What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
Hot Date? Find The Right Spot. view!
bing.com - We'll help you decide where to eat, drink and have a good time!
88 Comments
- michaelpinto, on 04/24/2009, -0/+48My favorite bit of trivia about this episode: "When doing makeup tests for Vina as an Orion slave girl, with Majel Barrett as a willing test subject, the film kept coming back without the green skin being visible. Puzzled by this, the makeup crew kept painting the actress again and again with other shades of green, hoping it would be visible on film. Afterward, they discovered that the film processing lab was "de-coloring" her because they didn't know she was supposed to be green."
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Cage_(episode) - EMFK, on 04/24/2009, -0/+31The original Star Trek was the best----cheesy effects and all. :-)
- zip000, on 04/24/2009, -0/+19That's pretty interesting.
An alternate interpretation:
The film crew used that as an excuse to keep painting her. - rchrdcrg, on 04/24/2009, -1/+16I like that they're doing this, and I'm so annoyed by all of the trekkies screaming about these remasters, including the hack who wrote this article. It's as if everyone's worried that the original, un-remastered versions will simply disappear... same ***** as Star Wars... if you like the older versions, then just go ***** watch the older versions and quit your whining... ugh, seriously.
Bravo on the remaster... it looks amazing from the Youtube preview. - Janinco, on 04/24/2009, -1/+15I wouldn't call it cheesy...OK, maybe it was just a little...
- JAGUART, on 04/24/2009, -1/+12The remastered TOS effects are done reasonably subtle, and although as the article states "a bit too CGI" , they are done in the spirit of the original Trek.
- pe5t1lence, on 04/24/2009, -2/+11Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus, a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffrey Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on "Star Trek." Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins but not quite up to the task of seducing green women.
- surfacewound, on 04/24/2009, -0/+9It's amazing to me that the series ended 40 years ago, despite the cheesy effects and props there's something about it that still feels fresh whenever I see it.
- GuyDanger, on 04/24/2009, -1/+8That CGI was awful! Maybe they will remaster it in a couple years and get it right!
BTW does it bug anyone else, that in the new movie they build the enterprise on earth? I mean every other sci fi movie/show out there including star trek, they always build these things out in space. Make sense to me, getting this thing off the ground would be impossible! Anyways that's my nerd rant for the day. Hopefully it still rocks. - Cojafoji, on 04/24/2009, -2/+8Uh huh. Dude, Shatner ***** MADE that role.
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -0/+6Here's a dirty little secret:
Your parents were too cheap to buy a color TV. All of those shows you cherish in their 'original black and white?' They were in color. - Steeple, on 04/24/2009, -0/+6i thought the Talosians were REALLY effective, there was something really "odd" about them, years later i found out they were actually little old ladies under the make-up!
- asgardshill, on 04/24/2009, -0/+6Slightly creepy trivia: Jeffrey Hunter (Captain Pike) was only 43 when he died in 1969 of complications arising from repeated strokes. Keep an eye on that blood pressure, folks.
- V1ncent, on 04/24/2009, -0/+5Unfortunately the people in charge of making new Star Treks these days (series and movies) seem clueless as to why Trek was great.
Enterprise suffered from bad writing, too-god CGI (a ship prior to the STOS Enterprise should NOT look better) and muckign with historical events fans knew. - woodrail, on 04/24/2009, -0/+5I agree completely.
- jezsik, on 04/24/2009, -0/+4I remember reading somewhere that many of the plots were taken from ancient Greek comedies and tragedies. Timeless stuff. The more recent series seem to follow soap operas more than anything else.
- Suzilla, on 04/24/2009, -0/+4Roddenberry's description of how he sold the show as a "western, set in outer space -- spaceships instead of horses, phasers instead of guns" was one aspec of "Firefly" that I thought was particularly cool. Wheedon seemed to have gone back to GR's original premise (or selling point) and run with THAT rather than getting all strung up with technology and CGI.
ST:TOS & Firefly -- FTW! - byronm, on 04/24/2009, -0/+4But does cleaning up the moview and preserving it for future generations really detract from the writing?
