Home Forums Ganymede & Titan Forum Why so much hate for Remastered?

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #211844
    Jawscvmcdia
    Blocked

    Why so much hate for Remastered?

    I admit, perhaps some parts about the Remastered could have been fixed, or left alone, but let’s face it, they served their purpose of helping sell Red Dwarf overseas, introducing it to an international audience.

    The sound work on it is awesome, some of the interior sounds really set the scene in a way that just wasn’t possible back in 1987-9. Also, I hate to admit it, but I prefer the overall look of the Remastered. The quality of the image just looks better somehow, and whatever they did to the colours have really highlighted them in a way I never noticed before from the originals.

    Apart from us Red Dwarf geeks, who would actually prefer the originals to the Remastered? Think about it. Put yourself in the shoes of somebody who has never seen Red Dwarf. If they were introduced to the original first series, I am sure that they would probably see it as some stuffy old comedy show, much like Last of the Summer Wine or of that period. With the Remastered, it looks fresher, more vibrant and more… youthful somehow.

    #211845
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    I think John nailed it here http://www.ganymede.tv/2014/11/low-high-red-dwarf-remastered/ but just start with the photo on point 5 with the crashed Starbug from Bodyswap.

    Remember: the CGI shot is supposed to be an improvement on the utterly perfect model shot. One looks like a 3D structure (because it is), one looks like a fucking cartoon (because it is). There was nothing wrong with shots like this, but they decided to change it anyway because it was more “consistent” to make Series 1-3 look like VII and VIII, rather than the other way. Frankly, as soon as Doug saw the first efforts, he should have binned the whole project.

    >Apart from us Red Dwarf geeks, who would actually prefer the originals to the Remastered?
    Basically anyone who doesn’t appreciate shitty CGI that screams “look at me, don’t look at the comedy”.

    Aside from that; awful additions, cropping, annoying deletions, strange redubbing (Rimmer’s mum)…oh and that Polymorph ending. And I’ve never bought the justification that foreign markets would have failed to take to the original shows.

    Improve the picture (although I’d debate whether it’s improved), improve the sound…and then, for the love of god, STOP.

    >With the Remastered, it looks fresher, more vibrant and more… youthful somehow.

    Remastered looks like what it is. And what it is; 17 years old now anyway.

    #211846
    Stephen R. Fletcher
    Participant

    Like with VII & VIII, I don’t really have as strong a hate as others for Remastered. When I first started watching the show in 1998, the first time I saw Series II was on the Remastered VHS tapes that was given to me for Christmas. I had to wait for almost a full year till I finally got to see the original version of Series II. Whenever I wanted to rewatch that series, I only had the Remastered version to watch, so I am more familiar with it. Yes, there are some changes that annoy or baffle me but I find the Remastered more interesting than painful to watch, and I even like the look of Series I & II (especially II). I wouldn’t say I prefer them to the look of the originals but I don’t think they look shit.

    There, I said it!

    #211848
    clem
    Participant

    > some stuffy old comedy show, much like Last of the Summer Wine or of that period.

    What, 1973 – 2010?

    #211849

    The biggest crime is the cutting and replacing of dialogue. Otherwise, it does an ok job of ‘updating’ it for overseas use, although little else. Certainly doesn’t warrant being the only version broadcast and sold in the UK for a number of years.

    To be honest, anybody who would compare the originals to Last of the Summer Wine would not actually be paying attention to the jokes, plot, characters or setting, so probably wouldn’t be too interested in it anyway. Certainly comparing a programme that opens with an impressive fly-by model shot and an epic sounding science fiction theme tune, in which almost all of the characters die halfway through the episode to ‘stuffy’ programmes like Summer Wine is the thought of an imbecile.

    #211871
    Ian Symes
    Keymaster

    The image quality in Remastered is objectively worse than in the originals. Half of the visual information was removed.

    #211873
    John Hoare
    Participant

    Why so much hate for Remastered?

    I admit, perhaps some parts about the Remastered could have been fixed, or left alone, but let’s face it, they served their purpose of helping sell Red Dwarf overseas, introducing it to an international audience.

    The sound work on it is awesome, some of the interior sounds really set the scene in a way that just wasn’t possible back in 1987-9. Also, I hate to admit it, but I prefer the overall look of the Remastered. The quality of the image just looks better somehow, and whatever they did to the colours have really highlighted them in a way I never noticed before from the originals.

