While the new effects have better shadowing on the enterprise, the original model looks better. Mainly cuz it’s actually real. It really doesn’t look bad. It doesn’t look as good modern shows but for the 60s it looks damn good. That’s the thing with old shows/movies. You have to adjust your standards according to when they were made. And for the 60s I can’t complain.
That's the thing - when I realize that this was done 50 years ago with a low budget, BEFORE Tron, BEFORE Star Wars, BEFORE 2001 A Space Odyssey, and the only thing I can say about the original effects is WOW.
I imagine cameras in the 60s had a very limited colour range which meant that shadows didn't contrast as well as they do with todays cameras, the problem with the CGI is that it solves one problem by causing another; the contrast is fine but the CGI model is too clean; it lacks the smaller details we subconsciously pay attention to which would lead to better photorealism (scratch marks, stains, groove marks, etc ). A better solution for the remaster would've been to repeat what they did in the 60s, frame by frame, but with newer cameras.
What was the point to cgi it at all? I noticed it yesterday while watching season 2 on Hulu. I never watched tos until recently. The more I watched the more I realized how crap the cgi look. The more I realized it was cgi.
I think we've lost a bit. Especially since the new effects struggle big time with the perspective of enterprise. E.g. in its first appearance in the title sequence it appears to be on an elliptical trajectory instead of in a straight-line flyby. I feel the new effects, albeit with better lighting effects and cute 3d look into the quarters from the window ideas, are cheaper than the originals... With the originals we could actually appreciate the artwork achieved at the time, now we all feel like the remake of the effects is below piar.
I think its awesome that they enhance old shows, but that being said, it's very important to also preserve and keep the original version and give people access to them.
A big problem with the new CGI effect is that it's crystal clear with no film grain. It's particularly noticeable in scenes on the bridge when they are looking at space scenes on the viewer. Crystal clear on the center screen but surrounded by old footage film grain. They should have added a film grain effect over the CGI so that it blends in with all the old footage.
That's really the problem, it lacks film grain and lighting. It's not a very good CGI reconstruction but better than nothing. TNG VFX looked top tier tho.
I totally agree with you why can't they just leave things be as they have already killed star wars of with new so called sound and CGI so I had luck when they put the almost original versions on DVD back in the early 2000's
The blu-rays contain both the original and the modified version. The show was shot on physical film and that has been preserved as well. I see no issues in this operation.
If more original uncomposited VFX film elements had survived, it could have been handled more like TNG, with the original model footage over new backgrounds. Then they could have replaced a lot of reused stock footage while keeping the original look.
I agree. That's part of why TOS can be appreciated. Not just the excellent stories, and good character building, but surprisingly convincing special effects. Ofcourse their are also bloopers and camp but that actually also adds to the charm. I honestly think the old shots of the enterprise model have more atmosphere and look more real than the CGI versions. The only improvement is the engine nacellles glowing in some scenes of the original where it was omitted. Also, the planets look uniformly better in the CGI.
Idk why they did this. I think the original models are part of the charm. And the change is quality is jarring. I’d prefer to see how it was originally made, even if it’s a little jank sometimes
yes the new cgi lost all the charme! I cant stand watching TOS on netfrlix due to the crappy CGI... gonna buy a box set now where I can have the original Enterprise which looked just a million times better !
1:17 this gotta be the weirdest change they made... like what was wrong with that shot?? the golden boxes and wiring looked perfectly fine, and a lot prettier than what they exchanged it for, it's like they were just looking to change whatever they could, not what they actually felt was necessary
@@saricubra2867 still it's not like cables don't exist anymore?? the other changes were made to make it look less fake, this one seems like they were just eager to change anything. If anyone was seriously put off by seeing this shot they don't deserve to watch a movie from the 60s to begin with
Look carefully: When Kirk says "It seems we're going to take a little trip," a different take of Shatner is used in the remastered version. But it syncs perfectly with Shatner's vocal. Fascinating!
+Joe Libby I'm not sure if it's a different take or if they simply did some "digital manipulation" on the end of the shot but they obviously changed it because of the transition to the new CGI shot
+TrekkieChannel You might be right. But I'll say this: if they did digitally manipulate the shot, it was masterfully done, but it doesn't add anything. Fortunately, it doesn't detract.
At 1:06 the original enterprise on left looks so much better than the cgi on the right. Probably because the image on rhe left was an actual ship model while the cgi on the right looks like a PlayStation cgi. Apart from that alot of the new enhanced scenes do look really good. Im glad the Blu-ray allows consumers to enjoy watching both versions
They do seem to fit Spock's dialog a little better though. "And most sophisticated." With all those circuit boards and wires and lights that all blink together. That line kinda comes off as an unintentional punchline in the old version.
yup- the problem of combining 2 eras of special efx- the result is a "jarring" visual experience....they didn't do this to, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" for the Blu-Ray releases- you just get better color and details (ie: you can see a lot more detail on the Enterprise studio model, for example...)...wish they had left the original series alone...
That depends on how they're used; CGI tends to date badly when it is used as an unnecessary substitute for something that can be done practically, personally I think they should've used the same traditional methods for the space sequences but with modern HD cameras instead of the film ones that were originally used in the 60s. In fact I think The Next Generation hit the nail perfectly on the head by having the planets be CGI whilst the ship was a model. As for how CGI can be used well, Jurassic Park is still a legendary example of CGI being used seamlessly with practical effects, and from what I've seen it's the lighting that makes the most difference (low light shots with CGI always tend to look better because the audience isn't as subconsciously drawn to the smaller details as they would be under normal lighting), or the shot of the black hole in Interstellar. There's also the hidden CGI effects used for hiding strings or for hiding something that's part of a practical effect (like the piston that launched the lorry in The Dark Knight Rises). short version: the timelessness of CGI effects will always be defined by how they're used, and even a practical effect can age badly if it's built to a certain standard (personally I felt some of the backdrops in the original series of Star Trek could've been a bit more better designed, but then again the flaws in the backdrops probably weren't as glaring on the traditional TVs that were used in the 60s).
been re-watching the original series....have to say unequivocally that the CGI upgrades do not make this a better watch overrall (feel the same way about the CGI adds for the original Star Wars trilogy)...the Enterprise, in particular, looks very similar in vibe to the animated series Enterprise- you can just tell that it was created in a computer...i think about the time and effort that went into building a realistic model, lighting/shooting it properly, etc, and i personally feel this is not a great way to honor their work (ie: just re-watched, "Arena"- how does adding "blinking eyes" to the Gorn and "bright, twinkling lights" around the Metron elevate this episode in any way?...)...you have to give nods to the original creative team- the special effects were ground-breaking at the time, and they did this on a limited budget...
While the ship is very acceptable in both, I'm not sure it can be denied that the enterprise fits into the universe backdrop dramatically more in the CGI version with the lighting and shadows; the original is lit up too much a lot of the time, and it is a bit hard to immerse yourself when it's clearly got strings attached when it rotates direction. The worst of the CGI has to be the robot insides, honestly laughable.
When the robot opens the door on his stomach, I like the old circuitry better, it looks more like a machine. The CGI panel is very beautiful but what does it really represent?
