I thought that Star Trek Nemesis was relesed 13 December 2002 and being the 10th movie the statement seems to be in error, ’cause the move had not yet been relesed when the so called HD transfers were suppose to have been made.

I recall reading that TMP:DE was in fact mastered to 720P upon completion.

Now they’re saying they don’t have it?

Showing Enterprise to guage interested in TOS? WTF?

Yet another TV exec who’s clueless about ST.

“Purists” don’t allow for experimentation of oppurtunity before condemning the notion of change. Their rejection is immediate and unequivocal.

ANY subjective or arbitrary alterations to an aged work should ALWAYS be on a case by case basis.

Your analogy of “Metropolis” and “Frankenstien” isn’t applicable or relevant. I don’t know of very many people even familiar with Metropolis with the exception of film buffs or film historians, and Frankenstein is simply much easier to remake completely in an entirely different film. Additionally, those two works never achieved the iconic status of a Star Trek or Star Wars. I suppose you could argue Frankenstien did, but again it’s much easier to simply make a new film, which Universal repeatedly did infact.

The point here is to try to make these franchises continually viable and cutting edge, which often times is synonymous.
Frankly, no one gives a rats rear about Metropolis, yet people care about Star Trek and Star Wars.

Substitution and improvement are two vastly different intentions.

The intention here I believe on the part of the team is to improve Star Trek, not replace it or alter it. I think they are succeeding magnificently.

And I just love how the term “purist” is now being spit out the same way people were spitting out the terms “basher” and “gusher” with contempt in every other conversation about Enterprise a few years ago.

The point that appears to be missed here is the clear implication that the older footage is simply bad simply because the technology did not exist to make HD-quality programs back in 1966.

Personally I’m getting so fed up with the argument that I’m going to start advocating a truly radical idea: that once HDTV takes over completely, every show produced prior to 2000 is not only to be retired, but all the tapes wiped and the prints burned. After all, no one wants to see 1960s-style special effects anymore, right?

No, this is the narrative that bitter fans have generated for themselves. Whether Han gets a shot off first, second, or, as in the current version, virtually simultaneously, doesn’t matter. It’s still a western style gunfight where the bad guy falls over in the dust and the good guy walks cooly away. The notion that there is a “fundamental” change in Han is ridiculous and the reaction to it says far more about the “fans” than it does Geoge Lucas. As Josh very intelligently pointed out, “The fallacy in logic among most puritan notions regarding these remastering/reissuing debates is that they hypocritically assume they are protecting “THEIR” Star Trek or Star Wars. As though their own personal investment in time and energy somehow gives them legal intellectual ownership of a property.” I think that’s really the fundamental issue in complaints about the Star Wars SEs and, to a lesser extent, Trek remastered: what I call the idea of “collective ownership”. Fans have invested so much of their time and energy into supporting and following these franchises that they’ve feel they have rights to influence creative decisions. In the case of Han/Greedo, it’s not so much that Greedo shot first as it is “How DARE George Lucas change it so Greedo shot first!” George Lucas is often demonized among some “fans” for daring to retain creative control over HIS work. I often hear “fans” complain about Lucas not being “respectful” of the original — which really means respectful to THEM and THEIR wishes. I applaud Lucas everytime he makes a change to his material. Art is constantly changing. Even a painting hanging on a wall goes through an evolution of perception based on how its presented and the context of the time in which people view it. I’m with Josh on this one: “I support the changes now, and I will support them in 10 year for the then “current” revamp.” Right on!

Viability, relevance, and cutting edge have little to do with puritan ideologies on what constitutes art.
I like Star Trek and Star Wars, so therefore I want Star Trek and Star Wars to be pervasive and in my face.
These two fundamentally distinct science fiction/space fantasy epics have become mythic. They have transcended in every conceivable way the medium they were originally introduced in and intended for, and achieved a pop-culture relevance beyond a cancelled television series and sleep hit summer popcorn film.
Relegating Star Trek and Star Wars with a Smithsonian preservationist mentality to archival vintage relics of a bygone era status only ensures the death of popularity and relevance to both franchises.
I FULLY support ANY topical and superficial changes that add to the relevancy of these franchises. If that means polishing ALL of the special effects every 3 years for a new DVD release, well have it! I’m a consumer, and there is a demand, so supply the product!
The fallacy in logic among most puritan notions regarding these remastering/reissuing debates is that they hypocritically assume they are protecting “THEIR” Star Trek or Star Wars. As though their own personal investment in time and energy somehow gives them legal intellectual ownership of a property.
Star Trek belongs to me as well, and I prefer seeing the Starship Enterprise pristine, photo-realistic, and representative of advanced human technology. That requires updating 40 year old special effects.
I’m an artist. When Lucas discusses viewing earlier incarnations of his work as works in progress, limited by budgetary or time constraints, I understand what that means.
Special effects are defined and limited by the era in which they are produced.
Does anyone honestly think that if Gene Roddenberry had access to 21st century technology when producing Star Trek in ‘66 he WOULDN’T have used it , in favor of the effects that WERE infact produced?
Let’s be realistic here. Star Trek and Star Wars embody the future, so they should by virtue of their concept be best represented BY the future, in this instance, the most advanced special effects techniques available.
I support the changes now, and I will support them in 10 year for the then “current” revamp.
The Bible has survived technological innovation, maintaining it’s core themes and concepts, Star Trek and Star Wars CAN’T?
Are we that limited in our scope of vision and inability to let go of the past?
In 20 years when and if holo-technology is cutting edge and mainstream, yes, I want to see holographic X-wings and holographic U.S.S Enterprises fighting the good fight.
I don’t know, call me progressive.

YES, but Han shot FIRST! the SE didn’t change the outcome of the event, but it did change a fundamental aspect of Han’s character.

Think how you’d feel if all of a sudden Picard were to shoot to kill, rather than to simply disable an enemy ship?

It may be subtle (or not) but revisions of character do change the nature of the piece.