Topic: Star Trek: Original Series poster

[Kaiaatzl]

That you shouldn't be allowed to reimagine something when you remaster it.  I'm sure some people like the reimagining better than the original, hence, I see arrogance -- someone telling those people who liked the reimagining better, implicitly or intentionally, that "my opinion is more valid than yours".  And it really doesn't matter if it's concerning something as small or as big as a TV show because this sort of viewpoint can be applied to anything.

I don't like the anti-intellectual movement because of its arrogance.  I think anti-imagination (anti-artistic?) being put into such absolute terms suggests a stale world just as anti-intellectualism does; or else has the same arrogant implications as anti-intellectualism (which basically boils down to the jocks telling the nerds, "shut up, get out of my sight and invent stuff for me" -- though it would be translated into a slightly different statement for the case of anti-artistic, I hope you can still see what I mean).  And I know this isn't what Techpro meant but we all need to watch what we say more carefully, especially me.
And this board needs footnotes so that this post can make sense.

[PyroJockey]

Wow....too long, didn't read.

Three words against reimagining, "Han shot first".

[Kaiaatzl]

I understand the controversy on there but what I don't understand why is it's such a ginormous deal.  It's about a millisecond of footage and Han has plenty of time to demonstrate his character and development throughout the rest of the scene and the movie.  I guess the problem with writers is that some of us forget to understand people who don't write.

[Scyphi]

Don't get me started on the whole "Han shot first" idiocy, the last time we went down that road, a lot of lengthy rants were made by me against that subject. You have been warned.

That said, I understand where Kaiaatsel's coming from, and actually agree. In fact, I was thinking much the same thing when the topic first came up, but I opted to not make a big deal out of it at that time. Because it really isn't, and I don't think anyone really meant to sound arrogant about it. But at the same time, I also know where PyroJockey's coming from, and know that reimagining can go too far, and ruin something by somebody trying to "perfect" it when it didn't need "perfecting" in the first place in the eyes of the fans. A large part of the crap the remastered Star Wars movies get stems from this fact greatly. People were already quite happy with how the movies worked originally, so, to them, to go back and change whole portions of how it flowed and worked seems almost offensive.

Another example: one of my biggest pet peeves is when movie makers take the time to make a movie based off a book, and then don't stick to the plot of the book and end up making something very different from the story in the book. I mean, if the story the book told was good enough to make into a movie, then why do we need to change it into something else entirely? Rarely does it really seem to make the story any better than it already was anyway (I say rarely, because even I have to admit there are exceptions).

In the case of the remaster episodes of TOS, though, the crew were, quite wisely, very cautious with how they remastered things, and did their hardest to keep to the original vision of the show, and not entirely reinvent it, which they could have EASILY done had they not been so cautious. Reportedly, they view going into the project was to look at the episodes and try and decide how Gene Roddenbury himself would have done the episodes if he had access to the technology (and funding) that we have access to now, and I have to admit they succeeded admirably on that point.

As for the changes to the Aurora PyroJockey speaks of, I suspect the "reimagining" isn't as "reimagined" as first suspected. I'll betcha that the design they use in the remastered episode was the design they had originally created for the episode, but due to being very underbudget (for which the original series was notorious for) they couldn't do it, and had to make do with what they had, leading to the design you ultimately see in the original episode. But when it came time to remaster said episode, those constraints no longer applied, so the crew figured why not use the design originally intended?

Personally, when you look at it from that point of view, the reimagining doesn't seem so bad.

And I'll bet you that a lot of the reimagining that takes place in the world frequently boils down to something like this as well. Not always, of course, but it's still something people need to consider before they go bashing said reimaginings.

[-<WillyP>-]

...I see arrogance -- someone telling those people who liked the reimagining better, implicitly or intentionally, that "my opinion is more valid than yours".

Don't be so arrogant. Those who abhor re-imagining in a remastering have an opinion that is just as valid as yours.

Of course, you think your opinion is more valid, and to you, it is.


Oh and BTW... Han most definitly shot first... it was an essential part of his character at the begining, and to suggest otherwise loses a large portion of the meaning of his character. Lucas first claimed it was changed to protect the ssesnabilities of the children, then later changed his story and claime the Greeto had always shot first, but that due to the way the scene was shot it only appeared like Hans had shot first.

Now, who is this, wearing a 'Han shot first' t-shirt?

[Kaiaatzl]

...I see arrogance -- someone telling those people who liked the reimagining better, implicitly or intentionally, that "my opinion is more valid than yours".

Don't be so arrogant. Those who abhor re-imagining in a remastering have an opinion that is just as valid as yours.

And I'm only asking those people to recognize what they have is an opinion and not put it into such an absolute as TechPro did.  I'm not expressing my opinion.  I don't see how my opinion is relevant here.
For the record the simple opinion I used as an example isn't my opinion.  My opinions tend to be so complicated they contradict themselves and they hurt to think about.  If you're wondering that is why I'm so terrible at arguing.

Actually I think that's horribly arrogant and I should probably shut my snout.

At least I can say I was right about that eh?

[TechPro]

And I'm only asking those people to recognize what they have is an opinion and not put it into such an absolute as TechPro did.  I'm not expressing my opinion.  I don't see how my opinion is relevant here.
For the record the simple opinion I used as an example isn't my opinion.  My opinions tend to be so complicated they contradict themselves and they hurt to think about.  If you're wondering that is why I'm so terrible at arguing.

