Would you replace your DVD sets?

[Mindwalker]

After watching TLT And the updated CGI, I was thinking that if they ever did a update of original B5 with newer CGI I would replace my current collection. I doubt it would ever happen....but one can hope I guess

I wanted to get everybody else's feelings on the matter.

 

[vacantlook]

I imagine some could say that I'm enough of a B5 fan that I would buy nearly everything. But yeah, I would rebuy the DVDs if the CGI were upgraded. Ultimately, I think such a package should be sold with both the upgraded and original CGI versions available on the same disc. But yeah, I enjoyed seeing modern CGI in TLT. I love the original CGI for what it means historically overall and for the series. But I would also enjoy an update. So, I wouldn't want the original done away with completely, but I wouldn't be totally adverse to an update either. I would like both. I like options.

 

[Babylon5fan07]

I know that I may be in the minority but I'm actually a believer of keeping thing the way it should be. I never cared for the Star Wars: Special Editions. When I heard a couple years ago that the original Star Wars Trilogy would be released on DVD the way it was originally shown I jumped to get those. A lot of people out there including my best friend Dustin loves the fact that the original Star Trek has been updated to today's CGI, etc. But I'm a purist. Babylon 5 was already ahead of it's time in CGI when it came out. The only thing that was better in Special effects was Jurassic Park, The Abyss, Terminator 2 and of course Deep Space Nine but for 1993 Babylon 5 was one of the best and original special effects tv show.

No I'm going to have to say a 100% no. I'm glad Best Buy is selliing the original box set's at $19.99 online and in store because I have to replace my first season which is falling apart. However, to replace the CGI..I love the first 5 seasons and dvd's the way they are.

Alex

 

[vacantlook]

Oh history.

B5 totally made history. I definitely will never support abandoning the original visual effects for new cgi. I like the idea of being able to watch it with new, but I will never forget where we and B5 came from. B5 should always have what it originaly had. It's too significiant in the grand scheme of things to forget/ignore what made it the amazing show that it is.

 

[RMcD]

I know that I may be in the minority but I'm actually a believer of keeping thing the way it should be. I never cared for the Star Wars: Special Editions. When I heard a couple years ago that the original Star Wars Trilogy would be released on DVD the way it was originally shown I jumped to get those. A lot of people out there including my best friend Dustin loves the fact that the original Star Trek has been updated to today's CGI, etc. But I'm a purist. Babylon 5 was already ahead of it's time in CGI when it came out. The only thing that was better in Special effects was Jurassic Park, The Abyss, Terminator 2 and of course Deep Space Nine but for 1993 Babylon 5 was one of the best and original special effects tv show.

Alex, I agree 100% with that. I'm not even very keen on the special edition of the Gathering because it uses effects shots from much later in the series. And Ron Thornton's (later Netter Digital's) effects were such a big part of what made B5 revolutionary, and were such a big factor in getting me interested in the series in the first place.

To me it's like saying that Christopher Franke's soundtrack should be torn out and replaced because tastes have changed, synthesizer technology has advanced so much since 1994, and it no longer sounds optimal on the latest home theatre systems.

And for that matter even now I still haven't really seen anything since that looks as big, cool, colourful or well-choreographed as some of the really big B5 space battles. You have to remember that those effects obviously looked much less photo-realistic at the time than the likes of Star Trek, but they were much more interesting in what they could do. It would have been impossible for any other show to do something like Shadow Dancing because of the expense. When you shift the emphasis towards detail and realism, I think you sacrifice some of the possibilities for scale, variety, and just plain storytelling.

 

[hypatia]

I know that I may be in the minority but I'm actually a believer of keeping thing the way it should be. I never cared for the Star Wars: Special Editions. When I heard a couple years ago that the original Star Wars Trilogy would be released on DVD the way it was originally shown I jumped to get those.

That was smart of you. I'm not enough of a fan of the movies to collect them, but I did enjoy watching the first three (4-6 of course) and the third.

I think movies are best shown on widescreen, and I agree that this "editing years later" will make me less of a fan of a series, not more of a fan.

