     
    Troy Heagy, Sep 21, 2004
    #14
  15. James Evans

    Troy Heagy Guest

    (Michael Urban)
    > Joshua Zyber <> wrote:
    > >"James Evans" <> wrote in message>

    >
    > >> What happened here? Some of the effects scenes look
    > >> terrible. They are all jumpy and grainy like the crappy local
    > >> broadcasts I used to tape off Channel 46 years ago!

    > >
    > >That's inherent to the source. It's the best they could do on a small TV
    > >budget back then.

    >
    > Small budget, and no expectation of high-quality viewing.





    I STRONGLY disagree with that excuse. I have DS9's "Trials &
    Tribble-ations" on DVD, and the way they cleaned up the
    Kirk/Spock/Scotty film is *amazing*. It looks like they just filmed
    the stuff yesterday. You can even see a coffee stain on Spock's
    shirt.

    They could have/should have down the same with the TOS DVDs
    (especially for the $120 pricetag).


    Troy
     
    Troy Heagy, Sep 21, 2004
    #15
  16. James Evans

    Elvis Gump Guest

    in article , Troy Heagy at
    wrote on 09/21/2004 04:39 PM:

    > (Michael Urban)
    >> Joshua Zyber <> wrote:


    >>> "James Evans" <> wrote in message>


    >>>> What happened here? Some of the effects scenes look
    >>>> terrible. They are all jumpy and grainy like the crappy local
    >>>> broadcasts I used to tape off Channel 46 years ago!


    >>> That's inherent to the source. It's the best they could do on a small TV
    >>> budget back then.


    >> Small budget, and no expectation of high-quality viewing.


    > I STRONGLY disagree with that excuse. I have DS9's "Trials &
    > Tribble-ations" on DVD, and the way they cleaned up the
    > Kirk/Spock/Scotty film is *amazing*. It looks like they just filmed
    > the stuff yesterday. You can even see a coffee stain on Spock's
    > shirt.


    They probably had the advantage of a very good print of the TOS stuff and
    beefed it up with the CG recreation of the original ship and K9 station.
    I've only seen it once when Spike reran it and you see a lot less of the
    original footage than you think you do. And some of it I think features
    elements from other episodes such as where they drop Sisko in at the end
    talking to Kirk. I'm not geek enough to know what episode that's actually
    from.

    > They could have/should have down the same with the TOS DVDs
    > (especially for the $120 pricetag).
    >
    > Troy


    One of the things that makes some restorations possible is having the
    original camera negatives and FX elements to rescan at hi-res and clean it
    up, recomposite FX if necessary and either master that for DVD and/or output
    it back out to film. In the case of Trek I seriously doubt they took good
    care of the original elements. The original blue-screen elements of the
    original model are probably long gone and even the model has been through so
    much it doesn't look like it did in TV days anymore.

    There were stories of GR raiding the archives after the series was over and
    looked dead forever to cut up prints to sell as little mounted cels through
    his Lincoln Enterprises thing. I'm not optimistic that there are but a
    handful of 35mm prints of the original episodes in existence. The cost of
    restoring 60 some odd hours of footage the series probably adds up to
    digitally would be astronomical even now.

    There's a profile of the place that has a G5 Mac server farm that did the
    restoration of the original SW stuff tonight on G4/TechTV's "The Screen
    Savers" so I'm interested to hear if they give financial figures on what
    that cost.

    I'm sure there are enough fans out there that would love to fire up
    Lightwave and Alias and Maya and such to make new improved effects that
    matched or improved original FX stuff that's missing like Lucas did (and got
    criticized for mostly unjustly).

    I've seen a lot of fan rendered 3D models that look as good or better than
    the stuff from "Trials & Tribble-ations" if Paramount insists on being cheap
    should think about tapping for any future HD-DVD release of TOS. I'd love to
    work on some stuff like that.
    --
    "Now, Marge, it's not our place to judge.
    That's the job of an angry and vengeful god..."
    -- Homer Simpson
     
    Elvis Gump, Sep 22, 2004
    #16
  17. James Evans

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <>, Troy
    Heagy <> wrote:

    > jayembee <>
    > > "Con" <> wrote:
    > > > Also, we are lucky if we do get "The Cage" at all... let's not forget,
    > > > that episode was technically NEVER actually broadcast in its entirety.

    > >
    > > Yes, it was. It was "never actually broadcast in its entirety" *on
    > > NBC*, but it's been broadcast in syndication. Hell, I taped it off of
    > > Boston's WLVI about 10 years ago. It played as part of their regular
    > > cycle of STAR TREK reruns.

    >
    >
    >
    > Bzzzz...wrong answer. (1) The Cage is about 1 hour 15 minutes long,
    > so what you see is an edited version, and therefore NOT broadcast in
    > its entirety.
    >

    Ah, the real reason the first pilot was rejected: Roddenbury couldn't
    bring one in at the right time :)

    (or is that longer version made up of cut footage tossed back in just
    because it no longer had to fit a timeslot?)