That is subjectively not true. I love original stuff, but some things are definitely improved I thought. As a child in the very early 90's watching random episodes my parents put on, the enterprise always looked like it was on strings. Especially the intro where the ship abruptly changes angle/direction, whereas with the CGI ship it looks like it's travelling through space; the same for the ship being pulled left/right when turning. I watched the whole remastered TOS last year properly, not knowing there was a remastered version, and the only thing that really stood out and showed me "yep this is definitely remastered and I dislike this effect" was the android insides. The ship visually fits into the backdrop much more than the original - it always seemed too lit up with a spotlight - but the CGI ship (which I think looks superb considering most CGI is lazy) seems to fit far better. The differing planet effects could have been left alone, but for say...90% of it, the remaster is decent, in my opinion of course :)
I totally agree and I'm an old fart who as a kid, grew up watching all the 60's shows. I think the updated CGI stuff is great and done very tastefully and just fixed up some of the things that looked corny at the time, like an android isn't going to have some wiring that looks like the inside of a 1950's television set with diodes and resistors and I don't find it 'endearing' or anything like that -- I just find it corny and hokey looking and I always get turned off seeing old shows that are supposed to be set in the future that show 1950's-60's mechanical and electrical components. One of the things they DID get right on the original were the flat viewing screens and the colored chip-things they use for recording info on that are like SD cards used in cameras etc. Thank God they had the foresight to realize that magnetic tape wouldn't be around in the future! All in all I am impressed.
more immersive in the old version. when ships were physical models, they felt real because they were real. the eye can spot fakeness easily and the new effects are just that
The very best CGI of the last few years can be very had to discern from reality. For instance, all the backgrounds in the climactic NYC battle in the first Avengers movie were all CGI. But either they hired a second-rate shop to do the effects for this, or some people claim they "tried to make it look 1960s-era." You know what would look like the 1960s? The actual 1960s effects!
@@amightysailingman the cgi for this was done in like 2006, thats why. while i do agree that modern cgi is way better, the future holds even better cgi, it will age like a carton of milk while the practical effects will age like a bottle of wine
@@nodre6111 You're mistaken. The apologists for the CGI claim they intentionally made them look worse than state of the art at the time in order to look like '60s effects. Motion pictures from the 1990s were still more convincing than this. Star Trek: Insurrection was released eight years before the "remastered" TOS.
@Writer B.L. Alley Which is a dumb excuse. What you're basically saying is their rationale is "The old effects looked imperfect, so we replaced them with new effects that look imperfect." I say leave them be just the way they aired, warts and all. Otherwise, where should the meddling stop? Maybe they could recut some of the dialog to take out the inconsistencies and plot holes. When something is a product of its time, take it or leave it as it is.
@@pilsatortube Beautiful thing is we the viewer have a choice. Get the original or remastered. I like both. They did the Enterprise good. She looks beautiful.
@@hamhockbeans she look slike in a video game from the early 90s at best while the original looks absolutely stunning! To bad on Netflix you have no choice! Gota get me the box where you have the option!
The intro squence, where they actually moved the model and camera on a dolly set up, makes it look like the ship is really moving. Funnily enough the CGI replacement looks phony and super imposed, particularly at the end of the sequence. While some of the CGI improves a lot of the practical effects, some look worse.
I really hate Hollywood overproduction. You know what happened here? Some pointy-haired boss in the production studio decided they needed to change the original effects to CGI simply so they could justify pushing for a larger budget and more money ultimately for themselves. None of that was necessary.
1:46 See how more clearly the ship stands out from the background in the original? It "reads" better. Now I understand the need to show more realistic lighting in space since there's not much of it out there. The CGI team wanted to exploit the subtleties. Plus, it allows the ship's nacelles and lights to pop more. But Dagnabbit, this is supposed to be a beauty shot of the Starship Enterprise! Why plunge it shadow?
The shadow just made it fit more into the space backdrop. I always used to think "Where is all this light coming from that the ship is lit up like that?"
Thank you for this video. I started watching Star Trek a few weeks ago. I was confused about the special effects. They seemed too well done for the time. It's nice to see the original.
Thanks a lot. I actually wondered for a long time how would a person who has never seen the old Star Trek feel about the new CGI effects. I don't really like most of them, but is it because they are bad, or because I have seen the original effects so many times?
Hmm, maybe a bit of both. Personally I think it's a shame they replaced the original effects. I view as some sort of weird censorship. It's expected for a series from the 60s to have archaic special effects, that's what gives it charm in my opinion.
I don't really understand adding CGI to TOS. Going to Star Trek (TOS) and seeing impressive graphical effects kind of seems like going to a renaissance art museum, but instead of paintings and portraits from that era, they have modern takes of famous paintings. Like, instead of the Mona Lisa, they hired a really talented deviantartist to redraw her in digital super high-res wearing short shorts and a tank top or whatever the modern equivalent of whatever she wears would be. Sure, I'd be kind of impressed for a few minutes, but as soon as I remembered that I wanted to be bored to death by old paintings that particular day, I'd go up to the front desk and ask for my money back. Wouldn't MOST people going back to TOS (or experiencing it for the first time) get more entertainment from all the ingenious / wacky / dated / dumb practical solutions they had to come up with for special effects at the time over what looks like mediocre CGI by even TNG's standards? Hey, at least they only seemed to mess with probably the most inconsequential part of the show. It'd be more of a problem if they edited out all the scenes that made Bones look racist or went back in and fixed Spock's teeth. Weird how somebody ONLY breaking your index finger is a silver lining when they could have ALSO stepped on your neck for kicks. (I had way too much fun writing this comment)
This CGI looked like crap from the get go. In 2006 I saw it on a local station and thought it was a joke...or some local person was just testing his special effects “skills.” Couldn’t believe it when I found out it was “professional.”
Agree. People who take this remaster as an opportunity to diss CGI are just completely beside the point. Voyager had better CGI than this in the 90s. I'm not sure if it was their intention to make these remaster CGI effects more "scale model" looking (and they fail spectacularly even at that), but it completely defeats the purpose in my view. And the transition between grainy 60's camera and weirdly clean and flat 1998-videogame-style ship renders is just jarring. Either they should have gone for state of the art realistic CGI (the Abrams "restart" came out the same year and its effects stand up to this day!) or they should have kept the integrity of the original and just scan it in better quality and touch up defects. If I'm watching an iconic piece of TV history, why shoud my experience be "improved" with CGI that was lame even at the time it was produced. I always disliked the remaster CGI in Star Wars too, although that at least had decent quality. If I'm watching an old movie, I want to watch it as it was originally made. Anything more than rescanning, improved color grading and minor touchups is disrespectful to the creators.
@@Iguana93BATTLESTAR GALACTICA reboot had realistic effects in 2003. I was surprised at how terrible the CGI to STAR WARS was considering ILM did decent work on JURASSIC PARK in 1993. Notice they never gave the FALCON a radar dish when Luke calls it a piece of junk. Getting back to STAR TREK... they never even bothered to match the live scale shuttle to the CGI at all. Also they did other dumb things like having the crew beam down THEN cross a bridge in AMOK TIME.
I was born in 1980 and brought up through the 80’s with TOS reruns & TNG in 1986, I absolutely love the original look of both shows. Both remastered versions for me have breathed new life into the show, the new crisp look and improved effects not only let me enjoy these brilliant shows even more they’re also introducing new fans to the franchise that may have avoided them based on the original look.
@@Lolp821 TNG VFX on the Netflix remaster is top-tier. it looks better than the original. and the resolution is perfect. I'm watching it on 1080p and it's awesome. they did a great job with space vfx. it's all practical effects but recorded in extreme resolution and improved using computer CGI. Nothing beats TNG Remaster even in 2024. it's just too much well made
I like both... But I'm rewatching on paramount+ with the new effects and its kind of jarring. Doesn't really match with the original aesthetic. I was expecting the original to look really hokey (not trusting my memory of watching years ago) but it actually isn't...
