"The Star Trek 'Look'"

[cblmc1296]

Don't get me wrong folks. As I pointed out, I don't have any special preference one way or the other. I also wasn't suggesting that digital effects are any less difficult to create or any less artistic. However, the discussion was about "sophistication". So my point really was this: the nature of certain types of digital optical effects is such that the basic parameters used to create them already exist in many high-end video production software applications. Select a few presets, adjust a few settings, drag and drop and you can produce relatively believable opticals. Is this more sophisticated than inventing ways to do something similar either on-set or with multiple shots superimposed using a triple head printer or some such thing?

Again, it was really about the meaning of "sophistication" and how that meaning can be taken differently by different people. No knock intended against the creators of (or appreciators of) digital effects.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You deluded guys just kill me. At least you're good for a laugh.

Production sophistication - which the later shows and movies have in spades - and good design are not the same thing.

I'm not deluded and I know more about this than you do - but that's so self-evident that I don't feel the need to "posit an argument" to prove it to you.

 

[Maurice]

VFX are not necessarily cheaper, but what moderns filmmakers too often do (Christopher Nolan being a big exception) is decide to do a lot of things in post because it makes it easier to turn the principle photography in on schedule and on budget if you push all the difficult stuff out to post...where it's easier to shift the blame when the overall budget gets blown.

Dennis is correct that production sophistication and production design are not necessarily linked. The TOS bridge is an incredibly well-designed set hindered only by the budget and construction materials available at the time. It's no less well designed than any bridge in any other Trek show.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In fact to this day Star Trek visual design leans on very specific visual parameters defined by Matt Jefferies (and others). The kids in Abrams' Star Trek stare at a picture on the front wall and sit in a circle taking their directions from a guy in a big chair in the middle. Saucer on a stick with three cylinders. Nothing else looks like Star Trek and, talented though they are, Zimmerman and Chambliss didn't invent any of that.

Some studio guy remarked in an article about the deadline challenges of recent big films like Green Lantern that, as DS9Sega more or less observed "CG is just another way of not having to make up your mind." That's far too true far too often. And I know that too.

 

[RAMA]

You deluded guys just kill me. At least you're good for a laugh.

Production sophistication - which the later shows and movies have in spades - and good design are not the same thing.

I'm not deluded and I know more about this than you do - but that's so self-evident that I don't feel the need to "posit an argument" to prove it to you.

...many times nominated and won awards from all shows...so there goes your argument...

So not only did I share my opinion, I backed it up. Do I get a cookie?

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=5183683&postcount=30

STNG-5 noms for art direction
2 for cinematography

Other shows..DS9, 3 Emmy's for Art Direction...

http://star-trek-tv-shows-episodes....ow-Star-Trek-Deep-Space-9-win-any-Emmy-awards


ADG (Art Director's Guild) Awards, all shows:

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek%27s_awards_and_honors

The much maligned music of ST TV modern era...EIGHT ASCAP Film and Television Music Awards (handed out by the American Society of Composers) WINS (only winners announced) by 3 shows.


RAMA

 

[Captain Robert April]

You do realize that several of the awards you're touting weren't even around when TOS was on the air, right?

 

[number6]

^ Whut he said.. You kinda lost me with that last bit, and I usually agree with you.

 

[RAMA]

You do realize that several of the awards you're touting weren't even around when TOS was on the air, right?

The question in this case is not about TOS's production but whether or not the newer shows were well designed (as opposed to just more sophisticated). I believe their peers answered that question.

RAMA

 

[Maurice]

1997 Academy Award Winner for Best Picture: Titanic.

Popularity contests don't actually mean something's great.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Twilight alone should be example enough of the 'Appeal to Popularity' fallacy .

 

[scotpens]

. . . 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.

What, exactly, makes Trek TOS music “out of date”? The fact that it has actual melodies?

 

[Forbin]

I'm gonna have to throw away my Mozart collection. It's apparently out of date.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

1997 Academy Award Winner for Best Picture: Titanic.

Popularity contests don't actually mean something's great.

I love that movie.

 

[Gov Kodos]

1997 Academy Award Winner for Best Picture: Titanic.

Popularity contests don't actually mean something's great.

I love that movie.

My wife loves it, I wish I had a Big Kahuna burger for every viewing.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Mmmmm....that IS a tasty burger!

 

[Mr_Homn]

Shakespeare in Love winning best picture was when the Oscars jumped the shark.

 

[Maurice]

. . . 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.

What, exactly, makes Trek TOS music “out of date”? The fact that it has actual melodies?

The style that is out of date, much as the syrupy string playing style of 1930s orchestras is currently out of fashion. Things go in and out of vogue, and the brash, bold scoring of 60s TV is not currently in fashion. It's out of date because it's not the current style. That's no judgement of quality.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Shakespeare in Love winning best picture was when the Oscars jumped the shark.

I disagree. It's a great picture. I was awed throughout the whole film.

In any case, what should have won that year instead, in your view?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The question in this case is not about TOS's production but whether or not the newer shows were well designed (as opposed to just more sophisticated).

Uh-uh; don't try to wiggle. The disagreement isn't about whether or not they're well designed but whether they are better designed. You know that, too.

Shakespeare in Love winning best picture was when the Oscars jumped the shark.

Nope. Loved the script, loved the humor, loved the cast. I didn't see another movie that year that I enjoyed more, although the other Elizabethan movie with Cate Blanchett was good in its way too. I liked "Saving Private Ryan," too.

This is all entirely a matter of taste. The members of the Academy do not submit score sheets ranking discreet qualities and categories of artistic and technical merit; they just vote for the movies that they like the most and/or that they think will positively affect the image and success of the business (their personal career interests occupying the epicenter of "the business" for each of them).

 

[Mr_Homn]

Nope. Loved the script, loved the humor, loved the cast. I didn't see another movie that year that I enjoyed more, although the other Elizabethan movie with Cate Blanchett was good in its way too. I liked "Saving Private Ryan," too.

That's cool that you felt it deserved best picture, but I can think of several I enjoyed much, much more. Saving Private Ryan, The Big Lebowski, American History X, The Thin Red Line, Dark City, and even The Truman Show and the very overrated Life is Beautiful were all more deserving of winning the "Best Picture" category to me.

This is all entirely a matter of taste. The members of the Academy do not submit score sheets ranking discreet qualities and categories of artistic and technical merit; they just vote for the movies that they like the most and/or that they think will positively affect the image and success of the business (their personal career interests occupying the epicenter of "the business" for each of them).

Yes I know all that. Still think it was a joke that it won. But it's just an awards show. Most of the movies I mentioned are still talked about and referenced a lot these days, while Shakespeare in Love is largely forgotten. It just wasn't very memorable for most people, from what I've heard, other than as a movie that undeservedly won Best Picture, much like Crash.