I actually tried to watch on television the remade Return of the Jedi. Seeing an old Obi-Wan with stupidly-smiling kid who looks like a jerk really just summed it all up for me.

All I could think was: how utterly fake this is.

O.K. if someone wants to remake Star Trek and say "you know, today we can make the Klingons really cool-looking, the way we would have originally, if we could have" I feel that's a very different thing. Remake = redoing, as far as I'm concerned.

But to go in and re-edit a film because you don't want to preserve things like film history, you just want to keep updating your prize work.

So, I have to go along with "I would hate to see it happen, and I certainly would never purchase such DVDs".

The real shame of the matter is that DVDs will eventually wear out and become out-of-fashion soon. As we all move into a more-digital format (or whatever is destined to repace the DVD) will that encourage even more film owners to go and tamper with ("update") their earlier work?

I just hope that whole trend is a fad. I have mixed feelings about just about anything other than restoring old films/shows/etc to their original condition.

And I'm sorry, but George Lucas redoing Star Wars just smacked of a man who'd lost his convictions and his best talents years ago, but being a marketing genius, he still knows how to get paid for renting a dead horse.

I see it as, in many ways, proof of just how sterile our imaginations have become. Why create new when you can just re-edit the old?

 

[Chilli]

No way in hell. I don't want anything on B5 to be any different than it is now.

 

[fafca]

Probably not. I think, that the original series still has one of the best CGIs. Or did anybody seen something more beautiful than a shadow-vessel?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

After watching TLT And the updated CGI, I was thinking that if they ever did a update of original B5 with newer CGI I would replace my current collection. I doubt it would ever happen....but one can hope I guess

I wanted to get everybody else's feelings on the matter.

Well, the only way they would release anything with updated CGI is in an HD format, and yes, I would buy them. I have NOT bought B5 so far, in anticipation of a HD release. After all, that is why, says JMS, that he shot them in WS to begin with. I do have a close friend who owns the DVD sets, so I have seen them, and can borrow them, any time I like.

But, to the substance of your question. I would NOT like a Star Wars sort of re-editing, and re-working of B5. Lucas did a LOT more than just update the effects, he made substantial changes. From what I have seen, ST:TOS has done it right, just adding some detail, and recreating things to be like the original, but better. If B5's CGI is updated, that is the way to go. But, I do agree that B5's original CGI was historically important, and as such, I am glad it is preserved in the extant DVDs.

By the way, we have another thread around here, on the same topic. Guess it has no recent posts.

 

[raw_bean]

I definitely would, if they were done to a high quality and with appropriate reverence/respect to the original intent.

The story is sacrosanct, but the shiny packaging is not. I wouldn't view it as tampering with the Mona Lisa, so much as dusting her off, putting her in a brand new frame with UV protective and non-reflective glass, in a better lit and more neatly arranged gallery.

 

[RMcD]

The story is sacrosanct, but the shiny packaging is not. I wouldn't view it as tampering with the Mona Lisa, so much as dusting her off, putting her in a brand new frame with UV protective and non-reflective glass, in a better lit and more neatly arranged gallery.

I would view it as more like calling in a comittee of artists to overpaint a bright and glossy new background to the Mona Lisa, taking advantage of the opportunity to add in modern improvements like highways and aeroplanes, expanding the whole thing out to a 16:9 ratio and feeling mighty tempted to fix that smile while they're at it.

 

[Sindatur]

I'm not really against the concept of sprucing it up a bit, nor against the concept of watching the spruced up versions, but, I've already spent about $500 for my B5 collection, and there's nothing wrong with it, so, to me, it's not worth investing another $500 or more to upgrade it.

 

[hypatia]

I definitely would, if they were done to a high quality and with appropriate reverence/respect to the original intent.

The story is sacrosanct, but the shiny packaging is not. I wouldn't view it as tampering with the Mona Lisa, so much as dusting her off, putting her in a brand new frame with UV protective and non-reflective glass, in a better lit and more neatly arranged gallery.

So the story is sacrosanct, but the acting, the cinematography, all of this is just dusting this off?

I can see how some fans might go for improved special effects. I happen to think there is a lot of charm to the older sci-fi series. Care to see Twilight Zone colorized?