I noticed how there where different versions of the model used in the episode, from the pilot episodes, and some newer scenes with the updated model (smaller dish, buzzard collectors, ect)
i didnt grow up with the original star trek. far from it, im a 90s kid. however i got my mother the full blu ray set of star trek and watched the original effect version and then rewatch with the cgi with her. wile i like the cgi i admire what they did using practical effects since imo those were much harder to produce that computer cgi. what they made then with the limitation at hand was very impressive for the time. star wars could learn a few thing from star trek about releasing the original versions.
Why did anyone even do this to Star Trek? Why? 1:17 the heroically amazing original analog circuitry shit on the left is exactly what's so good about TOS, and although I understand the desire to photoshop out the artifice... WHY did they make it into a late 1990s era plastic jukebox!!??! 3:00 It is as though we're collectively blind, that we can together as a society conclude that HD is better by definition. (Sorry for the pun). The new enterprise looks more artificial than Pamela Anderson's titties.
I do not mind the idea of new CGI effects at all, but why bother if they are going to be this bad. There is no subtlety to texture, movement, or lighting. I'd have love to have seen this done well but given the choice of crappy original effects or crappy new effects I'll just stick with the familiar. I feel like they do more to pull the viewer out of the story than anything else.
I think one has to see the original models to feel the excitement that people would have felt seeing these models of ships from space.. the CGI can never have the same magic..
I too am unconvinced of by the "remastering". Why stop there? The bridge looks quite outdated: maybe they should photoshop all that out too and replace it with a swish CGI bridge? You could say the same of the music--let's get rid of all that and replace it with a Hans Zimmer knock-off. What about just reshooting it all with new actors, and then we can change the storylines to make them more politically correct? Kirk doesn't really work in the #MeToo era: he hit on too many alien women. How about a new captain? I just think the whole "remastering" project was an absurd idea. Imagine if someone proposed "remastering" the Sistine Chapel by bringing it "up to date"--obviously that's ridiculous, so why do it with a TV show? Anyway, thanks TrekkieChannel for making this comparison side-by-side; it's really nice to see (especially as I was watching this episode the other day and was curious what the original inside of the android looked like).
Although the new shots aren’t too bad. I don’t think they needed to change. The old shots aren’t terrible. Simpler yes but it’s consistent with the rest of the show. Some shuttle animation is terrible. The new renders are too sharp the reason I watch this is for nostalgia. That nostalgia fix isn’t there with new scenes. It’s like revisiting your old street you lived in only to find they knocked it down and built a new street but keeping the style.
It's a shame how thoroughly they fucked things up. It shows a total lack of respect for the work and imagination that went into the original show. Back when things were made by hand and not shit out of a computer.
The original isn’t so bad... a lot of effort for something that will look dated in ten years (ahem...Star Wars..ahem) so they’ll end up redoing it again. I think Star Trek is story driven to begin with so why make silly touch ups. No one would blame a relatively low budget 60s show for not blowing us away with modern effects... to me adding cgi is anachronistic and actually makes the set dressing’s shortcomings more pronounced...
Basically yes. You shoot the Enterprise model in front of a blue screen, then shoot the planet model in front of a blue screen, then shoot the star field, and then combine all of the elements in an optical printer.
I prefer the original graphics for several reasons but my main one is that whoever did those graphics worked there guts out, "The Enterprise is about 15 feet long!", they solved problems, made things, bashed stuff with hammers and painted stuff, erected Blue curtains. Now apparently that hard work is unappreciated and is replaced by something some spotty twat did on a computer. I for one say " Man with a Hammer and a paint brush, your work was the best it could be and I'm happy, Nah privilaged to watch it".
Agreed 100%. And after all, their names are the ones in the end credits. How is it honest to give them credit but remove everything they did on screen?
"Some spotty twat", said without a hint or irony considering your complaint. Some one putting just as much effort into it, but because he's not hitting shit with a hammer, you dismiss him (or her). Nice attitude.
@@hellboy1976 If you want manmonkee to see your comment, you'll have to learn how the reply buttons work. Hint: just clicking the first available one isn't the correct way.
I wish I had the original quality, I just watched the first season for the first time and I could quickly tell some of the effects looked different from what I expected, I don't want the upgraded effects, I wanted to learn to appreciate what they were able to do at the time. I'll search out the original quality episodes.
Personally I like both, the CGI version allows you to better that connection between TOS and TNG, but before the switch up from the impressive at the time effects to TNGs effects is quite dramatic and borderline jarring, you have a hard time feeling like it’s all happening in the same universe. The CGI overall makes a full watch through flow far better, and I feel it’s worth it in episodes like Amok Time ect. And the original is the original, it’s nostalgic to many, but would likely put a lot of first time viewers off, people here are acting like they’ve erased the original versions or something and are getting up in arms about it, both versions are available if you purchase the Blu Ray, so I don’t get the uproar. Honestly if I had to pick a version to watch I’d pick the CGI, the CGI is far more visually appealing and I would argue objectively better, nostalgia is a powerful thing, clouds judgement.
Ths ship itself has been modernized a bit, which I sort of like. And I like the more battleship grey verses the whiter original. As for the interiors, I wish they'd annotated what's been changed; in may cases I can't tell (other than overall cleanup.)
Aaaahhhhhhh... Ok. Now I understand. I started watching Star Trek on tv again recently and I often find myself *amazed* at how awesome some of the visuals look. Especially the views of the planet's they orbit. I was wondering how they achieved this level of visual quality. Now I know. I would rather see the original broadcast though. ...Like when Lucas released the original Star Wars trilogy with updated CGI effects. Yuk! No thanks!
I think the original effects were top notch for 1966 standards and they hold up today very well. On the other hand the remastered version definitely brings it up to date and makes it much more accessible to new viewers.
Can somebody help me with deciding on which DVD complete series to purchase without the cgi effects, I want to purchase the original? Thank you. Thanks for posting the differences.
@@tfranz11 Does it have to be DVD? The Blu-ray sets have both versions, but I 'm not sure about DVDs, I 'think' the post-2009 releases have only the new effects, but I have not bought DVDs for maybe 20 years
@@tfranz11 As far as I know all Blu-ray releases which feature the whole show are basically the same discs in different packaging. If you care about bonus material, I ABSOLUTELY recommend the 2016 box set called "The Roddenberry Vault". The only negative is that it doesn't feature all of the episodes, just a few of them, but those that are included are encoded with better bitrate and the bonuses include things like deleted scenes, backstage pictures, and footage and my favorite part is the footage of the Enterprise model in front of the blue screen, including the famous shot where the second pilot Enterprise slowly moves from left to right, the same shot which is used as the thumbnail of this video. It's amazing to see how clean the shots are and how dirty they became after the optical compositing
Why change it to enhanced cgi? Isnt the point of enjoying a 60s show to enjoy the fact it was made in the 60s? The newer versions kind of take away from what Star Trek was. God damn you CBS. Damn youse all!
Where does one find the original? I really don't want to watch the new version with the cgi. When I watch an episode of Doctor Who from the 60s, I don't want to see Daleks shooting people with cgi lasers; I want to see the Dalek attack represented by a shitty crossfade into a negative of the film, as it was originally done. Modern special effects intruding into older films and television series somehow makes everything look more silly, perhaps because it's so jarring. Moreover, these episodes were _made in the 60s:_ they were _written_ in the 60s, they were _filmed_ in the 60s, and the characters were all played by people who acted with a style peculiar to that period as well; you're not going to magically "update" Star Trek merely by substituting some of its practical effects with cgi here and there.
After watching the first few episodes after 30+ years I wasn’t sure if I had a faulty memory, I did I remember effects being the good for tos. So I found this I know my opinion isn’t going to be popular but I really like the remastered version. Yeah they could’ve been done better but this is an significant improvement over the original. I also wish they would’ve reformatted for 16:9 aspect. 95% of the shots work fine just stretching and cropping the picture, but back in the 1960s they had the bad habit of centering the picture on the subjects chest.
