"The Star Trek 'Look'"

[plynch]

If you have to tell someone that something is self-evident, it obviously isn't.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If you have to tell someone that something is self-evident, it obviously isn't.

Glib and fallacious reasoning.

 

[RAMA]

OK so tell the avg FX guy, production designer, producer, director, Hollywood studio head or interested man on the street that TOS had better production value and design than say STNG or Enterprise and see what reaction you get. You deluded guys just kill me. At least you're good for a laugh.

RAMA

 

[Maurice]

People like the fashion of the moment, and Hollywood follows trends, so asking people if something contemporary is better than something old generally yields the results you would expect, Rama. Once you get enough distance then you can evaluate things more dispassionately. For instance, there's a fair number of cinematographers who would argue that there's some (not all) 1940's film photography that blows away a lot of stuff from the 60s, and they're not wrong.

I'm not saying TOS is the best designed Star Trek show. Hell as it was certainly the one made with the least money and resources it couldn't be.

 

[RAMA]

People like the fashion of the moment, and Hollywood follows trends, so asking people if something contemporary is better than something old generally yields the results you would expect, Rama. Once you get enough distance then you can evaluate things more dispassionately. For instance, there's a fair number of cinematographers who would argue that there's sime (not all) 1940's film photography that blows away a lot of stuff from the 60s, and they're not wrong.

I'm not saying TOS is the best designed Star Trek show. Hell as it was certainly the one made with the least money and resources it couldn't be.

Don't get me wrong...TOS and Matt Jeffries specifically did some good work...they made the starship, city in space come alive for the first time...but in all reality...it can't compare to the increased technological/production sophistication of later generations of trek. Let's not forget that TOS was one of the most expensive shows of it's time, it had a comparable budget to STNG in 1960's dollars (in 2011 $ TOS would cost almost $1.2 million, STNG $1.9 million). They were simply better at it because of increased expectations from the 80s on.

 

[Mr_Homn]

If you have to tell someone that something is self-evident, it obviously isn't.

Glib and fallacious reasoning.

Not at all.

 

[Captain Robert April]

We get it, Rama, TNG rulz and TOS can suck it.

Has it occurred to you that one of the reasons TNG got so freakin' awesome was because of the infrastructure that TOS built all those years before? They did a helluva lot more than "some good work" (talk about damning with faint praise), they practically wrote the book on delivering feature film level visual effects on a weekly basis!

 

[RAMA]

We get it, Rama, TNG rulz and TOS can suck it.

Has it occurred to you that one of the reasons TNG got so freakin' awesome was because of the infrastructure that TOS built all those years before? They did a helluva lot more than "some good work" (talk about damning with faint praise), they practically wrote the book on delivering feature film level visual effects on a weekly basis!

Just because I don't view TOS with rose colored glasses as you do doesn't mean I don't appreciate the show, after all it made me a Trekker when no other trek existed. Let's just get a little reality into the proceedings.

RAMA

 

[A beaker full of death]

People like the fashion of the moment, and Hollywood follows trends, so asking people if something contemporary is better than something old generally yields the results you would expect, Rama. Once you get enough distance then you can evaluate things more dispassionately. For instance, there's a fair number of cinematographers who would argue that there's sime (not all) 1940's film photography that blows away a lot of stuff from the 60s, and they're not wrong.

I'm not saying TOS is the best designed Star Trek show. Hell as it was certainly the one made with the least money and resources it couldn't be.

Don't get me wrong...TOS and Matt Jeffries specifically did some good work...they made the starship, city in space come alive for the first time...but in all reality...it can't compare to the increased technological/production sophistication of later generations of trek. Let's not forget that TOS was one of the most expensive shows of it's time, it had a comparable budget to STNG in 1960's dollars (in 2011 $ TOS would cost almost $1.2 million, STNG $1.9 million). They were simply better at it because of increased expectations from the 80s on.

So your argument (now that you've finally posited one rather than engage in attacks) is that it was more expensive, so it must be better.
Frankly, the lighting techniques, makeup and cinematography of TOS were simply superior. Or are those not production values?
And that's not even mentioning the music, which was as far above anything modern Trek ever came up with as a da Vinci is to a kindergarten doodle.
So go ahead and tell us more about the "sophistication" of the production values of the brightly lit talking heads of Modern Trek.
Oh, right, you didn't actually tell us about anything. You just said it was so and that we mere mortals were laughable for thinking otherwise.

 

[RAMA]

People like the fashion of the moment, and Hollywood follows trends, so asking people if something contemporary is better than something old generally yields the results you would expect, Rama. Once you get enough distance then you can evaluate things more dispassionately. For instance, there's a fair number of cinematographers who would argue that there's sime (not all) 1940's film photography that blows away a lot of stuff from the 60s, and they're not wrong.

I'm not saying TOS is the best designed Star Trek show. Hell as it was certainly the one made with the least money and resources it couldn't be.

Don't get me wrong...TOS and Matt Jeffries specifically did some good work...they made the starship, city in space come alive for the first time...but in all reality...it can't compare to the increased technological/production sophistication of later generations of trek. Let's not forget that TOS was one of the most expensive shows of it's time, it had a comparable budget to STNG in 1960's dollars (in 2011 $ TOS would cost almost $1.2 million, STNG $1.9 million). They were simply better at it because of increased expectations from the 80s on.

