Will the advanced special effects and scope kind of hurt "Discovery?"

[Jayson1]

I was thinking about this and wondered if it's possible for a Trek show to look so good it hurts the very spirit of what Trek has been or should be. In the TNG forum I recall someone saying that one of the reasons they like the show is because it feels almost like a stage play. I think one of the reasons TOS has endured IS because it looks kind of dated and that has provided kitsch value.

Then you look at the movies. TMP has huge budget and it's no good and TWK has a smaller budget and it is the best movie of them all. Same with TNG were most people like the show better than the movies, even the good one in "First Contact." The Kelvin Universe was a hit but it is also movies and not a tv show so you got different expectations there.

Isn't it kind of rare when more money, more special effects actually improves anything? For me I can only think of a few examples on tv and that would be the modern "Battlestar Galatica" and "Lost." Also isn't this idea that young people need flashy things and 2017 design look, whatever that means, to like something kind of saying young people are dumb and can't pay attention or have any imagination so we have to hit them with all sorts of bells and whistles to trick them?

Jason

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Special effects are a tool, nothing more. They are not inherently evil (or good). Nobody is gonna expect DSC to be filmed in Dogma-95 style, after all.

 

[Mudd]

No.

 

[BillJ]

Then you look at the movies. TMP has huge budget and it's no good...

TMP is my favorite Trek movie.

 

[Jayson1]

Special effects are a tool, nothing more. They are not inherently evil (or good). Nobody is gonna expect DSC to be filmed in Dogma-95 style, after all.

I know that but I wonder if their is some medium budget that works better. To little and it looks like crap, to much and it feels kind of souless. Not to mention the more money the more network influence which never seems to work out well. Plus I think people kind of dig some imperfections at times. Would "Evil Dead" movies been popular if they had a budget and they starred young Tom Cruise instead of Bruce Campbell. I think the CW comic book show do seem to work on what I figure is some modest budgets.

Jason

 

[Mudd]

Has anyone been discussing the huge alien beasty that shows up on the desert planet, in the concept art on display at SDCC?

 

[dahj]

huge alien beasty that shows up on the desert planet

Sarlacc?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I was thinking about this and wondered if it's possible for a Trek show to look so good it hurts the very spirit of what Trek has been or should be. In the TNG forum I recall someone saying that one of the reasons they like the show is because it feels almost like a stage play. I think one of the reasons TOS has endured IS because it looks kind of dated and that has provided kitsch value.

Then you look at the movies. TMP has huge budget and it's no good and TWK has a smaller budget and it is the best movie of them all. Same with TNG were most people like the show better than the movies, even the good one in "First Contact." The Kelvin Universe was a hit but it is also movies and not a tv show so you got different expectations there.

Isn't it kind of rare when more money, more special effects actually improves anything? For me I can only think of a few examples on tv and that would be the modern "Battlestar Galatica" and "Lost." Also isn't this idea that young people need flashy things and 2017 design look, whatever that means, to like something kind of saying young people are dumb and can't pay attention or have any imagination so we have to hit them with all sorts of bells and whistles to trick them?

Jason

There's a difference between effects being "really good" and being excessive, flashy and distracting. More isn't always better; if you're doing a scene with a CGI alien that manages to appear completely photo-realistic and gives believably natural movement in relation to the actors, that is a REALLY GOOD special effect. Contrast with some of the CG aliens in the Star Wars prequels whose movements are jerky, spastic, almost hilariously over-the-top at times for their context. Even if the latter creature looks photorealistic, it draws so much attention to itself that it ultimately hurts the scene more than it helps.

High quality special effects doesn't mean there's more OF it. It means the effects are cleaner, blend into the scene more, fit the context better and are more believable. The most complex CG aliens in the universe don't come off as believable if the first thing you ask yourself is "How much meth would a human being have to smoke to move around like that?"

 

[Christopher]

I was thinking about this and wondered if it's possible for a Trek show to look so good it hurts the very spirit of what Trek has been or should be. In the TNG forum I recall someone saying that one of the reasons they like the show is because it feels almost like a stage play. I think one of the reasons TOS has endured IS because it looks kind of dated and that has provided kitsch value.

