The Immunity Syndrome Screenshots and Video | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

The Immunity Syndrome Screenshots and Video April 9, 2007

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

Giant CG Space Amoeba!

SFX Video

(WMV)

New and Old

 
Heading for Starbase
 
Black space?
 
The Enterprise in the void
 
The Enterprise in the void
 
The Enterprise continuing into the heart of the void
 
At the center of the void…
 
Being pulled towards the amoeba
 
Holding ground
 
Shuttle launches
 
Leaving the Enterprise
 
View from the shuttle
 
Into the protoplasm
 
Being dragged slowly…
 
Closer…
 
Letting the amoeba pull…
 
Letting the amoeba pull…
 
Into of the protoplasm

 
View from the bridge
 
Timer set, backing out
 
Spock’s shuttle in tractor
 
Spock thrown to the floor (notice the new rotoscoping)

 
Landing the shuttle

 

Various Shots


What happened to the stars?

Grant me Vulcan Dignity

Kirk leers at the female crew member

Comments

1. Gd846c3 - April 9, 2007

Good work CBS-D. I look forward to your future work.

2. Jim J - April 9, 2007

Gotta love this! Fantastic work!

3. Michael Appleton - April 9, 2007

Boy, looking at the photo comparison, all I can say is that sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish between Remastered and the original. That’s not to compliment the new version for adhering to the flavour of the old, actually, on the contrary. I’m just saying…….

4. Crusade2267 - April 9, 2007

Good job guys! Its actually dark in the Zone of Darkness!

5. ANN O RAKK - April 9, 2007

NEXT GENERATION & THE NEW BATTLESTAR
GALACTICA ARE STILL BETTER THAN THIS!!!

6. Chris - April 9, 2007

#5 …TNG effects looked horrible then ENT-D always looked like a model.

7. John Pemble - April 9, 2007

UPDATE

TNG looked more CGI (too many fuzzy beauty passes) than model, or so I think.

8. Alternative Factor anti-Chris - April 9, 2007

The new Version was leaps and bounds better than the old versions. In almost every shot the old images stick out like a sore thumb because it looks tacked onto the background image. There’s no lighting and the ship fits in the shots worse than a preschooler’s artwork would fit in the Louvre.

However, the old effects of the amoeba (from a distance) still stand up pretty well today, the close ups don’t.

9. steve623 - April 9, 2007

Wow but that was a lot of work for a very average episode. The effects are definitely the best thing about this otherwise paint-by-numbers installment. Well, the effects and that one really enthusiastic bridge crewman who does a sumersault during one of the many shaky camera moments.

10. MichaelJohn - April 9, 2007

Many episodes, including this one, show the Enterprise being illuminated by what looks like “star light”. This is in stark contrast to the original, brightly lit shots.

I’m not sure if I really like this more realistic rendering of the ship, but it’s probably much closer to what the Enterprise would look like if photographed in deep space.

Most of us have become so accustomed to watching episodes of TOS that show the Enterprise so consistently bright in each episode, that we have failed to realize that this is not an accurate or realistic effect.

So I guess I should give the CGI team more credit, as they are obviously trying to be more accurate with regards to the proper lighting, shadow and contrast in any given situation.

Mike :o

11. Gary Eight - April 9, 2007

Frak me!

12. dm - April 9, 2007

was that helmsman ‘KYLE’ doing a different accent..?!?!?

13. Thomas Jensen - April 9, 2007

I’m with #87 on that shot of the Enterprise entering the amoeba. The ship could have been shaking and shuddering for a bit as did the camera effects inside the ship. But overall I enjoyed it very much.

Also, I’m wondering, where did the details from the physical model go? Is the new CGI model forgoing the ‘rust ring’ which encircles the front of the saucer below the lettering? Is there no longer ‘weathering’ on the interconnecting dorsal, the warp engines, the engineering section and the front edge of the saucer? Has subtle ‘hull plating’ replaced the now generally well-known details of the physical model? Surely, some of these details can be retained with the new look of the CGI model? I believe the first model had the rust ring in “Balance of Terror” when they inserted a new shot for that show. But I don’t think the new version incorporates this look.

I like the CGI version, in fact I welcome it, but I think it’s a fine-line these artists walk when doing something like this.

As I see it, the ship should be ‘cleaner’ in the early adventures in the first season. As if the ship had been restored, upgraded and made ready for Captain Kirk and his crew.

As the show progressed, the ship entered “standard orbit” many times and various planet atmospheres might leave a slight weathering effect on the hull, as well as entering areas of space where the effects would be left on the hull.

And as the missions multiplied into the third year, the ship’s exterior would reflect this.

Of course, it would never become as ‘weathered’ as the EM version in the Smithsonian. That is overdone, as we all know….. but unless…….yes, the ship was eventually sold to a descendent of Gene Roddenberry and he took the Enterprise light years away from any recorded civilization, never to be found again.

14. Thomas Jensen - April 9, 2007

….sorry, posted in the wrong article…

15. Smitty - April 10, 2007

Well done CBS-D!

I’m glad the kept the same basic look for the space amoeba in full and reworked the inner structure to look more organic and less like oil and color dye visuals seen at Grateful Dead concerts.

-cs™

16. yo - April 10, 2007

> … Grateful Dead …

yeah man …

“Now I’m just sitting watching TV …
Think about the way things used to be”
– GD, “Ermaline”

“All the stars are gone ….”
– GD, “Built to Last”

“A lady of nobility … a splendor in the dark”
– GD, “I Need a Miracle”

17. Paul - April 10, 2007

Older shots of “the inside of amoeba” look better, aesthetic-wise, to me. Those remade just look like any other generic nebula in Star Trek.

Stars in remastered version are still way too dim (blatantly visible at both “Heading for Starbase” and “Black space?” shots. Visually, there’s nearly no difference between open space and “the void”. Space looks just as bland and empty as the void.

Otherwise, episode is nicely made. I’m pleasantly surprised they kept the amoeba design.

18. Tom - April 10, 2007

The hull of the ship looked spot-on in the opening shot, in both color and texture, to the original studio model.

You can actually see the perspective change in the square viewports as the Enterprise approaches, too. I always took some of these as being sensor ports rather than just view ports, but the remastered version is certainly redefining them.

Also the viewport just above the hanger deck doors is apparently a control room of some sort. But the CGI model is still missing the flashing beacon on the side and the green and red fantail lights.

19. Paul - April 10, 2007

One more thing – is it just me, or does the amoeba shape in remastered version stay all the same for whole episode? Now, THAT’s lazy. In sixties, they managed to make it change shape, yet in 2007, they can’t do the same with modern computers?

Yes, it really should change shape. The word “amoeba” comes from greek “amoibe”, which means “change”.

