The Star Trek III (Back from the Dead) Thread

[quote name='BattleChicken']I can't imagine caring about HD vs non-HD for Star Trek. Star Trek certainly had some special effects, but I don't think that the scale and scope of the special effects warrant the HD price tag.[/quote]

Who said anything about price tag? We're CAGs. We want it for less than the DVDs cost. :lol:

Yesterday, I saw the TNG complete series set at Costco for $184, which is just a little bit over $1 per episode. That's pretty good.

But why would I buy it with Blu-Rays on the horizon? I want to see Riker's pores, dammit. And the upholstery on the chairs and the carpet in those hallways!

Anyone remember when they'd slap two episodes on a VHS tape and charge $20 for it?
 
The TOS BD sets went on sale at Best Buy semi-close to release of TOS S3 to BD, so if you wait them out for a while, you'll likely get them for cheaper than the $70 - $80 / season they'll come out at.
 
Why would you buy it at all when you can stream every episode for $9 a month through Netflix?

Perhaps after they're no longer available streaming I'd consider picking up the series, but the most fiscally responsible thing to do is take advantage of the lowest-cost option to watch the shows.

I'm honestly not trying to troll you guys, I just think the price is pretty high even considering the number of episodes per season. TNG is going to be at prices higher than ANIME - that's pretty unreal to me, and there's something about a paying a really high price for a series that was broadcast on the air for free that bothers me. In general, I won't buy ANY OTA TV series for anything more than $20 per season.

EDIT: to be clear, my position is a personal preference not at all a judgement on other people's choices to buy or not buy the bluray release.
 
Well remember TNG was shown during the SD era...now that we have moving away from that, shows like that don't hold too well on today's HDTV's.

Honestly season 1-3 looked a little dim back in the day. The demo disc is probably going to be the deciding factor weither or not people are willing to pay 100 dollars or more (again) for each season. They picked the pilot and two award winning shows, which is a good choice for stories, but not for visual presentations. Pretty much all the studio models have been sold off, so they can't refilm the ship shots. However if they preserved the original footage of the ship shots, then I am sure it's going to look good, but honestly would have loved to have seen all the fx's redone for hd.

I am confused as to why it's claiming 1080p 1.33:1....that worries me. I don't like watching 4x3 video on my 16x9 hdtv.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Here is a comparison shot someone did.
http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/images/tng-comparison-2.jpg[/QUOTE]


hmmm...

Shouldn't the saucer engine impulse engines be glowing as well or is that only when in saucer separation mode?

It's honestly really hard to judge right now unless we get the full opening video. I know that they rebuilt the ship and gave it more details around the 4th season. The ship looks too modelish in the HD side...which could be a problem.

hmm I just looked more into the site..
http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/index.html

Looks like they balanced out the colors in season 1..which I am glad since season 1 and season 2 seemed a bit muggy.
 
the trek irony...

...watching Transformers 3...

...the little robot hops on the couch, says hey this is the episode Spock gets angry

...the irony is Sentinel Prime is voiced by Lenard Nimoy, the original Spock, and Sentinel Prime seems very angry most of the film lol
 
[quote name='CaptainKirk']the trek irony...

...watching Transformers 3...

...the little robot hops on the couch, says hey this is the episode Spock gets angry

...the irony is Sentinel Prime is voiced by Lenard Nimoy, the original Spock, and Sentinel Prime seems very angry most of the film lol[/QUOTE]

Um, that's not the point at all. They're watching Amok Time and they say "This is the one where Spock goes nuts."

Which is relevant because
Sentinel Prime, who is voiced by Nimoy, turns evil

It's not irony at all, not even to Alanis Morissette. It's
foreshadowing

There was an article in the paper recently on how Leonard Nimoy was attending his last Star Trek convention. He'd been doing them for almost 30 years and thought the 45th anniversary of Trek would be a good time to call it quits with respect to appearances.
 
I saw his second to last appearance in Vegas, and it was one of the most genuine, touching panels I've ever seen. When he was finishing up, you could tell he was letting go of something very important to him.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']JJ wants Benicio Del Torro to play the villian in Star Trek 2.

Also, The Captains is on Netflix streaming.[/QUOTE]

Rumor is he'll be playing
K-H-A-A-A-A-A-N-N-!!!!

Cool, I'll have to catch The Captains, thanks.
 
[quote name='keithp']Rumor is he'll be playing
K-H-A-A-A-A-A-N-N-!!!!

Cool, I'll have to catch The Captains, thanks.[/QUOTE]

How is this a rumor?

A well known hispanic actor is hired for a role in the Star Trek franchise. Hum I wonder what the roll will be. :roll:

It will be space seed with lens flare. I can't wait(seriously). JJ needs to hurry the fuck up before Leonard Nimoy kicks the bucket.

