Agree.
Even if there never was a Star Trek franchise and only the first pilot "The Cage" was filmed, then I think many would still be impressed by "The Cage".
Just Became A Massive Fan Of TOS
- Thread starter StarMan
- Start date
Even if there never was a Star Trek franchise and only the first pilot "The Cage" was filmed, then I think many would still be impressed by "The Cage".
"The Cage" was actually filmed to a standard that would have allowed Roddenberry to release it as an actual movie, if the series didn't sell.
So, there's some good reasons why it looks impressive.
So, there's some good reasons why it looks impressive.
Welcome to the (Wolf in the) Fold.
Alternative(Factor)ly, you are now of the Body.
I think a lot of people write of older shows just becasue of how they look visually black and white or bright vibrant colors. It's kind of like saying all live action plays are garbage becasue we now have 4K TVs. But its really just different ways of telling stories.
I hope I'm doing my children a favor by watching older TV shows with them. We usually have a once a year "I Love Lucy" watch through. My oldest daughter(9) LOVES "Gilligan's Island."
Older TV shows have their flaws, but so do modern shows. I think it's awesome to be able to appreciate different types of story telling and also appreciate the craft that goes into shows, old and modern.
You could say the "it looks dated" criticism is itself getting dated.
No. Bad USS Triumphant.
*sprays with spray bottle.*
Alternative(Factor)ly, you are now of the Body.
I think a lot of people write of older shows just becasue of how they look visually black and white or bright vibrant colors. It's kind of like saying all live action plays are garbage becasue we now have 4K TVs. But its really just different ways of telling stories.
I hope I'm doing my children a favor by watching older TV shows with them. We usually have a once a year "I Love Lucy" watch through. My oldest daughter(9) LOVES "Gilligan's Island."
Older TV shows have their flaws, but so do modern shows. I think it's awesome to be able to appreciate different types of story telling and also appreciate the craft that goes into shows, old and modern.
You could say the "it looks dated" criticism is itself getting dated.
Quite the Discovery you've made.
No. Bad USS Triumphant.
*sprays with spray bottle.*
The remark about the use of color is all true; BUT, to be fair, at the time NBC also owned RCA - and the producers KNEW NBC liked shows that HELPED sell color TVs.The basic designs in TOS, such as the exterior of The Enterprise, the bridge layout, the transporter room, the sickbay, the handprops, and the uniforms all hold up well. Every incarnation of Star Trek is modelled on them.
To me the only thing that dates TOS is the excessive colors, which were implemented after the Cage, which looks more sleek and futuristic than subsequent episodes, some of the flashing consoles(there was too much yellow lights and not enough blue lights) and some over the top cliffhanger musical cues. TOS had some amazing music but the commerciak break cliffhanger music was just too pushy and over the top and it was reused for most of the series.
In that regard, a science fiction show (like "Star Trek)" or a fantasy based series (say "I Dream of Genie") were probably the best possible "vehicles" to help promote the (then) recent development of color television. One might not be able to do that as well with say, a western, because most of the time, the palette would be somewhat limited, keeping to "earth tones", browns, tans, muted greens. Oh, there could be exceptions, like the cowboys visiting the local "house of ill repute" where the production could go crazy with vivid reds for velvet curtains, tassels of shimmering gold, etc. But it would be very seldom the ranch hands come across a cotton candy pink pony.The remark about the use of color is all true; BUT, to be fair, at the time NBC also owned RCA - and the producers KNEW NBC liked shows that HELPED sell color TVs.
But Star Trek, by its very otherworldly nature had a built in reason (okay, arguably "excuse") to depict a much bolder range of colors. A lime green skinned woman? Shoot, that's not out of place, it's almost expected! I'd say "trope", but that word (as far as I know) did not exist in the mid 1960s. Computers with flashing red, green and blue indicators? Of course they flash in bold primaries! Railings painted "cautionary" red? Certainly! You wouldn't want to collide with or flip over them! Okay, I'm stating this with an air of hyperbole, but just to emphasize the point.
It's been argued that Trek stayed on the air as long as it did, despite mediocre ratings, not because of some overly hyped letter campaign, but because the show did help to sell those sleek color TVs made by RCA. Not everyone was watching, but many of those who did bought those color TVs to see it in its full, garishly colored glory. When the sales leveled off, or possibly dipped then it's possible NBC said, "okay, let's wrap it up, gang!"
I honestly wonder if Trek had stuck with the more subdued palette of the first pilot, might color TV sales not much as numerous, resulting in a cancellation after just a single season?
The basic designs in TOS, such as the exterior of The Enterprise, the bridge layout, the transporter room, the sickbay, the handprops, and the uniforms all hold up well. Every incarnation of Star Trek is modelled on them.
To me the only thing that dates TOS is the excessive colors, which were implemented after the Cage, which looks more sleek and futuristic than subsequent episodes, some of the flashing consoles(there was too much yellow lights and not enough blue lights) and some over the top cliffhanger musical cues. TOS had some amazing music but the commerciak break cliffhanger music was just too pushy and over the top and it was reused for most of the series.