Don't think so. - ontain, on 04/24/2009, -2/+6I have to agree with the writer. I watched the original series as a child and still thought the effects were cheesy for the time. but the writing was so beyond what most shows had. That's why I kept watching.
- nesagwa, on 04/24/2009, -2/+5The difference between the Star Trek and Star Wars "remasters" is that the original StarWars movies were unavailable on DVD for a very long time - and even after they were release they were just ripped from the LaserDisc version with a 2.1 stereo mix from the mid 90s. While the new versions added many frivolous scenes and changed story elements.
The Star Trek ones are different. The whole original series is on DVD and the HD remaster only replaces things you see on the viewscreen like planets and other ships and any shots of the enterprise. Those scenes looked like ***** originally, it was a TV show, there was no budget for that kind of thing. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -1/+4What are you talking about? It was filmed in color.
- ontain, on 04/24/2009, -1/+4I agree. space dock would have been more energy efficient too.
- korvan504521, on 04/24/2009, -0/+3I agree, Firefly was great. Some aspects did feel a bit "tacked on" and a lot of the universe's basic rules should have been better explained.
Example: They're using primitive guns, which is perfectly believable given the fact that much of the series takes place on the edge of civilization. A shotgun is an extremly simple weapon that hasn't changed significantly in almost a hundred years. The original colt 1911 is still fundamentally the same pistol as the Kimber 1911 that both the marines and many police departments use today. But they gave them stupid sound effects instead of making them fire like actual weapons. A primitve colony would be better off using black powder than some wierd high tech weapon, that just happens to look like a 1911 colt. - shark72, on 04/24/2009, -0/+3Agreed. To me, the effects look like what the producers would have done in the 1960s if they'd had a bigger budget.
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -1/+4This is not Star Trek season 1. This is the original pilot, the rejected pilot for the show that forced Roddenberry to retool the entire thing, that was never aired until decades after the original series.
- Dalhectar, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2Do you remember When G4 did that Star War 2.0 thing, with all that crap around the screen?
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2Hunter couldn't come back to do the show after the first pilot was rejected. They had to recast.
- gordonp, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2Star Trek 2.0?
- KrayzieKyd, on 04/24/2009, -1/+3This article came out today? Star Trek Season 1 remastered has been out for over a year. This is obviously not a true Star Trek fan if he just now found out about the CGI and remastering. It's "remastered" for a reason. You don't "remaster" and make it look like ***** at the same time.
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -1/+3Nowhere in the original Trek series was it stated that Enterprise was built in space.
It *was* refit in space, we saw that in the first movie, but that isn't relevant.
The books, which I believe aren't really 'canon' elaborate on Enterprise being built in space, but at the end of the day, the novelizations and books say some stupid crazy ***** that contradicts later stuff anyway.
I really don't think the objections to Enterprise being built on the ground are valid. - borez, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2Go back under your bridge please trollboy.
- asgardshill, on 04/24/2009, -1/+3I'm really not having that much of a problem with the concept of some of the Enterprise's construction being done on the ground. Yes it rips a big hole in the canon, but then again so did Enterprise and pretty much everything Brannon Braga got his hands on. Maybe there were just really bad solar storms that year that prevented orbital construction activities, or maybe the factory owner's kid got hit by a micrometeorite or something. It'll be interesting to see how the movie tries to explain it, if it even does.
- TimtheTaxMan, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2I prefer next generation and deep space nine, but that could be a function of my age.
I’m hoping they release a Blu-ray, high def collection. - zebadamseth, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2They aren't replacing the old show. Purists need to calm down. There is a place in this universe for the classic version and the updated version.
- korvan504521, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2Landing is different from take off.
- doctechnical, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2I hadn't heard that last one. How are they going to get that beast into orbit? Strap it to some sky-scraper sized rockets? Or is it just gonna levitate its ass up there? Maybe fairy-dust and happy thoughts.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. - greenvortex, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2Also, they aren't adding any new musical numbers or changing who shoots who. That's a big plus.
- doctechnical, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2It was the throbbing veins in their heads that really freaked me out.