Bull. By the standards of its time, TOS had top-notch production values and cutting-edge visuals beyond anything ever achieved on television before. Its spectacular, high-quality look was one of its main selling points, and it was Emmy-nominated three years in a row for its visual and technical effects.

Ditto for TNG. It was a prestigious, high-budget production whose sets, props, makeup, and visual effects were all top-of-the-line for their era. Take it from someone who was there in first run -- the updated, more sophisticated look and more elaborate, nearly feature-quality effects and production values compared to TOS were among TNG's primary draws, especially in the early seasons when the writing was less than amazing (although the writing was still better than most of the schlock that constituted American SFTV prior to the late '80s). Sure, a lot of TNG's visuals haven't aged well, but compare them to anything else on TV at the time and they're exceptional.

And every other Trek show has followed suit. One of the hallmarks of ST in the Berman era was that it was always consistently just about the best-looking show on TV with the most cutting-edge VFX, the most impressive sets, etc. So to say that Discovery somehow fails at being Star Trek if it continues the tradition of being one of the best-looking things on television is just ridiculous.

(And the reason TNG feels like a stage play is because of how it's written, and because it featured so many accomplished, theatrically trained actors like Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner.)

 

[starmike]

ITMP has huge budget and it's no good

TMP is awesome, it just had some production flaws. I've learned to really appreciate it.

Episode 262, “V’Ger needs this podcast”

 

[Jayson1]

Bull. By the standards of its time, TOS had top-notch production values and cutting-edge visuals beyond anything ever achieved on television before. Its spectacular, high-quality look was one of its main selling points, and it was Emmy-nominated three years in a row for its visual and technical effects.

Ditto for TNG. It was a prestigious, high-budget production whose sets, props, makeup, and visual effects were all top-of-the-line for their era. Take it from someone who was there in first run -- the updated, more sophisticated look and more elaborate, nearly feature-quality effects and production values compared to TOS were among TNG's primary draws, especially in the early seasons when the writing was less than amazing (although the writing was still better than most of the schlock that constituted American SFTV prior to the late '80s). Sure, a lot of TNG's visuals haven't aged well, but compare them to anything else on TV at the time and they're exceptional.

And every other Trek show has followed suit. One of the hallmarks of ST in the Berman era was that it was always consistently just about the best-looking show on TV with the most cutting-edge VFX, the most impressive sets, etc. So to say that Discovery somehow fails at being Star Trek if it continues the tradition of being one of the best-looking things on television is just ridiculous.

(And the reason TNG feels like a stage play is because of how it's written, and because it featured so many accomplished, theatrically trained actors like Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner.)

I know TOS special effects were top notch at the time. I was thinking more of fans who came to the show in later years when they were dated. For example I found the show in 1994 and they do look bad by 1994 standards but IMO it's a good bad. It does help it feel kind of campy which I like.

As for the modern Trek's even if they were top notch at the time they were limited by the technology of that time, which means you didn't have CGI and HD and all that stuff to work with. This show doesn't seem to have many limits which means they can really let the CGI and glam override the human drama of the show if they aren't careful.

I'm not saying I don't want them to use all the modern stuff. I just wonder if this could be one of those, "Be careful what you wish for" moments were what we want and what we get isn't what should have been done. I sometimes wonder if the 90's to early 2000's were the best time for a sci-fi show. You had enough tech to not look awful but not so much that you didn't have endless limits. Granted I am someone who still thinks models sometimes look better than CGI and that alien creatures looked better in things like "The Thing" instead of some of the CGI monsters we see.

Jason

 

[Starbreaker]

I do not want Discovery to look like it was made in 1966. 99% of people on the planet do not. The few hundred people who can't let the special effects and set design of Spock's Brain go have some kind of mental illness related to nostalgia.

 

[Tuskin38]

have some kind of mental illness related to nostalgia.

That was uncalled for.

 

[cultcross]

I agree. @Starbreaker I don't want to see comments like that thrown around. Those who disagree with you are perfectly entitled to their opinions, and they do not represent mental illnesses.

 

[Jayson1]

I do not want Discovery to look like it was made in 1966. 99% of people on the planet do not. The few hundred people who can't let the special effects and set design of Spock's Brain go have some kind of mental illness related to nostalgia.

Well I do have mental illness and I like nostalgia but they aren't connected. Plus I never said I want the show to look like it was made in the 60's only that one of the reasons I like TOS is because it looks like it was made in the 60's.