But I admit, fans' outrage would be in proportion with the amount of actualy tampering done. Has a character's fundamental nature (at the beginning of the saga) been changed by re-editing? If it's a "Han Solo" then I'd say that's just a really stupid thing to do. EVERYONE knows that Han, by his nature at this point in his life, was the guy who "shot first", right?

And EVERYONE knows that at the end of Return of the Jedi it was really an older actor (the guy in the suit) who played briefly the spirit of Vadar after his death. No, now it's a grinning idiot, who for some reason doesn't seem to have gone to the spiritual plane with all of his life's experiences, or something. Obi Wan came through as an old man image, but good old Darth Vadar looks like he's about 9, there.

So I guess I'm saying that I think a lot more goes into a show or a movie than just the writing.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

I would view it as more like calling in a comittee of artists to overpaint a bright and glossy new background to the Mona Lisa, taking advantage of the opportunity to add in modern improvements like highways and aeroplanes, expanding the whole thing out to a 16:9 ratio and feeling mighty tempted to fix that smile while they're at it.

You do realize that JMS intended for B5 to be shown in a 16x9 aspect ratio, but was not able to compose the CGI in a 16x9 format, and tried to compensate by not having any important CGI outside a 16x9 frame? One can argue about the result, and how successful he was, but surely you realize that was his intent?

Given that, and given that there would be NO Lucas-like changing of story elements, what would be wrong if the existing CGI was faithfully recreated, using today's superior abilities? The only reasonable objection I can see is that the original CGI was innovative, and ahead of its time, and thus should be preserved. I do have some sympathy for that argument, but it bears no resembalance to your messing with the Mona Lisa analogy.

 

[RMcD]

You do realize that JMS intended for B5 to be shown in a 16x9 aspect ratio

Yes. I was making a point about change for the sake of change, not the widescreen thing in particular (after all, the aspect ratio is pretty irrelevant when it comes to the Mona Lisa).

Given that, and given that there would be NO Lucas-like changing of story elements, what would be wrong if the existing CGI was faithfully recreated, using today's superior abilities?

I'm not sure I agree that the story is sacrosanct, but everything else is just shiny packaging. It seems to me like a disservice to Ron Thornton, Mitch Suskin, and all the other artists and designers (and they did consider themselves artists) who worked to compose those shots and to realise them on screen, not to mention the likes of Christopher Franke, Anne Bruice, John Iacovelli etc. who were responsible for other aspects of the production. Why is the story sacrosanct, but their work suddenly disposable?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

I'm not sure I agree that the story is sacrosanct, but everything else is just shiny packaging. It seems to me like a disservice to Ron Thornton, Mitch Suskin, and all the other artists and designers (and they did consider themselves artists) who worked to compose those shots and to realise them on screen, not to mention the likes of Christopher Franke, Anne Bruice, John Iacovelli etc. who were responsible for other aspects of the production. Why is the story sacrosanct, but their work suddenly disposable?

I certainly wasn't suggesting they change any music. If the people who did the original CGI are still in the biz, perhaps they could be hired to update the CGI, or one or more be hired as a consultant, or liason to the new CGI folks. But, at any rate, that part of your argument it getting very close to what I said I accept as a legitimate argument, that the for-the-time ground breaking work be preserved.

I think most of us would agree that the CGI isn't sharp enough to make it to the HD screen, and do justice to JMS' vision. That is why I think a faithful-to-the-original recreation of the CGI, for a HD release would be acceptable, and IMO, a fine thing. But, any new work should match the old work as closely as possible, without any real changes, just an improvement in the execution/resolution, which is allowed by today's tech.

BTW, I think the aspect ratio of the Mona Lisa is very important. I think it might be a golden rectangle, but it definitely wouldn't work W I D E.

 

[Shabaz]

I have made this argument before, but I might as well make it again.

