“I, Mudd” Screenshots and Video and Audio Clips [UPDATED] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

“I, Mudd” Screenshots and Video and Audio Clips [UPDATED] October 15, 2006

by Matt Wright , Filed under: TOS Remastered,TOS-R Screenshots/Video , trackback

As per ususal here are some comparison shots and an assortment of extra shots for I, Mudd. Since this is the first 2nd season episode we also have an MP3 of the new theme, this one with the trademark soprano (related story).

Click the pictures for larger versions.

2nd Season Theme:

Click this link for the MP3 of the season 2 theme (940KB)

 

New Effects Video


(wmv)

 

Old versus New


The CGI Enterprise suddenly changes to a new course


The old Enterprise model changes course

 
Norman’s retouched stomach


Norman’s original stomach effect

Norman’s new circuitry


Norman’s 1960’s circuits

The new initial orbit shot


The old orbit shot

Leaving the andriod planet [new]


The old departure shot

 

Various New Shots


Sulu and Kirk puzzle over the course change

The lovable space rouge Harry Mudd

Mudd "bravely" helps the crew escape

A good old fashioned Russian hoe-down

Spock confuses Norman while he grasps the "control mechanisim"

Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee

I love you… but I hate her

Kirk and "dead" Scotty

Harry is left with an army of his estranged wife to see to his rehabilitation

Comments

1. Adam Cohen - October 15, 2006

Yay! Norman still looks cheesy but it’s a lot better! How about that shot of Enterprise leaving the planet? Yowzah! I can’t wait to see this one.

2. Anthony Pascale - October 15, 2006

well done Matt…is Nimoy looking down her shirt?

anyway I must say that the Ent shot above is not very impressive. I think that is a reuse from Miri which I think is the first episode they did. It is clear from the above shots that they are getting better at this, but there is an issue with them reusing the shots they made in their first weeks…we can only hope they replace them

 

3. Roger - October 15, 2006

The new shot of leaving orbit on a plasma 40 inch screen
was da bomb and it wasnt even in HD. Im surprised they didnt
incorporate new shots establishing that it had a ring as the Enterprise entered orbit or a new angle flyby as it orbited.
They need to stop being so slavish to the old material.
I wish theyd animate the screens that circle the bridge interior with varios stuff.

4. planettom - October 15, 2006

One thing I noticed on the re-viewing of this was, when they made this episode, they could only find one pair of really hot twins. The others, shown briefly, are kind of homely.

5. Jim J - October 15, 2006

Though I have been having some recent issue with the CGI version of the Enterprise, that “Leaving the andriod planet [new]” shot was fantastic. I just wish they could get “the feel” of the old girl right all of the time.

6. Josh - October 15, 2006

Of the dissenters, I have yet to truly see anyone judge these episodes on their own merits,

rather what is occuring is the dissenters fall into two camps:

Those who prefer what Daren Dochterman proposed, or those who wanted a radical overhaul that changed the style and narrative of the various episodes.

This attitude is doing a tremendous disservice to the obvious care that Okuda and his team are putting into these episodes.

If something is to be damned, let it be damned for what it is, not what it isn’t or what it could have been.

I suspect had Daren’s particular approach not been seen prior to launch of this remastering, you wouldn’t be hearing alot of the criticism’s you now hear.
Warp nacelle domes? Come on, only someone deliberately nitpicking can find fault in something as inobtrusive as that.
Are they ORANGE? Yes. Do they Spin? Yes.
And that’s about all that is required I daresay.

How can someone behold that lovely shot of the yellow gas giant with rings and the Enterprise pulling out of orbit and find fault in that?
I mean really.

Some of the criticisms that have been postulated have been borderline ridiculous.

Some have actually had the audacity to say the original effects looked BETTER, that is lunacy. Better in what distorted mirror universe reality?

Now that a half dozen of these episodes have aired I think it’s time for some perspective.

If these episodes were as bad as some people like to claim does anyone honestly think they would be AIRED? Much less sold.
Professional reputation and pride alone would prevent any substandard quality effect from getting past Okuda’s QT control.
The man values his status and reputation I’m sure.

For everyone crying about slavish duplication, had they gone the other route, you would have people crying about their childhoods being raped.

I haven’t heard a collective fan Gasp rising up demanding they pull these episodes so evidently someone likes it.

No what is happening is you have a select people that don’t like it because it’s not how THEY would do it, so they judge it with the bitter pill of resentment instead of judging the work on it’s own merits.

I have shown these episodes to 4 people or so and the response was an overwhelmingly positive “Cool! It looks modern!” not “Oh holy **** look at the nacelle dome caps the fan blades are too fat and the orange is too muted and the….”

See how ridiculous it sounds.

7. Jonboc - October 15, 2006

I also don’t really understand the inconsistancy of the ship FX. This shot of the ship changing course looked bad….like something done with an airbrush or a very primitive video game, the well known planet “fly-by” ,sadly, looks like it’s a couple steps up from the animated series while the last shot of the ship leaving the ringed planet was absolutely stunning….although it would have looked even more stunning if they would bringing back the colored starfields…drop a bit of red and blue here and there….how hard can it be? Too many cooks in the kitchen perhaps, with each artist being assigned a different effect. Norman’s “innerds” was very cool and a nice surprise. The opening music with the new vocals was great, and what can I say about the episode itself? It’s a classic. I hadn’t seen it in quite awhile, it was a lot of fun.

8. cbspock - October 15, 2006

“I suspect had Daren’s particular approach not been seen prior to launch of this remastering, you wouldn’t be hearing alot of the criticism’s you now hear.
Warp nacelle domes? Come on, only someone deliberately nitpicking can find fault in something as inobtrusive as that.
Are they ORANGE? Yes. Do they Spin? Yes.
And that’s about all that is required I daresay. ”

^^^^
No it isn’t. The point is to get it right, which they haven’t. It was supposed to REPLACE the 1960s effects shots to enhance the show. Why replace old effects that look better than NEW CGI? The shot of Enterprise’s course change look flat. The Enterprise looks fake.

9. Josh - October 15, 2006

Aside from spending 100 billion dollars on the real thing when has the Enterprise looked REAL?

10. dmack - October 15, 2006

Just look above. The old shotof the ship changing course looks a HELL of a lot better and more realistic then that sad videogame looking enterprise in the remastered version. That is the problem, some Enterprise shots look great, some look absolutely ridiculous. I cn understand back in the 1960’s there being this crazy inconsistency but now…?

