A couple of items that caught my eye last week and that I’m only now finding the time to blog about:

First, I’m pleased to hear that those Edvard Munch paintings that were stolen two years ago have been recovered and that they’re in fairly good condition. I’m not a big fan of expressionist paintings in general, but “The Scream” is such a well-known piece, and so evocative of the mood of modern life, that you can’t help but admire it. I’d hate to think the inflatable doll I’ve got in my cubicle at work is all that remains of this iconic image.

Speaking of screaming, that’s what I felt like doing when I saw that the original Star Trek television series is receiving the Lucas Treatment, i.e., having all its outdated visual effects replaced with shiny new CGI. There have been rumors and fanboy wet dreams along these lines for years, but I myself always hoped it wouldn’t happen. I should’ve known better. Greed will always win out over principle, and if there’s a buck to be made by this sort of tampering, then somebody will do it.

Think about it: the only real reason a movie studio would invest in one of these CGI makeovers is to cajole the fans — who already own all the episodes on VHS and DVD — into spending a few more dollars for the revised versions. Either that or, as in the case of Star Wars, the owners of the property have gotten insecure and worry that the younger generation isn’t interested in a decades-old show because it doesn’t look like newer ones. Which, when you think about it, is just another take on the first reason. They both boil down to the same question: how can we sell more units and/or attract more eyeballs using the same basic material? You’ll notice that this trend toward revisionism only applies to those properties, like Star Trek and Star Wars, that still have the potential to bring in major profits. Less popular works made around the same time are left unmolested. I certainly haven’t heard about any new version of Disney’s The Black Hole, have you?

Look, the equation is very simple: either movies and television programs (and music and books and stage plays and any other art form you can think of) stand the test of time or they don’t. I believe they ought to be allowed to remain what they are without any misguided attempts at “improvement.” The article I linked to above quotes someone as saying they haven’t done anything with Trek that wouldn’t have been done to start with, had the technology been available when the series was first made. But that’s the point, isn’t it? Computer-generated special effects technology wasn’t available in 1966. The series was made the best way it could be made, given the limitations of the time. It was good enough to become a pop-cultural phenomenon in the ’70s and ’80s, so why is it suddenly not good enough? I say that if the general public no longer finds Trek acceptable or entertaining the way it was originally made, then so be it. Allow it to fade into obscurity; the true fans will continue to appreciate it for what it is. Or was.

Even if I wasn’t opposed to revisionist tampering on principle, I can’t believe that the end results are going to be worth the effort. The producers of these new revised editions can create the most spectacularly realistic exterior shots of the Enterprise that current tech will allow, but when the scene shifts to the interior of the ship, it will still be flamingly obvious that the sets were made of canvas and plywood. That was one of my big issues with the revised edition of Star Wars: the new effects were too slick and video-gamey to blend with the obstinately low-tech backgrounds.

If you’re interested in seeing the “improved” Star Trek — and I will admit to being curious about what’s been done, even though I’m predisposed to hate it — episodes are scheduled to begin airing in syndication on September 19. Check your local listings, as the announcer guys like to say…