I like the new ship effects, at least they didn't try to go much overboard with them, I had my doubts about if it was actually cgi or not, but it looked just too good for the time.
I am of course partial to the original effects, but they did a darn good job on the cgi remaster’s too. You have to hand it to them, they did a pretty good job of making it still look like a 60’s TV show.
I don't know about DVDs, but Blu-ray releases which contain the whole show should all be the same as the 2009 releases, and have both versions of all episodes
@@BibleLosophR Just be sure to check the whole series releases. There have been several releases that have only a few episodes, they usually have only the CGI versions
Norman's circuitry sure looks better in the remastered. So because Chekov asks Kirk "You know this man, captain?", this means he wasn't assigned to the Enterprise until sometime after Season 1's "Mudd's Women" and before "Space Seed". Because obviously Chekov and Khan seem to recognize each other in Star Trek II despite Chekov not appearing in "Space Seed". Perhaps Chekov was assigned to a different post on the Enterprise during Season 1 before he became navigator in Season 2, where of course he made his debut. If you are watching the TOS episodes in production order instead of broadcast order, then 3:12 marks the last appearance of George Takei as Sulu until "Return to Tomorrow" 10 episodes later. Because during Season 2, Takei was doing the film The Green Berets at the same time.
+Andrew Chapman Walter Koenig responded to a question about that once saying that he liked to imagine that Chekov was there as a low ranking crewman during Space Seed. And that at some point between scenes he made Khan wait for a very long time to use one of the few restrooms... and then left it reeking for him. If you picture that when you watch Star Trek 2, that becomes a pretty hilarious scene. "But you... I never forget a face!"
The smoothing effect on Normans belly when the Android's inner workings door opens and closes is absolutely terrible ( Looks like they use a bad cloning too ) apart from that I have really enjoyed the remastered version so far.
I have a theory guys: I dont believe EVERYTHING was changed for CGI, but a little more of a “touch up” per say… As some scenes just look clearer and I found out that not every enterprise scene became CG either. They just touched it up in some areas and replaced it in others.
I’ve been a Star Wars fan my whole life and just bought Star Trek on Vudu to give it a try. First off, I really enjoy it so far. Second, the episode descriptions kept saying “check out the digitally remastered SFX!” so I decided to look up original vs remaster on TH-cam. My thoughts on the matter: The Original effects were wayyyy ahead of their time. Quite amazing. The remastered effects do a really good job blending objects into the background better and updating things to give it a similar aesthetic, while also making it feel retro. Overall, I think the new effects are a great way to introduce Star Trek to the newer generations that are used to today’s CGI. However, I do wish that Vudu offered me the option to watch the original version for all the day 1 Trekkies out there and those who don’t mind dated effects and appreciating products of their time.
I guess remastering with new effects was inevitable, but if they really wanted to sell the new shows to me, they should have let me flip between old and new when watching it, or even better, let me watch them side by side.
I was just looking at the European space station. It's not CGI. It's as bright as the old enterprise, not as dark as the CGI version. It makes no sense. Is this darkness only artistic freedom?
(I made my other post and split off this section because it truly is it's own thought and deserves a separate comment) I truly do wish I could have an original 70s era Television with which to view the original Star Trek as I saw it when I was a kid (starting about 6 years old around 1974 or so - I honestly don't remember if I saw the ANIMATED Star Trek first or the original!) for the true vintage viewing nostalgia. But if I MUST view it via HD, I'm glad we have the remastered versions. And honestly - if I was trying to introduce a new young viewer to Star Trek. It's the remastered ones I'd start with. THEN I'd let them watch the originals.
While the new effects have better shadowing on the enterprise, the original model looks better. Mainly cuz it’s actually real. It really doesn’t look bad. It doesn’t look as good modern shows but for the 60s it looks damn good. That’s the thing with old shows/movies. You have to adjust your standards according to when they were made. And for the 60s I can’t complain.
That's the thing - when I realize that this was done 50 years ago with a low budget, BEFORE Tron, BEFORE Star Wars, BEFORE 2001 A Space Odyssey, and the only thing I can say about the original effects is WOW.
I imagine cameras in the 60s had a very limited colour range which meant that shadows didn't contrast as well as they do with todays cameras, the problem with the CGI is that it solves one problem by causing another; the contrast is fine but the CGI model is too clean; it lacks the smaller details we subconsciously pay attention to which would lead to better photorealism (scratch marks, stains, groove marks, etc ). A better solution for the remaster would've been to repeat what they did in the 60s, frame by frame, but with newer cameras.
What was the point to cgi it at all? I noticed it yesterday while watching season 2 on Hulu. I never watched tos until recently. The more I watched the more I realized how crap the cgi look. The more I realized it was cgi.
I think we've lost a bit. Especially since the new effects struggle big time with the perspective of enterprise. E.g. in its first appearance in the title sequence it appears to be on an elliptical trajectory instead of in a straight-line flyby.
I feel the new effects, albeit with better lighting effects and cute 3d look into the quarters from the window ideas, are cheaper than the originals...
With the originals we could actually appreciate the artwork achieved at the time, now we all feel like the remake of the effects is below piar.
Indeed
I think its awesome that they enhance old shows, but that being said, it's very important to also preserve and keep the original version and give people access to them.
They did, you can still find the original episodes on the blu-rays
Tell that to George Lucas
A big problem with the new CGI effect is that it's crystal clear with no film grain. It's particularly noticeable in scenes on the bridge when they are looking at space scenes on the viewer. Crystal clear on the center screen but surrounded by old footage film grain. They should have added a film grain effect over the CGI so that it blends in with all the old footage.
That's really the problem, it lacks film grain and lighting. It's not a very good CGI reconstruction but better than nothing. TNG VFX looked top tier tho.
I knew something was off when I was watching TOS on Netflix.
By replacing the effects with CGI they've removed the ability to appreciate the ingenuity of what was done for that time period.
exactly...
I totally agree with you why can't they just leave things be as they have already killed star wars of with new so called sound and CGI so I had luck when they put the almost original versions on DVD back in the early 2000's
The blu-rays contain both the original and the modified version. The show was shot on physical film and that has been preserved as well. I see no issues in this operation.
If more original uncomposited VFX film elements had survived, it could have been handled more like TNG, with the original model footage over new backgrounds. Then they could have replaced a lot of reused stock footage while keeping the original look.
That plus by going cgi , the cut out some of the morals of the story.
To this day I think the original effects were impressive for their time - and some still hold up well even by today’s standards.
Yeah the shot of the Roboter stomach in I,Mud - why would you use CGI there? It looks actually worse…
@@bingobongo1615 right. if i didnt now it was changed i would be freaked out.
I agree. That's part of why TOS can be appreciated. Not just the excellent stories, and good character building, but surprisingly convincing special effects. Ofcourse their are also bloopers and camp but that actually also adds to the charm.
I honestly think the old shots of the enterprise model have more atmosphere and look more real than the CGI versions. The only improvement is the engine nacellles glowing in some scenes of the original where it was omitted. Also, the planets look uniformly better in the CGI.
Idk why they did this. I think the original models are part of the charm. And the change is quality is jarring. I’d prefer to see how it was originally made, even if it’s a little jank sometimes
Why can't they just appreciate it for what it was ?!?
I agree completely.
yes the new cgi lost all the charme! I cant stand watching TOS on netfrlix due to the crappy CGI... gonna buy a box set now where I can have the original Enterprise which looked just a million times better !
Ok boomer
@@jamyourjam1692 Silence. I'm in my early twenties and would still have preferred the original effects.
