www.ditl.org

Why remaster TNG and DS9, they are only a few years old? Sure the bad kitbashes from DS9 in particular suck but honestly, we see them in distant background shots, they are pretty much negligible. Remastering 14 years of work just to get rid of a few ugly or ridiculous designs doesn't make much sense, especially since they only appear in a handful of obscure shots.

Enkidu wrote:What are people's opinions on a hypothetical TNG and DS9 remastered, such has been done (unseen by me) with TOS, with new FX shots where some of the kitbashed designs could be replaced by other ships, both ones from present canon and new, better designed vessels?
I've grown hostile to these kind of projects, largely thanks to a certain Mr G Lucas of Marin County, CA, USA, but some of the "Frankenstein ships" I would be glad to see the back of - the Curry Class in particular I can't bear to look at.
So do we accept these ships as inviolably canon, like it or not, or are people open to a little rewriting of ST history?

Personally, I'd be very cautiously in favour of changes, as long as the originals where not airbrushed from existence, as I feel it's important to be able to see things as they where first shown. It could also deal with some of the registry number and other inconsistencies.

I thought the curry was one of the more bearable examples.

Reliant121 wrote:I thought the curry was one of the more bearable examples.

Agreed. At least all the bits were from the same ship - in a way it could be seen as having the same relationship to the Excelsior as the Neb had to the Galaxy.

I hate the Curry with a true passion.
What I'm trying to say is should we accept what ships have gone on screen as absolutely set in stone, or is there the potential to alter ropey FX that where put in place due to cost, limitations of the FX technology at the time, or out and out mistakes? - An example been the K'tinga in Enterprise, which was supposed to have been a new effect model according to some sources, but the animators made an error.
Leaving aside the thorny questions of general 'Trek canonicity and continuity, is once a ship has appeared on screen, is it's position in canon permanent forever?

Personally i think it should be. I mean, it shows that Starfleet can make absolute TOTAL fuck ups compared to minor fuck ups that they usually make. And If i were desperate in war situations, i'd throw everything i had, even if i just bolted a gun to a fishing boat.

Enkidu wrote:I hate the Curry with a true passion.
What I'm trying to say is should we accept what ships have gone on screen as absolutely set in stone, or is there the potential to alter ropey FX that where put in place due to cost, limitations of the FX technology at the time, or out and out mistakes? - An example been the K'tinga in Enterprise, which was supposed to have been a new effect model according to some sources, but the animators made an error.
Leaving aside the thorny questions of general 'Trek canonicity and continuity, is once a ship has appeared on screen, is it's position in canon permanent forever?

Ask again in 25 years... If they start redoing everything because of people complaints about FX, mistakes and appearance where will it stop. They will be flooded by fanbois who have the perfect ship design for what the E-D should have looked like (which of course would include 20 Nacelles, 5 Phaser Cannons, a big ass sail hanging off the ass of the ship and Classed as the Uber-Cruiser)

Like I said, so many of these types of things, like the kitbashes, are seen in far off distant shots. Keep in mind that Kitbashing has given us many nice ships such as the Miranda and Nebula. In fact there are only a few ships which are "original" E-Nil, Excelsior, Galaxy, Sovereign, pretty much every other ship built for the Feds has been kitbashed in some way, mostly small and unnoticeable but in the real world thats how its done and most of the time it makes sense since it shows commonality and design progression.

I can't imagine that they will remaster TNG just to show a few different ship designs in tiny little background shots. There are a few things they could fix in terms of FX mistakes - most notably the phaser beams coming from the Captain's Yacht in Encounter at Farpoint and the torpedo launcher in Darmok. But for the most part TNG effects are pretty good, any improvement you could make to them would be pretty minor stuff.

And that goes more so for DS9, and more so again for Voyager. And when it comes to Ent, I don't see how they could reasonably improve them at all.

They could not release the whole series, except maybe the last 2 seasons.

In terms of FX though Ent was pretty good.

In that case, it was great otherwise, it was horrible.

Nickswitz wrote:In that case, it was great otherwise, it was horrible.

When the question is about remastering a series because of FX mistakes and appearance that is what matters...

Very true. So to be truthful, they shouldn't release it for other reasons, like it's horrifically low ratings and all. And it should be the first series remastered for reasons other than fx

The first two or three seasons of TNG have pretty poor SFX by todays standards. That episode where they fought the drones that got better everytime had some shocking sets and graphics.

As a whole, however, I don't think that we're at the point yet where remastering TNG would create enough of a difference to make it worthwhile.

Agreed, there's not enough justification. Fixing up one or two episodes isn't worth the cost and effort.