Sorry if I come off as a dick.
 
In rewatching the entire TNG series, I have to say that my least favorite episodes by far are the ones where they return back in time or roleplay. The only exception might be the one with Mark Twain but ironically, it's easily the most stupid.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']Good article at Topless Robot: The 11 Greatest Star Trek: Deep Space 9 Supporting Characters[/QUOTE]

As soon as I clicked on it I thought "Gul Dukat has it locked" then when I read their reasoning for Garak it gave me slight cause to reconsider. In the end though I have to go with Dukat. He, without a doubt, had the most fun character arcs of not only any character in DS9 but in all of Star Trek. The back and forth of him when he was a character you kind of rooted for to (as the article pointed out) a character whose ruthlessness was only matched by Khan was absolutely excellent viewing.

I still think Garak had a very excellent story arc as well but essentially he was basically the "hero version" of Dukat with the addition of a "mysterious past." Now don't get me wrong, I'm not selling Garak short by any stretch of the imagination but I've gotta say he's only slightly edged out by Dukat.

At the end of the day though, this entire list (Weyoun, Martok, also f-ing excellent characters as well) speaks of how absolutely amazing the characterizations were in DS9. The fact that there were so many great characters and even characters that were taken to new and much more interesting heights (O'Brien and Worf) beyond their somewhat simplistic characters in TNG. The more I think about it, I'm really thinking that was probably why DS9 was so much better than Voyager and Enterprise, their characters were so damn compelling.

Damn, I really rambled on here, didn't I? Ah well.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/14/new-trailer-for-star-trek-tng-remastered/

Hmmm.... the latest screen caps are starting to impress me..... I was really hoping for redone sfx :(

The DVD presentation was murky all the way thru :( .... I don't like that "24 years in the making"............. ok, then that better be 24 years of restoration lol.[/QUOTE]


Wow, that looks great. But I've already watched TNG enough that by the time I have the urge to watch it again the entire show will be in blu ray and cheap enough for me to pick up.

Also for all the Trek fans interested in the MMO. Star trek online F2P was pushed back to Jan 17th.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']Good article at Topless Robot: The 11 Greatest Star Trek: Deep Space 9 Supporting Characters[/QUOTE]
What? No Liquidator Brunt? They had a lot of good characters that don't even make the list, Eddington, Grand Nagus Zek, Ziyal, Vedek Bareil, Tain, Sisko's father, never liked Kasidy Yates though.

The nice thing about big budget shows is the ability to have such a large cast of quality recurring characters.
 
Now back when it was originally released on TV, it looked pretty good in SD. For the DVD release, they probably used a shitty codec and compression level that made things murky so that they could squeeze 4-5 episodes per disc. They were meant for the SD Era, which is now slowly fading away and the level of quality is poor for the HD era. With new codecs and compression techniques, I am pretty sure we are going to get what we saw back in the broadcast days, with some digital fixing. What I am wondering is :

-How much is this project costing Paramount a season.
-How much will be passed down to consumers when the first full season arrives?....200 dollars per season?
-Will they add more material that was not included in the original DVD release like out takes, bloopers, test shots and so on to make it worth the price they are asking for or is it just porting over what we had before?
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']Now back when it was originally released on TV, it looked pretty good in SD. For the DVD release, they probably used a shitty codec and compression level that made things murky so that they could squeeze 4-5 episodes per disc. They were meant for the SD Era, which is now slowly fading away and the level of quality is poor for the HD era. With new codecs and compression techniques, I am pretty sure we are going to get what we saw back in the broadcast days, with some digital fixing. What I am wondering is :

-How much is this project costing Paramount a season.
-How much will be passed down to consumers when the first full season arrives?....200 dollars per season?
-Will they add more material that was not included in the original DVD release like out takes, bloopers, test shots and so on to make it worth the price they are asking for or is it just porting over what we had before?[/QUOTE]

I would expect the HD sets to cost no more then 80 bucks a season. That's how much the TNG sets cost when they first came out and plenty of trek fans paid that much. Remember Trek fans have been buying the shows to watch at home since the VHS days. They are used to spending too much.

Any more then 80 bucks per season will make sure only die hards pick it up.

I'm sure it cost paramount a ton of money to make TNG in HD but they also now have the possiblity to sindicate it in HD like they did with TOS. That alone I bet will cover the cost of redoing the show.
 
[quote name='KingDox']I would expect the HD sets to cost no more then 80 bucks a season. That's how much the TNG sets cost when they first came out and plenty of trek fans paid that much. Remember Trek fans have been buying the shows to watch at home since the VHS days. They are used to spending too much.

