1. The Good: Many (if not all) of the “traditional” scenes (e.g., basic dialogue, walking through the passageways) were shot on 24 fps 35 mm film, which has more than enough resolution for an HD remaster.

2. The Bad: Many (if not all) of the SFX (phasers, alien energy shimmers, certain starfields, certain composite ship fly-bys) were created in video, and only exist in 30 fps.

3. The Ugly: The only masters that exist of each episode are on tape. That’s right, 480i NTSC tape. Upscale that to HD resolution. Ugly. That’s right.

4. The Expensive: Since film elements for the bulks of each episode still exist, at least one wouldn’t have to drag Patrick Stewart back to the studio to reshoot scenes. All of the NTSC SFX, however, would need to be redone in HD. On top of that, a new HD master tape would need to be created. That’s a fair bit of work. The kind of work that would justifiably lead Paramount to either (a) charge much latinum for each boxset or (b) just skip the idea altogether.

Beyond the technical issues, all of the props and sets on TNG were originally designed for NTSC TV. HD remastering would only reveal the flaws inherent – remember the funky dark lighting in Generations designed to prevent anyone from seeing anything?

-shot down-

‘Kay. Had to get that out of my system. ^__^;;

Whoot-whoot! I can never find TNG online, so yay! I hope they eventually show Unification (both parts) and Sarek. I love those episodes. So much. 8D

I like TOS better then TNG. Infact, I hope after this that TOS Remastered goes into 5 days a week syndication again.

” Dom, if people don’t roll their eyes and laugh at TOS they won’t have a problem with TNG either. LOL”

No, TNG just cause my eyes to shut.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I do not have any issue with anyone’s preferences. Reread #113 Star Trackie, and you will see preferences do not enter into the post. It is an assertion that only fans of TOS qualify as Star Trek fans. The post is not about “literalness” — a misnomer, for actually this matter would be an instance of the use-mention distinction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction), if it weren’t patently obvious that Star Trackie isn’t interested in the intellectual, and quite trivial, question of ‘Star Trek’ (with quotes) versus Star Trek (without quotes).

I reiterate what 123 James Heaney, Wowbagger, with whom I wholly agree, observes: “It is *possible* to be a fan of ‘Star Trek’ and not enjoy anything outside TOS, but one can just as easily be a Star Trek fan and enjoy absolutely nothing except the first five seasons of Voyager.”

Bottom line: (1) No fan gets to decide what is or is not Star Trek, because that is a question of fact not opinion. Go to startrek.com if you really have a question about what that comprises. (2) No fan gets to decide who is or is not a Star Trek fan.

It is *possible* to be a fan of “Star Trek” and not enjoy anything outside TOS, but one can just as easily be a Star Trek fan and enjoy absolutely nothing except the first five seasons of Voyager. (I *know* such fans.)

This semantic silliness aside, the problem I have (and I suspect it’s the same as #120’s) is that many of the posters here aren’t making subjective claims, which are well and good and something I respect. They’re making *objective* claims (ex: “TNG only succeeded because TV was being pussified at the time.”) in an attempt to attack the show and insult its fandom. It’s stupid, wrongheaded, demonstrably false, and, what’s more, it’s trolling. Which is just annoying.

Malice is not intended by you–which is why I like you–but it is intended by some of those who agree with you.

I like some of the spinoffs as well. And no one is kicking you out of anything. Personally, these debates are simply fun to me. There is no malice intended.

And there is absolutely nothing “self-righteous” about preferring one series over another. That’s absurd. It is an expression of opinion. That’s it. My opinion is no more valid than yours. Let’s make that clear.

“By the criterion set forth in 113 & 114, not even the OS crew films qualify, because they were titled “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” and “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” etc.”

I’d agree with that logic. Using very literal semantics, that’s absolutely true. I don’t think there is any question that the film series is quite different from the 1960’s television show, and in far more ways than one.

Remember. The whole world is watching.

Nuff said.

Why do you come into a TNG thread to flame? Why do you feel that you need to put on airs with your fellow fans?

Your arguments are without substance, pure semantics. By the criterion set forth in 113 & 114, not even the OS crew films qualify, because they were titled “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” and “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” etc. (Ironically, the latest movie qualifies under the criterion, as it is simply titled “Star Trek”.)

Star Trek, the original series, is great — I am a fan, I enjoy it. But that universe was never meant, by its creator or the writers who drafted screenplays, to be hermetically sealed. It is the height of pretension to appoint yourselves authorities on the subject. The reality is, other things besides TOS *are* Star Trek (though only TOS and the new movie are ‘Star Trek’), but for you, only TOS has merit. If you just framed it like that, instead of trying to adopt a righteous, self-important attitude about it, you’d be well within your rights.

This is not a Star Trek club you can evict me – or anyone else – out of.