Not to mention anyone interested in any new Trek is going to be operating a little on nostalgia. That is why they are going with a brand name instead of creating something completely new. I have my doubts that their is anyone who has never heard the "Star Trek" name or even seen one episode or movie and will watch it just to see what this "Star Trek" thing is all about. If your someone who might be interested in a space ship show, chances are you have already given Trek a chance because it's the most famous one ever to be created for tv.

Jason

 

[Christopher]

I know TOS special effects were top notch at the time. I was thinking more of fans who came to the show in later years when they were dated. For example I found the show in 1994 and they do look bad by 1994 standards but IMO it's a good bad. It does help it feel kind of campy which I like.

Then it should be easy to understand that Discovery's state-of-the-art effects today will look campy to viewers 20 years from now. It's no different with this show than it was with any of the others. And it would be ridiculous for a new show to try to be intentionally cheesy or kitschy, which would just be self-conscious and insincere. Do the best job you can; let the next generation redefine it as kitsch.

As for the modern Trek's even if they were top notch at the time they were limited by the technology of that time, which means you didn't have CGI and HD and all that stuff to work with. This show doesn't seem to have many limits which means they can really let the CGI and glam override the human drama of the show if they aren't careful.

Again, it's all relative. HD is cutting-edge for today. CGI was cutting-edge in the time of DS9 and VGR. Video compositing was cutting-edge in the time of TNG. Motion control and slit-scan were cutting-edge in the time of TMP. Color TV and optical compositing were cutting-edge in the time of TOS. Every one was seen as just as spectacular and remarkable in its own era, a step beyond previous limits. And 10 or 20 years from now, the next new Trek incarnation will have some new cutting-edge element and people will be talking about how limited Discovery was for lacking it.

And I've been hearing audiences and critics worrying that special-effects advances would overwhelm storytelling and human drama since at least the time of Star Wars -- and I'm pretty sure I've seen older articles voicing the identical worry back in the 1950s or '60s. Heck, there were plenty of people in the '20s who felt that sound would ruin movies forever. Every generation has the exact same fears of change and novelty as its forebears and assumes it's the first generation ever to have those fears.

 

[cultcross]

And I've been hearing audiences and critics worrying that special-effects advances would overwhelm storytelling and human drama since at least the time of Star Wars -- and I'm pretty sure I've seen older articles voicing the identical worry back in the 1950s or '60s

And they do ruin some shows and movies, and always will, because poor writers and directors rely on them instead of telling a story - just as they rely on fancy sets or hiring big name actors - but better effects don't make that more likely for Discovery. What are the writers taking about? Effects? Explosions? Nope - they're talking about the nature of the story, how it takes our lead through the season. There's every indication that they will be used to enhance the story, not replace it.

 

[Jayson1]

And they do ruin some shows and movies, and always will, because poor writers and directors rely on them instead of telling a story - just as they rely on fancy sets or hiring big name actors - but better effects don't make that more likely for Discovery. What are the writers taking about? Effects? Explosions? Nope - they're talking about the nature of the story, how it takes our lead through the season. There's every indication that they will be used to enhance the story, not replace it.

That's true but then again I have heard that Micheal Bay has complained about how his "Transformers" movies aren't treated as good stories. You also never know when a studio might tell you to stop doing alternate history episodes and start doing movie rip-offs like on "Sliders" season 3. I can easily see some studio guy saying "Hey lets dump these 2 character scene's and add another action scene to replace them. Might not be what the writers want but it still might be what you get.

Jason

 

[CRM-114]

Story needs to be first and foremost above all else. As long as their priorities are right (the story and the performances), the effects and scope shouldn't overwhelm everything else, but serve as an enhancement to them.

 

[Spider]

Story needs to be first and foremost above all else. As long as their priorities are right (the story and the performances), the effects and scope shouldn't overwhelm everything else, but serve as an enhancement to them.

Whatever the special effects are, no matter how good, we've already seen them anyway. Spaceships, humans with funny heads that are "aliens", cool spaceship interiors, big spaceship battles; been there done that. The only thing is it will probably be prettier is all with better FX these days than on previous Trek TV shows. I mean, it's not like they're gonna have space dragons flown by gorgeous blonds with eye lasers.