20. Cervantes - April 10, 2007

SOME nice stuff in this one once again, but (and there always seems to be a but…),

#18 Tom
The MISSING rear lights were always visually pleasing on the original Model, and would have helped to “sell” the CGI new stuff better in this remaster to my mind. The fact that established details like this are left out sometimes (they have them on TOO infrequently) make the “original” work shine in photo comparisons. AND even when “lights” such as the red and green ones on top of “saucer” are done, they seem to be POORLY lit, and NOT as vibrantly colourful as the “real” versions on the filmed miniature. Bring back BRIGHTNESS, and make the CGI versions look truer to the original and more interesting to look at. Oh and brighten up those “windows” too… Also, although the “E” in darkness shots are nice, I believe there should have been MORE “light spill” from the various lights and Nacelle Caps, but that’s just me.

#Thomas Jensen
Yes, I think it would have been great to see the “E” starting off “bright and shiny” in certain episodes, then a little “weathered” in others, reflecting the look of the original Model work.

21. Lou - April 10, 2007

I soooooo hope they release these re-done ones on dvd.
and they’d better be cheaper than the $100 ones they already released!

22. Magic_Al - April 10, 2007

Should’ve made the hangar deck brighter and that shot would’ve looked a lot like the final shuttle pod launch in 2001.

23. bman - April 10, 2007

#12: I believe Kirk said “Cowell”, not “Kyle”

24. Dennis Bailey - April 10, 2007

I don’t know how they managed the rotoscoping in the shuttle shot with Spock on the floor – there’s a hexagonal grille between the camera and the effects insert. Really, really impressive work.

25. tronnei - April 10, 2007

>>#12: I believe Kirk said “Cowell”, not “Kyle”

26. Kyle Nin - April 10, 2007

Did anyone notice that the “hole in space” has the same shape as the amoeba?

27. Jim J - April 10, 2007

If you look really close, the grill has slighty changed, but who cares? That really is impressive work!

On the video (and this is the one thing that still gripes me about CBS-D’s work-about the only thing that does), at the times 0:42 and 0:37 on the fx video the ship looks fair, but somewhat plastic. I can live with it, though. At 0:34 it gets much better though. But the BAD one (and they use almost every episode) is the shot at 1:06. I HATE that shot, it reeks of plastic/fake/YUCK!!!!!!

Drives me nuts, because I love everything else they are doing. CBS, please get rid of this shot or redo it, or something. Using it over and over again is depressing.

28. Jim J - April 10, 2007

Hey Kyle (or is that Cowell?)- Good observation. I hadn’t noticed that, but you are correct sir. Interesting!

29. ZtoA - April 10, 2007

WOW! and Double-wow!! I saw this ep when it aired on sat but I missed the shuttle diparture during a beer run… cool as hell.

Is it me or am I seeing interior structures through the windows on some of the E close ups? It’s definitely more than a bright white light coming through the windows. When I saw the shot of the E being pulled into the “beastie” I thought it was too much motion, but when you cut to the bridge and everyone is literally jumping out of their chairs, the motion of the E is sold. Kinda looks like a jumbo jet in bad turbulence.

Great job CBS-D.

30. Michael Hall - April 10, 2007

I just tend to really dislike shots showing the exterior of the Enterprise shaking around or too rapidly changing vector–to my eye they just ruin the sense of scale.

Otherwise, everything just looked splendid. This episode now really is Trek’s “Fantasic Voyage” in all respects, good and bad.

31. Doug - April 10, 2007

Well, I finally saw it last night. I must say… MIXED BAG on the effects. Some shots were big spot on, some just plain sucked.

The good: The beauty passes are much better, even if the coloring is still off. ie, the deflector dish… the overall lighting of the Enterprise. But still, they are much improved on sense of scale and movement for the beauty shots.

The bad: The episode specific effects still suffer. The shuttle leaving the Ent: landing bay, was terrible. The Ent shaking as it entered the amoeba was awful. I use the words “cringe worthy” with full intent. Not impressed at all. The amoeba looked good, the constant movement within the amoeba, but I agree with a previous poster that the amoeba looked more like a generic trek nebula than the amoeba that was presented in the original episode.

Overall, I’m genuinely more and more disappointed overall than I am impressed. And again would reiterate that there is no way in hell I would buy these on DVD if re-offered. So not sure where Paramounts bottom line is on this project, but it’s not enticing me to spend more money. I’m actually saddened by this missed opportunity to do something really cool.

Doug

32. billy don't be a hiro - April 10, 2007

“The Ent shaking as it entered the amoeba was awful. I use the words “cringe worthy” with full intent.”

I agree completely with that statement.

Amd on a completely unrelated matter, I got the entire run of “In Search of …” on DVD-R yesterday and it is soooooooooooo cool.

33. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 10, 2007

Man, you guys really analyze this stuff. I do to an extent, but I don’t even know what some of you are talking about some of the time. You notice details I would never in a million years think about.
I’m not saying that’s bad. I’m just saying I am not seeing a lot of it unless it is brought up.
All-in-all I like this episode and thought the remastered version was mostly excellent.
Not really that hyped-up about Gorgon. I suppose I will tape it, but as far as watching the whole thing, maybe not. Can’t be a lot of opportunities there for the remasterers to work with.

34. THEETrekMaster - April 10, 2007

Meh…I like the shot.

It shows the powerful pull of the giant amoeba.

Something that big in comparison to the Enterprise would have the ability to pull it like a toy — and make it look like one.

No problem there for me.

TTM

35. Mr. Mike - April 10, 2007

This episode has some of the most amazing new FX shots I’ve seen by CBS-D so far. Even from the just the fx reel and the pictures it’s already surpassed my expectations.

Can’t wait to see the proper episode!

36. Doug - April 10, 2007

re 33:

Hi Stanky! to your point. it’s not so much an analysis, as I simply react. I either see something, and think… hey that is F@*&ing Cool!!! or , that looks totally fake. It’s completely visceral for me. I want to be blown away with each episode.

Unfortunately, It’s just not happening. Critical? Yeah, but I can’t help it. d

37. Jim J - April 10, 2007

I think it’s just a matter of taste. Some like coffee, some like tea (Earl Grey, hot). Doug, I find it interesting that some of the effects you enjoy, I do as well, yet some that you really have a problem with don’t bother me that much. Im still cringing only when I get that behind the Enterprise shot fro above that looks like a tiny plastic toy (see my post #27). I’d be curious what you think of that shot. Am I the only one bothered by it?

38. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 10, 2007

36. Doug

My comments weren’t really directed specifically at you or anyone else . I just kind of marvel at the detailed analysis that some people make of things. Like I said, I don’t have any problem with it, I just am not as tuned into some of that as others, I guess. I see it in more general terms as well.