11. John N - October 15, 2006

I agree with much of what Josh says, but I think that he loses credibility with statements like”

“For everyone crying about slavish duplication, had they gone the other route, you would have people crying about their childhoods being raped.”

and

“what is happening is you have a select people that don’t like it because it’s not how THEY would do it, so they judge it with the bitter pill of resentment instead of judging the work on it’s own merits.”

As for the first statement, it’s not a valid argument to tell me how I would feel if they were to do things as I wished they would. I know how I would feel, and I would prefer a mix of what they’ve accomplished, and what Daren Dochterman proposed. I’m not screaming that Lucas raped my childhood, so please don’t assume that I would feel that way here.

As for the second statement, I think that most of us in here are adult enough to avoid this “sour grapes” mentality. I’m not a CG artist, and therefore I’m not bitter that anyone got hired to do this job instead of me. However, I AM a Star Trek and general movie buff, so I feel that I can safely say that I know what I think looks good, and I know what can use improvement.

Now, having said that, I like just about everything they’ve done. And I could care less about the nacelles. However, I think that they could have done more. No barrel rolls, or flip-di-flips, or loop-de-loops… just small touches. Animating some of the bridge screens sounds like a great idea.

And on a final note, adding more “mass” to the ship does not require $100 billion dollars, it requires a more talented CG artist… ;)

12. Scott - October 15, 2006

Since I cannot get the remastered episodes in my area (Montreal, Canada), I can only judge the quality of the new CGI effects from the various screen shots and low-rez video that appear on the net. I suspect that many of the commentators here are doing the same.

When I look at the second image on this page (The CGI Enterprise suddenly changes to a new course), I think it looks bloody awful. It really does look like an animated shot from a video game. I do suspect that this is because it is a freeze frame. CGI effects often have a blur effect applied to them that looks fine when seen in animation but awful when seen as a static shot. The spaceship shots of modern day sci-fi that are used as publicity and seen in magazines and posters are usually specifically created for these purposes and not just screen grabs from the actual movies or TV shows.

I am wondering if this is the case here. The Enterprise shot mentioned above looks very fake as a screen grab, but I suspect that it is much better when seen in motion. I would be interested to hear what others who have actually seen the show think about the shot. Even better, if someone would upload a decent video of some of these Enterprise shots, fans who have not seen the actual remastered show could express more informed opinions.

Somebody please tell me that this shot, in particular, looks better in the show than it does here.

13. Jonboc - October 15, 2006

…well Josh..since you asked…

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Wuensch/enter3.jpg

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=58&pos=1

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=69&pos=0

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/other/1701-dock.jpg

14. An olde timey fan - October 15, 2006

CGI Enterprise: matte-gray with light source “astronomically correct” in the little computer generated universe.

1960s model Enterprise: shiny or at least semi-glossy appearance perhaps because of several thousands of watts of high-intensity lamps focussed on it from a few feet away and from many angles!

Astronimcal correctness is a species of ideology that doesn’t play very well in a theatrical format. The Big E’s “swoosh” wouldn’t be real in space, but we earthers are accustomed to noise from the wind of a flying object. Likewise, we haven’t ever seen the solar lighting of an aircraft carrier in orbit, so we expect TV images to look like stuff on earth with light coming from all directions thanks to the sky’s diffusion.

Conclusion? Maybe the CG Enterprise is a good take on what an object looks like in deep space. But I have no idea what that might be since I’ve never left terra firma. Show me shininess and multiple light sources!

15. Jeff - October 15, 2006

“The Enterprise looks fake.”

Um, it is. This is sci-fi. None of it is real.

16. Josh - October 15, 2006

You are joking right JonBoc?

If that was supposed to be some sort of demonstration as to a REAL looking Enterprise, I’m sorry, the grain from the film stock is obscuring the 11 foot model a bit too much to reinforce your point.

As I said before, I like my Enterprises clearly visible and clean.

I’m watching the episode right this moment,
I’m not getting personal when I say some people must evidently be nuts, I don’t see it, it looks splendid and glorious.

The sudden course change? It was awesome, a view of the Enterprise we rarely see with a starfield demonstrating the speed being traveled.

For everyone saying it looks like a video game, I want the video game system YOU have, or were you reffering to the CGI Defiant from ” Enterprise?”

In that case, I’d agree it looks completely like a video game, 8 bit even.

17. Josh - October 15, 2006

It looks awesome Scott, don’t sweat what you read on here.

I thought Star Wars fans were bad, I’ve never seen such ridiculous complaints.

18. The God Thang - October 15, 2006

Well, Josh… it seems the ridiculousness is coming from your direction. Why don’t YOU give it a rest… it seems the loud vociferousness is coming from the apologists direction today. There is obviously a difference of opinion… and you started with the personal attacks calling people nuts and ridiculous. It’s not just a question of perception here… there is an empirical difference between what the 11 foot photographed model looks like (snide comments of film grain notwithstanding) and the flat, even toned, badly lit Maya model they’re doing at CBS. It’s not a question of ability… it looks like when they do stuff like the norman stomach nernies, they can pull it off to look photo real. this is a question of art direction coming from the top… I would guess Okuda.

19. Michael - October 15, 2006

The caps look more consistant with the way all other star ship nacelles look and still retain the look of the original in doing so. The only thing missing is the blue plasma running through the inboard grills. Yes, when not at warp, the impulse engines need to be running (except while in standard orbit or stationary in space).

IMHO for the most part I think they are doing fine. Hand phaser beams could be tighter and less cartoon like. The monitors encircling the bridge should be doing something and not just static “screen savers” – some anyway. Isn’t that supposed to be the case soon in Where No Man Has Gone Before?.

In response to the post that there is too much attention being placed on the effects and not the merits of the story – that is really not required here. I for one have seen each of these episodes more times then I can count.

The point is what is new. My biggest problem with all of this has nothing to do with what the Okuda’s are doing and more to the fact that 9 minutes is being cut out to make room for comercials and that our local station runs ad animation through the whole show at the bottom of the screen as well as their logo watermark. All in all it really detracts from the experience. Subjective opinions on the CGI are nothing compared to that.

