Nice job to the folks fixing up Star Trek. I think the edits they use are tasteful and well done. Especially planet scenes. And the old ones are easy to get for folks who feel differently and want to watch them as they were when they grew up.
Though I do fully respect the work of the animators involved, it was a totally unnecessary move. Part of what makes the originals great, is precisely how "bad" they look. A lot of the magic comes from the fact that it does look from the 60's. One need only look at the aborted crack baby fetus that is the blu-ray Star Wars collection, to realize that sometimes things are better left untouched.
People say that the original looks like shit in blue-ray..... No shit Sherlock? Blue ray gives you the ability to count Johnny Debbs pores in his face in close ups! The original was never MENT to be watched in that high definition.
If someone wants to remake old episodes of any TV show or movie, they should start from scratch, not mess around with the original. Star Trek wasn't about special effects, although it did have some, but a vision of the future in which racism, sexism, rich and poor, etc. no longer existed. A future in which exploration, not exploitation, was the goal. Star Trek is campy by today's standards, but it was groundbreaking in its day. I think that it, like other cultural icons, should be unmolested.
I didn't even know they remastered TOS. I was watching several episodes on Netflix last week and noticed certain space scenes, or fly-by shots, looked VERY different to me, as if they were CGI. They looked *too good* for my tastes, as I always thought the original shots used looked fine.
I think it comes down to personal preference with this kind of issue. Although it certainly does not offend me, I personally prefer the original shots to the remastered versions. But that's ME . . .
Nice thing about the remastereds is while they did clean up many of the effects shots (especially the space based ones) and interjected a bit of variety (was nice seeing the original Romulan cruisers again in The Enterprise Incident), they also kept it juuuuust low tech enough that you would believe they fit with the original sets and look of the show if you hadn't seen the originals. Kudos for that and helping ease a new generation into Trek.
I don't even know why they call it a remaster, they just redid the scenes into CGI and poorly at that. They might as well have added more special effects scenes to the episodes at that rate
If you watch it on blu ray there's no comparison, the remastered effects are far more seamless than the old. The team who worked on this did everything right where Lucas went wrong on the Special Editions. Plus for those that "hate" it (youtube is hardly the best video quality to judge), you have the options of either effects.
I dunno bout anyone else, but i never liked TOS, but after watching this video i prefer the original over the remasterd one.. Something about all the fake graphics makes it seem less real...
Some of the remastered shots I've seen have corrected some visual defects from damaged tapes, a few sounds have been corrected and the theme music rerecorded. Some external shots are bad in the CGI because they are too dark.
The close up of the Botany Bay at 0:40 was absolute rubbish. Looked like a low-res game from 2000.
The reason the older shots look more real is because, technically, they ARE real! Before the CG craze swept Hollywood, they had to build models of the ships out of real materials, and they weren't tiny little things you could hold in your hand; the primary shooting model of the Enterprise was over 10 feet long, lending it a sense of weight and reality no CG rendering could ever achieve.
The direction is better and the look of the Enterprise is more clean, and by far the remastered DY-100 looks so much better, but, does it look real? Does it look like I could actually see these things and touch them in some ship yard somewhere? No. An d thats what the OS had that all this shitty CG cant touch. It looks REAL.
The direction is better and the look of the Enterprise is more clean, and by far the remastered DY-100 looks so much better, but, does it look real? Does it look lik I could actually see these things and touch them in some ship yard somewhere? No. An dthats what the OS had that all this shitty CG cant touch. It looks REAL.
The remastered ones could have been so much better done. They appear somewhat cartoonish. I wish they had increased the detail and metallic quality to make it look more realistic. I'm still always going to prefer models I think.
The remasters look a LOT more accurate and convincing. Personally I think the show NEEDED the remastering. You can hang on to the old stuff if you want but with Enterprise in the story now and the other shows with superior imagery TOS actually "feels" more like it's actually happening. I applaud the people who remastered TOS.
Crewmen Pavel Chekov: Sorry sir this lavatory is reserved exclusively for use by the ships Crew, You are obliged to use the guest Facilities assigned to you on deck-5..
Khan: Curse you, I cannot hold it any-longer!
Pavel Chekov: My apologize sir, I must abide by ships protocol , I would need to get authorization from the captain before I could ever let you use this Facility..
Personally, I think they've done an excellent job with the remasters. Remember that it's not just the SFX that have been remastered, but the picture quality and the audio too. Compare the remastering of TOS of Trek with the god awful mess that was Red Dwarf Remastered; a show that didn't even need remastering for a start but, worse, remasters that edited whole scenes out of each episode. There is none of that here. Just a wonderful update of a classic show.
@coolmyself - I agree. I've watched episodes of both. I like the fact that the prints and sound have been cleaned up (no scratches, dirt, dust, hair, crackling, ect ) However, I think I'm in the minority when I say I prefer 'Star Trek' with it's original special effects.
The CGI shots are well concieved, but look rushed. Sometimes the Enterprise looks more like animation than CGI. I wish that if they were going to do new special effects, that the job had been given to the very best CGI pros.
SpockBoy I just love your uploads of Star Trek. For me this will always win out over the newer stuff. I became an engineer because of Mr Scot. Fond memories indeed...
I think the new effects look great. It doesn't change any of the stories, or invalidate anything. The classic effects are still there on the Blu Ray if you want them.
Hmm, I like the lighter color of the enterprise in the original, and that the stars are brighter, but the effect of the ship drifting away in the new is pretty cool too.
@Ashenion22 Imagine if you will, that you're some big director. You get a call from a huge Hollywood production studio - they want you to direct a movie. At a exec meeting they tell you that you have to revive the biggest, most successful TV & movie franchise ever. A little like flogging a dead horse, you think. Not just revive it, they want you to re-invent a legend. A lot of people are looking at you and a lot of money is riding on you. Imagine the pressure Abrams felt.
@Ashenion22 Imagine if you will, that you're some big director. You get a call from a huge Hollywood production studio - they want you to direct a movie. At an exec meeting they tell you that you have to revive the biggest, most successful
TV & movie franchise ever. A little like flogging a dead horse, you think. Not just revive it, they want you to re-invent a legend. A lot of people are looking at you and a lot of money is riding on you. Imagine the heat that Abrams felt.
