Star Trek VI: Made on the Cheap, and it hurts the film

[ice]

Does anyone else feel that STVI could have looked a LOT better if there had been more money to spend?

The extensive reuse of the TNG sets damages the credibility badly; whilst the President's office is tolerable, the transporter room, and especially engineering, look utterly ridiculous.

Coupled with this, the visual effects are very lacklustre with a TV movie feel; a lot of the Enterprise shots are badly lit and make the filming model look far smaller than before. Nick Meyer's fondness for showing ships on viewscreens, done effectively in STII, doesn't work here as there aren't enough exterior shots to balance it out.

Overall, while STVI is a very worthy film and fitting end for the TOS crew, it could badly do with a visual makeover to make it look far more epic. Thoughts?

 

[Bishop76]

It looked better than 5 and I honestly don't have any problems with the effects. I thought that final fight in particular looked awesome. I thought it looked better than the TNG films too.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Nope. I've never has any complaints about the SFX in STVI. It remains one of my favorite TOS Movies

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Star Trek VI is probably the only Trek movie that you could adapt as a stage play. As far as I'm concerned, the visual aspect of the movie is perfectly adequate as it is, and the movie would work even with a smaller budget.

 

[Satyrquaze]

Star Trek VI is probably my favorite of the original movies.

Every single complaint you have about STVI is even worse in STV, and you say nothing on the subject, there.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Pfft. Cheap special effects? The play's the thing... as I'm sure General Chang would probably have said.

The CGI used was state-of-the-art, having only turned up before in T-2 and a Freddy movie. The story was traditional message story Star Trek and didn't need much more spectacle, for me anyway.

They don't make them like that anymore, that's for sure.

 

[Sky]

I did not really pay much attention to the special effects - the story held my attention.

 

[Warp Coil]

I have absolutely no problem with TUC. The visual f/x were on-par with most of the other Trek films. The sets, while many were recycled and re-dressed from TNG, were mostly adequate. Some were done better than others. I have to say that, overall, the re-dressing was more extensive and looked better than what was done for TFF.

If there's anything to complain about, it's the cheap visual f/x work and overall budgetary issues that plagued TFF, not TUC.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

I don't have any problem with the spfx in TUC at all. The racist remarks, however, are the fly in the ointment for me.

 

[ScottDS]

Considering the fact that they had no other choice, I like what Nick Meyer, Herman Zimmerman, et al did with the TNG sets, as opposed to Star Trek V where they were left intact. The paint scheme, graphics, pipes and ducts... we'd never seen those sets look like that. As for the FX, 99% of them are fine. I don't have a problem with the ship shots but I do have an issue with some shoddy bluescreen work (some of the shots with two Kirks for instance).

My problem was that the film was shot and cut in a hurry! There are some annoying continuity errors and lip sync issues.

The racist comments don't bother me that much but the one line that my friend HATES is Kirk's order of "Right standard rudder." I know Meyer enjoys his nautical references but this was one joke too far.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Director: "We need a bigger budget in order to build new sets for Star Trek VI!"

Paramount Guy: "But you already have expensive Enterprise sets built."

Director: "Yeah, but they're the wrong Enterprise."

Paramount Guy: "Weren't they originally built for TMP?"

Director: "Yeah, but when TNG came along, the corridors were painted slightly darker and the intermix chamber--"

Paramount Guy: "Does it really matter? Will anyone notice?"

Director: "Some of our more hardcore fans take this stuff very seriously."

Paramount Guy: "Won't the hardcore fans see it anyway?"

Director: "Umm... probably."


Seriously, a starship engine room's a starship engine room and a corridor's a corridor. Take the film on it's own merits the sets work perfectly.

I thought the Enterprise looked a bit silly with those red streaks trailing behind it at warp. Other than that, the effects looked fine to me. Not amazing, but fine.

 

[Opus]

There is only one sfx shot that looks poor - the shot of E-A as the BoP is flying around her. That's the one you're probably referencing.

It's the only one, however. All the other shots are amazing. Loved the sfx in TUC.

Yeah, a few of the interior shots are obvious reuses - Engineering especially. But remember - they were doing it on the cheap because the country was dealing with a recession.