20. DB - October 15, 2006

Josh:

“I suspect had Daren’s particular approach not been seen prior to launch of this remastering, you wouldn’t be hearing alot of the criticism’s you now hear.
Warp nacelle domes? Come on, only someone deliberately nitpicking can find fault in something as inobtrusive as that.
Are they ORANGE? Yes. Do they Spin? Yes.
And that’s about all that is required I daresay.’

You’re mistaken.

Elsewhere, I’ve made clear in detail what my problems with the nacelle effects are, but the simplest statement of why they fail is that they don’t appear to be part of the scene — they come across as a flat, animated effect of some kind rather than the result of any kind of light sources refracting through the transparent or translucent surfaces of the globes.

Saying that people wouldn’t have a problem with this if they hadn’t seen it done better by other artists is as irrelevant as saying that people wouldn’t think the original Trek effects were limited if “2001” and “Star Wars” had not been produced — ie, even if one agreed that it’s true it would still be a silly defense that has nothing to do with the real-world context in which the work is going to be judged now.

If you’re satisfied with the effect, fine for you. That doesn’t diminish in any way the validity or fairness of critiques by those of us who are not.

21. Granger - October 15, 2006

My take on the latest installment echoes previous comments.

Course Change:
While I like the angle and moving starfield in the course change shot, it still sucked. So how would I improve it? Greatly reduce the intensity of the lighting; add surface plate texturing to the ship; execute the turn more slowly. The lighting here washes out the ship so it looks fake, and the old shots of the ship surfaces look better with the imperfections, whether they be from film grain or model texturing or whatever. Most importantly, quick turns make us think of little toys instead of huge ships – it simply doesn’t matter if the ship really could turn that fast or not, you have to slow her down to make her look good to the viewer. Again I reference the marvelous close-up pivot shots in the original version of “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”, one of the few times in the old series when you really feel the sense of scale of the Enterprise as she maneuvers.

Norman:
I’d have fully replaced his pathetic plastic torso with a real shot of a guy’s stomach and a cleverer reveal of the interior. Have a nice CGI retracting cover or the like. The old fake torso and flip-down cover are incredibly cheesy, even in the new shots. And just blurring the edges of the cover looks like a photoshop hack job – thankfully it isn’t that bad in full motion since it is on-screen so briefly. But the replacement innards look nifty, although they leave unaddressed the problem of how Norman could ever do a crunchie with a stomach like that! I guess his posture is always as stiff as his speeches.

Planet:
I too feel it would have been better to establish the rings in the opening shot. The best new shots in the series so far are the breaking of orbit shots in this episode. Wowser. Now THAT is what I want to see more of! Gorgeous work!

22. dmack - October 15, 2006

I think everyone here agrees that some of the new ship shots look great. They indeed do but some like the changing course one look awful. Why the inconsistancy?

23. Matt Wright - October 15, 2006

See I think the problem of the ship course change stems from it being overlit. The reason why it is over lit for the given situation is it appears to be a recycle from Miri. In Miri the Enterprise was near a solar system. In I,Mudd the Enterprise changes course in the middle of nowhere, it shoulnd\’t be as brightly lit as it was.

Just like they did in the 1960s the CBS guys are reusing stock [CGI] footage. Which is just lame. I understand the need to reuse back in the ’60s when to actually redo a ship shot would require hauling out the model setting it up just right, etc. etc. All that it requires in the 21st century is to open up 3DSMax or whatever they are using and relight the model correctly and hit the render button.

24. DB - October 15, 2006

If they don’t reuse stock camera angles on the ship and orbits, then within four or five episodes they have to depart completely from the original effects design of the series.

Episode after episode, for about eighty shows, call for little more than tight planet orbits and the ship passing camera to left or to right. There are only so many ways to do that while maintaining the same overall look throughout the series. They make some little changes here and there, but better get used to the “stock footage.”

25. EBAR - October 15, 2006

Of course the Enterprise is not real. The point is that it is supposed to look real, not like a cartoon.

What is the point in re-doing effects if they don’t meet today’s minimum standards for what is considered to be a good special effect?

26. Matt Wright - October 15, 2006

DB, I don’t have an issue they reuse it, in and of itself. It is that they can save that exact scenario as a file, the path it follows, everything. All they have to do is drag some spot lights around in the editor and render it again. It’s not like they have to make it from scratch every time and thus introduce consistency errors. They should just be able to tweak the lighting of the model.
They have the best of both worlds, they can reuse the basics of the stock shots, but with CG they don’t have to be exactly the same. The lighting could be tweaked to match the context of the episode they are using the shot in.

27. ben - October 15, 2006

It would be cool if they could CGI little compartments opening up on the enterprise with grapples etc. coming out.kinda like R2 D2

28. DB - October 15, 2006

I think they have been tweaking the lighting on the shots from week to week. Compare the left-right planet orbit in “Miri” with the similar shot in “City On The Edge Of Forever.”

“What is the point in re-doing effects if they don’t meet today’s minimum standards for what is considered to be a good special effect?”

The point is so that the audience doesn’t fall into the matte fissures when they watch it in HD . Seriously, the quality of the original effects images is lower and less amenable to a little “clean-up” than the live-action. They obviously decided that even as a “classic” the show was unmarketable in HD without some enhancement, but I don’t think the point was to make an effort to “modernize” the show in any big way.

29. EBAR - October 15, 2006

This is the worst “re-done” episode yet. The shots of the Enterprise are simply pathetic.

They want to make more money by releasing the espisodes in HD, but they are unwilling to invest enough in the effects to make a watchable product. The Ferengi would be proud.

30. Cransy - October 15, 2006

Well, i’m not going to go into any long winded rebuttal to the negative comments made here. I’ll just say this. I thought it was awesome. Thanks Okudas!!!!!

31. Matt Wright - October 15, 2006

S. Lansing if that is true, will they now go back and tweak the existing subpar CGI to be consistent with what they have learned from our feedback? At some point these will be reaired in full HD resolution and eventually put on HD optical media, so it would be nice to have consistent effects across the board.

32. MichaelT - October 15, 2006

Everyone done?
Wow…. did some of you even notice there was a story attached to all those CGI effects?
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion…. and I expressed mine.

33. EBAR - October 15, 2006

I’m very pleased to hear that the concerns of fans are being heard and that changes will be made to the Enterprise effects. Nobody expects the effects to be big-budget movie quality, but too many are a downgrade from the original 60’s effects.

Given that there is an acknowlegement that things need to change, how about redoing the release date and moving back “The Doomsday Machine” and “The Tholian Web” until the very end of production. These are perhaps the two most effects heavy episodes. They deserve the be done well.