@spacecowboy5000 true. He sure had alot of pressure, and alot on his plate to try to make a new Trek, and yet, somethings he could not change. He had to try to make the Enterprise (look like) into a Constitution class starship, and have the same names for the carachters(?) (Sorry for the misspelling). But, the most importance here is that he brought many people (including the non-trek people) to watch this (fantastic) movie. ;)
@Ashenion22 Very well put. After "Voyager" and "Enterprise" a lot of Trek fans were drifting away. The last movie made, "Nemesis" was a joke. So Trekkies suffered from Post Trek Syndrome (PTS). Abrams basically worked with a gun to his head. Paramount excpected him to break "cannon" just to revive the franchise. That's something we forget - Paramount doesn't care about fans, only about money. And they would do anything to wring the last cent out of Trek. Considering all this, JJ did a great job.
I see nothing wrong with the original ship. I think it was model so it is in some ways more real than the CGI. However, it really is the actors and story that make the show, the special effects are the icing on the cake.
I saw nothing wrong with the original ship. I think it was model so it is in some ways more real than the CGI. However, it really is the actors and story that make the show, the special effects are the icing on the cake.
Well, I have a big love for everything classic and vintage so to speak; therefore I would always prefer the original footage, flaw and all. But I am also able to enjoy the remastered version as well. Because what was essentially remastered are just the special effects and not the heart of Star Trek ie the characters.
Yeah, they have more flexibility with motion & what not with the "remaster" but the original actually looked like real objects. The new CG models look hollow, like they have no substance.
I really wish they had just digitally recomposited the old shots because they had all the materials still. I also wish they didn't re-record the theme because it sounds SO different from the original, not to mention it doesn't match the in-show music at all.
@Actionguy1 amen! .... i was watching The Wrath of Khan on my phone while sitting in the theatre during that entire JJ travesty. i just needed to get away from it ... far away!
they should leave a classic alone. There will never be anything to come close to TOS................ live long, and keep watching TOS.................
I thought remastered meant improvement? The old skool effects looked FAR more realistic than the new! The CGI was lazy and unimaginative. It just tried to follow the original formula and FAILED. Just Like George Lucas did when revisited the Star Wars franchise and produce three steaming piles of horse manure movies.
The first shot looks more realistic; not crystal clear like the remastered (look @ live footage of the shuttle, it isn't crystal clear, it puts the size and distance of the variables into perspective).
soundmixer6393 I bring a message to all hate what YouTube is becoming. I hate the new appearance of the viewing system, I hate the reorientation of the video selection, comments, and description system, and most importantly, I hate the new rating system. I will spread this message everywhere until the designers of YouTube will concede with my complaints and restore it all.
I like the end credits in the original orange, not the remastered yellow. blech. Thanks for doing this, it's definitely helping me decide which one to get.
These modifications are necessary for the show's survival on TV. As good as the original looked for its time, the increase in TV quality would severely impact the show. Having the series modified allows it to be broadcast over HD channels and allow for the continued airing of this great show.
Treks111, im with you on the old school, the remaster makes it TOO CLEAN and NEAT and TOO FLASHY ! the old ones look dirty and imperfect ! and although i've never been in outerspace........i will admit to a certain standout flare from all other star patterns in other sci fi shows! When the enterprise is sailing slowly towards the screen, especially in the corbomite maneuver and it fires its phasers to hit the towing ship, THATS THE LOOK I LIKE ! and no other show depicts it that way!
Yep, I hear ya! I think they have done a good job with the planets and nebula and such, but as far as the ship itself, most of the the "re-masters" make the Enterprise look like a toy. The original shots were better!
Great comparison, remastered was good but there were many technique faux pas it committed that the original stands. Just as the processing is better it does not mean that it is just going to end up better.
In the mind of the dedicated Star Trek fan, the shows are just a visual history of what we already know. It doesn't have to be perfect, because when the images on the screen are weak, the imagination and spirit of the show itself takes care of the rest. Star Trek is different from other TV shows, because Mr. Roddenberry didn't just want to create a money maker; he wanted to convey a vision that was important to him. I don't mind the remastered episodes; as I see it, both versions are welcome.
Thing is, the images on the screen WEREN'T weak, originally. In fact, they're usually superior to the remastered versions. Their problem was that they were repetitive, and relied too much on the same stock shots. The remastered version has more variety but less quality.
@BobLarrabee: I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you for articulating so perfectly what I've been trying to tell people for years when they ask what I think of the new effects!
@BobLarrabee I disagree. I think the shot of the Botany bay tumbling off as Khan ditches it is far superior in quality and creativity than the original shot of the enterprise just puttering away from it. I'm a star trek TOS purist and all, but I can't say some of what they've done for the remastery isn't good. Also, if it helps bring a younger generation to TOS then so be it.
@ocerg1111 I agree that the new camera angles are more interesting. That's the advantage that CGI brings: more variety, instead of the same flybys over and over. The disadvantage is that it still looks like a cartoon.
An animator I know thinks that generations that were brought up on CGI are less likely to be able to tell how fake it looks. But he also thinks that TOS's CGI was particularly low quality. They probably weren't willing to pay top dollar to redo an old show.
@BobLarrabee well I think the poorness of it was an attempt to make it look like the ship could have been the ship from 1966, just without all the graininess the original effects had. To me it seemed conflicted; sometimes trying to look like cleaned up 1966 graphics and other times trying to make the graphics 2011 zam bang graphics like hyper detailed planets and giant spinning galaxies. I think they shouldve made up their minds.
@ocerg1111 I'm glad they reproduced the original ship. There really would have been howls if they'd changed it. And they did a pretty good job recreating the detail, and in providing interesting shots. The problem is just the quality of the effects. It looks like a really good cartoon instead of a live action show. There are a few other problems, like them color correcting to make the yellow shirts look greenish, which they weren't.
@JoshuaH688 Good call. IMO, it's kinda similar (imagination) with classic gaming (Atari, etc). Personally I prefer the original to the remastered & already own the TOS complete series. I don't know if it's worth the money to buy it "again", although I am considering it. What I want more than anything is ANOTHER series! I alike them all. I am so starved for new episodes, I have resorted to watching TOS 1970's animated (actually, not bad), & even "fan made", lol. Is that "hungry" or what?
@JoshuaH688 The thing people forget is that TOS rellied heavily on STORY, as opposed to Special Effects. In those days, the STORY was more important and the effects just gave the audience something they could interpret as "A space ship and crew in space". This is why TOS has survived 50 years with the original effects.
