Not necessarily for first-generation Trekkies - Part 1
The Original Series was made with 1960's technology, and it worked well enough to be influential, even iconic, for over 40 years. Why mess with it?
Yes, Michael and Denise Okuda, and the FX techs who spoke in the commentaries, respected the original, but the entire effort seems to indicate either their own hubris that they could somehow "improve" it, or their doubt that younger viewers can adjust from 21st century CGI to appreciate Star Trek as it is.
I watched the whole 3rd season with the new digital effects, and thankfully, they didn't ruin the experience of the drama. But they did nothing to improve that experience, either.
Most of the time, replacing matte paintings of planets with CGI renderings was unobtrusive, and even unnoticed. But some things were joltingly out of place. In the Season One set, for example, the replacement of the mechanical flip-leaf chronometer on Sulu's console with an obvious digital "display" simply shocked me into realizing that they had tampered with the original. I found myself watching the disc, instead of being in the moment of the story. BTW - in the 1960's, the original hardware used in production was actually called a digital clock (as opposed to a round analog clock face). Again, a plank-owner might or might not experience this disturbance, and the new Trek fans probably wouldn't even notice the anachronism. But it's there, and it's disappointing.
To me, the biggest flaw is the digital ENTERPRISE. It is incomplete, like a bodysnatcher pod that hasn't finished replicating. The ship's curves are too smooth. Hull markings are faint, or not even reproduced. The rear of the engine nacelles aren't matched correctly, sometimes putting the gray hemispheres there, sometimes not. This ENTERPRISE is like those stress relief squeeze toys that come in the shape of animals or other objects; you just know if you touch it, it will be soft and squishy, not something that is space-worthy.
As I struggled to find words to explain this degradation of the image, I settled on comparing current TV ads of the Old Navy mannequins and the Pillsbury Dough Boy. You know the mannequins are real; Like the original ST scenes, they are photographs of models that actually, physically, exist. The Dough Boy and the digital ENTERPRISE are cartoons. After thinking of the Dough Boy comparison, I considered the Michelin Man, but that isn't right; the Michelin Man has more detail than the digital ENTERPRISE.
I'm sure for people under 40, who never lived in the 1960's and don't have the memory of how Trek fit into that period in history, the digital changes won't be as jolting as they are to someone who actually lived the Star Trek experience. Many folks in their 50's and older may like this re-creation of Star Trek, too.
I prefer Gene Roddenberry's original. It highlights how they were able to use existing technology and ingenuity to create the feel of space travel - and on a modest budget. Not the huge amount of money that CBS threw at this project. To me, this "upgrade" is, as Spock might say, a fascinating exercise in modern CGI. But when I want to watch Star Trek with these blu-ray discs, I'll always choose the original versions.
No room to say more. :c(Read full review
![Star Trek: The Original Series: Season 3 [New Blu-ray] Ac-3/Dolby Digital, Dol - Picture 1 of 1](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/8CEAAOSwUxFezewn/s-l500.jpg)
![Star Trek: The Original Series: Season 3 [Blu-ray]](https://ir.ebaystatic.com/rs/c/prpweb-src-images-space-98af7172.gif)