Star Trek's Filmmaking Philosophy and the Human Body

[ZapBrannigan]

[Post deleted]

 

[Maurice]

 

[Steve Roby]

Setting aside the validity of the central argument...

Google AI is garbage. It gave me detailed information on two concerts here in Ottawa by the British punk band The Damned that, in fact, never happened. On one of the dates it gave me they were in New York; on the other, they weren't even on tour. It also told me that Enterprise had just about the same number of episodes as TNG, DS9, and Voyager, at just over 170 episodes each.

Also, 1960s American TV was weird about things like nipples and navels. That's why Gene Roddenberry created mutants with two navels in one of his failed '70s pilots: to make up for the number of times he wasn't allowed to show them on TOS. Also, why didn't Roddenberry insist Nimoy shave his chest?

 

[Tosk]

Maybe he actually meant to say "...if you want to skip it", rather than 'skim it'.

 

[Warp Core Breach]

The fuck did I just read?

 

[Metryq]

There's a moment in "The Man Trap" where Kirk is nonchalantly munching a snack on the bridge. That bit falls outside the essential form of a Heroic Captain, and it has always struck me as strange and off-kilter. At best it reflects a different vision of Star Trek.

I read an analysis somewhere—perhaps someone knows which Trek book it might have come from—stating that all the eating in "The Man Trap" was deliberate, to accentuate the starving salt vampire.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Setting aside the validity of the central argument...

Google AI is garbage. It gave me detailed information on two concerts here in Ottawa by the British punk band The Damned that, in fact, never happened...

I posted the AI extract precisely because it was good information on the subject. "It's in the transcript! And computer transcripts don't lie!"

 

[Firebird]

Regarding Michael Forest's iconic role as Apollo, I just read that they put tape over his nipple and covered the tape with makeup. And I respect that. It was surprising, but it means Star Trek was looking after every detail of its esthetic.

They were trying to finesse everything, and give us the smoothest viewing experience with no bodily distractions, no fleshy intrusions to drag the eye away from what mattered. They were crafting an episode where "Nothing is in this film by chance." When TOS is on its game, the focus is always on the essential, not the incidental.

The particular appearance of a particular actor's nipple might draw away from the essential, if it doesn't photograph just right. Another example is Gene Roddenberry insisting that Shatner shave his chest. This might be seen as an attempt to get Kirk down to his essential form, with less in the way of unimportant particulars.

This "control everything" approach is sometimes cited as a feature of the Romantic art movement, and it is basically the opposite of Naturalism, or maybe Kitchen Sink Realism. That style, where everything "just so happens", isn't my Star Trek. There's a moment in "The Man Trap" where Kirk is nonchalantly munching a snack on the bridge. That bit falls outside the essential form of a Heroic Captain, and it has always struck me as strange and off-kilter. At best it reflects a different vision of Star Trek.



I inquired on Google, and what follows is my copy and paste of the AI Overview if you want to skim it:
---------------------------------------------
The filmmaking philosophy that mandates that every detail in a film—from the props and lighting to the actors' movements—is intentional is often referred to as extreme mise-en-scène, meticulous directing, or simply as the pursuit of "perfect" cinema.

This philosophy, where nothing is left to chance, is characterized by a "controlling intelligence" ensuring that every element tells a story or contributes to the overall theme.

Key Filmmakers with This Philosophy

Several directors are famous for this meticulous approach, often described as having an obsessive attention to detail:

• Stanley Kubrick: Perhaps the most famous exponent, known for endless takes and complete control over every aspect of his frames.
• Wes Anderson: His work is characterized by high symmetry, controlled color palettes, and meticulously assembled sets.
• Alfred Hitchcock: Known for pre-planning his films entirely through storyboards, ensuring the shot on screen matched his vision perfectly.
• Roy Andersson: Known for his incredibly detailed, meticulously staged scenes (mise-en-scène) and static, painterly compositions.
• Akira Kurosawa: Known for meticulously planning his scenes and even adjusting elements outside the frame for perfect composition.

Principles of This Philosophy

• Total Control of Mise-en-Scène: Everything in the frame is planned and placed deliberately.
• "Every Frame a Painting": The idea that each individual frame can be analyzed as a work of art, with no "dead air" or irrelevant visuals.
• Subconscious Manipulation: The audience is manipulated by these subtle, hidden details to feel or think specific things, even if they don't consciously notice them.
• Extensive Storyboarding: Ensuring that what is filmed is only what was planned.

This approach contrasts with documentary-style or "looser" filmmaking, where accidents, improvisation, or serendipitous moments are encouraged, such as the style often used by Terrence Malick.
-----------------------------------------------

 

[1001001]

Okay, well...it looks like we're done here.