39. YUBinit - April 10, 2007

I do like the running lights casting their glow on the hull in the dark. However I wish they would work more on the shuttle bay interior. The “globes” near the doors are now what… greenhouses for zero gravity hydroponics? On the original they were structural… no reason for them to be framed and translucent.

40. Lao3D - April 10, 2007

After watching the effects reel a few times over, I’m ready to make this one my favorite remastered effort to date. Just great work. The mix of ’00s technology and ’60s pop, the departure shot of the shuttle from outside the ship, the giant proto-loogie, and (even though it didn’t make the effects reel) the subtle window rotoscoping in the shot with poor, collapsed Mr. Spock — so much to love and so little to hate! My only wish for the future DVD release would be MORE!!

41. Redshirt - April 10, 2007

I already noticed the problems with some of the shots with the Enterprise as it was reduced looking like a toy. Mainly as the Enterprise rocks uncontrollably inside the amoeba. Just the couple of the shots were unnerving to watch.
That was the only thing I didn’t like out of all of it.

They make up for this with some nicely rendered shots. Everything else works.The oozing effect of the amoeba was quite excellent. A far departure of overall in a matter of one outing. The work improved. The lighting was good. No more of that visible hull plating shots like we seen last week. If the Enterprise needed to be darker then they should gone with this route.This has become one of my favorites too.

42. Doug - April 10, 2007

re 37:

Well, there are two thoughts to that. One would be that you don’t like that angle in general, the other is that the effect is bad. For my purposes, I think I know what shot you’re referring to, and I don’t like it either. I hate to be a hater, but I do sort of look at things with an analytical (and hopefully artistic) eye, and I’m mostly left flat. But that’s me. There are obviously others who are loving every detail.

You know with a million other things going on your life, you tend to latch on a little stronger to things that take you back to your childhood a bit, so I probably get over critical.

But as an example, with Battlestar Galactica (and lots of posters hate this comparison) which is stylistically very different, the end result is that when I look at the effects, I’m really impressed. Regardless of if the show is good or bad or whatever you want to attach to it. The effects are impressive, and I’m blown away.

You can do a million things stylistically with effects from a classic look to a more modern or inventive look to sublime and I’ll be open minded. If they are good and believable to my aesthetic, I’m onboard. Trek Enhanced too often looks like bad models or cartoons, with the random spot of inspiration thrown in for good measure. They definitely are doing some things right, but not enough for me.

I generally look at things with an editors eye. I want to get my hands on it and fix what I don’t like, so each week when people have the opportunity to do just that, I watch and hope for the best.

I’ve said all this before. Hope I’m not boring you dudes. Later, d

43. ZtoA - April 10, 2007

Going back to the ship movements… you can’t have people jumping and being hurled all over the bridge while exterior shot shows a rather tranquil motion of the ship. The enterprise is big, but it’s not so big that subtile movements will send people hurtling across the bridge. It’s LOA is slightly longer than Tiger Woods can hit a golf ball off the tee and it’s about as wide as a cruise ship is long. To send people suddenly rocketing out of their chairs on a cruise ship would take some serious movement and that’s just what CBS-D had to create in order to sell the frantic goings-on inside the bridge.

44. Christopher Seeley - April 10, 2007

In reply to ANN O RAKK – April 9, 2007

I love new Battlestar and TNG too; however there would not have been any of those shows without TOS.

45. Mr. Atoz - April 10, 2007

I have to believe that the guy playing Mr Kyle was re-cast in this episode as Mr . Cowl. They change his name, give him a gold shirt, and I think they give him a stripe on his sleeve. If everyone remembers, TOS did this a lot with actors, changing names, shirts, rank, and even place of service. For example, Look at Commander Giotto in “Devil in the Dark” He appears in The “Ultimate Computer” as Commodore Stone. Right?

46. AKBrit - April 10, 2007

Where as I am a fan of the remastered trek, I prefer the original version. I didnt like the the new ameba but everything else was good. I am frustrated in finding all the ones I am looking forward to dissapoint me, and the ones I dont think about look great and impress…like the Corbomite Manuever. Hmmmm….I think its a good think for trek overall though. Can’t wait for new film.

47. Olde Timey Fan - April 10, 2007

Oh my God the opening beauty shots are gorgeous. By Jeffries, I think they’ve got it!

Still don’t like the cartoon-like “medium” views, along the z-axis and typically looking down the warp engines and the secondary hull. There is not much on those tube-shapes and the coloration reminds me of an 8-bit rendering.

48. Calvination! - April 10, 2007

Found a website of a writer who pitched a couple of scripts to Star Trek Voyager, and he has the scripts featured on his website. The scripts got him on the Paramount lot a couple of times. I read both scripts — pretty darn good!

Thought you’d all be interested in taking a look. His site is at http://www.bankoftheclown.com

49. Olde Timey Fan - April 10, 2007

Maybe one of you photography experts can help me.

I watched the reel half-a-dozen times to identify what bothers me about those “looking forward from the rear” shots that to my eye look like a video game.

I think the problem is this: there is no sense of “forced perspective”. i’ve been at Norfolk and seen the Big E in person, among other supercarriers.. I’ve been at Cape Canaveral and saw a Saturn 1b and several space shuttles — not to mention the VAB. Those things are HUGE! and about the size of the ST Enterprise.

When the ship moves away from my “eye”, the spacing between the warp engines does not change and I see too much detail for the supposed distance. In other words, it looks like my AMT model held up to my face and moved away a few feet. The apparent size remains essentially unchanged.

It seems to me that, as the Enterprise moves away, the sheer distance would make the forward portion of the ship seem MUCH MUCH smaller and fuzzier. You guys know what I’m talking about — it’s the classic “railroad tracks” they teach us in junior high school art class.

The URL under my screen name links to a page on the USS Enterprise, CVN-65. There you will find a number of good shots of her from various perspectives. Notice they reveal everything I am trying to explain in words, except of course there are no movies of her underweigh. Perhaps I’ll dig around for footage of maneuvers at sea, although we’ve all seen enough WWII footage of real ships at war to know how they look: HUMONGOUS!

50. CmdrR - April 10, 2007

If this isn’t the first, then forgive me… but Matt, thanks for adding the sound to these clips. It helps SOOO much.
And YES, this is how the E should look. They’ve nailed it like Kirk on a yeoman.

51. Jon - April 10, 2007

I liked being able to see into the windows on the saucer rim and getting a sense of dimension.I was hoping for more.Having a figure move across the window ,for example.