    Apart from us Red Dwarf geeks, who would actually prefer the originals to the Remastered? Think about it. Put yourself in the shoes of somebody who has never seen Red Dwarf. If they were introduced to the original first series, I am sure that they would probably see it as some stuffy old comedy show, much like Last of the Summer Wine or of that period. With the Remastered, it looks fresher, more vibrant and more… youthful somehow.

    :(

    #211880

    More than three-quarters of the visual information was removed, it’s near-genocide.

    The original footage used for the Remastered episodes was shot with studio cameras employing 50 frames per second, interlaced video, much like every BBC production in colour since the mid-1960s. This entails two frames of video existing on one frame only, with the first frame recorded onto the even fields of the picture and the second on the odd fields.

    To achieve the first step of a film-like look, you have to reduce the frame rate by removing the odd fields, cutting the frame rate from 50 to 25. The trouble is, by doing so, you are essentially deleting half the image. To fill in the blank areas, the Remastered episodes took the even fields, duplicated them down to the odd fields and gave them a bit of a blur to soften out the jagged look that occurs when using that technique.

    But interlaced video is a strange land of pros and cons. Even though interlaced video squeezes two frames into every frame of video, interlacing artefacts such as ‘jaggies’ which you may have seen on a dodgy digital signal or when editing non-processed video only occur where there is motion. Otherwise, interlaced cameras capture a full frame, full quality image when the scene is static. When motion occurs such as a character moving their hands or walking, the deficiencies of interlaced video becomes apparent.

    The Remastered episodes have already at this point, lost three-quarters of their visual information from dropping the frame rate from 50 to 25 and utilising a very early de-interlacing technique that uses none of the odd frame information. Also, the cameras were set up to take in an image every 1/50th of a second. When dropping from 50 to 25, motion is jerkier due to smaller amounts of motion blur which the eye picks up on very keenly as compared to when shooting video with the camera pre-set to 1/25th of a second with motion blur more natural to that timing.

    What is left is 25 frames per second video with half the horizontal resolution and frame rate of before. Essentially going from a 50 frames per second, 720 x 576 image to 25 frames per second, 720 x 288. It’s as if we never won a war…

    Then on top of all that, there is a grain effect lashed over the image, then it was cropped from a full-screen 4:3 ratio to 14:9, the colour grading was tweaked beyond measure and then there is the infamous editing, effects and sound changes.

    Remastered? Rebastard.

    #211886
    Blisschick
    Participant

    I actually saw the Remastered versions way before I saw the originals, and I instantly hated the Remastered afterward. Not only were the sound effects stupid and distracting, once I found out what scenes had been cut and I realized how horribly some of them had been done, I was kind of mad about it. Most of what was changed had been fine in my opinion, so I have never really understood the logic behind most of what was done.

    #211916
    Ian Symes
    Keymaster

    Pete Tranter’s Sister – your post is passionate and eloquent, but Red Dwarf *wasn’t* 50 frames per second. It was 50 *fields* per second, 25 frames.

    #211919

    You’re quite right. I just deinterlace video as soon as it rears its manky, useless, Babylon 5 loving head on my screen so everything is a frame to me.

    Frame Flask, Frame Cat, Frame Microphone, Frame Rather Sad Knob.

    #211999
    By Jove its holmes
    Participant

    I still think Tippex’ing Felicity Kendal was the right thing to do. Too parochial for an international mainstream audience.

    #212001
    si
    Participant

    But Felicity Kendall’s arse *was* one you’d fly round a couple of times. More than a couple.

    #212003
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    I’d agree Felicity Kendall wasn’t a good choice for the joke (instantly dates a future-set show), but switching it to Marilyn Monroe is a pretty uninspired choice. She seems to be the go-to-celebrity, being both internationally known and dead-long enough to be considered legendary.

    The joke works for two reasons:

    1. The moon looks like a woman’s bottom

    2. The moon looks like the much celebrated bottom of a British celebrity

    It still works if you don’t know who Felicity Kendall is (and, since the Remastered bullshit was predominantly for Japan, anyway; you could “sort it out in the dub” .

    It’s better than the Joe Klumpp bollocks in the Omnibus, I guess.