@madcapromanian Of course, if the story is the most important thing, then there should be no reason for anyone to complain about them changing the effects.
So, according to this clip, there are less than two minutes worth of new effects in the "remastered" versions. Are these minutes meant to attract all the legions of new Star Trek fans? If they don't like the other 48+ minutes, then what point is there?
I hate the remastered. The original version is the way the creators visioned it. If The Original Series needed remastering, the only thing they should have done was bump up the lighting a little and enhance the sound effects (ENHANCE. NOT CHANGE!!) and leave the original effects to themselves.
the remastered shit is tons better thats why they did it its like if you wore a visor like jordie and mr. worf brought you some eye balls from his latest visit to Kronos it would be better to use the eye balls
I think messing with the visuals of the original series is a mistake. The look of the original series is as much a part of it's identity as the characters themselves. The 'remastering' was not needed. Fortunately for me, I bought the series on DVD before the effects were 'updated'.
The U-dated versions will never look/feel right to those of us that grew up seeing the origs on tv. Just a simple fact of life. We saw the origs so many times that most of us could probably quote them by the season. Of course, if you want a younger set of viewers to watch them, you have to give the old shows the same whiz-bang that the modern competing shows have. Otherwise, we may be the last generation to debate teh true number of episodes! LOL!
I think the people who did the remastering of the enterprise could of done a much better job. The planets and whatnot look nice, but the ship and some other effects look dated. When they said they would listen to the fans about the effects did they mean to make it look undetailed. don't get me wrong the update is welcomed by me, but they could of done better.
I think they tried to stay true to the original "feel". I saw a picture somewhere of the big flying Cheeto from "The Doomsday Machine" that was completely redesigned to look like a mechanical ship, like a giant robot leech, and people said "NO! We don't want that much change!"
you do fucking realize that the show was being remasterd through 2006-2007. in the past few years CG has gotten way better. i know its only a couple of years but you gotta fucking realize that when it first came out it was top of the line CGI. now it is 2009 and it is not.....
It's the first Star trek on which they stopped using models and moved completely to CGI. It's from 1995, and it looks WAY better then this...
It has nothing to do with advancement of CGI. The technology to make realistic looking space ships via computer exists for over a decade (Check out Star Wars speical edition-1997)
It's all about one thing - Budget.
The more realistic it looks, the longer it takes to make it, and due to that the costs become higher.
ok well all thos ships had an extreme amount of detail on them compared to the original enterprise that they re created so i think it is accurate and looks great compared to what it really looked like. also metal is shiny its not all ways dull looking
They still used models, you are wrong. At an auction, some rich dude bought the Voyager model used in filming. They did combine more CGI then before, I agree with you. In my opinion, fuck CGI. The models looked great in ST2 and ST3. I can keep watching ST2 and marvel at how well the SFX hold up. As far as TOS, I like what they did. I remember one episode where it showed the Enterprise shaking around and you could see the damn mount holding it up!
just because some guy bought a model of a ship doen't mean they still used models. why do you think they were selling it? lordofjahannam is right. voyager went full-cgi in mid-season 3 and deep space 9 went full cgi in season 6.. as for CGI, it rocks. go and see the new star trek movie and tell me that CGI sucks.
@JMKRATOCHVIL I don't know. I've looked back at the old Next Gen episodes, and the space scenes don't look so hot anymore. I hated the plastic feel of Voyager, but now CGI is so good there's no reason to mess around with cumbersome models. Enterprise had good CGI - remember how awesome the Enterprise-D looked in the last episode?
The stars were probably lost in the compression to youtube.
Remember, these were remastered from the original film. The TV broadcasts ran in NTSC which was around 640x480. When they rescanned the film (They can broadcast old series in HD since they were shot to film and not video), they probably aimed for 1280x720 (720p) or 1080p. The stars may be more frequent and finer, so they would be lost in the down conversion to youtube. The original probably had bigger stars for NTSC resolution.
So I think the enhanced episodes are a good thing, because it's "bringing it up to speed" with modern resolution. I think they struck a good balance between trying to update the look of the effects and cleaning up certain photo effects while not making them look modern. If you put TOO much detail in, then it would look out of place with the sets and the actors.
But if you were watching this on a 1966 TV the old effects would look good! You wouldn't see the imperfections. (That's one of the reasons the make-up is so overdone, so that it would be SEEN on the low resolution screens of the time!) (cont)
One of the main reasons why the effects look so bad NOW is that you are usually seeing them on a MUCH higher resolution screen then what was available back in 1966. Remember - this was the era when they were still advertising shows "IN COLOR" because color TVs were a NEW thing! The best resolution you were likely to even get was less than 640x480. So yeah - you're seeing the wires and the stands that the ship is sitting on. Or the outrageously overdone makeup on the actors. (CON'T)
I really appreciate the new effects... I think they allow you to carry on with the story instead of getting bogged down in attempting to decipher what that 'green flash' was.
In reference to why they didn't "Millenium CG" everything, I'm pleased with the idea that they didn't gloss everything over like Star Wars or Star Trek 2009 - you still get some semblance of the idea that this is set before all other Star Trek.
It will also finally shut up all those who used the effects as their negative.
Notice the shot from 0:20 to 0:27. If you have a VHS copy of Space Seed, look at this shot and you will plainly see the Enterprise model's triangular stand in the picture.
To be quite honest... BOTH of these effects are hilariously bad.
The original had/has it's place in history. It looked great back then and now has now become "charming".... but it certainly doesn't look real or authentic.
The new effects... well... it just doesn't look real or believable.
The original show was the LIMIT of technology at the time. If they were gonna bother to update the FX... they should've taken things to today's limit and gone for total photorealism.
From the restored DVD extras, from Associate Producer of TOS, Robert H. Justman. And I quote:
"When I saw the DVD's with the original film now converted to the way it should have been, I cannot find the words to voice my joy in what I see. It is wonderful. It is the way the show should have looked when it first went out."
I need no further proof that I have always been 100% correct when I say that if Gene and Co. could have used this exact technology and effect back then, they would have.
nice Job buddy
mrfranco151 1 day ago
You've actually kissed a girl?
What's it like?