34. Jim J - October 15, 2006

One last thing: does anyone know of ANYWHERE that is showing these episodes “uncut”. I keep hearing all of this babbling about networks being offered BOTH versions (cut for syndication as well as uncut). I think that not one single station in the U.S. took the uncut option. If a station or two did: WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE? The fans that are getting uncut TOS MUST chime in and tell us what effects we are missing at time AND post some screen shots, if they know how. lol…..my two cents!

35. Ralph - October 15, 2006

I believe what the difference may be with the Enterprise could be the lighting. It is incorrect with the old shots while the new one are realistic. Seems like the old does a profile shot everytime, no matter where the light should be coming from. Looks good but incorrect.
Maybe there should be more id lights on the old girl to spruce her up? Personally, I like the new effects.

36. Matt Wright - October 15, 2006

Jim J: there is no option for the remastered episodes uncut that I am aware of. They are offered in normal syndication packages.

The only uncut episodes are the original versions G4 shows Saturday mornings.

Ralph: you honestly believe space is that bright?

37. Ralph - October 15, 2006

Matt

LOL! No. Just stating that I think people are use to the unrealistic lighting from the TOS.

38. Ralph - October 15, 2006

Ug, as mentioned that scene when the Enterprised turned was awful.

But, when Norman showed us his goods, that was nice.

And I loved the soprano. That theme song still make me grin.

39. Joe - October 16, 2006

I believe All Our Yesterdays from the 3rd season is also being shown this week remastered. It seems to be only shown on the Sci-Fi channel. Can anyone confirm this?

From the Sci-Fi channel:

6/10/2006
07:00 – La Femme Nikita – New Regime

It’s kill or be killed for street girl turned elite assassin Nikita. Egram Petrosian takes charge of Section when Operations is gravely wounded, and makes Nikita his right-hand woman.
08:00 – Teleshopping

Teleshopping.
11:00 – Star Trek – All Our Yesterdays

All Our Yesterdays: The original series, digitally remastered. Kirk, Spock and McCoy become lost in the past of a doomed world.

It is also mentioned here:
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/27636.html
at the bottom of the article

40. Cyrus - October 16, 2006

Anthony,

As I mentioned on trekbbs, KNBC in LA showed “I, Mudd” in high definition. You might want to doublecheck with your CBS/Paramount sources. I think they have started to distribute the show in HD.

41. Josh - October 16, 2006

Having perused some of the comments here all I can say is no wonder Enterprise was cancelled.

The problem today is everyone is an armchair wannabe critic and the internet gives them a voice they otherwise would not have.

Evidently interest in this show comes down to pure taste, as I and many others find what is being done quite wonderful actually.

The criticisms I have seen are ill-concieved at best, ridiculous at worst, and lacking in appreciation, respect, and artistic merit.

IF the squeeky wheel gets the grease and the 5 people crying incessantly about their personal issues with this show serve to hijack and undermine any future releases of Trek: Remastered, that’s when you’ll see some true fireworks, as the minority HERE, most certainly does not speak for the majority elsewhere.

If Okuda and team take any criticism read on these boards to heart that is simply sad and a true testament to the fact message boards should not be read, their decisions and artistic choices should not be influenced one iota by any half cocked opinion on a message board.

There’s not a thing wrong with the effects on this show and people know it.
The Enterprise looks glorious and alive, colorful and three dimensional.

As far as “apologists” God Thang, I have found nothing to apologize thus far save for certain comments by certain posters on this message board, and if indeed Okuda does frequent this board then I do indeed extend a sincere apology that the Enterprise has been hijacked by “fans” that do not like Star Trek.
I find myself sometimes wondering if I have stumbled on the TrekBBS boards where Michelle Erica Green reviews each and every episode despite the fact she CLEARLY hates Star Trek and rarely if ever has anything NICE to say about ANY episode.

All I know is, whatever evidently would please some of you, I frankly do NOT want to see it remotely associated with anything that has to do with Star Trek. That’s why Star Trek was cancelled. Trying to appease the fans TOO much.
You guys are screaming louder, but loudness does not a good argument make.
I don’t want to see a CGI Defiant retread.
I like Daren Dochterman’s work but it isn’t right for this particular project.
Perhaps some future re-imagining of the series, but not this endeavor.
I don’t want a greebly infested U.S.S. Enterprise so hyperdetailed it looks like the Millenium Falcon.
The U.S.S. Enterprise isn’t supposed to be streaked, dirty, blue, paneled, purple, green, day-glow, or lit up like a Christmas tree.
In space things are mono-chromatic, flat, shadowed, plain.
We finally get a clear, crystal view of what the Enterprise was ALWAYS intended to look like, and people spend pages on message boards crying about it, instead of beholding it’s splendid beauty and praising Paramount for CARING enough to do it?
It’s truly unbelievable.
Are you guys sure something isn’t wrong with your televisions, or the station?
I don’t see how something could be so polarized – fine to some and hated by others, it’s nonsensical and if it wasn’t so sad it would be comical.
This message board is a PRIME example of why “fans” should have NO input in creative decisions of ANY artistic endeavor.

Okuda’s, I applaud your work, thank you.

42. An olde timey fan - October 16, 2006

Quoth the Josh:
“The U.S.S. Enterprise isn’t supposed to be streaked, dirty, blue, paneled, purple, green, day-glow, or lit up like a Christmas tree.
In space things are mono-chromatic, flat, shadowed, plain.”

Dude. No one really gives a hoot what things really look like in space. That’s the entire point! This is FICTION. It’s supposed to ENTERTAIN not LECTURE us on pompousities about “what space is really like”.

Besides, have you ever been to space? How do you know what anything “looks like” there?

Geese.

I do agree with you on the idea that the production workers shouldn’t take this stuff too seriously, but get real man. This site is just a chance for people to spout off a little bit. You make it sound way too important. If some studio manager/executive type scans these posts and finds something of value, cool.

But I am not aware of a single US corporation that really cares what is said about it amongst “those people” meaning activists, hot-heads, fans, whatever. Business decisions are made according to business criteria — not what some geek at NASA or a fan in Podunk has to say about anything.

If Net Present Value > 0, then accept the project. Period. All they want to know from us “fans” is, Will you tune in to this program and spend money with the sponsors?

Anything else amounts to jerking off.

