TMP an attempt to revise Star Trek back to 'The Cage' style?

[Lance]

I was reading an old thread about how TMP is in many ways a reboot of TOS, and came across these points which got me thinking:

Having watched them within a day of each other recently, I was struck by how much TMP is almost more "The Cage: The Motion Picture" from the color palette, other aspects of the production design and the overall more serious tone.

Anyway... yes, I always felt that TMP was more along the lines of The Cage than the rest of the series, as if Gene was trying to realign Trek with his initial concept, more cerebral in tone and more visually subdued.

I tend to agree with these two folks. In a great many important ways, TMP was not only a 'reboot' of TOS, but a step backwards to Gene's "original" vision of Star Trek as produced in 1964: the color schemes, the use of a separate first officer to the science officer, a more thoughtful cerebral tone over fist pumping action adventure, a captain who doubts himself and agonizes over his bad choices more, there is a lot about TMP that (consciously or otherwise) is more evocative of the 1964 pilot episode than it is of TOS the series.

We know from Gene's novelization of TMP that he did suggest that, in-universe, the adventures as depicted in TOS were more like a dramatization than the 'real' events (he suggests this through no less an authority than James Kirk himself), but a larger point is therefore whether The Cage itself was basically Gene's jumping off point for how this universe really looked and felt, even during the original Enterprise's five year mission.

Thoughts?

 

[Maurice]

Except that the Star Trek [Phase] II show, where Roddenberry had more control, was apparently going to be more colorful, certainly the costumes, and the paint job in Kirk's quarters was (as described in the photo below) white with red trim...

...and the hex meshes in the engine room were sill that same orange-red as on TOS...

Once "In Thy Image" became TMP it was Wise who purportedly wanted the more muted color schemes on the costumes, at least.

 

[Armus]

I see the similarities too. I think the Enterprise looks a lot more futuristic and less dated in The Cage than it does in the subsequent episodes of the original series. The landing party uniforms of the Cage clearly inspired the landing party uniforms of TMP.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Painting the elevator doors gray ≠ resetting Star Trek back to the first pilot.

 

[Vger23]

I think it was more an attempt to make Star Trek "important" and "epic" and "serious" rather than return to The Cage.

 

[Christopher]

Once "In Thy Image" became TMP it was Wise who purportedly wanted the more muted color schemes on the costumes, at least.

Yes, definitely. The director of a film has more control over how it looks than the producer or writer. To see why TMP looked the way it did, check out Robert Wise's previous science fiction film, The Andromeda Strain from 1971. It had the same sort of sterile, clean futuristic aesthetic and the same kind of sedate, dispassionate tone. A number of SF movies from that era take a similar approach to their futurism, from 2001 to The Illustrated Man to THX-1138.

After all, ST:TMP wasn't trying to be a TV episode. It was trying to reinvent Star Trek as a classy, big-budget theatrical feature. That's why they hired Robert Wise, an Oscar-winning feature director who'd never worked in television. It was only later on, with TWOK, that Paramount dialed back their cinematic ambitions and approached Trek as a TV-level franchise again.

 

[Dukhat]

I once read somewhere that at that particular time in film production, primary colors like red, blue and yellow did not feature well on a large screen. That could be incorrect information, though.

 

[Christopher]

I once read somewhere that at that particular time in film production, primary colors like red, blue and yellow did not feature well on a large screen. That could be incorrect information, though.

My understanding is more that it's just a matter of the big screen in a dark theater being proportionately brighter to the eye than a small TV in a moderately illuminated living room, so the colors need to be subtler to compensate. Combine that with the fact that '70s style did favor muted colors and pastels a lot.

There's also the fact that TMP actually was more colorful than people think. The film-to-video transfer process in use at the time washed out the colors, so the TV and home video releases for the first couple of decades after the film came out had much more muted colors than the original theatrical prints, creating the false impression that the movie was more drab than it was. (Well, except for the bridge scenes. Those were filmed in relatively low light so that the display screens would be clearly visible, so they did have a more muted look than the rest of the film, and unfortunately, quite a lot of the film was set on the bridge.) It wasn't until the Director's Edition came out that people could see the colors the way they'd originally looked in theaters. Though f you look at the full-color photonovel of the film that was released in 1979, the colors there are actually quite vivid. If anything, I think they made the colors brighter relative to the film, but it looks very vivid -- though there was only so much they could do with the bridge scenes.

