#29 Pox

I too would have liked to have seen something a little more “advanced-looking” behind the mirror… Oh, well, onto the next one I suppose.

There are lots of people knocking the Remastered Planets on this board…saying they look to earth-like and some are “boring google earth” like numbers.

My opinion is, if your watching the 1960s version…the Planets are of the design based on that decade’s effects. If you are watching the Remastered version, then the planets should be set to the realism of todays standards.

> Ingenious as it was and keeping with “Color Set Television Ethos” of the
> 1960s, it is disingenuous to knock the Remasters representing Class M
> planets demanding “colorful” worlds when it is the “ethos” of our times to > try to present scientifically realistic inhabitable planets.

Who’s knocking the redone planets in the Remastered TOS? Not I. However, knocking the planet effects of the 1960’s is not the way to do it. As for “ethos”, err… I will leave that for social scientists to ponder. There is a difference between art and science, and though TOS had a science advisor, there was also art in its production. But I digress…

After all, we have a blue sky here on earth, yet there is no “blue” hue over everything.

http://mb-soft.com/public/earthblu.html

Or not.

Ingenious as it was and keeping with “Color Set Television Ethos” of the 1960s, it is disingenuous to knock the Remasters representing Class M planets demanding “colorful” worlds when it is the “ethos” of our times to try to present scientifically realistic inhabitable planets.

Talos IV? An airbrush of the Earth’s own moon… Most other planets, a globe with a filter.

Colorful planets are normally “Gas Giants” with different levels of methane and other such gases.

The most you can expect in terms of a colorful CLASS M planet is a discolored ocean reflecting a different color sky…most likely green. Or, of the sort that might be desert…like Vulcan…that would be brownish subdued red. Not the intense red of the Original Series un-enhanced.

Greenhouse Planets, like Venus, would be White with some shadow areas. Others that lack weather or athmosphere, would look like the Moon or Mercury. Tinted only slightly.

Swirling Psychedelic planets would be like the Jovian moon IO…volcanic with sulpher clouds and variosu deposits.

Thus, in modern Trek…be it TOS-R, ENT, TNG or the MOVIES, colorful planets are not likely ones that could be landed on or visited by a langing party.

> There is a great exampel of how Star Trek planets were made at this gem > of a site…

> http://www.startrekhistory.com/restoration/SFX.html

Yes, I’ve been there. Star Trek: The Restoration

> Saddly…

Sadly? Well, that’s an opinion. I think it was ingenious.

> …it looks like the colorful plantets everyone is clamouring about are
> really teh same globe with various hues and shades.

Well, the example at the Restoration site makes no mention of the planets seen in early first season episodes (planets with swirling clouds and a light side and dark side to the planet) nor does it make mention of those TOS planets with discernable land features (hey, that reminds me of the planet in Spock’s Brain that had land features and glaciers, too).

Thanks for the compliment. I found that site last night while I was browsing Memory Alpha and I was litterally speechless when I saw some of the stuff. I liked the segment that decribed the shooting model and showed its various configurations. It’s proof to me that the USS Enterprise has lots of life left in it.

I wish some of those deleted scenes coudl be found and restored for the DVD release.

Thanks for that link…Wow what an amazing and interesting site for those interested in the history of TOS, and the stories behind the special effects.

I especially like all the information about “The Cage”, on of my all time favorite TOS episodes.

Thanks again for the link. That site should be required viewing for all TOS Trek fans!

Mike :o