• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Behind the scenes fun....

Nice! I'm glad he mentioned that "The Paradise Syndrome" obelisk was finished on all four sides. I'd always figured the side you never saw would be open with two by fours showing inside. But they built the whole thing.

As the comments section points out, note Nichelle at 3:07.
 
You know, when you look at that footage, I can understand why William Shatner was unaware cast members like Nichols, Takei, et al held a grudge afterwards, as it all seems pretty lighthearted and smiles abound as they are 'blowing off steam' between takes.

I really have to wonder if they held any grudge at the time, or if these grudges developed and grew later as the popularity of the show increased in syndication, leading to personal Star Trek Convention appearances, etc. - and they need something to talk about to make those appearances more interesting over the years?
 
I don't know?

William Windom said it was the most unhappy set he ever worked on.
 
I don't know?

William Windom said it was the most unhappy set he ever worked on.

You know, its strange. In the summer of 1991 I was at a Trek convention up here in Toronto and Walter Koenig was being asked various questions by the audience, many of which pertained to the yet-to-be-released ST6 and a few regarding his experience working on ST5 under direction of Shatner. I distinctly remember Koenig carefully responding to a question on whether he was able to throw a few ideas into the mix on ST5 and it was along the lines of "you don't want to step in on Bill's agenda....to have to deal with the fallout and an ego like that"

Koenig seemed very balanced and reasonable at all points. He didn't ping with me as some sort of overbearing ego. So I really don't know.

Is it possible that Blackburn was angled (and perhaps more behind the curtain) as damage control? Yet on the other hand it did seem like they were all having a good time all those decades ago....and the home movies took place over 3 years.....not during a happy afternoon one week early on.

BTW - I'm assuming that's the dog Shatner had the studio buy breakfast for each morning. Lol!
 
You know, when you look at that footage, I can understand why William Shatner was unaware cast members like Nichols, Takei, et al held a grudge afterwards, as it all seems pretty lighthearted and smiles abound as they are 'blowing off steam' between takes.

I really have to wonder if they held any grudge at the time, or if these grudges developed and grew later as the popularity of the show increased in syndication, leading to personal Star Trek Convention appearances, etc. - and they need something to talk about to make those appearances more interesting over the years?

It really seems to have developed after the show ended. Makes me think of the sequence at the convention in Galaxy Quest :)
 
Thanks for posting this, Warped9. I don't have the blu-rays either.

And I love youtube sometimes. I somehow, between related and recommended, went from watching the Blackburn's behind the scenes bit to Ringo Starr's Caveman. So cool. Trek and Ringo within a couple clicks.
 
I wish they'd also release TNG Remastered on DVD, since I will never, ever switch to Blue Ray.

Reason?

Just curious.

Me too.

It's a superior format to DVD.

From what I've seen, not really.

But the main reason is this: I live on a fixed income and after ten years, I still have not completed upgrading my VHS collection to DVD, and I'm not about to start all over and spend ANOTHER decade doing the same to Blue Ray. What little money I have to spend on entertainment is better spent on other things.

It's literally that simple.
 
Blu-ray is impressive, but... does one NEED that level of detail? Frankly, I find some productions too saturated with detail and that ends up causing ocular overload--the eyes have to work harder to digest what is presented and creates fatigue. It's like 240Hz displays... so super saturated and too sharp. I find 120Hz about the cut-off on visual clarity, a noticeable improvement over 60Hz but without creating much eye strain that comes with faster frame rates.
 
Blu-ray is impressive, but... does one NEED that level of detail? Frankly, I find some productions too saturated with detail and that ends up causing ocular overload--the eyes have to work harder to digest what is presented and creates fatigue. It's like 240Hz displays... so super saturated and too sharp. I find 120Hz about the cut-off on visual clarity, a noticeable improvement over 60Hz but without creating much eye strain that comes with faster frame rates.

It has nothing to do with framerate, that's an in appropriate comparison. Especially because nothing is actually at those rates, it's all extrapolated with frame interpolation, which is pretty much just a junk gimmick and changes the nature of the presentation (called the "soap opera effect"). Any home theater enthusiast turns it all off.

Anyway, if you're finding that you think there's too much detail and straining to see it, your TV is too small for HD resolution, especially when a portion of the screen is unused since the Blu-ray's are pillarboxed to 4:3. A person with 20/20 vision can only resolve so much at a given screen size at a specific resolution at a given distance.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

I have a 60" HDTV and I sit about 12' away (which is actually a little far to resolve full 1080p resolution, but enough to see high def details) and I find the detail exposed on the Blu-ray presentations of TOS and TNG quite amazing. It's clearly superior and hardly a strain to see it.
 
Reason?

Just curious.

Me too.

It's a superior format to DVD.

From what I've seen, not really.

But the main reason is this: I live on a fixed income and after ten years, I still have not completed upgrading my VHS collection to DVD, and I'm not about to start all over and spend ANOTHER decade doing the same to Blue Ray. What little money I have to spend on entertainment is better spent on other things.

It's literally that simple.


I certainly get the fixed income thing. It's not clear from your post, but if you haven't already collected TNG on DVD, then you aren't "double dipping". So why not skip collecting the series on DVDs and start collecting it on Blu-ray to start with?

The TNG Blu-ray sets have pretty much all the bonus content from the DVD sets on it plus excellent new bonus content.

A good quality name brand Blu-ray players from well supported brands like Panasonic and Sony are relatively inexpensive.
 
Me too.

It's a superior format to DVD.

From what I've seen, not really.

But the main reason is this: I live on a fixed income and after ten years, I still have not completed upgrading my VHS collection to DVD, and I'm not about to start all over and spend ANOTHER decade doing the same to Blue Ray. What little money I have to spend on entertainment is better spent on other things.

It's literally that simple.


I certainly get the fixed income thing. It's not clear from your post, but if you haven't already collected TNG on DVD, then you aren't "double dipping". So why not skip collecting the series on DVDs and start collecting it on Blu-ray to start with?

I've long since collected all the Star Trek series and movies on DVD, so it would be double-dipping.

No, DVD is good enough.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top