 

[mb22]

The closest science fiction film that bears the "70s style" that I can think of offhand is Logan's Run, which while not exactly Flash Gordon (which was filmed in 1980) is still full of colors.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Christopher]

The closest science fiction film that bears the "70s style" that I can think of offhand is Logan's Run, which while not exactly Flash Gordon (which was filmed in 1980) is still full of colors.

Yes, but that's a matter of suiting the design choices to the particular story. The city in Logan's Run was meant to be a superficial utopia, a hedonistic paradise masking the underlying dystopian tyranny. So the bright costumes represented that indulgent lifestyle. But TMP was depicting a military service, orderly and disciplined and professional, so the more muted uniform colors made sense in that context. (The TOS uniforms were brightly colored, of course, but that was done to show off the relatively new technology of color television, rather than for any real in-story reason.)

 

[Maurice]

I once read somewhere that at that particular time in film production, primary colors like red, blue and yellow did not feature well on a large screen. That could be incorrect information, though.

Some people claimed Wise thought bright colors would distract from the actor's faces. How true that is I have no idea.

 

[Damian]

I can see both sides here. Certainly from a production standpoint I think TMP was treated like a big budget film (and given a big budget). The director, set design, even the uniforms reflect that. It was the only film, in fact, until Star Trek (2009) that was given a 'big movie budget'. Though that's not to say there weren't great movies and some that felt like big movie productions despite the limited budget.

Storywise, yes, I can also see a bit of a reset. I always thought TMP was the 'purest' of the Star Trek films from a science fiction standpoint. It's a thoughtful film that you can't just take at face value. It's not a true reboot however. It's clear from the narrative and dialogue that it follows the TV series. There's no attempt to say that didn't happen, or to say that was an alternate timeline. It's all part of the same universe. So that's why reset would probably be a better word. They used the plot device of a refit, plus a 2 1/2 year time gap to explain the changes in designs, uniforms and so forth.

As someone noted on another thread, it was probably one of the only times where a theatrical movie series followed a TV series and was meant to be a continuation of that series, and not a reboot or remake.

In that sense, Star Trek (2009) was more the norm. A movie based on a TV series but with different actors and an almost totally new production design. However, even in that case, they didn't make a clean break. By having Nimoy play Spock after we last saw him in Unification from that original universe, they kept a link to the prior TV series also. Also, they made it clear that the Abramsverse is an alternate timeline. That all that came before still happened in their version of Star Trek.

 

[Christopher]

Storywise, yes, I can also see a bit of a reset. I always thought TMP was the 'purest' of the Star Trek films from a science fiction standpoint. It's a thoughtful film that you can't just take at face value. It's not a true reboot however. It's clear from the narrative and dialogue that it follows the TV series. There's no attempt to say that didn't happen, or to say that was an alternate timeline. It's all part of the same universe. So that's why reset would probably be a better word. They used the plot device of a refit, plus a 2 1/2 year time gap to explain the changes in designs, uniforms and so forth.

Fans today are too binary about these things, assuming that something is either perfectly, 100% in continuity or is a completely separate reality. Historically, especially back in the '70s and '80s, most productions took more of a middle ground between those extremes -- they'd pretend to be continuing from what came before while freely contradicting or revising its specifics. For instance, in the pilot movie of The Six Million Dollar Man, Steve Austin was a civilian astronaut and he was forced to work as an agent for the ruthless government agent Oliver Spencer (Darren McGavin) as the price for his bionics, but in the TV series (produced by Harve Bennett), he was an Air Force colonel who was given his bionics by Oscar Goldman and worked for him willingly. Also, when they revisited his origin story in the episode "The Seven Million Dollar Man," they replaced his love interest from the pilot movie, the nurse who'd tended to him through his bionic surgery and recovery, with a completely different character and actress. (Plus the second bionic man introduced in that episode was Barney Miller there and Barney Hiller in his return appearance, because the sitcom Barney Miller premiered in the interim.) And then there were all the times they rewrote Steve's backstory to fit in new long-lost romantic interests, notably Jaime Sommers.