52. Xai - April 10, 2007

#51 Jon,
I am not picking on you with this comment…. the comical thought just struck me.
We need people waving out those ports. Waves, Vulcan salutes, perhaps the middle finger raised in an upward manner means something different in another century?…. Just a joke.

53. Olde Timey Fan - April 10, 2007

“Roll” models for CBS-D:

Carrier Landing — from the cockpit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INUW2wLWiyE

USS Constellation, CVA-64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6ZAtjPb9QM

USS Hornet CVA-12 + the ill-fated USS Evans DD-754
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEqMNAVYR7Y

Beauty Shot of USS Midway CVA-41
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5895615560691613500&q=aircraft+carrier

Liberty Launch approaches USS Ranger CVA-61
http://www.thoughtequity.com/video/clip/345286_35427.do?GCID=C15754x009

Night landing at sea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZQ9pS1b4R4

54. Mark 2000 - April 10, 2007

The ship looked like a toy when it entered the amoeba. It looked like a balloon being bumped around. They need to learn to move the ship while showing at least a LITTLE mass.

55. Pat - April 10, 2007

No screen grab of Spock walking out to the shuttle showing the upper deck in the background?

56. Driver - April 10, 2007

I thought the E should have splayed about. A bit like Raggedy Doll with arms flailing about. Or like the Robot from LOS. Have the nacelles and saucer do the same, yeah!

57. Mysterious (They turned it into TAS) Stranger - April 10, 2007

Love what they did with the Enterprise in this new TAS episode. I never was a big fan of TAS, but since they are making the ship and effects look so good, I’ll think about watching more, but still wont buy the DVD’s.

And to think, I stayed up until 2:30 am to watch this.

58. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shat's Leotards) Kirk Esquire' - April 10, 2007

^^^^^

It’s insightful, informed, intuitive posts like these that always serve to remind me why Star Trek fans are so generous and giving, deserving of studio loyalty.

I scratch my sack in honor of this illuminating post.

59. Mysterious (I'm not a liberal, but have a right to my oppinion) Stranger. - April 10, 2007

Yes, and I wipe my Keister and fart in your general direction, in homage to yours.

Sorry you don’t like my posts mate, but hey, we all have our own oppinions.

It (the graphics) just didn’t feel right. I’ve been a big fan of the CG thing, until recently, I just think they are taking a few to many liberties and changing a wee bit to much.

It’s that simple.

60. Michael Appleton - April 10, 2007

#58 “I scratch my sack”
Nice turn of phrase, but getting a little “testy” aren’t we? Of course, some would point out that it takes balls to make a remark like that! I guess if you’re curious as to whether a fellow poster can laugh at these things, there’s nothing wrong with a “test tickle” and then to wait for their response.

61. chuck - April 10, 2007

Does anyone know what software CBS is using, lightwave, some-inhouse creation etc.?

62. SPOCKBOY - April 11, 2007

I think these guys might know….

http://www.startrekanimated.com/tas_main.html

63. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shatners Leotards) Kirk Esquire' - April 11, 2007

#59

Don’t you mean “opinion” O’ Mysterious flatulent one?

64. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shatners Leotards) Kirk Esquire' - April 11, 2007

Sure, exclaiming for all to see your opinion and dislike for the project is of course your prerogative and right, however, that being said, do you truly in good conscience believe and percieve the effort by CBS Digital is comparable and remotely analogous to TAS in appearance?

Not liking a thing is one thing, being a bit intellectually disingenuous as to why is quite another.

65. Holo J - April 11, 2007

I like what CBS have done with this episode… maybe the wobble as the Enterprise entered the amoeba look a little off but the rest was great.

59. Mysterious Stranger.
“It (the graphics) just didn’t feel right. I’ve been a big fan of the CG thing, until recently, I just think they are taking a few to many liberties and changing a wee bit to much.”

Maybe I have misunderstood you but do you really just want to see just shot for shot recreation of the original?

I think that would be a massive waste of a great opportunity. On the whole I love all the new angles. I think CBS have done a great Job so far with mixing up recreation of old shots with new angles. The problem I think this project has is I am not sure CBS know who they are really doing this for.

I would say there are two extremes to this project. First there is the purist that will never be happy with anything other than the original and will always think that the original effects are better.
Then there are the FX junkies like myself, they will always want more and always see a missed opportunity.

Obviously there is a massive range of people in between these two types of people. Who sit somewhere along the line either side of the scale. So CBS have a tough time trying to please everybody. I think most of what they have done is great but I always wish they would do more… for example this week it would have been great to actually see the amoeba’s destruction. As someone mentioned before they could have lost a bit of the crew being thrown about for a few seconds to make room for that shot.

I think CBS do a great Job of pleasing the middle man on the scale, I wish that they would decide who it is they really want to please the most. And if they can’t decided I wish they would do a super deluxe remastered version (not the Aprils fools version) then give people the choice of what version they would like to own.

So the purist is happy because there is always the original and the middle man is happy because he has a cleaned up version with some new effects and the FX junky is happy with the fully blown Remastered copy with no opportunity left missed (Hand phaser, display screen , planet surfaces, insert windows etc, etc).

All those in-between grab a copy which is close to whatever suits their taste best. That way we have been told the same story its just how we have view it that is different.

Yeah I know that’s unlikely and I think there will always be shots people don’t think work for whatever reason but it’s the best way I can think of to getting close to pleasing everybody.
But for me CBS I’d like to see more more more please :O)

66. YUBinit - April 11, 2007

#49 I think you make a valid point. The computer rendering effect known as Bloom is what I thnk you refer to in giving distant objects a haze effect. Many of the newer games even incorporate it, so why not here?

67. Doug - April 11, 2007

re 49

Very good observations. That’s probably why a lot of people think this ship looks like a toy.

d

68. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shatners flaming tits) Kirk Esquire' - April 11, 2007

#65

Well stated.

CBS Digital is succeeding magnificently with the STATED INTENTION of the project- which has been all along to simply translate the original effects shots to a medium more suitable for HD viewing.

It was never stated the intention was to revolutionize the effects.

It was never stated the intention was to re-imagine the series.

It was never stated the intention was to enhance every aspect of the series.

If someone happens to have a library of Congress mentality, they have the DVDs of the original unaltered versions for posterity.

The purpose and intention of this remastered series is simply to make the 79 jewels sparkle a bit more and be a bit more palatable to a generation spoiled on modern special effects. Nothing more or less.

If CBS Digital is to be damned, let them be damned for the stated criterion of the project, not for fans random and arbitrary projections on what the project SHOULD consist of.

The team have discovered a formula and aesthetic that is entirely suitable and appropriate for the series, that neither stretches imagination by inserting Star Wars Revenge of the Sith like space exteriors into the shots, nor adheres to the original sequences to the extent no fundamental difference can be percieved.

