Digital Joe #26

---

Tools:
Recommend this news to a friend »

---

It should be fairly clear to all of you by now that, at heart, I am a fan of the popular media, specifically of movies and television programs. You should also know that I hold a few franchises close to my heart, "Star Trek" being the most obvious example. I am a purist, someone who doesn´t look kindly on someone other than the original creator changing the completed work. This includes modifying a movie from widescreen to fullscreen (or vice versa), colorizing a black and white film or adding new and/or improved effects, music, characters, dialogue…whatever.

I railed against George Lucas many years ago for not releasing the "Star Wars" trilogy on DVD in its unaltered form. I complained, quite loudly, that I wanted the original original trilogy on disc right alongside the animated…wait, I mean the Special Edition´s from 1997. Why? Because the originals are what I grew up with and what made me a fan of that universe. Plus, and perhaps more importantly, they are a part of our collective history. They give us an idea of what science fiction was like back in 1977. Why shouldn´t they be preserved with just as much care as works of art like the Mona Lisa?

I will always defend an artists right to modify their work whenever they see fit. After all, it is their work. However, when something as beloved as "Star Wars" is tinkered with, sending fans into a tizzy, I think there´s some responsibility on the part of the filmmaker to also release the original versions as well. I am happy to report that the original trilogy in its original form are on the way in a couple weeks. Not anamorphic, but it´ll do for the time being.

Now, another one of my favorites is going to be on the editing block. You might have heard that Paramount, in some super secret operation, is working on remastering the original "Star Trek" series into high definition. Because of the medium on which the show was originally edited and post-produced, this remastering means that the special effects, conveniently, can´t make the transition.

I´m not a genius when it comes to mastering, remastering or the technical aspects to the discussion, but I do know this much: what CBS/Paramount is effectively doing is rewriting a show that has survived for forty years. The argument is that in order for this show to be shown in any high def format, this needs to be done. So you´re telling me that any movie or television program containing special effects edited on film is going to be modified in the same way. "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "Lost in Space", "The Adventures of Superman"…I don´t need to list off every single property this is going to be an issue for, do I?

It´s not the idea of butchering the episodes with CGI that I´m really peeved about. To tell you the honest truth, I´m more than a little curious. But my fear-and I think quite rightly-is that once these redone versions hit DVD and syndication in HD, the originals will be forgotten. If they can´t be mastered in HD now, then the chance of them ever getting to that point is nil. If the episodes were going to be side by side with the originals, this wouldn´t even be a problem for me. With the increased capacity on HD discs, you easily fit both versions of every episode onto the set and still be smaller than the current collections.

You might wonder why I have no faith in the CBS/Paramount folks to do this right by the fans. Well, for starters, the news is that an outside effects house has not been contracted to do the work. Rather, it will all be done by the folks inside the studio. Are you starting to see the problem? Paramount, who has had "Trek" in their hands since it all began, has never done this franchise right. It was the bastard child in the family when it was originally on television. The first film was only commissioned after "Star Wars" became an incredible hit. They let a man who was destroying the franchise stay on board entirely too long. They have insanely high prices on all "Trek" products. And, perhaps most damning in this situation, is the fact they did not release the original version of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" on DVD along with the Director´s Cut.

Seeing my problem?

I´ve heard the argument in various places that the new effects will bring new fans to the franchise. I had to respond, laughingly, to that because, quite frankly, it´s a pile of rubbish. No matter how much advertising money Paramount puts behind this "new" version, people who never gave "Trek" a first look in the last 40 years certainly aren´t going to give it a chance now just because it´s been updated with computer ships. And its not just the flybys and beauty passes of the vessels that are going to be redone. CGI crowds, rippling water, new planets, new backgrounds...and even a re-recording of the classic theme song.

See, "Trek" has always been about the story. Gene Roddenberry created it because he couldn´t tell the kinds of stories he wanted to tell about the human condition within a contemporary setting. So he made it the future where the ideas he presented could get past the censors. The special effects, the transporter, phasers, shields…whatever else…they were all secondary. Everyone (including the people in charge of the franchise recently) forgot that. "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" is a reality check about the stupidity of treating people differently based on skin color. "Balance of Terror" has the subplot of suspicion based on supposed ancestry. Neither of these plots relies on the Enterprise zooming around the universe.

I alluded to this next point earlier: "Trek" is a form of art. It is a moving, living history of where we were as a country and civilization in the late 1960s-technologically, socially, culturally and ideologically. Every part of the show was put into the finished episode for a reason, whether it be budget, the film conventions at the time or the prevailing social attitude. Why do you think it was such a big deal for Roddenberry to have a black actress on the bridge? An Asian helmsman? Why do you think he fought for Spock when the network wanted him to get rid of the "Satan" character?

Even the supposedly dated effects of the Enterprise flybys or the lack of certain vessels (the Gorn ship in "Arena", for one) all speak to the significance of the show. In its time, "Star Trek" was ground breaking for everything it did. It was a space show, it had a loyal fan following that got it renewed for a third year, it portrayed the first black actress in a starring role on television, it got ideas across to the audience that were previously unheard of, it showed that quality effects (at least for the time) could be created on a television budget and schedule.

And it inspired millions of people around the world. To get into the sciences, to dream of a tomorrow when our petty differences don´t matter and to use our imaginations. This show, just like everything on film of any kind, is history. You don´t see someone wanting to add synthesizers to Elvis Presley music, do you, to appeal to a younger fanbase? You haven´t heard an idea floated about that would put clothes on naked people in various works of art, have you? Would anyone dare suggest we add some CGI characters to "Citizen Kane"? What if we colorize "Frankenstein"?

Guys, this is the SAME EXACT THING. The show can´t, as it currently exists, be put on HD? That is perfectly fine by me. I have an excellent copy of all the episodes sitting on my shelf right now. Leave the redone stuff to the fans to do for shits and giggles in their spare time.

I doubt anyone with any real power is going to suddenly have a change of heart. "Trek" has always been a license to print money for Paramount. Ungodly priced single episode tapes, laserdiscs, the original forty volumes of episodes and then the season sets. Hasn´t Paramount run this franchise into the ground through shoddy management and over saturation enough in the last couple of years? If the ill-fated "Enterprise" and "Star Trek: Nemesis" couldn´t kill the brand name, you´d better believe that this project and the upcoming "reimagination" (or whatever it´s being called this week) will.

Paramount, you are turning two generations of fans off to the entire franchise. I´ve got to believe that this project is going to cost you more than just a wad of change. It will cost goodwill and the benefit of the doubt when the new movie comes out. Stop this now. It doesn´t matter, really, if they can´t be put onto a high def format right now. With the way technology advances, who can say what we´ll be able to do next year or the year after with our HD mastering.

I guess we'll see what the end result is on September 16, when "Balance of Terror" will debut in syndication.

And don´t even get me started on the rumor that the high def versions are going to be modified into 1.77:1 widescreen images. Everything I just said about the effects remains true for the aspect ratio. The short version: originally created in 1.33:1; keep it 1.33:1. Got it?

---