So your argument (now that you've finally posited one rather than engage in attacks) is that it was more expensive, so it must be better.
Frankly, the lighting techniques, makeup and cinematography of TOS were simply superior. Or are those not production values?
And that's not even mentioning the music, which was as far above anything modern Trek ever came up with as a da Vinci is to a kindergarten doodle.
So go ahead and tell us more about the "sophistication" of the production values of the brightly lit talking heads of Modern Trek.
Oh, right, you didn't actually tell us about anything. You just said it was so and that we mere mortals were laughable for thinking otherwise.

There were no attacks, I simply didn't feel the need to posit an argument in the post Star Wars production design world.

Ehh, the hard lighting, soft focus for females, and greasy caked on makeup from TOS have fallen out of favor in Hollywood I'm afraid.

There are a lot of people who dislike the bombastic, overblown music of TOS, which was continued through early STNG...I understand the decision to change it for STNG, though i kind of like the movie style music of early STNG.

http://www.emmys.com/shows/star-trek-next-generation
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092455/awards

RAMA

 

[A beaker full of death]

bombastic, overblown music of TOS...

I never understood this way of thinking, though of course it was Berman's rationale for the "sonic wallpaper" edict. Maybe it's because I grew up with classical music and remain a fan of old movies and tv. So many of them have magnificent scores that stand well on their own as pieces of music. Sadly, so many will never be heard outside of the occasional Hulu viewing. For the life of me, I can't call to mind a single theme from modern Trek, or really any other modern show. But tv and movie music composed by real composers? Real musicians? Those will stay with one for a very long time. And to go back to this business about "sophistication"... the classical music of TOS and other shows of the period were simply exponentially more complex and informed by musical education than anything in modern Trek.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxkQkZWesUI

 

[A beaker full of death]

This is fascinating. Watch how the incorporation of TOS music into TMP completely changes the feel of the movie. I suggest jumping ahead to 4:10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLSDEFw0eLY&feature=related

 

[RAMA]

bombastic, overblown music of TOS...

I never understood this way of thinking, though of course it was Berman's rationale for the "sonic wallpaper" edict. Maybe it's because I grew up with classical music and remain a fan of old movies and tv. So many of them have magnificent scores that stand well on their own as pieces of music. Sadly, so many will never be heard outside of the occasional Hulu viewing. For the life of me, I can't call to mind a single theme from modern Trek, or really any other modern show. But tv and movie music composed by real composers? Real musicians? Those will stay with one for a very long time. And to go back to this business about "sophistication"... the classical music of TOS and other shows of the period were simply exponentially more complex and informed by musical education than anything in modern Trek.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxkQkZWesUI

My experience is that people wince or have me turn the sound down because of such music...I actually had Where No One Has Gone Before from STNG's first season on surround sound one day for example and my wife said she never realized STNG had such loud music. She rolls her eyes at the TOS music...oh well..

RAMA

 

[Maurice]

I've never had that experience. Perhaps the people I know aren't so ignorant of previous styles of TV scoring, or to them the music in Star Trek is just in a different and out of date style like the acting, costumes and cinematography.

 

[cblmc1296]

Just to throw another monkey wrench into an already volatile discussion. I think the phrase "production sophistication" is what started this particular part of the discourse and that phrase is subjective (and, therefore, very arguable - though the arguments are difficult to defend).

Is it more sophisticated to figure out creative ways to do visual effects manually (and on a tight budget) or hand them off to an effects house that has a computer program to add them in with the click of a mouse? Is it more sophisticated to light your interiors in soft secondary colors or in stark white light? What about film speed? Is it more sophisticated to use a low speed/low grain film (say ASA 50) to get mind blowing quality when shooting outdoors or is it better to use high speed film for better overall exposure but with coarser grain?

I don't feel one way or the other. I love TOS and I love TNG. I'm just wondering if everyone in on this discussion has tried to think objectively about the subjective term "sophistication" and all its possible meanings.

LLAP

 

[A beaker full of death]

^ Excellent analysis.

 

[A beaker full of death]

I've never had that experience. Perhaps the people I know aren't so ignorant of previous styles of TV scoring

The music we're discussing mostly consists of excellent, indeed, "cutting edge" serious music of the early-mid 20th century. The fact it originated in that period makes it no less worthwhile today; that's why music of the 20th, 19th and 18th centuries is still performed daily in the greatest concert halls and opera houses in the world.

or to them the music in Star Trek is just in a different and out of date style like the acting, costumes and cinematography.

Out of what, now? As I point out above, quality doesn't go out of style. It's the move away from quality that is leading to the demise of Hollywood.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Is it more sophisticated to figure out creative ways to do visual effects manually (and on a tight budget) or hand them off to an effects house that has a computer program to add them in with the click of a mouse?

Although I do enjoy the more "real" look of practical effects, I wouldn't dismiss digital effects as something which is done "with the click of a mouse" as there are degrees of artistry involved with digital effects, just as there is with practical effects. Yes things can be done more quickly in the digital realm, but that doesn't mean that the work is de-skilled.

 

[Myko]

I'm not sure CGI is actually easier and quicker, just cheaper.

 

[Forbin]

I'm not sure CGI is actually easier and quicker, just cheaper.

This. I know I have a hell of a hard time getting things to look good in 3D programs, so much so that I gave up trying.