Whoa, no offense, but I'm beginning to think there is a misunderstanding here.  I said remastering does not make re imagining OK. ... Because only the original authors/creators should have any right to re imagine their creation.  When the authors/creators say it's OK, then it's OK, but not until then. (Lucas' actions for example are OK 'cause Star Wars is his creation.  Rollings' changes for Harry Potter movies is OK, cause it's her creation.)

The problem I have with re imagining a number of CGI items (but not the whole) in the Original Star Trek series, is with the fact they typically cannot check with the authors/creators (they are mostly gone) and while Paramount gave it's OK,  re imagining select details (but not the whole) without knowing how the original authors/creators would have felt about it ... Is like corrupting the product while trying to say ”We've restored it and put in our own preferences."

Remastering means to take the original product (typically an archived original recording that is never released to the public) and re-copying to recordings that you will release to the product, but this time using newer/modern equipment thus getting a better recording to release to the public.

Re imagining means to alter and change, to make it different.

Many of us (like me) didn't want different.  We wanted the original once again (but a better/cleaner recording, please?).  Was it too much to ask for?

I'm a die hard Original Star Trek series fan, and I know it.

[Scyphi]

...Rollings' changes for Harry Potter...

You misspelled "Rowling."

Furthermore, I have my doubts that many of the changes done in the Harry Potter movies, especially late into the franchise, really had J.K.'s full support. Word on the street is that she's very nit-picky about the details of her books.

As for the rest of that, TP, I must say I disagree with, well, a fair bit with what you said. As for why, I refer you to the post I made earlier. No point in repeating myself again.

Oh and BTW... Han most definitly shot first...blah, blah, blah

I'm serious about what I said before, you do not want to discuss this subject while I'm around to participate, because I really DO think that whole argument is pathetic, on all points.

[-<WillyP>-]

...I see arrogance -- someone telling those people who liked the reimagining better, implicitly or intentionally, that "my opinion is more valid than yours".

Don't be so arrogant. Those who abhor re-imagining in a remastering have an opinion that is just as valid as yours.

And I'm only asking those people to recognize what they have is an opinion and not put it into such an absolute as TechPro did.  I'm not expressing my opinion.  I don't see how my opinion is relevant here.
For the record the simple opinion I used as an example isn't my opinion.  My opinions tend to be so complicated they contradict themselves and they hurt to think about.  If you're wondering that is why I'm so terrible at arguing.

Actually I think that's horribly arrogant and I should probably shut my snout.

At least I can say I was right about that eh?

I understand what your saying, but everything is just opinion... TechPro is just stating his, you have stated yours, my point is that you are saying you don't think TP's opinion is an opinion, because you don't like it. That's more arrogant than the opinion you avoided saying you don't like.

In other words, TechPro never said his opinion was more important, more truthful, more accurate, or more valid in any way. He simply stated his opinion. Does every post need to come with a disclaimer stating that the opinions expressed are just opinions?

[Kaiaatzl]

Apparently I see opinions in a completely different way than you do...  let's just agree to disagree because if I argue this will go nowhere; and to be completely honest I don't understand your point of view and I get the impression you don't understand mine, because...

...you are saying you don't think TP's opinion is an opinion, because you don't like it.

That is not at all what I was saying.  And I explained that in the post you just quoted, or at least I thought I did.

This is getting into the realms of morality -- the realm sometimes called politics; where Grits and Tories have completely different sorts of opinions and each side never seems capable of understanding the other side's moral opinions.  And I still remember how this ended the last time.  I'm not going to let it come to that again.

So I'm shutting that snout of mine right now.  I propose we declare a truce, we declare this argument finished, and we let this thread be underailed.  Do you agree?

[-<WillyP>-]

No need for a truce, we are not arguing. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of someone arrogantly calling someone else arrogant. No offense intended. I apologize if my intent was unclear. Disclaimer: This is just my opinion, fell free to disagree.

Oh, and before I forget: 

[Matthew]

No need for a truce, we are not arguing.

That's not my analysis of the situation...

[Scyphi]

Yeah, and I've been wondering what Willy's been trying to accomplish with his...um...methods for a couple of posts now. 

[Kaiaatzl]

Au contraire my opinion is that this looked very much like an argument, to the point where one of its participants couldn't tell the difference ...  And if other participants in this discussion called this participant arrogant when he didn't intend to be, this participant thinks it's only fair to allow him to call the discussion an argument when its initiator didn't intend it to be one.

I suppose that calling someone arrogant is in itself inherently arrogant.  So the question is whether I think that opinion that I said was arrogant is arrogant enough to warrant the arrogance of calling it arrogant, and why I think that.  My point of view as an artist, is that anyone else who expresses an opinion on how I should or shouldn't create my art is being very arrogant and unless I was creating art specifically for that person (such as a soundtrack, or a commercial jingle...) I wouldn't listen to that opinion.  And I can easily extrapolate that and emphasize with other artists who get told those sorts of things, presuming they shared that opinion.

But there are more important questions such as: Is an opinion that an opinion is not an opinion a valid opinion or a reasonable opinion?  How many times can I say the word opinion in one sentence until your opinion of the word opinion becomes an opinion that opinion is a sound with no meaning and you become dulled to the sound opinion?  Can we discuss opinions when we're so desensitized to the word opinion that we no longer undersand the meaning of an opinion?

[TechPro]

In my ... ah .... what was that word?   Uh, ... yeah.

You know, I liked the poster and there is some good stuff that's been done with Star Trek TOS with the 'remastering' effort.  Naturally, not everyone will like all the changes but there is some good stuff they've done.

So, we're agreed?   There is some good stuff in that poster.