Olde Timey Fan, MBA, MS
Fortune 500 Financial Management Consultant

43. colin - October 16, 2006

I am in the camp that likes the new TOS remastered.

We do know how man-made objects in space appear. They are in the archives of every space agency which has sent a vehicle into space.

I am growing disgusted at the criticism of this project. When did accomdation to the limitations of a project turn into a vehement and passionate dislike of a project? Give this project time to mature. Let’s speak of its merits in a year, or even better, two years from now.

For me, the project pleases me. I didn’ t want a Lucas revision. I wanted the show which introduced me to Star Trek and which I like the most of the five or six series to be treated with reverence and respect. I feel the people behind this project have succeeded.

44. Lao3D - October 16, 2006

I have to admit being a little confused by the uneven quality of this episode. Overall, I’m a fan of what they’ve been doing, but I have to side with the skeptics on a couple of the shots of the ship — the reverse-angle course change shot looked REALLY sub par. But the closing shot was great! Assuming they have different people working on different shots, I’d give a raise to the one who did the closer and have a stern talking-to with the other!

45. Mark - October 16, 2006

My 51 year old cousin, who has been a TOS fan since it’s original run, wasn’t aware of the enhanced versions, but she saw the “I, Mudd” version over the weekend. When I told her that it had been enhanced, she replied, “I didn’t even notice anything different.”

So, either CBS can pat themselves on the back for “not changing anything too dramatically,” or this entire effort simply doesn’t matter to most viewers because the new effects are so subtle that they have become a mute point.

My view: I think they would have been better off just leaving well enough alone.

46. Thomas Jensen - October 16, 2006

I enjoyed seeing Normans updated internal parts. They could even do the viewscreens above the bridge stations, that would be cool. The shot of the enterprise ‘changing course’ shown above, looked too much like a model (not in a good way).

The new second season titles are an improvement.

My wish is for some new enterprise shots, some the same. Regardless, I want the ship too look like they were using the 11 foot model, but clearer and better lit. Sometimes it seems that happens, other times, not so much. I’m hoping it will get fixed.

47. John N. - October 16, 2006

In response to Josh:

“The criticisms I have seen are ill-concieved at best, ridiculous at worst, and lacking in appreciation, respect, and artistic merit. ”

You destroyed any shred of credibility that you had with this single statement.

At least the rational among us are able to acknowledge some of the positive aspects of the project that you have rightly pointed out.

For you to categorically discount the artistic merit of any of our opinions is asinine. For you to call into question my love of the series based on the fact that I think there is room for improvement on the “Remastered” updates is ridiculous, arrogant, quite simply illogical.

48. Dip Thong - October 16, 2006

I’ve got to say I agree with Josh. It isn’t cricism and dissent that becomes ridiculous, it’s relentless criticism and complaints about the same points over and over. When a criticism is repeated with intensity and frequency, the intent is not a simple “just giving my 2 cents” opinion, but rather is a misguided attempt to influence “the powers that be” into doing things differently — i.e. the way the CRITIC wants them done. Josh was right on the money when he said, “If something is to be damned, let it be damned for what it is, not what it isn’t or what it could have been.” As fans, we all create images in our minds and dream about what it would be like if WE were calling the shots. Some fans even make their own remastered fan films and their own CG effects. But all these dreams and actual attempts tend to negate the work of the real artists, the ones hired to do the job. As Josh correctly stated, “You have a select people that don’t like it because it’s not how THEY would do it, so they judge it with the bitter pill of resentment instead of judging the work on it’s own merits.” Man, that’s so true! In the case of the nacelles, for example, the artists made a choice to depict them as they do. In the original series, the nacelles never looked consistent from shot to shot (sometimes they spin, sometimes they’re just lit, sometimes they’re just dark brownish-red globes) — so saying these look “wrong” is a stretch. They look different than we are used to because we’re familiar with the inconsistent, grainy, faded, and scratched images of the past. The same is true of the Enterprise. I went back and watched the course change shot again after reading some of the comments here. The ship is actually very detailed. I can see hull plating, markings, etc. What’s missing from the original shot is a crap load of grain. The grain does lend a sense of “film reality” that has nothing to do with the detail of the actual model. It’s all about how we’re conditioned to see moving images. Back when color was first introduced to films, for example, there were many critics who felt black and white films looked more real. Seeing films in color looked “wrong” to their eyes. I hear the same complaints about movies shot on Hi-Def today. The images look “too perfect” and somehow “artificial”. In truth, its just people being nostalgic for the artifacts of a chemical photographic process. None of this is new. Think about WWII combat footage. Imagine if D-Day had been shot with Hi-Def cameras in full color. It too would look “wrong” because we think of those images and that event in a particular way.

Another of Josh’s comments is also very true. “For everyone crying about slavish duplication, had they gone the other route, you would have people crying about their childhoods being raped.” Damn straight! When the remastered episodes were first announced, the immediate fear was that they would go too far [insert cheap shot at George Lucas here]. Now, for some, the opposite is true. That’s why CBS should do what Lucas does (for the most part) and ignore the fans. If a fan REALLY wants to influence what goes into Star Trek (or Star Wars or ANY favorite franchise) get into the business, become a filmmaker and work your ass off to get hired to call the shots. But bitching about it on the internet in hopes of getting your way is not only non-productive — it’s just sad.

And that’s MY 2 cents.

49. Donn - October 16, 2006

Anyone who’s into Trek knows this:
The CGI ships in later DS9, Voyager, and even Enterprise blow away what’s being perpetrated in these episodes. Either something works- visually- or not. I believe that everyone’s criticisms are valid in that too many visual cues are being violated- too much just looks “wrong” with the ship. Hell, the android guts looked more believable than the Enterprise!
Mr. Okuda, please, you gotta be listening….

50. EBAR - October 16, 2006

Another response to Josh:

I always find it amusing how some people find it necessary to attack people’s integrity/intelligence, rather than their arguments. Josh, I’m glad you like the remastered effects. Sit back and enjoy them.

However, many of us don’t like them, and we are trying to make them better. I don’t care you if agree or disagree with me, but I am entitled to my opinion and I will continue to voice it regardless of your attempts to silence the dissenters.

51. Adam Cohen - October 16, 2006

Lao3D said it right, that closing pan shot of the Enterprise was jaw-dropping good. I actually said “Ooooooh” out loud when I saw it. They can definitely do more work like that, I think. Let us really buy the shot, show us outer space! I want more!