Any more then 80 bucks per season will make sure only die hards pick it up.

I'm sure it cost paramount a ton of money to make TNG in HD but they also now have the possiblity to sindicate it in HD like they did with TOS. That alone I bet will cover the cost of redoing the show.[/QUOTE]

At that time (2002), I paid 100 bucks at best buy "on sale". Then they cranked the price up to 110-120.
 
its sad how fast the Blu-Ray feature films (1-6) and (Next Gen) went 60% off, good for my wallet, bad for my appreciation of the series
 
[quote name='Javery']LOL I forgot Data was dead. He's not really though, right? Nemesis was a bad dream if I remember correctly...[/QUOTE]

Yeah... I enjoyed Nemesis and don't quite understand all the flack it gets, but the ending with Data was totally unnecessary. I guess for the final TNG film, it was a bit underwhelming, just felt like a high-budget, long episode, but I certainly didn't hate it.
 
[quote name='Javery']LOL I forgot Data was dead. He's not really though, right? Nemesis was a bad dream if I remember correctly...[/QUOTE]

...Read Star Trek Countdown (the tie in comic for Star Trek 2009)
 
[quote name='johnnypark']Yeah... I enjoyed Nemesis and don't quite understand all the flack it gets.[/QUOTE]

StarTrek-Nemesis_F06x-thumb.jpg
 
I just started to watch enterprise and damn I am really enjoying it. I just finished season 1 and am now said that there are only 3 seasons total.
 
I have really gotten into TNG despite not being a very big Star Trek fan in the past. I've been watching episode by episode and am now somewhere in season 4. I have a question that my friends (who are bigger Trekkies than I) and I have been having a hard time figuring out though:

If 2 federation starships were heading toward each other, both with full power to shields, would they collide? Would the shields act like bubbles and they bounce off each other? Would the shields meld into one massive shield and then the starships collide?

Let's say they're running on quarter impulse power or just kind of drifting toward one another, not warp 9 or anything like that.
 
[quote name='supermodestmouse']
If 2 federation starships were heading toward each other, both with full power to shields, would they collide? Would the shields act like bubbles and they bounce off each other? Would the shields meld into one massive shield and then the starships collide?

Let's say they're running on quarter impulse power or just kind of drifting toward one another, not warp 9 or anything like that.[/QUOTE]

My gut feeling is that they would bounce off each other and not take damage. However, the technique of ramming has been brought up several times, and I don't think the ships doing the ramming have ever dropped their shields.

Consulting Wikipedia:
The Making of Star Trek stated that shields are force fields similar in nature to the navigational deflector. The force shield totally envelops the ship.
Click to expand...
That provides evidence for bouncing.

Memory Alpha says :
When shields are "up," or energized at a high level, most matter or energy that comes into contact with the shields will be harmlessly deflected away.
Click to expand...
Also evidence for bouncing.

However, Star Wars vs. Star Trek has a bunch of sourced stuff on its site that point in the other direction:

A shielded GCS cannot withstand a physical impact sufficient to accelerate its entire mass to a few kilometres per second (source: The Naked Now, TNG)
Click to expand...
GCS is (I assume) Galaxy Class Starship

The Naked Now had a chunk of exploding star coming at the Enterprise. I don't remember the size (it would matter if it was several times bigger than the Enterprise or the same size) but if the only criteria is that the physical impact accelerate the mass to kilometers per second, anything but the slowest moving ships would collide and not bounce.

Small physical impactors will actually bounce off a Federation shield.(source: The Hunted, TNG)
Click to expand...
And, while this doesn't prove that large ones wouldn't bounce, it certainly implies it.

So I guess the evidence points to collision, not bouncing. Of course, if we wanted a way out, we could invent a technobabble reason -- perhaps two Federation ships would have the same shield harmonics/frequencies, which would cause them to bounce instead of collide.

After all, the most important question is: what does the plot need?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Meh. Something for the fanbois to bitch about.[/QUOTE]

Have you seen Mr. Plinkett's review of Nemesis? (It's 38 minutes, but it's a better time investment than, say, watching Nemesis again) The car chase was dumb enough on its own, but it was inserted into Nemesis because Patrick Stewart likes cars and let the writer know in no uncertain terms that he'd be happier with the script if he could be driving a dune buggy. Seriously. That's why it's in the movie.

So this entire sequence, which has nothing to do with established Star Trek and flies in the face of logic (why would you have a space ATV when you have a shuttlecraft?), was put in the movie by an actor because he wanted to film one of his hobbies.

I lost a little respect for Stewart when I found that out. It's one thing to lobby for your interests when they make sense in the story -- I don't think anyone would object to Picard reciting Shakespeare. It's quite another when they help turn an already stupid movie into an even bigger cinematic turd.