    #212004
    clem
    Participant

    > It still works if you don’t know who Felicity Kendall is

    Was about to say exactly that. It’s like Rory Calhoun in The Simpsons. Also Felicity Kendall is a funny-sounding name.

    > I’d agree Felicity Kendall wasn’t a good choice for the joke (instantly dates a future-set show)

    For the most part I don’t like that sort of joke in RD but for some reason when it’s Holly I think they get away with it. I even like his QPR line in VIII, whereas I hate Lister calling the dinosaur “Barney’s ugly brother”.

    #212006
    By Jove its holmes
    Participant

    <i><b>The Good Life</i></b> has not stood the test of time. As noted upthread, referring to one of the actors that are now unfamiliar to or do not connect with, people under thirty, leaves the RD episode a dated 1980s period piece, rather than timeless. Saying that “it doesn’t matter” is about the same as saying “black and white shouldn’t matter to younger viewers” when it *does* matter.

    #212007
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    I said there’s still a joke there, even if you don’t recognise the name. As soon as you start dropping celebrity names for the purpose of a joke, someone, somewhere, isn’t going to recgonise it.

    >“Black and white shouldn’t matter to younger viewers”

    By the same logic; it matters to some not to all. Since Red Dwarf has never been really been aimed at a mainstream audience, trying to please everyone is never going to work.

    And B&W doesn’t tend to matter to younger viewers who’ve actually bothered to sit through a decent black and white movie.

    #212016
    John Hoare
    Participant

    At this point, I would like to bring up Family Guy being a HUGE success for BBC Three… and is filled with references to US-specific things which haven’t crossed the Atlantic.

    #212018
    Phil
    Participant

    At this point I’d like to bring up the fact that I’ve never seen The Good Life and have no idea what Felicity Kendall looks like. I know Marilyn Monroe and her image quite well.

    Having said that, the Kendall version of the joke is far funnier. It’s in line with the Rory Calhoun reference mentioned above. Sometimes the specificity is enhanced by the fact that it’s so specific it’s beyond your experience.

    I didn’t know who Rory Calhoun was when I saw that Simpsons episode, and I’d wager most people didn’t. I’d wager as well that the writers knew damned well that that would be the case. Would it have been funnier if the name had been replaced by Matt Damon? More people would know who Burns was referring to, but I think having the name be too recognizable robs it of its comedy.

    Jokes are about more than recognizing something. At least, they should be.

    #212039
    Jawscvmcdia
    Blocked

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

    #212042
    Seb Patrick
    Keymaster

    Re Felicity Kendal, while it’s a pretty obscure reference I assumed the point was always that she had famously won Rear of the Year one particular year. That’s why I think the change to Monroe didn’t work: Marilyn wasn’t really famous for her arse, so a planet shaped like it wouldn’t be that notable. Not sure who they could have changed it to instead, but still.

    (That said, changing it to Marilyn does fit in with the show’s general predilection for references to her)

    Similarly, when we did a version of The Young Ones’ “Bambi” as a school play thing once, we changed the Kendal reference (“all of Felicity Kendal’s underwear!”) in that. It was the late ’90s, so I think in a piece of glaring obviousness we went for Geri Halliwell.

    #212043
    Taiwan Tony
    Participant

    > Not sure who they could have changed it to

    Anneka Rice?

    Carol Smiley.

    Anthea Turner.

    I am old.

    #212044
    Taiwan Tony
    Participant

    I’m of the opinion that things like that should just stay in. Who’s going to watch Red Dwarf and think “Ooh, I wonder when this was made?! …It literally could be from the future.”
    Who? Only a yoge-urt.
    What a pointless exercise.
    I don’t like it when they cut the racism out of Only Fools & Horses and Fawlty Towers, because it sounds jarring to me, though I think it’s understandable.
    Things like this should provide nostalgia. It should reflect the time it was made.
    In 50 years time we might not be drinking milk. Then what? Or we might only be drinking dogs’ milk.
    And etc.

    #212049
    pfm
    Participant

    > Similarly, when we did a version of The Young Ones’ “Bambi” as a school play thing once,

    Beyond brilliant!

    #212052
    By Jove its holmes
    Participant

    cutting the racism/sexism/smoking from things which could be watched by children… it’s not about pretending that those things never happened, it’s about not pretending that those things don’t matter.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.