These guys are walking the line every week on the concept of can vs. should, probably under alot of stress, and for fans to spitefully slur the results of the efforts callously demonstrates a complete disregard for the concept of artistic appreciation.

This project is not for purists.
This project is not for Battlestar Galactica fans
This project is not for those that count pixels deliberately looking for something to bitch about.
This project is for those that have simply always wanted to see the U.S.S. Enterprise depicted in a consistent, faux-realistic manner, that brings the series far more closer in line with the first 6 films.

69. Jim J - April 11, 2007

65 & 68-
I really agree with most everything you are both saying. The bottom line is that we all have different tastes and want what we want.

Regarding how some of you feel that are disappointed (but wanted this to begin with): “After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all…as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.”

70. Dr. Image - April 11, 2007

#68- Closer in line with the first six films??????
I agree with everything else you said except that.

If anything, the films were a DEPARTURE from the classic aesthetic.
Remastered is attempting to bring some consistency to THAT era only.

Now if they’d only light up those lights below the hangar deck…

71. Xai - April 11, 2007

#68 Josh….
… finally, I can agree with you. Thanks for taking that on.

#67 Doug
…please don’t speak for me and others. If you’ve done a survey on how people feel with the look of the ship and the majority agree with your statement, fine. Otherwise, yours is an opinion among many.
My opinion is that the ship looks fine and does not need the distance distortion that’s being suggested. Part of the distortion we humans expect to see on large objects like this is due to atmospheric haze…air, humidity, etc. Obviously those elements don’t come into play here. I am not in favor of further fiddling with porportions and perceptions. It will cause another blow up like the “too dark” discussions in here.

X

72. KT - April 11, 2007

The opening shot of the E in this episode is stunning, and it was quite a surprise to be able to see interior detail through the forward windows.

73. KT - April 11, 2007

The shuttlecraft bay needs to be brightened a bit, and it would be nice to see a CGI rendering of the wider vertical angle used in shooting the original miniature set.

74. CmdrR. - April 11, 2007

53 –
I agree with your assessment, that the E should show her size. I would LOVE to see someone look out a window in STXI and see a view that includes the primary hull or a nacelle pylon in proper prospective. Having said that, the director of photography has many asthetic choices ahead. I’m sure many of the shots will present the E as a whole or as one perspective. That’s gonna look like what you’d get holding your favorite ESTES model close to your eye. You could get a forced perspective with a fish-eye lens, but that tends to look warped, not accurate. There are lots of unused angles from even TOS. They were discarded for a reason. It’s not that they’re not realistic; they’re not attractive. The E is a beauty.

75. TOS Fan Forever - April 11, 2007

I’ve been critical (in my private thoughts) of the various new f/x scenes within these assorted TOS episodes. Some have been stellar, others poorly conceived and executed (and wishing the Powers That Be fix them before they are released on DVD).

For the most part, “The Immunity Syndrome” was a success.

+ BEST opening shot of the Enterprise yet! *WOW!!!*
+ Excellent continuity matching, from the amoeba-shaped hole in space to Spock’s shuttlecraft being tractored alongside the retreating Enterprise.
+ The “area of darkness” being, well… dark! And the Enterprise being lit by it’s own lights, plus the luminiscene of the space amoeba. (I particularly liked the blue hues on the large dish – made me think of the TOS movie era Enterprise.)
+ “Penetration” of the creature. Say what you will: The Enterprise may have looked like a toy as it swayed/shifted. I think it worked okay. No major or minor complaints.
+ Loved the colors, the use of particles floating past the ship.

One thing I did note: Some of the f/x looked recycled, such as the shuttlecraft scenes. The launch sequence, particularly the takeoff scene, was from “The Doomsday Machine.” The landing was from “Amok Time.”

Still… a VERY credible, fantastic job by CBS-D!

Btw, for the folks at CBS-D – We know you’re busy, you’re trying to get these shots designed/modeled/rendered. Can some of you consider blogging or conducting yet more interviews, perhaps leading towards a book, of your work? This is living history: A first for the sci-fi TV genre: A complete change of special f/x across an entire TV series.

You’re getting GREAT P.R. from Trekmovie.com and other sites. How about taking it a step further? Continue to build the momentum as you work on other episodes. (Esp. as JJ’s Star Trek movie continues into pre-production.)

Do a better job of connecting with the fan base. :) Please. In this day and age of information availability, we’re hungry for more info, more insights. Bring it on!

Thanks, CBS-D. Truly enjoyed your hard work on this episode!

76. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 11, 2007

re: 75
“One thing I did note: Some of the f/x looked recycled, such as the shuttlecraft scenes. The launch sequence, particularly the takeoff scene, was from “The Doomsday Machine.” The landing was from “Amok Time.” ”

I guess that doesn’t bother me since the original effects were recycled over and over. If it is essentially the same maneuver, then that’s fine. I suppose it would be nice to show a different angle of the same maneuver, but not that big of a deal.

77. MichaelJohn - April 11, 2007

After watching this FX video three times now, I have to agree with what other have already posted regarding the scene where the Enterprise is beginning to penetrate the amoeba. It looked fake and unreal for some reason, and maybe it had something to do with the way the Enterprise was moving.

Sometimes it’s hard to articulate exactly why I feel certain CGI effects look fake or unrealistic, while others look great. But when I first saw the above mentioned effect, my eyes and brain immediately said “not right -not good”.

Anyway, the incredible close up shots of the Enterprise more than make up for that one poor effect. Good job CBS Digital!

Mike :o

78. Michael Hall - April 11, 2007

#68 and #71

Totally agree. Whatever our visual expectations, adding bloom or distance haze effects under these circumstances would be absurd. Use of more wide-angle shots to exaggerate perspective and emphasize the ship’s mass would be fine–but that’s always been a legitimate criticism of the original miniature photography as well. People are really over-thinking this stuff.

79. Xai - April 11, 2007

#77 MichaelJohn
…. I have to pick on you… good naturedly, of course….
“…regarding the scene where the Enterprise is beginning to penetrate the amoeba. It looked fake and unreal for some reason…”

We have a 280+ meter long starship penetrating the mother-of-all protozoans in deep space.

What part of this scene looked fake?

80. Dr. Image - April 11, 2007

HAAA!

I hate to bring up the nacelle ball thing again, BUT, look at the above “letting the amoeba pull” sequence.
The CGI ones sure look too small to me.
I DON’T think it’s a trick of lighting, either.
Why aren’t they catching this?