1:17 this gotta be the weirdest change they made... like what was wrong with that shot?? the golden boxes and wiring looked perfectly fine, and a lot prettier than what they exchanged it for, it's like they were just looking to change whatever they could, not what they actually felt was necessary
It's sooo weord
Because we are talking about 23rd century tech and circuits, not electronics from the 60s.
@@saricubra2867 still it's not like cables don't exist anymore?? the other changes were made to make it look less fake, this one seems like they were just eager to change anything. If anyone was seriously put off by seeing this shot they don't deserve to watch a movie from the 60s to begin with
The android's new insides look like a 3 in 1 stereo.
as opposed to a 1960s transistor radio.
Look carefully: When Kirk says "It seems we're going to take a little trip," a different take of Shatner is used in the remastered version. But it syncs perfectly with Shatner's vocal. Fascinating!
+Joe Libby I'm not sure if it's a different take or if they simply did some "digital manipulation" on the end of the shot but they obviously changed it because of the transition to the new CGI shot
+TrekkieChannel You might be right. But I'll say this: if they did digitally manipulate the shot, it was masterfully done, but it doesn't add anything. Fortunately, it doesn't detract.
Oh yes, they definitely did a great job with it.
It's been slowed down after the line of dialogue to make room for the dissolve to the next FX shot.
same take but re-composited to steady end of shot.
There are some planet shots that look cool but honestly I really like the old school effects. It has a certain charm to it like the Batman tv series.
The comparison between the two is that they're campy and not meant to be taken as seriously as the fans eventually took them.
At 1:06 the original enterprise on left looks so much better than the cgi on the right. Probably because the image on rhe left was an actual ship model while the cgi on the right looks like a PlayStation cgi. Apart from that alot of the new enhanced scenes do look really good. Im glad the Blu-ray allows consumers to enjoy watching both versions
Norman's new cgi innards look completely foreign, compared to everything else.
It is also odd that the update some stuff but in other scenes they go with the old effects. It is so random what they change and what they kept.
My first thought was, they look like a Winamp skin
They do seem to fit Spock's dialog a little better though. "And most sophisticated." With all those circuit boards and wires and lights that all blink together. That line kinda comes off as an unintentional punchline in the old version.
@@Pyro-Moloch if that shot ruined the show, it was only for the two dozen people who know what Winamp is.
@@BarryPiper for people who know winamp, it couldn't ruin the show
Practical effects age like a bottle of wine.
CGI effects age like a carton of milk.
*this*
Whatever. The new effects are just fine.
yup- the problem of combining 2 eras of special efx- the result is a "jarring" visual experience....they didn't do this to, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" for the Blu-Ray releases- you just get better color and details (ie: you can see a lot more detail on the Enterprise studio model, for example...)...wish they had left the original series alone...
Totally agree rodney
That depends on how they're used; CGI tends to date badly when it is used as an unnecessary substitute for something that can be done practically, personally I think they should've used the same traditional methods for the space sequences but with modern HD cameras instead of the film ones that were originally used in the 60s. In fact I think The Next Generation hit the nail perfectly on the head by having the planets be CGI whilst the ship was a model.
As for how CGI can be used well, Jurassic Park is still a legendary example of CGI being used seamlessly with practical effects, and from what I've seen it's the lighting that makes the most difference (low light shots with CGI always tend to look better because the audience isn't as subconsciously drawn to the smaller details as they would be under normal lighting), or the shot of the black hole in Interstellar. There's also the hidden CGI effects used for hiding strings or for hiding something that's part of a practical effect (like the piston that launched the lorry in The Dark Knight Rises).
short version: the timelessness of CGI effects will always be defined by how they're used, and even a practical effect can age badly if it's built to a certain standard (personally I felt some of the backdrops in the original series of Star Trek could've been a bit more better designed, but then again the flaws in the backdrops probably weren't as glaring on the traditional TVs that were used in the 60s).
The CGI special effects remind me of N64 graphics: itlooked great 15 yrs ago, but it doesn't hold up when compared to the original
At least we can access the original version of TOS unlike Star Wars
Exactly.
I bought the blu ray box set so I could watch the old or new graphics - always find myself watching the old ones though ☺️
been re-watching the original series....have to say unequivocally that the CGI upgrades do not make this a better watch overrall (feel the same way about the CGI adds for the original Star Wars trilogy)...the Enterprise, in particular, looks very similar in vibe to the animated series Enterprise- you can just tell that it was created in a computer...i think about the time and effort that went into building a realistic model, lighting/shooting it properly, etc, and i personally feel this is not a great way to honor their work (ie: just re-watched, "Arena"- how does adding "blinking eyes" to the Gorn and "bright, twinkling lights" around the Metron elevate this episode in any way?...)...you have to give nods to the original creative team- the special effects were ground-breaking at the time, and they did this on a limited budget...
While the ship is very acceptable in both, I'm not sure it can be denied that the enterprise fits into the universe backdrop dramatically more in the CGI version with the lighting and shadows; the original is lit up too much a lot of the time, and it is a bit hard to immerse yourself when it's clearly got strings attached when it rotates direction. The worst of the CGI has to be the robot insides, honestly laughable.
I find this remaster extremely rude to the original model makers and artists. Horrible.
@@reddaB I like the remaster.
When the robot opens the door on his stomach, I like the old circuitry better, it looks more like a machine. The CGI panel is very beautiful but what does it really represent?
Amazing that the 2009 CGI effects already look outdated.
The opening when the saucer section is tilted way down is how I'll always remember it... looks so much better than the remastered version.
"Show us your Robot Guts" should be our standard reply to Any alien demand of "take us 2 your leader". Just saying.
Bots Gone Wild.
That was nostalgic and amazing.
well, they finally achieved it: every single effect was better in original than the cgi ! congrats!
That is subjectively not true. I love original stuff, but some things are definitely improved I thought. As a child in the very early 90's watching random episodes my parents put on, the enterprise always looked like it was on strings. Especially the intro where the ship abruptly changes angle/direction, whereas with the CGI ship it looks like it's travelling through space; the same for the ship being pulled left/right when turning. I watched the whole remastered TOS last year properly, not knowing there was a remastered version, and the only thing that really stood out and showed me "yep this is definitely remastered and I dislike this effect" was the android insides.
The ship visually fits into the backdrop much more than the original - it always seemed too lit up with a spotlight - but the CGI ship (which I think looks superb considering most CGI is lazy) seems to fit far better. The differing planet effects could have been left alone, but for say...90% of it, the remaster is decent, in my opinion of course :)
After seeing this ( I watched original Star Trek many times growing up ) I am watching the original series with the updated effects, I like it.
...And thank you for doing the side by side comparisons!.
You're welcome :)
I totally agree and I'm an old fart who as a kid, grew up watching all the 60's shows. I think the updated CGI stuff is great and done very tastefully and just fixed up some of the things that looked corny at the time, like an android isn't going to have some wiring that looks like the inside of a 1950's television set with diodes and resistors and I don't find it 'endearing' or anything like that -- I just find it corny and hokey looking and I always get turned off seeing old shows that are supposed to be set in the future that show 1950's-60's mechanical and electrical components. One of the things they DID get right on the original were the flat viewing screens and the colored chip-things they use for recording info on that are like SD cards used in cameras etc. Thank God they had the foresight to realize that magnetic tape wouldn't be around in the future! All in all I am impressed.
more immersive in the old version. when ships were physical models, they felt real because they were real. the eye can spot fakeness easily and the new effects are just that
The very best CGI of the last few years can be very had to discern from reality. For instance, all the backgrounds in the climactic NYC battle in the first Avengers movie were all CGI. But either they hired a second-rate shop to do the effects for this, or some people claim they "tried to make it look 1960s-era." You know what would look like the 1960s? The actual 1960s effects!