 

[Bishop76]

It had more to do with TFF's poor box office returns than it did the recession.

 

[ice]

Every single complaint you have about STVI is even worse in STV, and you say nothing on the subject, there.

That's because I'm not talking about STV. For what it's worth, aside from the rubbish exterior shots, the sets aren't too bad. Although I dislike the TNG-inspired bridge, the TNG redressed sets that plague STVI (ten forward, etc) aren't a detraction in this movie. In STVI, even the pattern on the back of the transporter panels is exactly the same.

The visual f/x were on-par with most of the other Trek films.

The exterior visuals of the Enterprise certainly aren't. In STI-IV, there were many close-ups of the ship. Even when the ship was shown as being in relatively "bright" space, the spotlight effects on the hull were so pronounced that they gave a good sense of scale, as well as being artistically stylish.

By STVI, TNG is flying in the ratings and had become the default ST series. Suddenly, the Enterprise-A is old hat. Almost to confirm this impression, the ship is filmed in a way that actually make it look far smaller than before (distance shots) and the lighting is so bright the spotlight effects are often "drowned out". Also, the paint job on the model is rather flat and dull. Even STV had a slight sheen to the paint. A side effect of this and the lighting is to make the model look like...well, a model. Look at the flying-direct-to-camera shot of the Enterprise in warp
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch11/tuc0557.jpg
and tell me that's as good as the effects in STII.

Seriously, a starship engine room's a starship engine room and a corridor's a corridor. Take the film on it's own merits the sets work perfectly.

You have a point in that, as time has passed and TNG has faded into memory somewhat, it's not as bad. But seeing the techs wearing their STII hazard gear in the cosy carpeted Enterprise-D engineering set- complete with identical warp core- still takes away from the film. I was unimpressed with VOY's nicking of STI's warp core but this is worse. It's the entire set, and it's too obvious.

 

[Dukhat]

Meh. I'm as hardcore of a Trek fan as there is, and I didn't give a crap about the sets or effects. Hell, there was a brewery in Star Trek '09, and I didn't give a crap about that either.

The Star Wars prequels had some great effects and sets, and those movies sucked ass. It's not about the visuals, it's about the story.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Does anyone else feel that STVI could have looked a LOT better if there had been more money to spend?

It was a pretentious, clumsy movie and it looked cheap, yeah.

 

[Harvey]

I don't have as much a problem with the re-use of TNG sets in this one as I do the previous movie. In TFF, they're presented without alteration. Meyer at least knew how to re-dress things so that they would be different and interesting.

Okay, engineering doesn't look much different, but Meyer wisely limits the action in that set to the necessary shots (many of them tight angles on a particular console) and nothing further.

I don't have a problem with the visual effects. They're above par and leaps and bounds beyond the effects in the previous film, which were heavily over-lit and often poorly composited.

Would the movie have looked better if Meyer had more money to spend? At risk of sounding juvenile, well, duh. However, the Trek movies at this point (mainly, 2-6) were modestly-budgeted affairs. Any of the films across the board would have benefited from a greater budget.

 

[Maurice]

Part of the problem is where you spend your money. The film has an ambitious scope with many locations. Had they pared that back they could have spent more money on fewer sets and VFX.

 

[Cwj]

I didn't think the effects were at all bad. The zero-g assassination scene was pretty impressive. Gotta love those assault phasers

 

[Gotham Central]

The great irony of the critique of the sets is that those sets were built for the constitution refit. It was TNG that redressed them and used them on the Enterprise D. Technically Meyer was just returning them from whence they came.

People got so used to seeing them on the D that they forgot that they were created for TMP.

From a purely practical stand point, it would have made little sense for Paramount to invest large sums of money building NEW sets for the original enterprise at that point. TUC was written as e last of the TOS movies and TNG already had lots of standing sets. Plus by that point Paramount was already invested in creating DS9, which due to it's unusual aesthetics would have had no use for new Enterprise standing sets.

So even if Paramount had been willing to spend more money, I doubt that much of it would have gone to building say anew engineering set for the Enterprise.