BIackMoonCGI 1 day ago
Why did you have to mention kissing girls? lol
vulvaria 1 week ago
Nothing compares to the original, but the remastered is cool also.............. LONG LIVE TOS !!!
subron6er 2 weeks ago
Hmm, not a lot of SFX to be updated in this episode.
lonstar70 3 weeks ago
I have the blu-ray versions of TOS so I like to watch the original and the edited versions back to back.
jude71681 1 month ago
Nice job to the folks fixing up Star Trek. I think the edits they use are tasteful and well done. Especially planet scenes. And the old ones are easy to get for folks who feel differently and want to watch them as they were when they grew up.
morninggloryseed 1 month ago
Though I do fully respect the work of the animators involved, it was a totally unnecessary move. Part of what makes the originals great, is precisely how "bad" they look. A lot of the magic comes from the fact that it does look from the 60's. One need only look at the aborted crack baby fetus that is the blu-ray Star Wars collection, to realize that sometimes things are better left untouched.
shlibookensteppah 1 month ago
the original is still better imnsho.
GrigoriZhukov 2 months ago
The 'new ' effects' already look dated, bad idea.
lovecats64 2 months ago
Was there any point in an almost exact remake of the special effects?
nopoet406 2 months ago
Botany Bay.....BOTANY BAY! OH NOOOOOO!
FBHSswimmer2006 2 months ago
People say that the original looks like shit in blue-ray..... No shit Sherlock? Blue ray gives you the ability to count Johnny Debbs pores in his face in close ups! The original was never MENT to be watched in that high definition.
narmolania 3 months ago
I love the old star trek they need to leave it alone i hate this new shit!!!!!
daminmancejin 3 months ago
In 10 years we will get a remaster for HVD 8640p, and the CGI will be better then.
bhorwith22 3 months ago
i know the dif the new star trek is a crock of shit and it stinks?
archie977 3 months ago in playlist Star Trek
Gene L COON lol
Catandthespoon 4 months ago
If someone wants to remake old episodes of any TV show or movie, they should start from scratch, not mess around with the original. Star Trek wasn't about special effects, although it did have some, but a vision of the future in which racism, sexism, rich and poor, etc. no longer existed. A future in which exploration, not exploitation, was the goal. Star Trek is campy by today's standards, but it was groundbreaking in its day. I think that it, like other cultural icons, should be unmolested.
YY4Me133 4 months ago
I need to obtain Roddenberry's original version before they're all destroyed :(...
jasmineskydancer 4 months ago
@jasmineskydancer They are available in 1080p, these people are not George Lucas. You can switch the effects any time you want on the Blu-rays.
bhorwith22 3 months ago
KHAN!
OhnoesJG 4 months ago
KHAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!
OhnoesJG 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why are there so many different versions of the enterprise? I just don't get it
OhnoesJG 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why are there so many different versions of the enterprise? I just dont get it
OhnoesJG 4 months ago
why are there so many different versions of the enterprise?????????
I just dont get it
OhnoesJG 4 months ago
What a waste of human labor. They should have done more work. It just looks darker and dimmer.
HardKhora 4 months ago
I didn't even know they remastered TOS. I was watching several episodes on Netflix last week and noticed certain space scenes, or fly-by shots, looked VERY different to me, as if they were CGI. They looked *too good* for my tastes, as I always thought the original shots used looked fine.
I think it comes down to personal preference with this kind of issue. Although it certainly does not offend me, I personally prefer the original shots to the remastered versions. But that's ME . . .
thebakerman1 4 months ago
He Says He Has Kissed A Girl BUT He Included His Mum..
YourNextBestFriend 5 months ago
Why remaster them at all? They were fine before. If they aren't good enough for you, watch Star Wars
Mozart1220 5 months ago 2
Nice thing about the remastereds is while they did clean up many of the effects shots (especially the space based ones) and interjected a bit of variety (was nice seeing the original Romulan cruisers again in The Enterprise Incident), they also kept it juuuuust low tech enough that you would believe they fit with the original sets and look of the show if you hadn't seen the originals. Kudos for that and helping ease a new generation into Trek.
malcolmpierce7 5 months ago
I like the remastered version
he2he 7 months ago 2
I don't even know why they call it a remaster, they just redid the scenes into CGI and poorly at that. They might as well have added more special effects scenes to the episodes at that rate
fluidicmethod 7 months ago
Original = beta
TNG = release
heymrk 7 months ago
original is better
TenienteRJG18071 7 months ago
If you watch it on blu ray there's no comparison, the remastered effects are far more seamless than the old. The team who worked on this did everything right where Lucas went wrong on the Special Editions. Plus for those that "hate" it (youtube is hardly the best video quality to judge), you have the options of either effects.
shanksmare8 7 months ago 24
The model shots look more realistic than the CGI stuff. Period.
rkjk62 8 months ago
KAAAAHHHHHNNNNN!!!!!!!!
sk8ter4fun 8 months ago 10
@sk8ter4fun THE MOST OVERRAAAAAAAAAAAAATED VILLAIN IN ALL OF STAAAAAAAAAAAAAR TREKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!
heymrk 7 months ago
I dunno bout anyone else, but i never liked TOS, but after watching this video i prefer the original over the remasterd one.. Something about all the fake graphics makes it seem less real...
1ownjoo2 8 months ago
@1ownjoo2 I'm not a huge fan of TOS either. I've seen all the episodes, but only as reinforcement for the rest of the shows.
heymrk 7 months ago
i prefer the original
flesheatingbug 8 months ago
Some of the remastered shots I've seen have corrected some visual defects from damaged tapes, a few sounds have been corrected and the theme music rerecorded. Some external shots are bad in the CGI because they are too dark.
blindandwatching 9 months ago
The close up of the Botany Bay at 0:40 was absolute rubbish. Looked like a low-res game from 2000.
The reason the older shots look more real is because, technically, they ARE real! Before the CG craze swept Hollywood, they had to build models of the ships out of real materials, and they weren't tiny little things you could hold in your hand; the primary shooting model of the Enterprise was over 10 feet long, lending it a sense of weight and reality no CG rendering could ever achieve.