    > (2) The Cage was "lost" through the 70s & 80s, and not part of 70s/80s
    > syndication runs. As I recall the first time *anyone* saw the show
    > was circa 1991 & some of it was just still photos due to missing film.
    >

    It only existed in full in B&W. First version I saw inserted color
    footage from the existing two part episode (too lazy to look up the
    name).

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
     
    Invid Fan, Sep 22, 2004
    #17
  18. James Evans

    Video Flyer Guest

    On 9/21/04 8:19 PM, in article 210920042119066833%, "Invid
    Fan" <> wrote:

    > In article <>, Troy
    > Heagy <> wrote:
    >
    >> jayembee <>
    >>> "Con" <> wrote:
    >>>> Also, we are lucky if we do get "The Cage" at all... let's not forget,
    >>>> that episode was technically NEVER actually broadcast in its entirety.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, it was. It was "never actually broadcast in its entirety" *on
    >>> NBC*, but it's been broadcast in syndication. Hell, I taped it off of
    >>> Boston's WLVI about 10 years ago. It played as part of their regular
    >>> cycle of STAR TREK reruns.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Bzzzz...wrong answer. (1) The Cage is about 1 hour 15 minutes long,
    >> so what you see is an edited version, and therefore NOT broadcast in
    >> its entirety.
    >>

    > Ah, the real reason the first pilot was rejected: Roddenbury couldn't
    > bring one in at the right time :)
    >
    > (or is that longer version made up of cut footage tossed back in just
    > because it no longer had to fit a timeslot?)
    >
    >> (2) The Cage was "lost" through the 70s & 80s, and not part of 70s/80s
    >> syndication runs. As I recall the first time *anyone* saw the show
    >> was circa 1991 & some of it was just still photos due to missing film.
    >>

    > It only existed in full in B&W. First version I saw inserted color
    > footage from the existing two part episode (too lazy to look up the
    > name).




    "The Menagerie"

    :)


    Neal
    --
    "If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous
     
    Video Flyer, Sep 22, 2004
    #18
  19. James Evans

    jayembee Guest

    (Troy Heagy) wrote:

    >jayembee <>
    >> "Con" <> wrote:
    >> > Also, we are lucky if we do get "The Cage" at all... let's not forget,
    >> > that episode was technically NEVER actually broadcast in its entirety.

    >>
    >> Yes, it was. It was "never actually broadcast in its entirety" *on
    >> NBC*, but it's been broadcast in syndication. Hell, I taped it off of
    >> Boston's WLVI about 10 years ago. It played as part of their regular
    >> cycle of STAR TREK reruns.

    >
    > Bzzzz...wrong answer. (1) The Cage is about 1 hour 15 minutes long,
    > so what you see is an edited version, and therefore NOT broadcast in
    > its entirety.


    Bzzzzz...not wrong. What I taped ran 70 minutes, plus or minus (not
    including commercials).

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Sep 22, 2004
    #19
  20. James Evans

    Troy Heagy Guest

    Elvis Gump
    TROY:
    > > I STRONGLY disagree with that excuse. I have DS9's "Trials &
    > > Tribble-ations" on DVD, and the way they cleaned up the
    > > Kirk/Spock/Scotty film is *amazing*. It looks like they just filmed
    > > the stuff yesterday. You can even see a coffee stain on Spock's
    > > shirt.

    >
    > They probably had the advantage of a very good print of the TOS stuff and
    > beefed it up with the CG recreation of the original ship and K9 station.
    > I've only seen it once when Spike reran it and you see a lot less of the
    > original footage than you think you do.



    (sigh) The *point* is that they DID clean up the TOS actor footage to
    "just filmed yesterday" quality, and they COULD do the same thing
    again for the DVDs. But they are either too cheap or too lazy to do
    so. (Probably the former.)

    Paramount is charging $120 a season & should have plenty of money in
    their pocket to do clean-up work. There is no excuse for them to
    produce pristine Kirk/Spock/Scotty footage for the DS9 episode, but
    grainy/dirty prints for the TOS DVD.




    If the film is of inferior quality, I might as well just stick to my
    VHS collection. No reason to upgrade to DVD if the product is
    grainy/dirty and not improved.

    Troy
     
    Troy Heagy, Sep 22, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Philby©

    Star Trek TOS - DVD Boxed Sets?

    Philby©, Apr 14, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    894
    Jerry
    Apr 27, 2004
  2. RR
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    767
    Larry Gold
    Sep 5, 2004
  3. Spiralmind

    Problem with Star Trek TOS season 2 DVD

    Spiralmind, Feb 6, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    430
    FAQmeister
    Feb 7, 2005
  4. Charles Davis
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    834
    Napalm68
    Dec 31, 2005
  5. Steve

    Copyright - ugh ugh ugh

    Steve, Oct 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    953
    AustinMN
    Oct 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page