@@amightysailingman the cgi for this was done in like 2006, thats why. while i do agree that modern cgi is way better, the future holds even better cgi, it will age like a carton of milk while the practical effects will age like a bottle of wine
@@nodre6111 You're mistaken. The apologists for the CGI claim they intentionally made them look worse than state of the art at the time in order to look like '60s effects. Motion pictures from the 1990s were still more convincing than this. Star Trek: Insurrection was released eight years before the "remastered" TOS.
The original practical effects look pretty good actually for the time and there was definitely a good bit of effort put into it.
Funny that the "enhanced" CGi makes the ship look like a scale model... and a very poorly detailed one at that.
i think you have missed the point.. they did not want to over do it and make it look put of place ;)
@Writer B.L. Alley Which is a dumb excuse. What you're basically saying is their rationale is "The old effects looked imperfect, so we replaced them with new effects that look imperfect." I say leave them be just the way they aired, warts and all. Otherwise, where should the meddling stop? Maybe they could recut some of the dialog to take out the inconsistencies and plot holes. When something is a product of its time, take it or leave it as it is.
soo true can not watch it with this CGI soo bad looses all the charm the originals lighting is sooo good!
@@pilsatortube Beautiful thing is we the viewer have a choice. Get the original or remastered. I like both. They did the Enterprise good. She looks beautiful.
@@hamhockbeans she look slike in a video game from the early 90s at best while the original looks absolutely stunning! To bad on Netflix you have no choice! Gota get me the box where you have the option!
The intro squence, where they actually moved the model and camera on a dolly set up, makes it look like the ship is really moving. Funnily enough the CGI replacement looks phony and super imposed, particularly at the end of the sequence. While some of the CGI improves a lot of the practical effects, some look worse.
I agree with you 100%
I really hate Hollywood overproduction. You know what happened here? Some pointy-haired boss in the production studio decided they needed to change the original effects to CGI simply so they could justify pushing for a larger budget and more money ultimately for themselves. None of that was necessary.
1:46 See how more clearly the ship stands out from the background in the original? It "reads" better. Now I understand the need to show more realistic lighting in space since there's not much of it out there. The CGI team wanted to exploit the subtleties. Plus, it allows the ship's nacelles and lights to pop more. But Dagnabbit, this is supposed to be a beauty shot of the Starship Enterprise! Why plunge it shadow?
The shadow just made it fit more into the space backdrop. I always used to think "Where is all this light coming from that the ship is lit up like that?"
Thank you for this video. I started watching Star Trek a few weeks ago. I was confused about the special effects. They seemed too well done for the time. It's nice to see the original.
Thanks a lot. I actually wondered for a long time how would a person who has never seen the old Star Trek feel about the new CGI effects. I don't really like most of them, but is it because they are bad, or because I have seen the original effects so many times?
Hmm, maybe a bit of both. Personally I think it's a shame they replaced the original effects. I view as some sort of weird censorship. It's expected for a series from the 60s to have archaic special effects, that's what gives it charm in my opinion.
I hate how people just change television history when they should just leave alone. I want to see it the way the original fans saw it.
I don't really understand adding CGI to TOS.
Going to Star Trek (TOS) and seeing impressive graphical effects kind of seems like going to a renaissance art museum, but instead of paintings and portraits from that era, they have modern takes of famous paintings. Like, instead of the Mona Lisa, they hired a really talented deviantartist to redraw her in digital super high-res wearing short shorts and a tank top or whatever the modern equivalent of whatever she wears would be. Sure, I'd be kind of impressed for a few minutes, but as soon as I remembered that I wanted to be bored to death by old paintings that particular day, I'd go up to the front desk and ask for my money back.
Wouldn't MOST people going back to TOS (or experiencing it for the first time) get more entertainment from all the ingenious / wacky / dated / dumb practical solutions they had to come up with for special effects at the time over what looks like mediocre CGI by even TNG's standards?
Hey, at least they only seemed to mess with probably the most inconsequential part of the show. It'd be more of a problem if they edited out all the scenes that made Bones look racist or went back in and fixed Spock's teeth. Weird how somebody ONLY breaking your index finger is a silver lining when they could have ALSO stepped on your neck for kicks.
(I had way too much fun writing this comment)
This CGI looked like crap from the get go. In 2006 I saw it on a local station and thought it was a joke...or some local person was just testing his special effects “skills.” Couldn’t believe it when I found out it was “professional.”
Agree. People who take this remaster as an opportunity to diss CGI are just completely beside the point. Voyager had better CGI than this in the 90s. I'm not sure if it was their intention to make these remaster CGI effects more "scale model" looking (and they fail spectacularly even at that), but it completely defeats the purpose in my view. And the transition between grainy 60's camera and weirdly clean and flat 1998-videogame-style ship renders is just jarring. Either they should have gone for state of the art realistic CGI (the Abrams "restart" came out the same year and its effects stand up to this day!) or they should have kept the integrity of the original and just scan it in better quality and touch up defects. If I'm watching an iconic piece of TV history, why shoud my experience be "improved" with CGI that was lame even at the time it was produced. I always disliked the remaster CGI in Star Wars too, although that at least had decent quality. If I'm watching an old movie, I want to watch it as it was originally made. Anything more than rescanning, improved color grading and minor touchups is disrespectful to the creators.
@@Iguana93BATTLESTAR GALACTICA reboot had realistic effects in 2003. I was surprised at how terrible the CGI to STAR WARS was considering ILM did decent work on JURASSIC PARK in 1993. Notice they never gave the FALCON a radar dish when Luke calls it a piece of junk. Getting back to STAR TREK... they never even bothered to match the live scale shuttle to the CGI at all. Also they did other dumb things like having the crew beam down THEN cross a bridge in AMOK TIME.
practical effects are awesome effects. I always think about how scary the effects are in poltergeist because they're actually there.
Why did they make the ship so, dark? It doesn't make sense.
I prefer the models over CG every time.
For some reason everything now has to be dark. Even if it makes no sense.
It's more realistic. The ship did not self-illuminate as it did during the movie era.
I'm watching the original series on Netflix and i hate how off these CGI cut-scenes look. Thank you for showing us how the original version looked 🪐💜
That cruise by at 144 is stunning. It is a shot I have always loved, your version makes it even better.
I was born in 1980 and brought up through the 80’s with TOS reruns & TNG in 1986, I absolutely love the original look of both shows. Both remastered versions for me have breathed new life into the show, the new crisp look and improved effects not only let me enjoy these brilliant shows even more they’re also introducing new fans to the franchise that may have avoided them based on the original look.
Wait, there's a remaster of TNG? I must find what version I have :O
@@Lolp821 yeah but the effects of the original TNG are so modern that you can barely notice the difference
@@Lolp821 TNG VFX on the Netflix remaster is top-tier. it looks better than the original. and the resolution is perfect. I'm watching it on 1080p and it's awesome. they did a great job with space vfx. it's all practical effects but recorded in extreme resolution and improved using computer CGI. Nothing beats TNG Remaster even in 2024. it's just too much well made
I can't even tell the difference on the interior shots? Were there any? Besides the android belly? The exterior shots look great though.
I like both... But I'm rewatching on paramount+ with the new effects and its kind of jarring. Doesn't really match with the original aesthetic. I was expecting the original to look really hokey (not trusting my memory of watching years ago) but it actually isn't...
One of the best episodes in the series.
I remember seeing it as a kid and being absolutely captivated by the surrealism.
Norman's inner workings look much more suitably sophisticated in the remastered version- Mudd's planet is cooler as well.