Dargonhuman 9 months ago 3
@Dargonhuman I HATE cgi. A little goes a long way, but it get way overused and looks FAKE, FAKE, FAKE!
takingdaggers 9 months ago
@takingdaggers Yeah, because the original effects, plastic models and such, looked so much more realistic.
finalfrontier1701 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
The direction is better and the look of the Enterprise is more clean, and by far the remastered DY-100 looks so much better, but, does it look real? Does it look like I could actually see these things and touch them in some ship yard somewhere? No. An d thats what the OS had that all this shitty CG cant touch. It looks REAL.
mysticwalker2112 9 months ago
The direction is better and the look of the Enterprise is more clean, and by far the remastered DY-100 looks so much better, but, does it look real? Does it look lik I could actually see these things and touch them in some ship yard somewhere? No. An dthats what the OS had that all this shitty CG cant touch. It looks REAL.
mysticwalker2112 9 months ago
The remastered ones could have been so much better done. They appear somewhat cartoonish. I wish they had increased the detail and metallic quality to make it look more realistic. I'm still always going to prefer models I think.
28stads 10 months ago
is the original from the movie or the series?
plerimest 10 months ago
Original is obviously better - glad I have them on DVD - dont buy this cpu shit! Hahaha BYE!
Retcrow 11 months ago
Original all the way ! For peets sake if you gonna watch star trek watch the original! Wait is that how u spell peet
spockdarthvcheese 1 year ago
They have my SHIP!!!
smashupdriver 1 year ago
Call me crazy, but I'm partial to the non-digital format.
FireHeart217 1 year ago
Old FTW mates!
wowdnehe1 1 year ago
The remasters look a LOT more accurate and convincing. Personally I think the show NEEDED the remastering. You can hang on to the old stuff if you want but with Enterprise in the story now and the other shows with superior imagery TOS actually "feels" more like it's actually happening. I applaud the people who remastered TOS.
athathoth01 1 year ago 2
Khan :"How dare you deny me my throne"!
Crewmen Pavel Chekov: Sorry sir this lavatory is reserved exclusively for use by the ships Crew, You are obliged to use the guest Facilities assigned to you on deck-5..
Khan: Curse you, I cannot hold it any-longer!
Pavel Chekov: My apologize sir, I must abide by ships protocol , I would need to get authorization from the captain before I could ever let you use this Facility..
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
Khan:"Someday I will reward you in due kind for this insolence little man, mark my Words!"
*Khan races across the corridors to catch the turbolift to deck-5 before its to late*
Pavel Chekov:I can't believe he fell for that! *Runs to the last vacant toilet *
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
Personally, I think they've done an excellent job with the remasters. Remember that it's not just the SFX that have been remastered, but the picture quality and the audio too. Compare the remastering of TOS of Trek with the god awful mess that was Red Dwarf Remastered; a show that didn't even need remastering for a start but, worse, remasters that edited whole scenes out of each episode. There is none of that here. Just a wonderful update of a classic show.
ComradeRichey 1 year ago
They look pretty same to me.
coolmyself 1 year ago
@coolmyself - I agree. I've watched episodes of both. I like the fact that the prints and sound have been cleaned up (no scratches, dirt, dust, hair, crackling, ect ) However, I think I'm in the minority when I say I prefer 'Star Trek' with it's original special effects.
The CGI shots are well concieved, but look rushed. Sometimes the Enterprise looks more like animation than CGI. I wish that if they were going to do new special effects, that the job had been given to the very best CGI pros.
hossola77 1 year ago
Wenn sie noch die originalen raumschiffszenen überarbeitet hätten ( kratzer; sättigung; kontrast ) wäre es perfekt
gtajunky1 1 year ago
SpockBoy I just love your uploads of Star Trek. For me this will always win out over the newer stuff. I became an engineer because of Mr Scot. Fond memories indeed...
mikser 1 year ago
... I still like the original...
BeatrixandchaD 1 year ago
I like watching the remastered Trek but I'll always love and respect the original.
TomatoeAssassin 1 year ago
Is it just me or the original versions really not that bad at all.
jayce79 1 year ago
fire the photon torpedoes. quick.
TitanLover8011 1 year ago
I think the new effects look great. It doesn't change any of the stories, or invalidate anything. The classic effects are still there on the Blu Ray if you want them.
TheAdam159 1 year ago
Hmm, I like the lighter color of the enterprise in the original, and that the stars are brighter, but the effect of the ship drifting away in the new is pretty cool too.
Startrekboy1138 1 year ago
What a waste of time.
screamwriter1 1 year ago
I like the original better. The CGI may be all fancy-smancy, but CGI is cheap compared to making a model and filming it.
Maverynthia 1 year ago
the remastered botany bay looked old and beat up. it was a nice touch.
starsiegeplayer 1 year ago
the original looks much more real and 3d. the remastered looks like cartoons and video games.
GlobalDating 1 year ago
And now there were three. JJ's new Trek of the alternate."Forget all you thought about.Star Trek".
Ashenion22 1 year ago
@Ashenion22 Imagine if you will, that you're some big director. You get a call from a huge Hollywood production studio - they want you to direct a movie. At a exec meeting they tell you that you have to revive the biggest, most successful TV & movie franchise ever. A little like flogging a dead horse, you think. Not just revive it, they want you to re-invent a legend. A lot of people are looking at you and a lot of money is riding on you. Imagine the pressure Abrams felt.
spacecowboy5000 1 year ago
@Ashenion22 Imagine if you will, that you're some big director. You get a call from a huge Hollywood production studio - they want you to direct a movie. At an exec meeting they tell you that you have to revive the biggest, most successful
TV & movie franchise ever. A little like flogging a dead horse, you think. Not just revive it, they want you to re-invent a legend. A lot of people are looking at you and a lot of money is riding on you. Imagine the heat that Abrams felt.
spacecowboy5000 1 year ago
@spacecowboy5000 true. He sure had alot of pressure, and alot on his plate to try to make a new Trek, and yet, somethings he could not change. He had to try to make the Enterprise (look like) into a Constitution class starship, and have the same names for the carachters(?) (Sorry for the misspelling). But, the most importance here is that he brought many people (including the non-trek people) to watch this (fantastic) movie. ;)
Ashenion22 1 year ago
@Ashenion22 Very well put. After "Voyager" and "Enterprise" a lot of Trek fans were drifting away. The last movie made, "Nemesis" was a joke. So Trekkies suffered from Post Trek Syndrome (PTS). Abrams basically worked with a gun to his head. Paramount excpected him to break "cannon" just to revive the franchise. That's something we forget - Paramount doesn't care about fans, only about money. And they would do anything to wring the last cent out of Trek. Considering all this, JJ did a great job.
spacecowboy5000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see nothing wrong with the original ship. I think it was model so it is in some ways more real than the CGI. However, it really is the actors and story that make the show, the special effects are the icing on the cake.
conifergreen 1 year ago
I saw nothing wrong with the original ship. I think it was model so it is in some ways more real than the CGI. However, it really is the actors and story that make the show, the special effects are the icing on the cake.
conifergreen 1 year ago 2
You know, you'd think that there would be more interior lights on in the ships. Just a thought.
balderdashsir 1 year ago
Just because you have CGI does not mean its better then very detailed models. I think the old version looks much better
newgun2000 1 year ago
God the texturing on the Remastered version are awful.