52. Josh - October 16, 2006

I have little interest or desire in “silencing dissenters” because frankly I enjoy the show, what is being done, and I could care less about the comments being postulated on here.

My beef if this, it’s when the squeeky wheel mentality ruins it for the rest of us, that’s when I get concerned and infuriated.

You guys incessantly complaining ad infinitum really stop and listen to yourselves, you may be surprised.

“The colored star ratio is inconsistent, the nacelle bussard ramscoop collectors aren’t rendered right, the ship is too grey, the ship blah blah blah.”

How anal and nitpicky does this sound seriously?

All I’ve been trying to introduce is some perspective here to a fictional artistic endeavor.

You guys that don’t like it, you have your DVD’s of the original series, why not just pop an episode in and enjoy instead of wasting precious minutes of your time complaining about something you have no control over….thankfully.

As far as my “credibility”, it is just as valid ,reasonable, consistent, reinforced, and legitimate as ANY credibility I’ve seen postulated on this website so, in the end that’s all I’m concerned with.
I came here to discuss Star Trek, not have to sift through pages of crying about things that at the end of the day are inconsequential.

53. Jim J - October 16, 2006

But, if we all agree that we love everything, WHAT IS THERE to talk about? Frankly, I think some people’s gripes are ridiculous. On the other hand, I think my gripes (like the ship “feeling wrong” and the horrible course change on I, Mudd) are very legitimate. You may think my gripes are as petty and ridiculous as I think of those other people I mentioned. The point is…we are all human. Some of us like hamburger pizza, some like combo, others like meat lovers, and then there are some that just don’t like ANY pizza. However, it is ok to not like pizza. I’m not mad at people that don’t, even though I do. They may explain why they don’t like it because we ask them to, or maybe they explain why so we can make a pizza they’d learn to like. What I’m trying to say, Josh, is that we are all human and we’re all going to have different tastes. Is that anal and nitpicky? Hmmmm??? To some it may seem like the answer is yes, to others, no. Just relax and enjoy chatting and learning about varying viewpoints of Trek. Frankly, as much as I love the ol’ girl; Kirk, Spock, and Bones are what I felt truly MADE this show. They are the meat of the series and Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, Checkov, and the rest are the seasoning, if you will.

54. Matt Wright - October 16, 2006

#40 Joe — Sci-Fi doesn’t have the rights to any TOS anymore. Notice the date on what you pasted in? June 10th 2006. “Digitally remastered” just means they were airing the cleaned up DVD version.

All Our Yesterdays is being shown at the observatory event.

#53 I find it interesting you say
I came here to discuss Star Trek, not have to sift through pages of crying about things that at the end of the day are inconsequential.
Yet you continue to indulge us “crazy” people who think the CGI is inconsistent. If you really were here to discuss Trek, then discuss it, ignore the comments you find to be useless, just post your thoughts and leave it alone, you’ve had your say just like everyone else here gets to. You are propagating your own flame bait by continuing to respond. So you must get something out of these comments if you feel the need to keep responding.

55. monger - October 16, 2006

It seems to me that everyone on this talkback missed a BIG scoop from a MAJOR poster- it just went right over everyones’ head. If I’m right, S. Lansing just could be Sherry Lansing who may or may not still be Chairman of Paramount- she may have changed titles since. In her post she wrote:
“The original 1701 will be a much better improvement in theaters on the big screen for Trek XI and I know the fans will be pleased. There is a lot to come and look foward to. Spread the word. Thanks.”
Did you all get that? This could be the first official confirmation that Trek XI will deal with the original 1701!!! From a major player in the biz! Up until now it’s all been pure speculation!
If Ms Lansing is reading this, could you please confirm or deny?

56. dmack - October 16, 2006

Ok one, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. There is nothing worse then someone being arrogant enough to think otherwise and feel that if people don’t agree with them they either wrong or just being an ass.
If all of the new FX work for you and you think there is no room for improvement, god bless you. Glad you’re satisfied. But if some others here think the FX could be improved, (and ultimately what is the whole point of this endesvor otherwise?) that’s THEIR opinion. If some people can’t respect that they should just grow up already. That’s how the grown-up world works.
I for one think some of the new FX are amazing. Truly. The last shot of the ship flying off in I, Mudd looked amazing. But in the VERY SAME EPSIODE, the shot of the ship changing course looked laughably bad. That’s the point, they CAN do great work. They can also do really shoddy work. Hopefully by listening to the feedback they can see what worked for the fans.
And listen, this isn’t some charity, EVERYONE involved is on the payroll, meaning they are getting paid for that. In any profeesional field where you work on something creative that will be shown to the public, people will HAVE OPINIONS. Every TV show, film, record album, play will get critiqued. Should the remastered TREK be above all criticism?!?!? Why?!?!
And they will eventually release these old shows YET again on video formats, DVD and HD so there will be SIGNIFICANT $$$ involved. Paramount must have thought they had released TREK in so many variations already, VHS, Laserdisc, 2 ep. DVDs, Full season DVDs that they had to do something to make these desirable for purchase YET AGAIN by the fans. Since syndication is chopping 8 or so minutes out of these, the only way to see these “enhanced” will be by purchasing them again.
Bottom line, if you love what they’re doing, that’s ok.
If you think it could be done better, that’s ok too….

dmack

57. Adam Cohen - October 16, 2006

Monger, if that’s Sherry Lansing, I’ll buy you a Porsche. P.S. She is no longer running Paramount Studios.

58. Dave - October 16, 2006

The episodes are NOT avaoilable uncut. CBS/Paramount had made an initial offering that DID include both options but few if any accepted due to how much advertsing revenue would be lost with roughly only 3 minutes of commercial time to sell. CBS/Paramount eats up the other three minutes by selling their own advertising as well.

The episodes will be available uncut on all DVD formats after the entire series has aired over the next two years. You will not be able to see them uncut (with the possible expcetion of a convention showing) until late 2008 early 2009.

59. Dave - October 16, 2006

The episode being referenced on that link for ALL OUR YESTERDAYS is the remastered DVD version. The image has been cleaned up and the sound is mono 5.1 surround simulated. If you have seen the DVDs this sound is amazing considering what they had to work with.

