That didn't stop Paramount from "remastering" the original Star Trek series, which had some great (and some not so great) effects for its era and budget.
Universal would never spend the money to do new CGI. But maybe there could be a fan project to do replacement CGI shots. There are a lot of people skilled in 3D modeling and rendering nowadays, and one of today's PCs is far more powerful than the Cray X-MP used for the original movie. Put together an open-source project where everybody can contribute 3D models, textures, physics, camera movements, etc. I think the live action portion of the film holds up well, but the primitive space effects are distracting at times, even in the theaters back in 1984. They weren't much better than what was possible (at lower resolution) on a $1300 Commodore Amiga a couple of years later. Besides, those CGI animations were done by basically technicians, people who knew a lot about computers and graphics, but not as much about moviemaking. As CGI has become easier, people don't need to know as much about computers, so artists have taken over in the last 15 years or so. That's the main reason why today's CGI looks so much better, not because of advances in computing power.
In fact, with the right cast (professional actors plus the younger members of the original cast, not amateurs like in the fan Star Trek and Star Wars projects), this would be a great way to make the sequel that will otherwise never be filmed. Too bad Universal would sue the pants off anyone who would try to make it.
reply
share