81. Michael Appleton - April 11, 2007

Not to nitpick, but did anybody else notice how that one star looked fake? You know, the one floating in the background as the Enterprise did it’s flyby? C’mon, you know the one, that funny looking shiny thing there in the upper left of the screen? Don’t you hate it when they can’t get it right?
Holy shit, people!! I’ve HAD IT with this! What, does every sand HAVE to be in place in the Sahara before you guys are HAPPY??!! Every time I read one of your crappy nitpicks, in my mind I hear it in the same tone Shatner used in that Seven parody, “what’s in the f**kin’ box?”

82. MichaelJohn - April 11, 2007

#79….awwh. well…you know what I mean…it’s all fake of course…but I see your point! hahahah

I guess it’s kind of hard for any CGI animator to make a starship entering a big blog of an Amoeba look real! :o

But let me try to rephrase then…that scene looked “cartoonish” compared to the others which looked more realistic. Better?

Mike

83. Michael - April 11, 2007

Blue screen spillage, pilot model and production model shots mixed together in one sequence, the big E all lit up brightly in the zone of darkness??? Common the old effects sucked here. They were good in composition only. The side-by-side shows it. Love the new shots – LOVE the big E lit up by her own lighting – marvelous!!!

Yes, CBS-D needs to talk about their work. We already know they read this site. It sure would be nice to hear from them from time to time.

We would need to be on our best behavior though!!

84. Olde Timey Fan - April 11, 2007

I don’t really see the point of swapping a set of poorly executed “fake” looking fx for a new set of differently poorly exectuted “fake” effects, especially when it costs several hundred thousand dollars for a very limited market. It’s very hard to suspend disbelief when the screen appears to be a video game! C’mon, some of my 1990s Star Trek games were about the same as the E going into the ameoba.

And the kicker of it is this: sometimes, CBS-D hits it out of the ballpark, so we know they can do it when they want to do it.

As for the arguments about pressure etc., So what? Most of us on this board are under pressure to perform each and every day. What makes these guys exempt?! LOL!

And to Xai: Okay. You obviously have experience living in outer space so I’ll defer to you when it comes to ‘splainin’ how everything looks up there. I only know what life on earth looks like, you know what I’m saying? So when I watch television, that is how my brain interprets what I see. And when it sees the E going in to a giant ameoba, it says, “This I refuse to believe” and then I remember that I’m not in space, but sitting on my leather sofa watching a 40 yo television show.

Given a choice between the theatrical experience of Star Trek and the “lets tease everyone with state-of-the-art-but-deliberately-fake-looking-CG” I suppose I’d rather the former.

Trek always did work best when it was low-brow Shakespeare instead of high-brow reality program.

Give me some bloom, please!

85. Whinger - April 11, 2007

Where is the Movie news this week?????????????????????

What the F@$K is going on???????????????

Give us some news..pleeeeeeeaaaassssseeeee…..

86. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 11, 2007

re: 86

Haven’t you heard?

Gary Coleman has been signed as James F. Kirk.
Spock will be played by Carrot Top.
Portraying Bones will be Kent Hrbek.

and the bridge railing will be gray.

87. Gd846c3 - April 11, 2007

Well, I for one proudly thank CBS-D for the wonderful job they’ve done in such a limited amount of time. Ok, so the ameoba penetration looked a bit less than stellar, but I think life will continue, I’m not sure though, but it just might somehow. I think we get the picture. These episodes haven’t been put on DVD yet, so CBS-D has plenty of time to fix these insignifigant flaws before some of these nit picky, headstrong, pain in the a#s purists consider Star Trek screwed to the grave.

88. Xai - April 11, 2007

#84 Olde Timey.
WTF,
No, I don’t know what you are saying… the only thing I recognize is the insult you shot my way.
“You obviously have experience living in outer space so I’ll defer to you when it comes to ’splainin’ how everything looks up there”.
My statement contained MY opinion and did not mention your name or insult you. We have a problem or you just dislike someone with a differing opinion?

89. Xai - April 11, 2007

Yes, Hooray for CBS-D for giving some of us a fresh look at TOS and some of us something to bitch about.

90. OM - April 12, 2007

….Kids, I need a second opinion here on whether I’m seeing things or not. Roll the clip, starting with about 38 seconds left in the clip. The Enterprise has entered the Amoeba, and lots of goo is floating past it. If you look down towards the bottom left of the screen, there’s a dark shape that floats past the E from front to back that – at least to my eyes – another Constitution-class nacelle! It’s blackend and silhouetted, and only shows for about three or four frames, and *might* just be a random goo effect. But does anyone else see this?

91. FlyingTigress - April 12, 2007

#90 “If you look down towards the bottom left of the screen, there’s a dark shape that floats past the E from front to back that – at least to my eyes – another Constitution-class nacelle!”

Hmmm. I don’t know about that, but Father Guido Sarducci’s post (on another Trek board) — stated that he found the faces of 37 popes in the protoplasm.

/old Father Guido SNL skit

Seriously. It’s hard to tell viewing this on a monitor without stepping frame-by-frame. Something roughly linear (in the lower left of the screen, begining about 0:37 from the end and going out of frame just after 0:36 (but before 0:35), pitched upper left down to lower right) seems to be there. Hard to tell. But, I’m thinking that CBS-D had more things than time to add a nacelle in there… but that’s just my 0.02.

92. Cervantes - April 12, 2007

At the end of the day, every one here is just venting their OWN personal preferences regarding this project. I myself hoped for the FULL BLOWN works covering everything from imaginative EXTRA space shots, to enhancements for most aliens, phasers, and “studio” backdrops. So that’s my particular hopes unrealised then… However, as a professionally employed Designer I cannot help but look on some of CBS-Digital’s work on this remaster with a “certain” eye. It doesn’t mean my opinion is any more valid than someone else with other issues or indeed others with no issues about it all.

Now…# Dr Image,
I MYSELF just wish that they’d NEVER even used those damn silly nacelle “ball” at the rear, as I ALWAYS preferred the “grills”.

Rest assured friends, that I have many more insignificant points like that to come in future here, as it’s only my OWN issue and you shouldn’t let it bother you…have a “smiley” on me… :D

93. diabolik - April 12, 2007

I have to believe that if CBS somehow secretly built a life-size, working replica of the Enteprise, assembled it in space, lit it and filmed it, some on here would complain about how flat and unrealistic it looks. Really.

The reason many complain about the “cartoony” effect is simepl: CBS is not trying to make the Big E look photo-realistic according to reality, but according to how the original model was lit and protrayed in the original effects. Complete realism would look as unexciting as Nichelle Nichols without makeup, special lighting and lenses.