I would love to see a new version of B5 that had its fully CG and comped shots redone. Not because I think the old version is bad; I think it is iconic and historically significant, and in fact I would actually like to see an extra containing the original uncropped version of that CG work if they should publish a new edition. No, I would like to see a new version because, in a sense, they already "messed" with it for the version we have now. And I would like to see some of the problems that created undone. Due to the original 'resolution independent' CG files being missing, the CG space scenes and the comped scenes had to be cropped from the old television broadcast, which was done at 480 lines, interlaced, and with an inferior telecine that picked up less detail.

Now, I actually love the way the widescreen elements of the DVDs look, and since it was originally intended to be that way, the "messed" above is in quotation marks. But one element that would've factored into that original vision, files capable of rendering the CG and comped shots wide or in any other resolution, are now missing. I'd be perfectly happy if they'd remade those for a proper SD release, looking exactly like the old ones, only not cropped this time.

But that isn't going to happen. What may happen is an HD version, and they really would need to redo the comped and CG shots for that. This would make me very happy. To me the space shots look all right as far as framing goes, though the cropping does make them look rather blurry. However, the scenes that have 16:9 shots mixed with comped 4:3 shots cropped to 16:9 of the same scene look really jarring to me. You can see how much is lost, and how big the difference in framing can be, here. Look at the screenshots provided for the How Much Quality Do We Lose For Composites section.

In addition, I would love to see the original film elements in a higher resolution, and with a better telecine and some work done on cleaning them up. There is a lot of noise and grain and dirt marks on the wide telecine we have now, and the technical means to clean those up exist. Instead they didn't even do some de-interlacing for the shots that required it, so a new version that had some attention payed to that would be really nice.

Finally, I wouldn't mind a new mix for the sound. What we have on the DVDs is a 5.1 surround mix with dedicated channels, but from what I understand all they really did was take the matrixed channel from the pro-logic mix and throw it on the back channels, and take the voice track and throw it on the center channel. I wouldn't mind a new mix that added some directionality, and used the dedicated channels more.

 

[maneth]

I won't buy any new B5 dvds unless they're released in some HD format, and for that new CGI would be necessary for reasons Shabaz posted above.

 

[RMcD]

I certainly wasn't suggesting they change any music. If the people who did the original CGI are still in the biz, perhaps they could be hired to update the CGI, or one or more be hired as a consultant, or liason to the new CGI folks. But, at any rate, that part of your argument it getting very close to what I said I accept as a legitimate argument, that the for-the-time ground breaking work be preserved.

I think most of us would agree that the CGI isn't sharp enough to make it to the HD screen, and do justice to JMS' vision. That is why I think a faithful-to-the-original recreation of the CGI, for a HD release would be acceptable, and IMO, a fine thing. But, any new work should match the old work as closely as possible, without any real changes, just an improvement in the execution/resolution, which is allowed by today's tech.

Yeah. In terms of keeping the original art intact, the ideal would be if the original objects, lighting and movement patterns had still been in existence and could be rerendered exactly as before in a higher resolution and 16:9 aspect ratio. Or as you say getting the same people back together to supervise a new definitive version, although I don't think that is very likely now. After that, the next best is to acknowledge that you are updating the effects only for the purposes of keeping up with new technology, and try to keep it as shot-by-shot close as possible.

But having thought about it some more, I'm not so sure it matters. I guess where the Mona Lisa analogy falls down is that as digital distribution takes over the original Mona Lisa is likely always going to be available alongside the updated version for the purists (ie. it's not actually being overpainted). George Lucas made himself unpopular by disowning his original versions and trying to wipe them from history. But I can't see anything wrong with having an alternative version, tastefully done, available alongside the original, the main thing is that the choice still exists for those who want to experience it as it originally was.

 

[raw_bean]

So the story is sacrosanct, but the acting, the cinematography, all of this is just dusting this off?

That's stretching my analogy further than intended, in such a way as to be rather misleading. A remastered HD presentation with re-created CGI and composite shots would actually better present the acting and cinematography, and if the CGI was faithfully recreated it would better show off the design and composition work of the original CG artists.

Is suppose I should rather say the *intent* of the episodes (in story, acting, visuals, sound and music design, etc.) are sacrosanct, but merely some aspects of the technological implementation onto viewable media could be 'dusted off'. I don't want B5 to look different, I want it to look the same but better.