TMP Seems more "Futuristic" Then "Star Trek '09"

[Harvey]

Gluing vacuum-formed videocassette and paint trays to the walls of the Enterprise sets was not Meyer's finest moment either.

Probably not, but the textured look is more pleasing to the eye than a blank wall. The original Star Trek did similar things all the time, gluing oddly-shaped packaging to the walls on a regular basis, IIRC. I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, the cheap things that were pasted to the wall in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan looks as futuristic as the cheap things pasted to the wall on the original show (if for no other reason than they are packaging for things that the audience no longer will recognize, like videocassettes).

 

[BillJ]

TMP: 46 mil
TWOK: 11 mil
TSFS: 16 mil
TVH: 23 mil
TFF: ??
TUC: 27 mil estimated

To be fair... The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock did not have to design and build new Enterprise models and sets. They were paid for out of The Motion Picture budget.

It still does not negate the fact that TWOK and TSFS' budgets were slashed in half. They ended up recycling and reusing things to compensate for the lack of budget which -- had they had the money -- probably could have been able to do a lot of redesigns, snazzier set pieces, better effects, etc etc.

When they made TMP, they didn't all sit at the table and plan out 5 additional movies on the spot. It just happened. Everyone came into TMP as if it was a one shot deal, all the other movies were just flukes. TMP's budget was planned for TMP, not for for the other movies.

There is no way Meyer makes The Wrath of Khan for eleven million dollars without those sets/models already being in place. Or that Nimoy makes The Search for Spock for sixteen million.

Even if you had more money, why would you trash film quality sets? They were only a few years old and were designed for the big screen. They'd have just been wasting money.

It would be interesting if someone could ballpark a production budget for The Wrath of Khan if they had started from scratch.

Plus reusing those sets/models gave the films a sense of visual continuity.

 

[Merky]

To be fair... The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock did not have to design and build new Enterprise models and sets. They were paid for out of The Motion Picture budget.

It still does not negate the fact that TWOK and TSFS' budgets were slashed in half. They ended up recycling and reusing things to compensate for the lack of budget which -- had they had the money -- probably could have been able to do a lot of redesigns, snazzier set pieces, better effects, etc etc.

When they made TMP, they didn't all sit at the table and plan out 5 additional movies on the spot. It just happened. Everyone came into TMP as if it was a one shot deal, all the other movies were just flukes. TMP's budget was planned for TMP, not for for the other movies.

There is no way Meyer makes The Wrath of Khan for eleven million dollars without those sets/models already being in place. Or that Nimoy makes The Search for Spock for sixteen million.

11 million dollars in 1981/1982. Inflate that to 2011 costs and you'll get: 25 million.

Regardless, the studios told Harve Bennett to make Star Trek on a budget and he did. He reused props, hired an inexpensive director, have the cast come in cheap, etc etc. Bennett showed that you can film a movie on a shitty budget.

Star Trek III even came in cheaper when you take into consideration that not only was Nimoy a cast member but as a director.

Even if you had more money, why would you trash film quality sets? They were only a few years old and were designed for the big screen. They'd have just been wasting money.

This Hollywood, why should they care? If the movie is a huge success, you go bigger. Star Wars didn't condense itself, it got bigger and bigger. They just didn't stop and reused things like Star Trek because they had a financial and critical success with the movies.

Plus reusing those sets/models gave the films a sense of visual continuity.

Visual continuity? That BoP in STIII was completely redesigned in STIV. I doubt continuity was a big concern in those producers minds.

 

[BillJ]

Regardless, the studios told Harve Bennett to make Star Trek on a budget and he did. He reused props, hired an inexpensive director, have the cast come in cheap, etc etc. Bennett showed that you can film a movie on a shitty budget.

Ask Harve Bennett how successful he would have been making TWOK for eleven million working from the ground up? Or if he had more money of he would have destroyed already standing sets?

Star Trek III even came in cheaper when you take into consideration that not only was Nimoy a cast member but director.

You are aware he collected two paychecks? He didn't direct the film for free.

This Hollywood, why should they care? If the movie is a huge success, you go bigger. Star Wars didn't condense itself, it got bigger and bigger. They just didn't stop and reused things like Star Trek because they had a financial and critical success with the movies.

The Star Wars films reused quite a bit from film to film. Lucas did not reinvent the visual wheel everytime.

Visual continuity? That BoP in STIII was completely redesigned in STIV. I doubt continuity was a big concern in those producers minds.

The original Bird of Prey set wasn't meant to be used more than once... I've heard that it was destroyed after The Search for Spock. Hence the new and more filming friendly set.

 

[Merky]

Regardless, the studios told Harve Bennett to make Star Trek on a budget and he did. He reused props, hired an inexpensive director, have the cast come in cheap, etc etc. Bennett showed that you can film a movie on a shitty budget.

Ask Harve Bennett how successful he would have been making TWOK for eleven million working from the ground up.