Of course, Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer did much the same kind of partial rewriting of history in TWOK -- while it was a sequel to "Space Seed," it retconned a number of details, like having Chekov involved in the original events, making Khan's people less ethnically diverse and more "Aryan," implying that movie-era equipment and insignias were in use at the time of "Space Seed," etc.

As someone noted on another thread, it was probably one of the only times where a theatrical movie series followed a TV series and was meant to be a continuation of that series, and not a reboot or remake.

Nah, there were a number of theatrical features in the '50s and '60s that continued TV series and starred their original casts -- Dragnet, Batman, Munster Go Home!, McHale's Navy and McHale's Navy Joins the Air Force, A Man Called Flintstone, House of Dark Shadows and Night of Dark Shadows (although I don't think those were in continuity with the show), and maybe more. And conversely there was Superman and the Mole Men, a feature film pilot for the subsequent Adventures of Superman TV series (and thus essentially a loose sequel to the radio series).

Although Star Trek was probably the first case where an in-continuity theatrical revival/continuation of a TV series lasted longer than two movies.

 

[XCV330]

Just a case of parallel evolution. I don't think anyone said "You know that first failed pilot? You thinkin what I'm thinkin?" "Ill fitting turtlenecks?" "No.. the FIRST pilot, silly" "It's gooseneck time!"

They had more time, more budget and they were going to flesh things out a little. Color choices were muted because late 70's.

 

[Damian]

Fans today are too binary about these things, assuming that something is either perfectly, 100% in continuity or is a completely separate reality.

Kind of ironic when you think about it because until TNG came along, there wasn't much attempt to keep a solid continuity (even after that it was never perfect). DS9, Voyager and Enterprise in particular tried to keep things more neat and tidy. Discovery, well time will tell if the storyline fits neatly in the universe.

Although Star Trek was probably the first case where an in-continuity theatrical revival/continuation of a TV series lasted longer than two movies.

I guess that's more accurate. I do believe Star Trek is one of the only series that had a TV show, then a series of movies that followed it, then more TV shows that followed that (then more movies to follow a spinoff show). Pretty incredible when you think about it.

 

[Christopher]

Kind of ironic when you think about it because until TNG came along, there wasn't much attempt to keep a solid continuity (even after that it was never perfect).

Not until later, really. I gather that Roddenberry saw TNG the same way he saw TMP -- as a soft reboot, a chance to tweak the continuity and improve the portrayal of the Trek universe, and to retcon out the parts of the franchise he wasn't happy with (i.e. mainly the stuff he wasn't personally in charge of, like season 3 of TOS, the animated series, and the later movies) and only keep the parts he wanted. And he tried to avoid dealing with TOS elements as much as possible; he had to be talked into including Klingons, and we didn't see Romulans until the end of season 1, at which point he'd already stepped back from the showrunner role due to his failing health. It was later on, when we started to get fans-turned-producers like Ron Moore, that attempts were made to unify TNG continuity directly with TOS.

DS9, Voyager and Enterprise in particular tried to keep things more neat and tidy. Discovery, well time will tell if the storyline fits neatly in the universe.

It's always easier to keep things consistent when they're from the same group of creators. Bring in totally new people and they'll usually have a different view of how things should be.

I guess that's more accurate. I do believe Star Trek is one of the only series that had a TV show, then a series of movies that followed it, then more TV shows that followed that (then more movies to follow a spinoff show). Pretty incredible when you think about it.

If you mean all in continuity with each other, yes. There have been other franchises that have gone from TV to movies and back, but in different continuities, like (if we include animated series) Batman, Spider-Man, the Transformers, the Ninja Turtles, etc.

 

[thribs]

I don't get all this fuss about the TOS style. It always looked fine to me. I would love to see someone today take that style and make something with it.

 

[Damian]

I don't get all this fuss about the TOS style. It always looked fine to me. I would love to see someone today take that style and make something with it.

Well I do admit part of me would love to see Discovery go "The Cage" with it's production design. I loved "In A Mirror, Darkly" because they did that, but did a few enhancements with the special effects, lighting and adding animation to some of the computer screens.

For a single one off episode that works. You'd probably get a lot of fans to watch it for nostalgia reasons.