EdwardElric555 1 year ago
Well, I have a big love for everything classic and vintage so to speak; therefore I would always prefer the original footage, flaw and all. But I am also able to enjoy the remastered version as well. Because what was essentially remastered are just the special effects and not the heart of Star Trek ie the characters.
goldandsapphire 1 year ago
Yeah, they have more flexibility with motion & what not with the "remaster" but the original actually looked like real objects. The new CG models look hollow, like they have no substance.
I really wish they had just digitally recomposited the old shots because they had all the materials still. I also wish they didn't re-record the theme because it sounds SO different from the original, not to mention it doesn't match the in-show music at all.
wado1942 1 year ago
Still better than anything JJ Abrams and his hack writers Orci and Kurtzman, or his SFX team could ever come up with!
Actionguy1 1 year ago
@Actionguy1 amen! .... i was watching The Wrath of Khan on my phone while sitting in the theatre during that entire JJ travesty. i just needed to get away from it ... far away!
joeylodes 1 year ago
they should leave a classic alone. There will never be anything to come close to TOS................ live long, and keep watching TOS.................
subron6er 1 year ago
I prefer the old shots simply because they look more real.
captainbossi 1 year ago
I thought remastered meant improvement? The old skool effects looked FAR more realistic than the new! The CGI was lazy and unimaginative. It just tried to follow the original formula and FAILED. Just Like George Lucas did when revisited the Star Wars franchise and produce three steaming piles of horse manure movies.
FadahRon 1 year ago
The first shot looks more realistic; not crystal clear like the remastered (look @ live footage of the shuttle, it isn't crystal clear, it puts the size and distance of the variables into perspective).
fpsBeaTt 1 year ago
soundmixer6393 I bring a message to all hate what YouTube is becoming. I hate the new appearance of the viewing system, I hate the reorientation of the video selection, comments, and description system, and most importantly, I hate the new rating system. I will spread this message everywhere until the designers of YouTube will concede with my complaints and restore it all.
soundmixer6393 1 year ago
@soundmixer6393 I totally agree with you on that one.
FadahRon 1 year ago
I prefer the original models, sorry !
MauricioCasteglione 1 year ago
I like the original better.
jimmyboo121 1 year ago
KHAAAAAAAN!
cyberzonie 1 year ago
I like the end credits in the original orange, not the remastered yellow. blech. Thanks for doing this, it's definitely helping me decide which one to get.
keauxgeigh 1 year ago
These modifications are necessary for the show's survival on TV. As good as the original looked for its time, the increase in TV quality would severely impact the show. Having the series modified allows it to be broadcast over HD channels and allow for the continued airing of this great show.
SithLordZach117 1 year ago
I think 50/50
ytbigjim 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is so much more fun than kissing a girl.. and this actually takes a brain
sondano 2 years ago
the botany bay crashed on Ceti alpha 5 by the time the enterprise arrived there so thats why it appeared in the movie.
phillip1054 2 years ago
Interesting point...if Kahn abandoned the S.S. Bottony Bay in space...why does it appear in Star Trek II on Ceti Alpha 5?
madcapromanian 2 years ago
It was a Cargo pod, they could have brought it onboard Enteprise off-screen.
vegeta002 2 years ago 2
Sort of an "After the episode" episode? :D
madcapromanian 2 years ago
good point! They brought a bunch of Khan's crap on board as well, and dumped it with him when they exiled him?
But then, what all did we see -- a seat belt for sure, right?
mokwella 2 years ago
and i HAVE kissed a girl rofl
obliterator789 2 years ago
I like Khan's pet worms.
MrMichael1701 2 years ago
kkkaaaahhhhhnnn.lol, i luv'd this episode, amazing how they update the visual effects
DOOMVSHALO 2 years ago 2
That end part of the description is brilliant.
cfjackson123 2 years ago
I may be old school, but I like the originals better.
Treks111 2 years ago 2
Treks111, im with you on the old school, the remaster makes it TOO CLEAN and NEAT and TOO FLASHY ! the old ones look dirty and imperfect ! and although i've never been in outerspace........i will admit to a certain standout flare from all other star patterns in other sci fi shows! When the enterprise is sailing slowly towards the screen, especially in the corbomite maneuver and it fires its phasers to hit the towing ship, THATS THE LOOK I LIKE ! and no other show depicts it that way!
sbmrunning 2 years ago 2
Yep, I hear ya! I think they have done a good job with the planets and nebula and such, but as far as the ship itself, most of the the "re-masters" make the Enterprise look like a toy. The original shots were better!
Treks111 2 years ago
also, 0:42
bad texture for the thing that's not the Enterprise.
ChexGuy331 2 years ago
Great comparison, remastered was good but there were many technique faux pas it committed that the original stands. Just as the processing is better it does not mean that it is just going to end up better.
actsai1 2 years ago
Looks terrible. Bad renderengine, bad light. If you make it, make it right!!!
JSformmad 2 years ago
IF 'Star Trek' had been given a bigger budget back then... IF they had the tech then that we have now...
Fetch26291 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now if they can only re-score these old episodes...
hal1992 2 years ago
the original was good for its time but the remastered is great
chuckmcberry 2 years ago
I appreciate these "side by side" videos as they show us what was done. The updates are nice, but not enough to make want to re-buy the series.
The only reason I have the re-vamped Star Wars movies is because I never decided to buy them until well after the "new" version was out.
TG626 2 years ago
I hate the changes they've made in the new re-vamped Star Wars movies.
I hope the changes they made to the re-mastered Star Trek episodes aren't as intrusive.
mithol 2 years ago
In the mind of the dedicated Star Trek fan, the shows are just a visual history of what we already know. It doesn't have to be perfect, because when the images on the screen are weak, the imagination and spirit of the show itself takes care of the rest. Star Trek is different from other TV shows, because Mr. Roddenberry didn't just want to create a money maker; he wanted to convey a vision that was important to him. I don't mind the remastered episodes; as I see it, both versions are welcome.
