Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ
Some opinions ARE more valid, its a basic fact deny it all you want to.
|
Not in this case. Even I have been the first to concede the point that this argument revolves *entirely* around the issues of the subjective. And I come into this with a consistent view that *no* alterations to a film or TV show should be made that rely on technology that was *not* present at the time the film was made. This is not the same thing as going back and re-editing films using only footage shot at the time or restoring an original roadshow cut of a movie that was then cut down for general release. In the case of those restorations, the end product remains a product of its own time which contextually, from an artistic *and* historic standpoint, I believe all films should always be, with no exceptions.
I do not regard the FX to be a component of an end-product in film that is somehow more important than any other element that is necessary for the creation of a great film. To me, they must be accepted for what they are and when they were made just as I must accept the fact that a film from the 1970s can't have Humphrey Bogart in it (to cite one off the wall example of what this boils down to). The day films and TV series cease to be recognized as products of their own time is the day we compromise much of the work's overall artistic integrity.
Let's cite another example that goes beyond the realm of FX but proves the same point IMO. If the FX of 1978 are "dated" and thus make it impossible to enjoy the end product today and thus require replacement of said FX, then who is stop someone else from then saying that because big orchestral film scores are out of favor with today's young audiences (and it's a sad fact that the days of the big epic orchestral scores with their signature themes are now gone forever) we should replace the music scores of Galactica and Star Wars etc. with synthesized scores that are more "with it"? And I wouldn't dismiss that because unfortunately there already is precedence for this kind of tampering in a "restoration" when the 1965 western "Major Dundee" was given a totally new score for its recent restoration. If you open up a can of worms in the FX department and sanction it for all time, then you in the end are going to make it possible for further kinds of tinkering
in other areas, and yes, I fully expect that to include colorization if someone really thinks they've come up with a state of the art process. And that isn't something I'm about to give approval to either.
And I also have still not heard an answer that to me coherently addresses the question of *why* does this obession with redoing FX only apply to the end products that in the 1960s and 1970s were absolutely state of the art compared to its contemporaries? I just can not see the logic in saying that work from the 60s and 70s needs to be freshened up but the same old cheap models from "Forbidden Planet" can stay as is, or that "Star Trek" must be altered to be "updated" but you're still going to have a load of anachronistic dialogue about World War III in the 1990s (not to mention Chekov's reference to Leningrad, which thankfully ceased to exist in 1991) that will always be there to remind people of when this was first made. And that ends up giving you an artistic clash of styles on a giant scale that I don't find aesthetically pleasing at all on any level.
Galactica's virtues in what it did at the time should be celebrated, and it should be viewed as a classic leap forward for how FX could be done on television in the same way we view other works of the past as great trailblazers and pioneers for improvements in the future on *other* projects. Merely because you *can* do things better today does not mean that artistically it works to retroactively slap all that back on the works of the past just because one is more popular in some eyes than others and thus can be treated differently. Some people might have their own standard and think otherwise, and its not my place to say that they somehow have a lesser appreciation for what constitutes good and not good aesthetic results. All I can say is that I have my standard, and it stems from a consistent view I take regarding *all* films and TV shows. You can disagree, but you can't call the position inconsistent, nor is it valid to suggest that its a call to enjoy something in low quality. I want to see the *original* work presented in the best quality restored negative etc. today so that the viewing experience can always be like it was for those who first experienced it and not through the experience of beat-up syndicated prints with several minutes missing etc.