94. Doug - April 12, 2007

re 71 Xai:

What a funny thing to take offense to?? I wasn’t speaking for anyone but myself. I was agreeing with a previous poster’s comment. And while I haven’t conducted a survey, I do read these posts, and lots of people have had similar comments about the effects that I have… So not sure what you’re bent out of shape about…

I just thought someone had some insightful comments on why they thought the Ent might not look right to himself and others which I found to be an interesting consideration.

I personally don’t like to just say “i think something sucks”. Which would be blatant complaining. I prefer to offer up constructive thoughts on what I think works and what doesn’t, and I also enjoy it when others do that as well.

For the record also, I’m not a proponet of any particular brand of tweaking or fiddling. I’m no special effects wizard, so I wouldn’t presume to tell CBS-D how to do their job. I can only comment on my likes and dislikes. Which is what I thought I was doing.

Doug

95. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 12, 2007

re: 92
“I MYSELF just wish that they’d NEVER even used those damn silly nacelle “ball” at the rear, as I ALWAYS preferred the “grills”.”

Mark me down for grills as well.
And if they are going to have nacelle balls, I don’t care what size they are or if they are lit up or not.

96. Doug - April 12, 2007

re 68 Josh

Hi Josh,

You’re points are all well made, but I would suggest that some of the things you mention aren’t mutually exclusive.

This show can be for purists, and Battlestar fans. This show can be for nitpickers and everyone else. That’s why we have these posts, to share our differing opinions…

So, I would have to ask you why I shouldn’t want to be blown away by the new effects? I don’t think anyone is expecting a “re-imagined” series, or a “revolutionary” change in style… I don’t understand how some of us who aren’t satisfied with the new effects, are lumped up into a group who either doesn’t understand the nature of the project, or have unrealistic standards.

I’m also not criticizing CBS-D. I understand the constraints they work under and accept that’s a big part of the problem. Those constraints are imposed on them by the studio.

The bottom line for me is that while they may have acheived the goal of cleaning it all up for HD transfers, they haven’t “enhanced” the effects in a way that works for me, and (not speaking for everyone here) others that have posted similar thoughts. That to me is a lost opportunity. I was excited about this when I heard about it. I love classic Trek (and TNG era).

The classic Big E was always my favorite, and I want to see it the best I think it can be, but in my opinion the new effects are incredibly average.

Doug

97. Jim J - April 12, 2007

Let’s use reverse logic for a minute: Think about this. What if CBS-D did exactly what was done on the shows when they first came out? Within many episodes there is a blueish, whiteish, and greyish colored Enterprise. A blue outline on the ship in some shots, other places where the ship almost fades out in spots, etc. Nacalles go from spiked to our beloved red/orange fan blade style. Nacelle rear goes from “grilled” to balls lit and unlit. Bridge area on top of saucer does from shorter to taller, back to shorter, back to…Phasers go from blue to red, to almost yellow, to…

Imagine the horror that would ensue on this board. Mind you, I know constructive criticism is important and HAS BEEN helpful to CBS-D in the past. If it’s something glaring, by all means, it oughta be griped about (I think of the early nacelles and the later deflector dish color). But things like which lights are lit up on the ship, what the stars look like, etc. border on ridiculous. Sure, they are legit if a big glaring error, but some even complained early on that the stars weren’t in the right formation, colors look different from episode to episode on people/inside the ship, etc.

For crying out loud, they are working with something that is 40 +/- years old. I think they are doing a great job overall. Some of us just enjoy being critics, me thinks!!!!

98. Jim J - April 12, 2007

You know what is the best about it all, though? It’s still a cultural icon and will never be matched by any of this new-fangled stuff (lots of good sci-fi shows being done out there, but none have the impact of this baby!).

99. Doug - April 12, 2007

re 97

Yo, I definitely agree that arguing about the formation of the Stars is ridiculous.

The thing though is that the effects for Star Trek in the 60′s were pretty cutting edge, and also given the standard tv’s of the day, many of the issues you mention would go pretty much unnoticed.

I think if Star Trek is to be the forerunner and not a trend follower, they should have only bothered to do this if they wanted again to be cutting edge… (while maintaing the integrity of the classic trek style).

And yeah, I agree… I am critical, but I don’t think I’m unreasonable, and I know I’m not the only one who thinks the effects are just average in general. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, rarely consistent, rarely great. I’ll keep watching of course, cuz I love it, and I’ll keep telling people what I think from week to week. I think its fun. I look forward to see who’s responding.

Doug

100. Jim J - April 12, 2007

Doug-

That wasn’t directed at you, that was meant as an overall general feeling from me about all posts on here. There is going to be the “love it all” and “hate it all” crowds. Then there’s those of us in the middle. Some lean a bit to one direction or the other, but we all seem to find great and not so great things. I have been critical of 3-4 things since it all started.

I guess no matter what they do, everyone will NOT be satisfied, That IS the way people are. As a public school teacher of over 17 years, I know that. No matter what I do, someone is gonna think I’m great and someone else is gonna think I’m an idiot. LOL

101. RichR - April 12, 2007

Ok…a couple of comments on Immunity Syndrome…right after the Enterprise enters the body of the amoeba, one of the Intrepid’s warp nacelles and support struts is pretty apparent…to me at least. Very nice subtle touch.

Also, as the ship is backing out, did anyone notice the floating blob that hit and exploded against the saucer support pylon…also a nice touch.

And finally…am I the only person who think we should be seeing “a shield bubble,” ala ST:TNG, whenever the shields encounter physical resistance or energy weapons? I know that Season 3 Klingon/Romulon disrupters usually showed on the view screen as a green haze upon impact (ie Enterprise Incident)…I always thought that implied there was visible shield energy dissipation occuring.

And how ’bout a nice warp “stretch & flash effect” when the ship initially goes into warp? What’s up with that?

102. Jon - April 12, 2007

Is there a ship wash(like a car wash)where they can clean of all that protoplasm or do they just fly really fast past some sun and burn it off ?We’ll have to ask Mr Josh(flaming tits) about that one!

103. ozy - April 12, 2007

Good remastered. Great episode.

104. Xai - April 12, 2007

#94 Doug,
You have my apologies. It was a cranky kind of day and I took it out on you. Sorry, bud.

Regards

105. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 12, 2007

re: 101
“And finally…am I the only person who think we should be seeing “a shield bubble,” ala ST:TNG, …
And how ’bout a nice warp “stretch & flash effect” when the ship initially goes into warp? What’s up with that? ”

I don’t know if you are the only one, but I for one don’t want any of the effects based on other shows or later incarnations.

106. doubleofive - April 12, 2007

I’m not seeing the extra nacelle in the amoeba. I think some of you are wanting to see more than there is.