Of course, the balance of what Stewart to Star Trek is so overwhelmingly positive that it's just best to ignore the couple of times he made viewers suffer because of his personal likes. And it's yet another reason to pretend that Nemesis never happened.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']have you seen mr. Plinkett's review of nemesis? (it's 38 minutes, but it's a better time investment than, say, watching nemesis again) the car chase was dumb enough on its own, but it was inserted into nemesis because patrick stewart likes cars and let the writer know in no uncertain terms that he'd be happier with the script if he could be driving a dune buggy. Seriously. That's why it's in the movie.

So this entire sequence, which has nothing to do with established star trek and flies in the face of logic (why would you have a space atv when you have a shuttlecraft?), was put in the movie by an actor because he wanted to film one of his hobbies.

I lost a little respect for stewart when i found that out. It's one thing to lobby for your interests when they make sense in the story -- i don't think anyone would object to picard reciting shakespeare. It's quite another when they help turn an already stupid movie into an even bigger cinematic turd.

Of course, the balance of what stewart to star trek is so overwhelmingly positive that it's just best to ignore the couple of times he made viewers suffer because of his personal likes. And it's yet another reason to pretend that nemesis never happened.[/quote]

k.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']You can say that, but that whole scene was unnecessary and stupid, like a lot of Nemesis.[/QUOTE]

I find it funny that people bitch about that and not replacing Data with a tard. Or bitching about that part first. I preferred it to random transporter beaming or a bunch of random walking. Provided a bit of humor, too.

If you're bitching about the movie in general, it's such a small part of what's wrong with it that it's hard for me to get worked up over it.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I find it funny that people bitch about that and not replacing Data with a tard. Or bitching about that part first. I preferred it to random transporter beaming or a bunch of random walking. Provided a bit of humor, too.

If you're bitching about the movie in general, it's such a small part of what's wrong with it that it's hard for me to get worked up over it.[/QUOTE]
I'm not worked up about it. It's a dumb scene. I'm allowed to express my opinion on it without it being construed as "AWW MY GAAH WORSE MOVIE EVAR"
I also didn't excuse the rest of the movie. The whole movie was pretty stupid, and insulting as a whole.
 
[quote name='KingDox']I just started to watch enterprise and damn I am really enjoying it. I just finished season 1 and am now said that there are only 3 seasons total.[/QUOTE]
Very underrated series. Last season was great.

[quote name='supermodestmouse']I have really gotten into TNG despite not being a very big Star Trek fan in the past. I've been watching episode by episode and am now somewhere in season 4. I have a question that my friends (who are bigger Trekkies than I) and I have been having a hard time figuring out though:

If 2 federation starships were heading toward each other, both with full power to shields, would they collide? Would the shields act like bubbles and they bounce off each other? Would the shields meld into one massive shield and then the starships collide?

Let's say they're running on quarter impulse power or just kind of drifting toward one another, not warp 9 or anything like that.[/QUOTE]
If they were emitting at the same frequency, it would be as if they weren't there and the ships would collide. If they were at different frequencies(and they should be), they would overload on impact and the ships would collide. Thanks for playing. :D
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']You in general, not you in specific.

I thought it was lazy, not stupid.[/QUOTE]
I feel you. I'll agree to it being lazy, but I also think it was stupid. To each his own though. :cool:
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']I'll agree to it being lazy, but I also think it was stupid.[/QUOTE]

It was lazy and stupid. Cochese's point about it being a drop in the lazy/stupid bucket is well taken, but still: it's a goddamn dune buggy in Star Trek. Thematically it's just something that shouldn't be there.

If you're in a ST thread to hold everything to a summer action flick standard, then sure, it's just a dune buggy, what's the big deal? But if you've been with ST long enough, then your expectations are as much scifi as they are action. And that's where things like the dune buggy stand out. The fact that it somehow passed the smell test is evidence of how removed everyone involved was from the process of making a compelling ST movie.

I'm well aware of the fact that there's a litany of offenses in the TNG episodes alone to bicker over the suspension of disbelief, but it's a DUNE BUGGY. Don't act like it isn't a dune buggy. It was a dune buggy.

Not a ship, not a ship, not a ship. DUNE BUGGY.

Iverson.jpg
 
I think it's one of those things where we'd like to see them go full nerd all the time, but you're not likely to get a movie (or even TV show) made like that. I view it as a plot device. Otherwise, you probably have to cut out the entire sequence of them finding retardo Data. I don't see them being able to do it in another way that wouldn't leave the audience bored.

I think in Hollywood, you'd rather have a dumb audience than no audience at all.

But perhaps I'm weird. I enjoyed Insurrection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top