Retro Look Good Enough for Another Sci Fi Remake

[Gepard]

No, I'm talking about TOS, Which to me is the only real Star Trek thus far. Why do I say that ? For me it's simple, it just comes down to great production values - music, writing etc. aesthetics.. Star Trek never had the right guy in charge because of the nature of power politics and greed.

Okay, so TOS was the only "real" Trek. But it got canceled, too, without changing its aesthetics, actors, characters or continuity. And when it came back, it went on to be wildly successful for six feature films, all of which radically altered the art design from the series.

So what "killed" Star Trek, again?

 

[xortex]

No, I'm talking about TOS, Which to me is the only real Star Trek thus far. Why do I say that ? For me it's simple, it just comes down to great production values - music, writing etc. aesthetics.. Star Trek never had the right guy in charge because of the nature of power politics and greed.

Okay, so TOS was the only "real" Trek. But it got canceled, too, without changing its aesthetics, actors, characters or continuity. And when it came back, it went on to be wildly successful for six feature films, all of which radically altered the art design from the series.

So what "killed" Star Trek, again?

People who didn't think the old series was any good.

 

[Gepard]

People who didn't think the old series was any good.

Wait--that's "change for change's sake"...how?

 

[ST-One]

The creative team on TMP created something that looks as dated as TOS,

Those designs being over 30 years old, well... duh...

but with tons less aesthetic appeal. So their call was infinitely worse than keeping it closer to the series look.

Less aesthetic appeal?
Yes, blank white wall with the occasional red or yellow rectangle or pipe looked so much more appealing.

...ignoring the key visual basics of TOS.)

Good.

 

[xortex]

People who didn't think the old series was any good.

Wait--that's "change for change's sake"...how?

Change for change sake killed TOS. People who thought TOS wasn't any good killed the franchise. Get it ?

 

[btflash]

The discussions about needing to reboot Star Trek and update its look has included repeated assertions by some that the production design of the 1960s would never work today, as it would be laughable to sci-fi geeks as well as a general audience. The implication, too, is no one in their right mind would ever dream of doing such a thing for today's "sophisticated" audiences.

Well, word broke in the past 48 hours of a remake of Forbidden Planet under the helm of big name producer Joel Silver and Babylon 5's J. Michael Straczynski, only now it's not so much a remake as what sounds more like a sequel:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38991

Of special note is the assertion that "Straczynski was not shy about paying homage to FORBIDDEN PLANET in BABYLON 5, so it's not a surprise that he would want to honor the integrity of Wilcox's visionary film.

As for the look of the film, it will apparently be an "enormous, giant, retro sci-fi movie"; in other words, they're going to implement the design of the original rather than attempt something modern. As Harry said, nothing "sleek or chromy" like Fox would do."

Of course, this film may never get made at all, but if the retro look is good enough for Silver and Straczynski and Forbidden Planet, why not for Abrams and Star Trek?

that will be too cool!!!! forbidden planet was one of the greatest sci fi films of the fifties! i saw gene roddenberry give a talk about trek some thirty years ago and he stated forbidden planet was one of his major influences when he did the cage.

 

[ST-One]

People who didn't think the old series was any good.

Wait--that's "change for change's sake"...how?

Change for change sake killed TOS. People who thought TOS wasn't any good killed the franchise. Get it ?

So Gene Roddenberry himself killed TOS?

 

[btflash]

No, I'm talking about TOS, Which to me is the only real Star Trek thus far. Why do I say that ? For me it's simple, it just comes down to great production values - music, writing etc. aesthetics.. Star Trek never had the right guy in charge because of the nature of power politics and greed.

Okay, so TOS was the only "real" Trek. But it got canceled, too, without changing its aesthetics, actors, characters or continuity. And when it came back, it went on to be wildly successful for six feature films, all of which radically altered the art design from the series.

So what "killed" Star Trek, again?

while the trek films made money ,they were not wildly successful. total production costs for all six original movies was around 160 million dollars while they grossed around 600 million.nice box office, but not great!

 

[btflash]

on the other hand the six star wars films cost about 443 million to make while earning a total of 4.23 billion dollars! now, thats wildly successful!

 

[xortex]

Wait--that's "change for change's sake"...how?

Change for change sake killed TOS. People who thought TOS wasn't any good killed the franchise. Get it ?

So Gene Roddenberry himself killed TOS?

No, NBC cancelled it for new and more original programming.

 

[SonicRanger]

^^^

No, NBC cancelled it (twice) because of low ratings.

 

[ST-One]

Change for change sake killed TOS. People who thought TOS wasn't any good killed the franchise. Get it ?

So Gene Roddenberry himself killed TOS?

No, NBC cancelled it for new and more original programming.

You are ever-changing your position so that you don't have to admit how idiotic it is...
You said that 'change for change's sake killed TOS'... that first big change was TMP and it most certainly did not kill the franchise.

 

[number6]

^^^

No, NBC cancelled it (twice) because of low ratings.

And it cost a lot of money to produce.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Change for change sake killed TOS. People who thought TOS wasn't any good killed the franchise.

Sorry, no.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I learn so many new things at this site.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I learn so many new things at this site.

A few of them are even true.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I learn so many new things at this site.

A few of them are even true.

"I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human than someone who doesn't believe anything." - David St. Hubbins

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I learn so many new things at this site.

A few of them are even true.

"I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human than someone who doesn't believe anything." - David St. Hubbins

That's great.

Maybe I could adapt it.

"I like virtually everything I see, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human than someone who doesn't like anything."

 

[trevanian]

The creative team on TMP created something that looks as dated as TOS,

Those designs being over 30 years old, well... duh...

but with tons less aesthetic appeal. So their call was infinitely worse than keeping it closer to the series look.

Less aesthetic appeal?
Yes, blank white wall with the occasional red or yellow rectangle or pipe looked so much more appealing.

...ignoring the key visual basics of TOS.)

Good.

Contrast is a good viewing aesthetic ... now if you put a little snap into TMP, you can make that blah look work (compare TMP to ANDROMEDA STRAIN which has the same visual concept and director and cinematographer, but it WORKS there) ... instead you have unflattering quality of light and unflattering direction of light and monochromatic -- boringly monochromatic to be precise -- interiors that lack snap and visual appeal.

I'm not saying do TOS as the RED OCTOBER sub control room (which to me was a bit ott), but keep the colors and contrast.

 

[Qonos]

Change for change's sake is why Star Trek was cancelled.

What? Creative stagnation, having the same showrunners for ~15 years and being on a shit network is what killed Star Trek. Tell me...when Enterprise began recycling plots from DS9, how was that "change for the sake of change?"

No, I'm talking about TOS, Which to me is the only real Star Trek thus far. Why do I say that ? For me it's simple, it just comes down to great production values - music, writing etc. aesthetics.. Star Trek never had the right guy in charge because of the nature of power politics and greed.

Um see that's what's wrong with the fandom. You don't get a say on what real trek is. That was Gene and then ultimately Paramount's job.

TOS isn't the only Star Trek out there no matter how you spin it in your mind. I doubt it could have survived with only three years of shows and six movies, and yes it is being closed minded because you've missed alot of great stories and a lot of shit stories.

I don't like Voyager or Enterprise, but I realize they are still Star Trek.