I recall reading, and I think RCA can take the credit for the change to day-glo-upchuck, as it was a backer of NBC and color television was starting to make inroads - in the time and place, "Star Trek" and its weekly explosion of unicorn color would be a perfect advertisement for it. From the season 2 cast photo taken from "I, Mudd" to any generic corridor scene, or cast close-ups in between, the lighting boffins took time to balance the colors across the whole screen and it's sumptuous and never quite landed into the category of "garish" or "vulgarly hued". It's uniquely 1960s but it's always been vibrant and wonderful to gaze upon, even if it's dated. Such a style couldn't possibly work in any other decade. (Still, did TNG have to be the big beige hotel in space?)
I'll admit, as much as Pike's original looks best and most professional/austere overall, that new molding around the navigation/helm console was an inspired addition.
That and, as a kid of the late-70s and 80s, the 60s palette I didn't pick up on as "1960s" - just exciting, robust, vibrant action-y color.
Eureka, I found it:
https://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2016/02/star-trek-and-color-television.html
I like the colors. Nothing looks like it. It's so extreme it doesn't look dated. It looks TOS.The remark about the use of color is all true; BUT, to be fair, at the time NBC also owned RCA - and the producers KNEW NBC liked shows that HELPED sell color TVs.
If there was only The Cage it would have a limited national and global audience...'white people in space' does not sell globally and would not have a movie or TNG spin off
True. I meant the production design and narrative of "The Cage". Certainly, not the cast of characters beyond Pike, Number One and Spock.
Pike's ship was just not "there" yet. It was too typically colored like an SF ship. You weren't driven to look at that bridge, you didn't want to be in it. It could have been a high tech submarine.
-----
Kirk's bridge was SF but also defied SF expectations, with all the color. It wasn't just metallic silvers and greys. The future needs to surprise you. It can't look totally as you expect it to. All the red takes it out of expected SF, as all the beige etc did on Next Gen. After all, they don't know they're on a science fiction show. To them, they're real people going about their lives, and it just happens to be the 23rd/24th century. They'll make it look any way that works or is comfortable to them.
-----
Kirk's bridge was SF but also defied SF expectations, with all the color. It wasn't just metallic silvers and greys. The future needs to surprise you. It can't look totally as you expect it to. All the red takes it out of expected SF, as all the beige etc did on Next Gen. After all, they don't know they're on a science fiction show. To them, they're real people going about their lives, and it just happens to be the 23rd/24th century. They'll make it look any way that works or is comfortable to them.
Well, at the time, there was quite an uneven flow of media from the US to the rest of the world. I wonder what the international box office numbers looked like for 2001: A Space Odyssey, another "white people in space" production.
Kor
Years ago I dated a girl who was an English Lit major. She was into some very deep analysis of poetry and prose of many genres. I introduced her to a number of TOS episodes, being careful to select the best ones. She was very impressed and compared the episodes to plays. She was blown away by William Windom's performance in the "Doomsday Machine". She loved the episode "Miri", intrigued by the language the children used and how Kirk's final appeal to them was as a message a child could understand. And, she barely moved during "The Conscience of the King", probably because Shakespeare was integrated in there. She saw many episodes (I hid the real stinkers) and she would remark in detail on why that episode was so good.
In the early years of my life I watched it, and only appreciated it (I thought) because I love science and science fiction, and later I watched it (I thought) because of the nostalgia, and after listening to her explanations, I began to see the real depth of the stories, characters and acting and it became clear the true reason why I love the show and why most episodes can be watched over and over and over again with each viewing revealing some nuance that was somehow not apparent previously.
In the early years of my life I watched it, and only appreciated it (I thought) because I love science and science fiction, and later I watched it (I thought) because of the nostalgia, and after listening to her explanations, I began to see the real depth of the stories, characters and acting and it became clear the true reason why I love the show and why most episodes can be watched over and over and over again with each viewing revealing some nuance that was somehow not apparent previously.
Beautiful post. The depth of the stories, the acting, the plotting, the dialogue, and the design is indeed bottomless.
As per the bright colours, I've seen it suggested that TOS colour scheme actually makes a lot of real sense, as people living in space and cramped up on these ships for long periods of time need colour and vibrancy of eviroment so as not to develop cabin fever and go space crazy. Same deal with TNG's hotel-in-space aesthetic. Call me nuts, but I'd happily live in both, over the dark grim sterile 'sci-fi' environs of USS Voyager, NX Enterprise, the TNG movies, and Discovery, these hold no appeal to me, they're all of them too functional, they lost the human factor. They're depressing functional space ship environments, something that can't be said of either the brightly coloured TOS, or the warmly hued TNG. Star Trek is all the better for being bold in it's use of light and colour.
Similar threads
- Poll