JoshuaH688 2 years ago 33
Great comment
PhoenixArisen333 2 years ago
@JoshuaH688 you only get the respects cuz of the lot of text
wgjvdb60 1 year ago
Thing is, the images on the screen WEREN'T weak, originally. In fact, they're usually superior to the remastered versions. Their problem was that they were repetitive, and relied too much on the same stock shots. The remastered version has more variety but less quality.
BobLarrabee 1 year ago 32
@BobLarrabee: I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you for articulating so perfectly what I've been trying to tell people for years when they ask what I think of the new effects!
hossola77 10 months ago
@BobLarrabee I agree with more variety...but where on Earth do you get "less quality"??
finalfrontier1701 9 months ago
@BobLarrabee I disagree. I think the shot of the Botany bay tumbling off as Khan ditches it is far superior in quality and creativity than the original shot of the enterprise just puttering away from it. I'm a star trek TOS purist and all, but I can't say some of what they've done for the remastery isn't good. Also, if it helps bring a younger generation to TOS then so be it.
ocerg1111 3 months ago
@ocerg1111 I agree that the new camera angles are more interesting. That's the advantage that CGI brings: more variety, instead of the same flybys over and over. The disadvantage is that it still looks like a cartoon.
An animator I know thinks that generations that were brought up on CGI are less likely to be able to tell how fake it looks. But he also thinks that TOS's CGI was particularly low quality. They probably weren't willing to pay top dollar to redo an old show.
BobLarrabee 3 months ago
@BobLarrabee well I think the poorness of it was an attempt to make it look like the ship could have been the ship from 1966, just without all the graininess the original effects had. To me it seemed conflicted; sometimes trying to look like cleaned up 1966 graphics and other times trying to make the graphics 2011 zam bang graphics like hyper detailed planets and giant spinning galaxies. I think they shouldve made up their minds.
ocerg1111 3 months ago
@ocerg1111 I'm glad they reproduced the original ship. There really would have been howls if they'd changed it. And they did a pretty good job recreating the detail, and in providing interesting shots. The problem is just the quality of the effects. It looks like a really good cartoon instead of a live action show. There are a few other problems, like them color correcting to make the yellow shirts look greenish, which they weren't.
BobLarrabee 3 months ago
@BobLarrabee I did, however, enjoy the blinking Gorn. Took me by complete surprise.
ocerg1111 3 months ago
@JoshuaH688 Good call. IMO, it's kinda similar (imagination) with classic gaming (Atari, etc). Personally I prefer the original to the remastered & already own the TOS complete series. I don't know if it's worth the money to buy it "again", although I am considering it. What I want more than anything is ANOTHER series! I alike them all. I am so starved for new episodes, I have resorted to watching TOS 1970's animated (actually, not bad), & even "fan made", lol. Is that "hungry" or what?
gjc82071 1 year ago
@JoshuaH688 The thing people forget is that TOS rellied heavily on STORY, as opposed to Special Effects. In those days, the STORY was more important and the effects just gave the audience something they could interpret as "A space ship and crew in space". This is why TOS has survived 50 years with the original effects.
madcapromanian 1 year ago
@madcapromanian Of course, if the story is the most important thing, then there should be no reason for anyone to complain about them changing the effects.
jacobkosh 1 year ago 2
So, according to this clip, there are less than two minutes worth of new effects in the "remastered" versions. Are these minutes meant to attract all the legions of new Star Trek fans? If they don't like the other 48+ minutes, then what point is there?
Lodger3 2 years ago
I hate the remastered. The original version is the way the creators visioned it. If The Original Series needed remastering, the only thing they should have done was bump up the lighting a little and enhance the sound effects (ENHANCE. NOT CHANGE!!) and leave the original effects to themselves.
rprince418 2 years ago
the remastered shit is tons better thats why they did it its like if you wore a visor like jordie and mr. worf brought you some eye balls from his latest visit to Kronos it would be better to use the eye balls
mastermonarch 2 years ago
The original looks so much better!
mgxp 2 years ago
I think messing with the visuals of the original series is a mistake. The look of the original series is as much a part of it's identity as the characters themselves. The 'remastering' was not needed. Fortunately for me, I bought the series on DVD before the effects were 'updated'.
zigertube 2 years ago
There is a new DVD set now that lets you switch between Original and Remasterd. It's season 1. I think more will come soon. I hate remastered.
rprince418 2 years ago
The U-dated versions will never look/feel right to those of us that grew up seeing the origs on tv. Just a simple fact of life. We saw the origs so many times that most of us could probably quote them by the season. Of course, if you want a younger set of viewers to watch them, you have to give the old shows the same whiz-bang that the modern competing shows have. Otherwise, we may be the last generation to debate teh true number of episodes! LOL!
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago
I think the people who did the remastering of the enterprise could of done a much better job. The planets and whatnot look nice, but the ship and some other effects look dated. When they said they would listen to the fans about the effects did they mean to make it look undetailed. don't get me wrong the update is welcomed by me, but they could of done better.
Jogeta5 2 years ago
I think they tried to stay true to the original "feel". I saw a picture somewhere of the big flying Cheeto from "The Doomsday Machine" that was completely redesigned to look like a mechanical ship, like a giant robot leech, and people said "NO! We don't want that much change!"
RichYan33 2 years ago
They should have used the source material instead of getting hard on's about cgi.
The lighting is totally wrong but only problem with the original blue screens is that they couldn't tell how it looked until it was developed.
These didgy bozo's should have come to me and I woulda sorted it out properly
- bastards !
flippertyflap 2 years ago
I like the original one much more.
MobiusOne86 2 years ago 2
the new one just looks aweful.
one of the best things about the original star trek is the crappy low budget effects.
the CGI they use for remasterd looks aweful anyway, it looks like the pre renderd cutscenes from a bad game from 1994.
if there going to remaster the old episodes they might as well do it right.
andywilson92 2 years ago 2
The 'Remastered' one is better than the original one.
freddy9867 2 years ago 2
The remastered looks like a cartoon. The original was much better.. Models are ALWAYS better.. CGI still has a ways to go.
