"The Star Trek 'Look'"

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Don't know what to say about this, right off, other than that it's excellent:

"By treating the style of the original series as integral to the show — and not as a kind of regrettable defect — we can get a better grasp on the Star Trek phenomenon itself."

I gotta say that outside of the Enterprise itself the dominating red-orange of a studio-created alien "sky" is one of the visual tropes that I most associate with TOS.

 

[GSchnitzer]

Twelve pages of posts on Mervyn Nicholson's article can be found in this thread from about a year ago:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=123590&highlight=Mervyn&page=2

Don't know what to say about this, right off, other than that it's excellent:

"By treating the style of the original series as integral to the show — and not as a kind of regrettable defect — we can get a better grasp on the Star Trek phenomenon itself."

 

[evilnate]

Don't know what to say about this, right off, other than that it's excellent:

"By treating the style of the original series as integral to the show — and not as a kind of regrettable defect — we can get a better grasp on the Star Trek phenomenon itself."

I gotta say that outside of the Enterprise itself the dominating red-orange of a studio-created alien "sky" is one of the visual tropes that I most associate with TOS.

Beyond that, I associate the costuming and lighting as being integral parts of the look of TOS. The lighting is most pronounced in the first season, but the costuming continued to be interesting and unique through the entire run.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Not treating the audience like a bunch of drooling babies also helped...

 

[RAMA]

Don't know what to say about this, right off, other than that it's excellent:

"By treating the style of the original series as integral to the show — and not as a kind of regrettable defect — we can get a better grasp on the Star Trek phenomenon itself."

I gotta say that outside of the Enterprise itself the dominating red-orange of a studio-created alien "sky" is one of the visual tropes that I most associate with TOS.

Yes, one sadly duplicated in early STNG, which already had newer methods available to it. Planetscapes in Enterprise are a wonder by comparison...ST really did come a long way in 14 years.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Not treating the audience like a bunch of drooling babies also helped...

So in this simplistic world you live in, increased production sophistication equates to he audience being drooling babies. Hmm I guess the 1966 TOS audience felt that way compared to the Space Patrol episodes of the 1950s too..

RAMA

 

[cblmc1296]

Interesting thread. One of the aspects I found most disappointing about ENT was that it was missing that minimalist feel to it. When I first heard about the show, I had assumed the producers would attempt to make it look and feel eerily similar to TOS so that it would be believable as a "predecessor universe" as it were. I always thought they could have shot it on similar film stock to what was used on TOS in the 60's and that the production design could have had a more retro feel to it. Oh well.

 

[RAMA]

Interesting thread. One of the aspects I found most disappointing about ENT was that it was missing that minimalist feel to it. When I first heard about the show, I had assumed the producers would attempt to make it look and feel eerily similar to TOS so that it would be believable as a "predecessor universe" as it were. I always thought they could have shot it on similar film stock to what was used on TOS in the 60's and that the production design could have had a more retro feel to it. Oh well.

Ah well I differ here...the production had to come up with something that takes into account contemporary advances that surpassed TOS, as well as making it believable as a "retro" show...probably an impossible task with Trek fans. I find the result looks something like a rough edged "Leonov" from the movie "2010" and very believable as an earlier design...though hell..the flat screens used on the bridge already look BULKY compared to LED flat screens in 2011!

Ugh...using film grain on the first HD show in Trek history is a horrible idea....never mention this again.

RAMA

 

[cblmc1296]

I can't totally disagree with you. I had just anticipated something different for ENT.

By the way, I wasn't suggesting grainy looking film...just film that would have a similar look and color saturation to that used on TOS. As I understand it, such film actually has a finer grain than film used in the late 90's and early 2000's. I believe Jonathan West used this approach when shooting the excellent DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations". All the same, I will do my best not to mention it again. :-)

 

[Mr_Homn]

Twelve pages of posts on Mervyn Nicholson's article can be found in this thread from about a year ago:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=123590&highlight=Mervyn&page=2
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/68/68startrek.php

[/QUOTE]

Ah, I remember that thread. When I first discovered this article via that thread, and the great posts within it, it eventually led to my love of TOS growing so much more.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, but if you revive a dormant year-old thread here you get grief (not unreasonably).