That is the rematered they are referring to. The STTOS: Enhanced is only available to broadcast outlets (meaning over the air) local stations. I am puzzled by the reference to Sci-Fi channel though as their contract is over or is ending in the next week or so. TV Land now has the exclusive broadcast rights to the original series in its DVD remastered form. TV Land nor SciFi Channel will be airing the ENHANCED episodes anytime soon.

STTOS: Remastered begins airing on TV Land in mid November around the 17th I believe.

60. Dave - October 16, 2006

Just a point of reference.

When I mention STTOS: Remastered – I am talking about the currently availabel DVD versions of STTOS. This will be the version available to TV Land in their edited 43 minute format.

When I mention STTOS: Enhanced – I am talking about the the newly created CGI effects versions that are currently available over-the -air at this time. The STTOS Enhanced episodes will not be available on DVD until late 2008, early 2009. The Enhanced DVDs will be released in the full 54 – 56 minute format.

61. acb - October 16, 2006

g4 runs Star Trek uncut all day Saturday from about 9am -7pm. And thank god because they surpass any 43 minute version.

62. dmack - October 16, 2006

Uncut TREK episodes run approximately 50 minutes…

:)

63. Joshua P. Allem - October 16, 2006

I’ve had a chance to listen to the new theme for season 2 more closely and I think I know why I don’t like it. They have arranged the volume levels of the orchestra to compliment and accompany the vocal as if the vocal was meant to be a solo. If I had heard this piece of music in a concert hall or on a CD or over the radio, I’d say, “This is really good. Bravo!” But vocals on a soundtrack are not meant to be heard as solo pieces. In the original version of season 2, the vocal was background for the orchestra. In this new version of season 2, the orchestra is in the background for the vocal. That’s wrong! When the theme plays on the screen, the Enterprise should be the primary focus! It’s flying at warp speed over your head while the credits display and the music should accompany and amplify what your seeing on the screen, not take away from it. Now, in this new version, the vocal in the music rivals the presence of the Enterprise. The brass and other instruments are too weak. They aren’t bolting it out loud enough. The vocal should have been part of the orchestra, not standing out in front of it.

64. Dave - October 16, 2006

Actually, when uncut Trek episodes air they are around 54 minutes. Back in 1966, stations only sold 6 minutes of commercial time for a one hour program. Half-hour shows ran around 27 minutes and sold three minutes of commercial time.

If Uncut Trek is running in a 50 minute slot on G4, they are time compressing the episode.

Time Compression speeds up the actual episode but fiddles with the soundtrack so that music and voices do not actually appear to go up in pitch due to the slightly higher frame rate.

A good example of time compression done badly would be to find the local inetwork in your area and check out Green Acres at 7 PM. The opening theme is highly speed up and the voices sound terrible. The episodes are being run MOSTLY uncut, but there are some edits and the time compression allows for at least two more ads to be run in the 30 minute slot.

65. dmack - October 16, 2006

Whatever they run at on the DVDs is how long they are…
As far as I know, they average 50 minutes… The DVD eps. are accurate.

66. Matt Wright - October 16, 2006

Yeah it’s about 51mins an episode uncut, not sure where you’re getting 54mins, you can clearly see this on a DVD cover. Pick up any one of the two episode volumes Paramount put out a while back. It says the run time is 100 mins, and a few have a run time of 101mins.

Also, Dave I dunno where your getting your information but Paramount has confirmed uncut HD remastered/CGI versions exist for future use.

Also please don’t start making your own terms for the versions of TOS. Here is why I say this. Here at Trekmovie.com we call it Trek Remastered or TOS Remastered. This has picked up around the web. Trek Enhanced is Daren Dochterman’s blog about his own tinkering with TOS. You’re going to confuse things.

67. Dave - October 17, 2006

My information on the run time comes from sitting down and actually timing the original episodes out. The information on the back of the any of the DVDs usually says approximate when they refer to the timing. Some episodes can run up to a minute or two longer, or a minute or two less depending on the episode.

The terms I’ve been using are unfortunately a side effect of what the distributors use when referring to the syndication packages. They don’t generally use the “web” references. My apologies. I only use what has been easiest for me.

68. Josh - October 17, 2006

That screen shot above of the Enterprise performing it’s course change doesn’t even do the sequence justice.
There was a wonderful starfield mass ahead of the Enterprise that is not present in the screen grab,
the Enterprises motion was fluid, it had mass,
I’m still wondering what all the complaints are about exactly.

Okuda and his team are evidently not recycling the look and feel of the successor series visually.
I think that’s wise.
DS9,Voyager, and even Enterprise are immediately dated in appearance, the next generation video game consoles have better graphics.
The Okuda’s are coming up with a visual style that maintains the original shows uniqueness apart from the successor series.
Each new CGI addition is a beauty shot, continuous beauty shots.
Why does everyone want the Enterprise to look like the Battlestar Galactica? Dirty, scruffy, tainted. That isn’t what the spirit of Star Trek is.
The Enterprise represents “hope”, and it’s appearance should reflect that.

The Enterprise is too clean?
Where are all the complaints that the refit Enterprise in “The Motion Picture” is too clean?
It wasn’t until ILM got ahold of the model that they scruffed it up, given their background with Star Wars.
I think the Enterprise looks majestic, as she should. Bright, clean, cared for.
If I wanted to watch mottled human futures full of bleakness, tragedy, grey morality and Greebly inspired technology I’d tune into the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica.
Which I don’t.

69. Donn - October 17, 2006

I don’t think people want the Enterprise to look like the Galactica at all, in fact, I really dislike when a refit-era “aztec pattern” is applied to the classic ship. (No offense, Daren!)
There is simply the issue of how the CGI is being executed in this effort that people object to.
There is no excuse for getting details- yes like the nacelle caps- wrong when this stuff has been around for forty years for all to see.
When precedent has been set for really good looking CGI elsewhere, a sub-standard job, especially when applied to something like Classic Trek, simply, understandably, and justifiably angers people.
And they better learn this: If they fix things before the HD versions are released, they’ll sell.
If they don’t, they won’t.

70. acb - October 17, 2006

I think the main issue that many have with the new cgi images of the enterprise simply deals with the notion that they are using a low performing image engine for all being done. The lighting texturing on the ship is not blended in as well as other shows that have put more time to their special effects. The result ends up being the light and dark tones on the ship are not blending together, which to the visual eye is very noticable.

as for the whole dirtying of the enterprise: I really like the work that was put into the refit version myself. The model has a slightly more of a balanced look visually (and is a hell of alot more appealing than that piss of crap enterprise-e done for the later films). Besides, it is not like they are coating the enterprise in grim either. It is simply a notion of attempting to balance a sense of realism with the fantasy of Star Trek, as does any good sci-fiction story does. You mix results of a real world with those of the fictional. Anyway, by having that little bit of dirt reminds me at least that someone is attempting to take the story telling seriously by adding such intricate additions.