JMKRATOCHVIL 2 years ago 3
I agree with you. I could hardly make out the remastered one. labelashavoc (:~>?=
labelashavoc 2 years ago
you do fucking realize that the show was being remasterd through 2006-2007. in the past few years CG has gotten way better. i know its only a couple of years but you gotta fucking realize that when it first came out it was top of the line CGI. now it is 2009 and it is not.....
fuckin morons
thelasthallow 2 years ago
Buddy, ever seen Star Trek voyager?
It's the first Star trek on which they stopped using models and moved completely to CGI. It's from 1995, and it looks WAY better then this...
It has nothing to do with advancement of CGI. The technology to make realistic looking space ships via computer exists for over a decade (Check out Star Wars speical edition-1997)
It's all about one thing - Budget.
The more realistic it looks, the longer it takes to make it, and due to that the costs become higher.
LordOfJahannam 2 years ago
sorry buddy but even on voyager they still used modles. just the ships though...
thelasthallow 2 years ago
Well, to be accurate, Voyager did use models, but went fully CGI in mid-season 3 (late 1996).
Deep Space Nine started using CGI exclusively one year later (season 6), after Voyager had successfully proven that CGI could look realistic... :-)
LordOfJahannam 2 years ago
ok well all thos ships had an extreme amount of detail on them compared to the original enterprise that they re created so i think it is accurate and looks great compared to what it really looked like. also metal is shiny its not all ways dull looking
thelasthallow 2 years ago
They still used models, you are wrong. At an auction, some rich dude bought the Voyager model used in filming. They did combine more CGI then before, I agree with you. In my opinion, fuck CGI. The models looked great in ST2 and ST3. I can keep watching ST2 and marvel at how well the SFX hold up. As far as TOS, I like what they did. I remember one episode where it showed the Enterprise shaking around and you could see the damn mount holding it up!
lonstar70 2 years ago
just because some guy bought a model of a ship doen't mean they still used models. why do you think they were selling it? lordofjahannam is right. voyager went full-cgi in mid-season 3 and deep space 9 went full cgi in season 6.. as for CGI, it rocks. go and see the new star trek movie and tell me that CGI sucks.
ciscokitty8 2 years ago
@JMKRATOCHVIL I don't know. I've looked back at the old Next Gen episodes, and the space scenes don't look so hot anymore. I hated the plastic feel of Voyager, but now CGI is so good there's no reason to mess around with cumbersome models. Enterprise had good CGI - remember how awesome the Enterprise-D looked in the last episode?
LordBifford 1 year ago
the original looks better
rad4life1 2 years ago
What happened to the stars? Spockboy couldn't keep the stars in space! LOL
rvirzi 2 years ago
The stars were probably lost in the compression to youtube.
Remember, these were remastered from the original film. The TV broadcasts ran in NTSC which was around 640x480. When they rescanned the film (They can broadcast old series in HD since they were shot to film and not video), they probably aimed for 1280x720 (720p) or 1080p. The stars may be more frequent and finer, so they would be lost in the down conversion to youtube. The original probably had bigger stars for NTSC resolution.
arsenefan 2 years ago 2
the old 1 is better then the new 1 i like old
bettler hq.
jared4wally 2 years ago
what channel is the remastered star trek airing? or is this on a DVD collection?
cydonianman 2 years ago
I see it on wpix chnl 11. in new york, at 1 am on Saturdays.
I don't know where you'd be able to see it if you aren't on the east coast of the US.
Mglosk 2 years ago
i heard the 1st season remastered recently came out on dvd - check wal*mart
eldergroan 2 years ago
So I think the enhanced episodes are a good thing, because it's "bringing it up to speed" with modern resolution. I think they struck a good balance between trying to update the look of the effects and cleaning up certain photo effects while not making them look modern. If you put TOO much detail in, then it would look out of place with the sets and the actors.
logandarklighter 2 years ago 4
But if you were watching this on a 1966 TV the old effects would look good! You wouldn't see the imperfections. (That's one of the reasons the make-up is so overdone, so that it would be SEEN on the low resolution screens of the time!) (cont)
logandarklighter 2 years ago 3
One of the main reasons why the effects look so bad NOW is that you are usually seeing them on a MUCH higher resolution screen then what was available back in 1966. Remember - this was the era when they were still advertising shows "IN COLOR" because color TVs were a NEW thing! The best resolution you were likely to even get was less than 640x480. So yeah - you're seeing the wires and the stands that the ship is sitting on. Or the outrageously overdone makeup on the actors. (CON'T)
logandarklighter 2 years ago 3
It's a classic and you can't recreate or improve it - it is of a time. The most they should have done is make a better transfer.
aaronfromhastings 2 years ago 3
0:40 New CGI Botany Bay looks TERRIBLE.
dannyboylee 2 years ago
I really appreciate the new effects... I think they allow you to carry on with the story instead of getting bogged down in attempting to decipher what that 'green flash' was.
In reference to why they didn't "Millenium CG" everything, I'm pleased with the idea that they didn't gloss everything over like Star Wars or Star Trek 2009 - you still get some semblance of the idea that this is set before all other Star Trek.
It will also finally shut up all those who used the effects as their negative.
TerminalViscosity 2 years ago 2
I like and appreciate both versions.
Notice the shot from 0:20 to 0:27. If you have a VHS copy of Space Seed, look at this shot and you will plainly see the Enterprise model's triangular stand in the picture.
FarginBastiges 2 years ago
To be quite honest... BOTH of these effects are hilariously bad.
The original had/has it's place in history. It looked great back then and now has now become "charming".... but it certainly doesn't look real or authentic.
The new effects... well... it just doesn't look real or believable.
The original show was the LIMIT of technology at the time. If they were gonna bother to update the FX... they should've taken things to today's limit and gone for total photorealism.
newyorktucker 2 years ago 2
exactly, the new ones just look like some stupid computer game with polygons and texture.
tomasahlin 2 years ago
Damn the animation is realy weak! Even The Next Generation had way better animation...
mester90 2 years ago
I have to agree with slitheen :D
Nebula1701 2 years ago
From the restored DVD extras, from Associate Producer of TOS, Robert H. Justman. And I quote:
"When I saw the DVD's with the original film now converted to the way it should have been, I cannot find the words to voice my joy in what I see. It is wonderful. It is the way the show should have looked when it first went out."
I need no further proof that I have always been 100% correct when I say that if Gene and Co. could have used this exact technology and effect back then, they would have.
slitheen 2 years ago 7