I noticed how there where different versions of the model used in the episode, from the pilot episodes, and some newer scenes with the updated model (smaller dish, buzzard collectors, ect)
There were lots of buzzards in space...
i didnt grow up with the original star trek. far from it, im a 90s kid. however i got my mother the full blu ray set of star trek and watched the original effect version and then rewatch with the cgi with her. wile i like the cgi i admire what they did using practical effects since imo those were much harder to produce that computer cgi. what they made then with the limitation at hand was very impressive for the time. star wars could learn a few thing from star trek about releasing the original versions.
The releases of the shows on home video contain both versions.
Why did anyone even do this to Star Trek? Why?
1:17 the heroically amazing original analog circuitry shit on the left is exactly what's so good about TOS, and although I understand the desire to photoshop out the artifice... WHY did they make it into a late 1990s era plastic jukebox!!??!
3:00 It is as though we're collectively blind, that we can together as a society conclude that HD is better by definition. (Sorry for the pun). The new enterprise looks more artificial than Pamela Anderson's titties.
It's to try and bring it to a newer generation of viewers.. a good amount of the CGI works fine, that stomach CGI was pretty bad though.
I do not mind the idea of new CGI effects at all, but why bother if they are going to be this bad. There is no subtlety to texture, movement, or lighting. I'd have love to have seen this done well but given the choice of crappy original effects or crappy new effects I'll just stick with the familiar. I feel like they do more to pull the viewer out of the story than anything else.
I think the original is much more classic, whereas the remastered version looks more modern and, in my opinion, is a better viewing experience.
I think one has to see the original models to feel the excitement that people would have felt seeing these models of ships from space.. the CGI can never have the same magic..
I too am unconvinced of by the "remastering". Why stop there? The bridge looks quite outdated: maybe they should photoshop all that out too and replace it with a swish CGI bridge? You could say the same of the music--let's get rid of all that and replace it with a Hans Zimmer knock-off. What about just reshooting it all with new actors, and then we can change the storylines to make them more politically correct? Kirk doesn't really work in the #MeToo era: he hit on too many alien women. How about a new captain? I just think the whole "remastering" project was an absurd idea. Imagine if someone proposed "remastering" the Sistine Chapel by bringing it "up to date"--obviously that's ridiculous, so why do it with a TV show? Anyway, thanks TrekkieChannel for making this comparison side-by-side; it's really nice to see (especially as I was watching this episode the other day and was curious what the original inside of the android looked like).
Although the new shots aren’t too bad. I don’t think they needed to change. The old shots aren’t terrible. Simpler yes but it’s consistent with the rest of the show. Some shuttle animation is terrible. The new renders are too sharp the reason I watch this is for nostalgia. That nostalgia fix isn’t there with new scenes. It’s like revisiting your old street you lived in only to find they knocked it down and built a new street but keeping the style.
Yeeeea, I chose to watch the remastered, almost done with S1, looks good.
I do wish the CGI was a tad bit better but I imagine the people who made it were working with a low budget and it was 2006.
This is my favorite version of the theme song. Anyone know what version of it this is specifically?
@@ShitHappensWhenYouPartyNaked the best!
It's a shame how thoroughly they fucked things up. It shows a total lack of respect for the work and imagination that went into the original show. Back when things were made by hand and not shit out of a computer.
The original isn’t so bad... a lot of effort for something that will look dated in ten years (ahem...Star Wars..ahem) so they’ll end up redoing it again. I think Star Trek is story driven to begin with so why make silly touch ups. No one would blame a relatively low budget 60s show for not blowing us away with modern effects... to me adding cgi is anachronistic and actually makes the set dressing’s shortcomings more pronounced...
I think TOS used the same method as 2001 on the starship scene right?(picture+bluescreen)
Basically yes. You shoot the Enterprise model in front of a blue screen, then shoot the planet model in front of a blue screen, then shoot the star field, and then combine all of the elements in an optical printer.
The only bit of the updated versions I liked were the planets themselves. Ill stick with the original over the updated
Yeah, me too. I prefer the physical Enterprise model, but the CGI planets. It would be great if they would release some "hybrid" edition
@@TrekkieChannel I was thinking about picking up a physical copy of the Blu Ray but didn't know which version I liked better. Still deciding
@@Ironcaster Both versions of all episodes are on the full season Blu-ray sets
I don't know why they made the enterprise model so strange. the light is so bad
Yeah, I watched the show for the first time on Netflix and I thought to myself "this is looking like the prequel Star Wars Movies".
The CGI has a very noticable blur that makes the effect look more fake.
I just started watching the old episodes and was wondering why the cgi looked SO GOOD when they didn't even have cgi back then 😂
I prefer the original graphics for several reasons but my main one is that whoever did those graphics worked there guts out, "The Enterprise is about 15 feet long!", they solved problems, made things, bashed stuff with hammers and painted stuff, erected Blue curtains. Now apparently that hard work is unappreciated and is replaced by something some spotty twat did on a computer. I for one say " Man with a Hammer and a paint brush, your work was the best it could be and I'm happy, Nah privilaged to watch it".
I'm sure creating digital effects takes a lot of hard work too, just of a different kind. They certainly pay people a lot to do it.
Agreed 100%. And after all, their names are the ones in the end credits. How is it honest to give them credit but remove everything they did on screen?
"Some spotty twat", said without a hint or irony considering your complaint. Some one putting just as much effort into it, but because he's not hitting shit with a hammer, you dismiss him (or her). Nice attitude.
@@hellboy1976 If you want manmonkee to see your comment, you'll have to learn how the reply buttons work. Hint: just clicking the first available one isn't the correct way.
@@amightysailingman Yeah well I did that, and his name didn't appear within my response so I didn't lose sleep over it.
I wish I had the original quality, I just watched the first season for the first time and I could quickly tell some of the effects looked different from what I expected, I don't want the upgraded effects, I wanted to learn to appreciate what they were able to do at the time. I'll search out the original quality episodes.
Personally I like both, the CGI version allows you to better that connection between TOS and TNG, but before the switch up from the impressive at the time effects to TNGs effects is quite dramatic and borderline jarring, you have a hard time feeling like it’s all happening in the same universe. The CGI overall makes a full watch through flow far better, and I feel it’s worth it in episodes like Amok Time ect.
And the original is the original, it’s nostalgic to many, but would likely put a lot of first time viewers off, people here are acting like they’ve erased the original versions or something and are getting up in arms about it, both versions are available if you purchase the Blu Ray, so I don’t get the uproar.
Honestly if I had to pick a version to watch I’d pick the CGI, the CGI is far more visually appealing and I would argue objectively better, nostalgia is a powerful thing, clouds judgement.
Ths ship itself has been modernized a bit, which I sort of like. And I like the more battleship grey verses the whiter original.
As for the interiors, I wish they'd annotated what's been changed; in may cases I can't tell (other than overall cleanup.)
Aaaahhhhhhh... Ok. Now I understand. I started watching Star Trek on tv again recently and I often find myself *amazed* at how awesome some of the visuals look. Especially the views of the planet's they orbit. I was wondering how they achieved this level of visual quality. Now I know. I would rather see the original broadcast though.
...Like when Lucas released the original Star Wars trilogy with updated CGI effects. Yuk! No thanks!
Amazon prime has the original and the remastered if you are interested. I’m just bringing it up if no one has commented on this yet
2:31
I think the original effects were top notch for 1966 standards and they hold up today very well. On the other hand the remastered version definitely brings it up to date and makes it much more accessible to new viewers.
The ship turning looks better on the original.