But would that work for an entire series like Discovery? Say they went original series in set design, style, and even smooth headed Klingons (going all the way). My first inclination is to say no, that they might get hardcore fans like myself and some of us here. But new people? That's a bit dicier. If it were on regular TV, maybe they could pull it off. If it wasn't just a nostalgia show, but they had really good stories just with a retro design, maybe. Sometimes people like retro.

I think the difficulty here was that it was on an online platform people have to subscribe too. That'd be a lot riskier. I'm just not sure they'd be able to pull in the subscribers they'd need with a retro looking show to make it worth it.

Not until later, really. I gather that Roddenberry saw TNG the same way he saw TMP -- as a soft reboot

True. It wasn't until later in TNG that continuity seemed to become more important. During it's entire run TNG was more one episode stories. They'd refer to prior events, but you could probably watch TNG in no particular order without much problems. DS9 was where continuity really started to play a much more important part. I guess one thing Discovery does share with prior Berman era Trek is it seems their internal continuity is very important. Discovery may not fit nicely into existing continuity from a production standpoint, but internally it seems very important to them. I don't get the impression that you can just pick up an episode from anywhere and watch it without knowing what happened before.

But they are saying story wise, it is supposed to fit in with existing continuity. That's where I think time will tell as the show goes on if that's true. It's probably a bit early to say for sure. We'll see if from a continuous storyline perspective does it follow Enterprise and lead into the original series pretty nicely or not.

It's always easier to keep things consistent when they're from the same group of creators. Bring in totally new people and they'll usually have a different view of how things should be.

Right. I mean, at the beginning their was Bryan Fuller who worked with Berman, and Kurtzman who worked with Abrams. An Abrams even kept on John Eaves from the Berman era. In a way that's probably helpful. I remember reading that Scott Chambliss did pick Eaves' brain from time to time. While they want to create their own vision for Star Trek, there are certain constants in the Star Trek universe they want to retain (i.e. a certain look to Starfleet ships). You still want it to be recognizable as Star Trek.

But I find it interesting that with Discovery they seem very concerned with maintaining an internal continuity. Even with the books and comics, that unlike the past, they want everyone on the same page. The difference being that in the past books and comics had to follow on screen canon, but on screen paying attention to books and comics wasn't always that important. This time it seems they are trying to keep a continuity both ways. It'll be interesting to see if that continues as the show goes on.

 

[Christopher]

But I find it interesting that with Discovery they seem very concerned with maintaining an internal continuity. Even with the books and comics, that unlike the past, they want everyone on the same page. The difference being that in the past books and comics had to follow on screen canon, but on screen paying attention to books and comics wasn't always that important. This time it seems they are trying to keep a continuity both ways. It'll be interesting to see if that continues as the show goes on.

Well, it's not to the same extent as current Star Wars stuff where everything is canon and ideas from the cartoons, books, and comics get referenced in the movies. It's just that, since they have novelist Kirsten Beyer on the Discovery writing staff, that lets her liaise between the show staff and Pocket Books and keep the books as consistent with the show as possible, unlike previous shows' early tie-in novels that had to make best guesses based on series bibles and early scripts alone and thus turned out not quite fitting what the shows became. There's no guarantee that the show's staff will choose to remain strictly consistent with the novels in return, although they did borrow a few Shenzhou crew character names from David Mack's novel. It's just about making sure the novels are true to the show, not the other way around.

 

[Greg Cox]

Nah, there were a number of theatrical features in the '50s and '60s that continued TV series and starred their original casts -- Dragnet, Batman, Munster Go Home!, McHale's Navy and McHale's Navy Joins the Air Force, A Man Called Flintstone, House of Dark Shadows and Night of Dark Shadows (although I don't think those were in continuity with the show), and maybe more. .

Those early DARK SHADOWS movies were definitely NOT in the continuity of the TV show. Heck, they weren't even in continuity with each other. Both were basically standalone horror movies, reworking characters and plots from the TV show. NIGHT, in particular, bears little resemblance to the TV show, aside from the fact that you have the same actors playing similar characters with the same names. (Lara Parker is once again playing a seductive witch named Angelique, but she has a whole new backstory that has nothing to do with Barnabas or any of that.)