- Slackdragon, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2I have no problem with remastering. Especially if you're upping the resolution to be watchable on today's HD teles. I don't have a problem with "rebooting" an old franchise, like Batman and the new Star Trek.
Re-editing classics? Yes, I have a problem.
Colorizing black and white classics? Yes, I have a problem.
"Re-inventing" classic source material? Leave success alone.
Han shot first. 'nuff said. - greenvortex, on 04/24/2009, -1/+2As the hardest-core Trek TOS fan I know, I am tickled pink by the remasters. The new effects are done tastefully, with great respect for the material. What has me pissed off is the horribly disrespectful redesign of the Enterprise in the new movie. By all accounts, the new Trek is fun and exciting, but I will spend the whole movie grinding my teeth, thinking, "why are the warp engines fatter than the engineering hull?", "why are the Bussard collectors blue instead of red?", "why are the warp engines so close together?", "why are they building Enterprise on the surface instead of orbit?"
- KrayzieKyd, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1You might want to check my reply to Warty and take a look at the remastered season 1 release, because you obviously didn't beat anyone to that.
You are clearly not reading what's going on here. I'm not arguing that The Cage was or wasn't part of the original broadcast of season 1, I'm saying that it was included in the season 1 remastered set on HD-DVD, which was released in Nov 2007. If I spent money to get the remastered box set on a soon-to-be-failed format, I would think that makes me a pretty committed ST fan. - Dalhectar, on 04/24/2009, -0/+1thx @Gordonp
- KrayzieKyd, on 04/24/2009, -0/+1Me: Star Trek Season 1 remastered has been out for over a year.
Warty: "This is not Star Trek season 1. This is the original pilot..."
Which was included in the Season 1 Remastered box set on HD-DVD, screened in theaters last year and aired on television recently.
My point is that this is not the first time The Cage "remastered" has been seen. Late news. Why are you bringing up original broadcasts details when I'm talking about the recent "remastered" season 1 release? - thaprinze, on 04/24/2009, -0/+1STTNG FTW!!!
- rchrdcrg, on 04/24/2009, -0/+1Warty beat me to it... yes, this is not part of Season 1, and if you'd ever seen it, you'd know that, in terms of the physical film's quality, is even worse than the rest of the series (most of which had nearly pristine film to work with, believe it or not).
Obviously you're not a true Star Trek fan if you don't know anything about "The Cage"... can I get a touché, please? ;) - doctechnical, on 04/24/2009, -0/+1Let's face it, the USA was a lot less SF-literate in those days. If you'd aired a faithful television adaptation of "Dune" by Frank Herbert, or "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Tick-Tock Man" by Harlan Ellison (both some of the finest science fiction written, and both Hugo winners in the year TOS first aired) the audience would have scratched their heads and tuned out in droves. TOS may not have been the best SF, but it was the best you could get on TV at the time.
A TV science fiction show needs good writing, but it also needs to keep the sponsors happy if it's going to stay on the air long. - rchrdcrg, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1Actually, I believe it was colorized... to the best of my memory, it was shot in black and white, but some of the footage was used in the only two-part TOS episode where they bring in Captain Pike in that goofy chair with the "blink once for yes and twice for no" thing, and in order to do that episode they had to colorize part of the pilot episode so that they could use clips of it in the telling of Pike's story... I love how they took the pilot and worked it into an actual episode like that... brilliant!
Actually, I don't want to totally recant what I just said, but after reading the above comment regarding the Orion slave girl's green skin coming back "fixed", I'm not sure... all I know is the pilot was in B&W on the DVD but there are color scenes from it in the episode I spoke of which were there and in color back when the episode originally aired... eh, who knows... I don't feel like looking it up right now ^_^ - doctechnical, on 04/24/2009, -0/+1The people in charge of making the new series' knew that they had a built-in fan base for anything with the words "Star Trek" in the title. You could bronze a turd, put the Star Trek logo on it, and some fanboy will pay $100 for the thing.
- antdude, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRWWfsFr24I was cool.
- jdryyz, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1Shot on film, yes, but edited on video, including the effects shots.
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is