107. David - April 12, 2007

i love the new CG model of the big E they use. i wish cbs-d would release some VERY hi-res beauty shots of it like they did of the original crappy cg model they initially created…

108. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - April 12, 2007

#102.. Jon.. I believe they use a giant 300 meter long sock

#105 … Stankster… Shield bubble might be kind of cool, Next Gen stretch warp effect lame…. Star Trek the Motion Picture warp effect cool

109. Kev - April 12, 2007

#49 Excellent point on the perspective; I would never have thought of that otherwise. That ‘s probably a “gimme’ with a BIG model as opposed to a monitor.

110. Jon - April 12, 2007

#108 I hope it’s open at both ends or they could get stuck .

111. Doug - April 12, 2007

re: 104 Xai,

Thanks man, no worries. btw. Am in Las Vegas this week and just came back from the Star Trek Experience. Much fun. Even my girlfriend enjoyed it. (she’s not a fan ;)

d

112. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 12, 2007

re: 108
“Stankster… Shield bubble might be kind of cool, Next Gen stretch warp effect lame…. Star Trek the Motion Picture warp effect cool”

May be cool, I agree, but does not belong in the real series.

Marta will now wash the dishes.

113. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - April 13, 2007

112… The Stankmeister… Why doesn’t The Star Trek The Motion Picture Warp Effect belong in the real series ??

Marta will now dry the dishes

114. RichR - April 13, 2007

As for the shield bubble…I’m thinking it was always “intended” to be there…but the 1960s effects (of the day) weren’t able to pull it off. If not a “bubble,” then at least some kind of energy field should become visible just above the skin of the ship whenever a weapon impacts.

Otherwise, what’s the difference between a shielded and as the Good Doctor would say “If that thing cuts loose on unshielded ships!!!”

As for a warp effect of some kind…SOMETHING’S got to visually happen at the moment an original Constitution Class ship goes into warp…just like a sonic boom happens whenever ANY kind of object breaks through the sound barrier. C’mon…nobody wants to see the original ship go into warp…not just once or twice…c’mon?!?

115. RichR - April 13, 2007

Not to be redundant, but how about right at the end of an episode, where Kirk tells Sulu to set course for “Hot Green Chick Planet Delta V,” how about a nice cut to the exterior over the credits and BANG…warp away in a rainbow streak!

Hello…Are you guys listening at CBS Digital?!?

116. Xai ( not an alternative universe, but just a little to the left universe) - April 13, 2007

#112 Stank
Real series?… c’mon… Just because you dislike something doesn’t mean that it does not exist.
You may have your own opinion of course, but that’s dam near a backhanded slap at fans who don’t share your limited view of the Trek universe.

117. The Real Series - April 13, 2007

Yes, let’s add the jump to warp signature FX to TOS. Can we also have Kirk say “engage” and “make it so”?

118. planettom - April 14, 2007

How about Creepy-Kirk twice in the episode ogling female crew members on the bridge while telling McCoy, “I’m looking forward to spending some r&r, ON some LOVELY… planet!”

He might as well have elbowed McCoy in the ribs and said, “Forget the space-amoeba, on shore leave, I hope to be doing a lot more thrusting and penetrating of membranes!”

119. Harry_G - April 14, 2007

The episode is actually quite dramatic, tense and serious in its presentation, however, I find that the ending gives it the aroma of cheese. After totally obliterating a unique single celled creature, barely escaping with their lives and ship intact, and discovering that Spock was still alive, the reaction of the bridge crew in the final scene (Kirk and McCoy in particular) is to have a hearty chuckle and lear at a cute yeoman in a short uniform. I agree with #118 — not the type of behaviour expected so soon after such an ordeal.

I also spotted a continuity error that I never noticed on previous viewings of this episode. In the scene where Spock and McCoy are at the door to the shuttlebay waiting for it to pressurize, Spock steps over to the right of the door, leaving McCoy in front of the control panel. McCoy is wearing his short-sleeved sickbay uniform. The camera cuts to a closeup of the control panel, and an arm reaches in and punches the “open” button. Only McCoy could have reached the panel (since he is right beside it) but the arm is clearly wearing a long sleeved uniform tunic with stripes on the cuff! Now that one would have been a challenge for CBS Digital to correct

120. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 14, 2007

re:116. Xai

No backhanded slap was intended. And I don’t know if you have noticed, but there are plenty of others around here who make more than backhanded slaps at others. Sometimes they make forehanded slaps. Sometimes a closed fist. And occasionally I have noticed use of ‘the piledriver.” (That one should be banned – It IS in some states)

It’s just a term I use for the series since I don’t like the now commonly used term or its three-letter abbreviation. The show is called “Star Trek,” followed by nothing else. When the term “Star Trek” is used, it means the 1966-69 series and nothing else. That was the complete name of the show. All the other ones need the extra stuff, since that is what they were named. So I will continue to call it “Star Trek” or “the real series” or “the series” with no offense intended towards anyone except the people who came up with that other unnecessary term.

re: 113. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor – April 13, 2007
“112… The Stankmeister… Why doesn’t The Star Trek The Motion Picture Warp Effect belong in the real series ??”

Because Star Trek did not use an on-screen warp effect.

Marta will now put the dishes in the cupboard and do the “Hokey Pokey”

121. Robert Bernardo - April 17, 2007

Harry_G wrote:

> …the reaction of the bridge crew in the final scene (Kirk and McCoy in
> particular) is to have a hearty chuckle and lear at a cute yeoman in a
> short uniform.

The reaction is only Kirk’s. It provides the final tag to the episode. In the teaser, Kirk wishes for shore leave while eyeing a female crewmember. All plans are disrupted by the emergency. At the end, Kirk wishes for shore leave while eyeing another female crewmember, thus signaling that all has returned to normal. Oh, by the way, we are talking about Jim Kirk. ;-) Looking is allowed.

122. mole 2 - June 11, 2007

Wow, the new effects are disappointing, They look SOOO computer-generated, and especially the new graphics of the organism. It’s a little pathetic to say that the original ones are more convincing to me than the new ones!

123. John - July 28, 2007

If the intention of the CGI effects people on the Re-mastered Star Trek TOS episodes was to maintain the ‘feel’ of the original series then they shouldn’t have bothered in the first place.

I would have preferred they went all out to upgrade effects and sound to better fit the look of the series with later Star Trek series. This is not a blasphemy. We all of us can always sit back and watch the unfettered and still very enjoyable series in it’s original form if we wish.

George Lucas had no compunctions in re-vamping the Original Star Wars film with over $100,000,000 worth of new CGI efects.

124. John - July 28, 2007

BTW….This is not the first time the original series has been re-vamped. Mr Roddenberry himself gave the whole show a complete A to Z visual makeover for the first Star Trek film in 1979…and the fans loved it.

I wonder what he would think of this latest rendering of his remarkable vision?

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