71. Josh - October 17, 2006

I think for a good comparison of the spirit I believe Okuda and his team May be shooting for, someone should post some pictures of the Discovery and the Leonov from “2010: The Year we make contact.”

Very stark contrasted shadows with no fade.

72. Josh - October 17, 2006

^^^^

and colorful, impressionistic planets almost resembling paintings.

73. dmack - October 17, 2006

To those that think ALL of the new FX are swell inclusing the mostly panned Course change shot, how big is your display. I am projecting at 92″ and at that size some of the FX look great and some like the CC shot look ridiculous.

74. Donn - October 17, 2006

To clarify, I am a HUGE fan of the FX in ST:TMP- the detailing Doug Trumbull’s shop did on the refit E was brilliant. The way he lit it was masterful. It, of course, later was was ruined by ILM by matte spraying the whole thing over so they could use bluescreen.
The CG classic E doesn’t need a million little panels embossd on it to give it scale. What it does need is a more experienced and subtle approach when it comes to lighting and detailing– especially with those… domes. (HA, HA!)

75. dmack - October 17, 2006

Exactly!!!!

76. Dave - October 18, 2006

Hi Matt Wright,

“Also, Dave I dunno where your getting your information but Paramount has confirmed uncut HD remastered/CGI versions exist for future use….”

Go back and read my previous message again….

“The episodes are NOT available uncut. CBS/Paramount had made an initial offering that DID include both options but few if any accepted due to how much advertsing revenue would be lost with roughly only 3 minutes of commercial time to sell. CBS/Paramount eats up the other three minutes by selling their own advertising as well.

The episodes will be available uncut on all DVD formats after the entire series has aired over the next two years. You will not be able to see them uncut (with the possible expcetion of a convention showing) until late 2008 early 2009. ”

I never addressed whether or not the HD was available for broadcast at this time. But just to open another can of worms… the following information comes from the text of a phone interview that is available on startrek.com.

Star Trek Enhanced is not available for broadcast in HD at this time. Most local TV stations that broadcast in HD can only broadcast live sporting events, local news, or a live network feed (meaning prime time programming between 8 and 11 PM). The amount of storage space that is required to store these episodes for any length of time is enormous. A few stations out there DO have this capacity, but not enough have it to make it worth the effort for CBS/Paramount to transmit these episodes at this time.

Yes, the episodes will be available for this type of broadcast in the future. But CBS/Paramount has chosen to NOT make them available at this time.

77. dmack - October 18, 2006

Josh, it looks like the producer of the project Dave Rossi pretty much agrees with EXACTLY what all we “whiners” and complainers” have been saying…
..However, much discussion has focused on how CBS have been digitally recreating Kirk’s classic Enterprise. Many seem to feel that the team have not got it quite right yet, but what may surprise the critics is that the producers at CBS agree. “It is not that we are unhappy with the work, but it is not yet the Enterprise as we want to see it” says Dave Rossi, going on “we want it to be there as much as everybody else does.” And this is not just talk; the team has a plan…and a new model.

Not enough time and too much detail
The reasons for the Enterprise not meeting the most exacting standards are twofold. Firstly there is the matter of time. The CBS team only had one month to deliver the first 2 episodes with over 120 new effects shots. “People need to understand the amazing amount of work these guys had to do from a dead stop,” says Rossi. Secondly the team started with a model of the Enterprise that was in essence ‘too good’. It had detail all the way down to the nuts and bolts which you would never see, and the problem is that it takes forever for their computers to render the shots. Rossi explains, “It was taking time from us to do the lighting and the things that make the Enterprise shine.” Together these things gave the team little to no time to make the changes they felt were necessary.

A ‘new’ Enterprise for Trek Remastered
Things have settled down a bit for the team now that they have done a few episodes, but the biggest change is that they have a brand new digital model of the Enterprise. This week a new model with less of the render hungry (but invisible) detail is being delivered to the Trek Remastered team. Rossi says the new ship will be cut down the render time dramatically and free up time to ‘do some of those cool things’ that they have wanted to do. “We will have time time to test lighting, coloring, and yes…those nacelle caps,” says Rossi, “it is going to totally change the process, we are very excited about it.” The team is so up on their new model that they hope to go back to some previously done shots and redo them. It is a welcome sign that the team is willing to make these improvements going forward (and backward). Many of those early shots get re-used throughout the series (an example would be the plastic-looking ‘left turn shot‘ seen last week in ‘I,Mudd’, which is a reuse of one of the first shots the team made for ‘Miri’). Due to the lead time in putting together an episode, the ‘new’ Enterprise won’t be making its debut until November.

See?!?!?!? Jeez…

78. acb - October 18, 2006

……………..thanks for cutting and pasting an article we all already read.

79. EBAR - October 18, 2006

Thanks for the information dmack! Perhaps, someone should explain to the Trek Remastered people who are working on the new effects that they are wrong and that their effects are just great the way they are!
;-)

I really don’t see what the big rush is all about. If CBS is willing to invest the money, they should take as much time as they need to get the effects done properly. I don’t need to see one new resmastered episode every week. I would be happy with one per month if that is what it takes to make the effects look good.

Even though I aready own two complete versions of TOS on DVD, I would be willing to pay big bucks for a new remastered TOS set with great special effects. I am not willing to pay anything for what they have done to date with this effort.

CHANGE IS GOOD! Bring on the improvements, please. And for goodness sake, take your time and revise the release schedule to do them properly!

80. dmack - October 19, 2006

acb, sod off
It was called making a point..
wiseass..

81. acb - October 19, 2006

and an overbloated, unneccesary one at that.

82. dmack - October 19, 2006

what is your problemIt was in direct response to someone posting in this thread. Why don’t you find something better to do.

83. Tony - December 27, 2007

Hey!

Thanks for fighting against the coefficient of dumpster!

Your efforts, albeit lost in the massive-ness of the WEB, is very much appreciated.

I found your site cuz I had a question/query. Your site and info helped me find the answer.

Thank You!

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.