 

[A beaker full of death]

Not treating the audience like a bunch of drooling babies also helped...

So in this simplistic world you live in, increased production sophistication equates to he audience being drooling babies.

"Production sophistication" is arguable. More advanced technology led to less innovative, less interesting solutions. I can see how Star Trek might be offputting to today's audiences, especially those unfamiliar with theater and those otherwise devoid of imagination and the appreciation of artistry.

In any event, it seems pretty clear to me the Captain was referring to the writing. Which, agreed, is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Not treating the audience like a bunch of drooling babies also helped...

So in this simplistic world you live in, increased production sophistication equates to he audience being drooling babies.

"Production sophistication" is arguable.

It's really not.

 

[Sean Aaron]

The original post makes a good point and is why "Trials and Tribbleations" works so well. I actually think the attempt to explain the original appearance of the Klingons in Enterprise was a mistake. The humourous non-explanation in Deep Space 9 was much better.

 

[Forbin]

Not treating the audience like a bunch of drooling babies also helped...

So in this simplistic world you live in, increased production sophistication equates to he audience being drooling babies. Hmm I guess the 1966 TOS audience felt that way compared to the Space Patrol episodes of the 1950s too..

RAMA

I don't think that's what he was saying.

I think he was referring to sophomoric stories and endless expositional dialog that spells out every little thing, whereas well-scripted shows can leave a lot to visual action, facial expressions, camera work, etc, and trust the audience to understand nuances. I'm thinking of some DS9 episodes that had characters standing around gabbing about what's happening, what just happened, what's going to happen, and how they feel about it, while my eyelids were getting heavier and heavier.

A friend's father sat down with him once to watch a DS9 ep, and after 15 minutes said "My God, don't these people ever shut up?!?"

 

[Warped9]

A friend's father sat down with him once to watch a DS9 ep, and after 15 minutes said "My God, don't these people ever shut up?!?"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A friend's father sat down with him once to watch a DS9 ep, and after 15 minutes said "My God, don't these people ever shut up?!?"

God knows I empathize where that series is concerned.

But then, non-fans often are nonplussed by stuff that we either like or take for granted in the style of the shows. I remember seeing ST:TWOK on opening night with a very sharp young woman who, halfway through the argument between McCoy and Spock in Kirk's quarters, leaned over to me and asked "Why does Kirk put up with this?"

 

[RAMA]

Not treating the audience like a bunch of drooling babies also helped...

So in this simplistic world you live in, increased production sophistication equates to he audience being drooling babies.

"Production sophistication" is arguable. More advanced technology led to less innovative, less interesting solutions. I can see how Star Trek might be offputting to today's audiences, especially those unfamiliar with theater and those otherwise devoid of imagination and the appreciation of artistry.

In any event, it seems pretty clear to me the Captain was referring to the writing. Which, agreed, is not the topic of this thread.

Its not even remotely arguable.

 

[cblmc1296]

So in this simplistic world you live in, increased production sophistication equates to he audience being drooling babies.

"Production sophistication" is arguable. More advanced technology led to less innovative, less interesting solutions. I can see how Star Trek might be offputting to today's audiences, especially those unfamiliar with theater and those otherwise devoid of imagination and the appreciation of artistry.

In any event, it seems pretty clear to me the Captain was referring to the writing. Which, agreed, is not the topic of this thread.

Its not even remotely arguable.

An argument isn't just contradiction.
It can be.
No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
No it isn't.
Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Yes it is!
No it isn't!

Oops, sorry. Wrong show.

 

[RAMA]

"Production sophistication" is arguable. More advanced technology led to less innovative, less interesting solutions. I can see how Star Trek might be offputting to today's audiences, especially those unfamiliar with theater and those otherwise devoid of imagination and the appreciation of artistry.

In any event, it seems pretty clear to me the Captain was referring to the writing. Which, agreed, is not the topic of this thread.

Its not even remotely arguable.

An argument isn't just contradiction.
It can be.
No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
No it isn't.
Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Yes it is!
No it isn't!

Oops, sorry. Wrong show.

In this case, the argument is so self-evident it doesn't need elaboration.