Can somebody help me with deciding on which DVD complete series to purchase without the cgi effects, I want to purchase the original? Thank you. Thanks for posting the differences.
@@tfranz11 Does it have to be DVD? The Blu-ray sets have both versions, but I 'm not sure about DVDs, I 'think' the post-2009 releases have only the new effects, but I have not bought DVDs for maybe 20 years
@TrekkieChannel Thank you for that, I will consider the blu ray set is there one that is better that the other bonus material?
@@tfranz11 As far as I know all Blu-ray releases which feature the whole show are basically the same discs in different packaging. If you care about bonus material, I ABSOLUTELY recommend the 2016 box set called "The Roddenberry Vault". The only negative is that it doesn't feature all of the episodes, just a few of them, but those that are included are encoded with better bitrate and the bonuses include things like deleted scenes, backstage pictures, and footage and my favorite part is the footage of the Enterprise model in front of the blue screen, including the famous shot where the second pilot Enterprise slowly moves from left to right, the same shot which is used as the thumbnail of this video. It's amazing to see how clean the shots are and how dirty they became after the optical compositing
@@TrekkieChannel Thank you again for all that information!
The nostalgia of the original makes it so much better ❤
Those CGI people look so realistic, I can't tell the difference
Literally the only time I preferred the CGI was in the half a second it took the android to close the panel.
Why change it to enhanced cgi? Isnt the point of enjoying a 60s show to enjoy the fact it was made in the 60s? The newer versions kind of take away from what Star Trek was. God damn you CBS. Damn youse all!
I’m not sure what’s the difference between the two in some scenes where you only see people
There are no changes, only the effects were changed
Where does one find the original? I really don't want to watch the new version with the cgi. When I watch an episode of Doctor Who from the 60s, I don't want to see Daleks shooting people with cgi lasers; I want to see the Dalek attack represented by a shitty crossfade into a negative of the film, as it was originally done. Modern special effects intruding into older films and television series somehow makes everything look more silly, perhaps because it's so jarring. Moreover, these episodes were _made in the 60s:_ they were _written_ in the 60s, they were _filmed_ in the 60s, and the characters were all played by people who acted with a style peculiar to that period as well; you're not going to magically "update" Star Trek merely by substituting some of its practical effects with cgi here and there.
For example on the Blu-ray sets
3:27 for audio effects never mind the CGI. Whallop!
The old effects looked just fine to me.
After watching the first few episodes after 30+ years I wasn’t sure if I had a faulty memory, I did I remember effects being the good for tos. So I found this
I know my opinion isn’t going to be popular but I really like the remastered version. Yeah they could’ve been done better but this is an significant improvement over the original.
I also wish they would’ve reformatted for 16:9 aspect. 95% of the shots work fine just stretching and cropping the picture, but back in the 1960s they had the bad habit of centering the picture on the subjects chest.
I like the new ship effects, at least they didn't try to go much overboard with them, I had my doubts about if it was actually cgi or not, but it looked just too good for the time.
I just watched the Netflix version and it has cgi but when that guy opens the panel in his stomach it looks like the original? what is going on?
I can't compare it - I don't have Netflix, sorry
Anyone know where to find the show with the original FX?
For example Blu-ray. Not sure if the original versions are still streaming somewhere
I think they should have cleaned up the original special effects elements instead.
I am of course partial to the original effects, but they did a darn good job on the cgi remaster’s too. You have to hand it to them, they did a pretty good job of making it still look like a 60’s TV show.
Anyone know if they sell DVDs or Blu Rays of the originals without the updated special effects? If so, how do I tell? What do I look for?
I don't know about DVDs, but Blu-ray releases which contain the whole show should all be the same as the 2009 releases, and have both versions of all episodes
@@TrekkieChannel Really? That's awesome. Thanks!!! I look for those. BTW, great video. Yours the one I show others to highlight the differences.
@@BibleLosophR Just be sure to check the whole series releases. There have been several releases that have only a few episodes, they usually have only the CGI versions
@@TrekkieChannel gotcha. Thanks for the advice. LLAP
Norman's circuitry sure looks better in the remastered.
So because Chekov asks Kirk "You know this man, captain?", this means he wasn't assigned to the Enterprise until sometime after Season 1's "Mudd's Women" and before "Space Seed". Because obviously Chekov and Khan seem to recognize each other in Star Trek II despite Chekov not appearing in "Space Seed". Perhaps Chekov was assigned to a different post on the Enterprise during Season 1 before he became navigator in Season 2, where of course he made his debut.
If you are watching the TOS episodes in production order instead of broadcast order, then 3:12 marks the last appearance of George Takei as Sulu until "Return to Tomorrow" 10 episodes later. Because during Season 2, Takei was doing the film The Green Berets at the same time.
+Andrew Chapman Walter Koenig responded to a question about that once saying that he liked to imagine that Chekov was there as a low ranking crewman during Space Seed. And that at some point between scenes he made Khan wait for a very long time to use one of the few restrooms... and then left it reeking for him.
If you picture that when you watch Star Trek 2, that becomes a pretty hilarious scene. "But you... I never forget a face!"
OMG! That is so funny and would tie it in perfectly. =D
It looks awful in the remastered. You're right
Funny how the new effects for his machine parts actually look worse! They look like their floating on the screen, Very bad!!
The smoothing effect on Normans belly when the Android's inner workings door opens and closes is absolutely terrible ( Looks like they use a bad cloning too ) apart from that I have really enjoyed the remastered version so far.
Well heck.. I thought the old effects would have aged badly, but they look WAAAAAY prettier.
Wow, I think they did an excellent job. It really enhances the experience substantially.
They might as well have redone the monsters too, like they did with original Star wars film.
I have a theory guys: I dont believe EVERYTHING was changed for CGI, but a little more of a “touch up” per say… As some scenes just look clearer and I found out that not every enterprise scene became CG either. They just touched it up in some areas and replaced it in others.
I’ve been a Star Wars fan my whole life and just bought Star Trek on Vudu to give it a try. First off, I really enjoy it so far. Second, the episode descriptions kept saying “check out the digitally remastered SFX!” so I decided to look up original vs remaster on TH-cam. My thoughts on the matter:
The Original effects were wayyyy ahead of their time. Quite amazing.
The remastered effects do a really good job blending objects into the background better and updating things to give it a similar aesthetic, while also making it feel retro.
Overall, I think the new effects are a great way to introduce Star Trek to the newer generations that are used to today’s CGI. However, I do wish that Vudu offered me the option to watch the original version for all the day 1 Trekkies out there and those who don’t mind dated effects and appreciating products of their time.
Adding the rings and light from a sun is nice
I guess remastering with new effects was inevitable, but if they really wanted to sell the new shows to me, they should have let me flip between old and new when watching it, or even better, let me watch them side by side.
You just described the Blu-ray set
@@TrekkieChannel Thanks. I googled this to try to confirm your claim. Apparently it does allow you to flip back and forth, but not view side by side.
I was just looking at the European space station. It's not CGI. It's as bright as the old enterprise, not as dark as the CGI version. It makes no sense. Is this darkness only artistic freedom?
1:12 - GEEZ!!! The newer version thereof looks much, MUCH better than the original.
(I made my other post and split off this section because it truly is it's own thought and deserves a separate comment)
I truly do wish I could have an original 70s era Television with which to view the original Star Trek as I saw it when I was a kid (starting about 6 years old around 1974 or so - I honestly don't remember if I saw the ANIMATED Star Trek first or the original!) for the true vintage viewing nostalgia.
But if I MUST view it via HD, I'm glad we have the remastered versions. And honestly - if I was trying to introduce a new young viewer to Star Trek. It's the remastered ones I'd start with. THEN I'd let them watch the originals.