What does that have to do with anything. Fact remains: Movie was made on a shitty budget and that is the product we got. Asking him is not going to make or break this debate. What are you even talking about?

Star Trek III even came in cheaper when you take into consideration that not only was Nimoy a cast member but director.

You are aware he collected two paychecks? He didn't direct the film for free.

I'm not saying he came in and worked for free. But he did come in cheaper than having to go out there and hire a brand new director. You're missing the point here.

This Hollywood, why should they care? If the movie is a huge success, you go bigger. Star Wars didn't condense itself, it got bigger and bigger. They just didn't stop and reused things like Star Trek because they had a financial and critical success with the movies.

The Star Wars films reused quite a bit from film to film. Lucas did not reinvent the visual wheel everytime.

You're missing the point - of course movies will reuse what they can from film to film if it is a series it still does not negate that Star Wars had more breathing room. For instance, Star Trek II was made for 11 mil but Empire Strikes Back was made for 32 mil. Both made around the same time, 81 - 83.

Star Wars could build more, expand more, refine the movie more. Star Trek was confined. I mean... this is just going in circles here.

 

[BillJ]

Regardless, the studios told Harve Bennett to make Star Trek on a budget and he did. He reused props, hired an inexpensive director, have the cast come in cheap, etc etc. Bennett showed that you can film a movie on a shitty budget.

Ask Harve Bennett how successful he would have been making TWOK for eleven million working from the ground up.

What does that have to do with anything. Fact remains: Movie was made on a shitty budget and that is the product we got. Asking him is not going to make or break this debate. What are you even talking about?

I'm not saying he came in and worked for free. But he did come in cheaper than having to go out there and hire a brand new director. You're missing the point here.

This Hollywood, why should they care? If the movie is a huge success, you go bigger. Star Wars didn't condense itself, it got bigger and bigger. They just didn't stop and reused things like Star Trek because they had a financial and critical success with the movies.

The Star Wars films reused quite a bit from film to film. Lucas did not reinvent the visual wheel everytime.

You're missing the point - of course movies will reuse what they can from film to film if it is a series it still does not negate that Star Wars had more breathing room. For instance, Star Trek II was made for 11 mil but Empire Strikes Back was made for 32 mil. Both made around the same time, 81 - 83.

Star Wars could build more, expand more, refine the movie more. Star Trek was confined. I mean... this is just going in circles here.

 

[Merky]

Nice to know that you end your "debates" with a laughing emote.

 

[BillJ]

Nice to know that you end your "debates" with a laughing emote.

If you're not here to have fun... what's the point?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The bridge displays in ST:TMP looked cheap at the time - the back projection used was washed out too frequently by any use of specific lighting near the consoles, and the images were fuzzy. That and the fact that only once in the whole bloody film did the characters appear to be getting any specific information from one of them - when V'Ger's the hexagonal aperture was closing - and what you have was a Fail in 1979 and a dated Fail now.

Yeah, I know someone is gonna want to count the flashing images of FJ's blueprints, too - feel free. I don't.

 

[F. King Daniel]

About the TMP bridge... every button and monitor on that set was assigned a function, and a booklet with step-by-step instructions on how to do anything from firing a photon torpedo to opening hailing frequencies was produced. Supposedly it was done so the actors would know what buttons to press.

I know the booklet is online somewhere... I'll find it and post a link later (and no, I never bothered to check if the actors press the 'right' buttons!)

 

[F. King Daniel]

Found it. It's the 1979 "Enterprise Flight Manual"

 

[SchwEnt]

^^^ Re: Enterprise Flight Manual.
It's that kind of attention to detail and thought that goes into a quality production like TMP. Maybe 80% of all that work on every bridge control button doesn't make it on-screen. But the effort matters and is reflected in the overall production quality.

By way of comparison, I am unaware of any similar effort
made in ST09 to accurately depict everything they designed on the new bridge. Was it all shiny gloss and lens flare or was there an attempt at something more substantial, something well-thought out and practical?

 

[Merky]

By way of comparison, I am unaware of any similar effort
made in ST09 to accurately depict everything they designed on the new bridge. Was it all shiny gloss and lens flare or was there an attempt at something more substantial, something well-thought out and practical?

According to the bonus features on the STXI DVD, the set designers put a lot of detail into the control panels of the shuttle crafts (ie: labeling, buttons, levers, etc). There was detail put into the individual stations on the bridge, but I don't think there was anything put into the flat touch screen panels because majority of that was CGI. I believe I recall JJ saying that he was trying to avoid using as much CGI as possible in a lot of the scenes with the actors...

Captain's Chair

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

By way of comparison, I am unaware of any similar effort
made in ST09 to accurately depict everything they designed on the new bridge. Was it all shiny gloss and lens flare or was there an attempt at something more substantial, something well-thought out and practical?

I'm sure that it was like every other Star Trek production except possibly ST:TMP - designed to look somewhat plausible but mainly look good on screen. Let's face it, even the best creative efforts of fans like Mike McMaster couldn't make those glowing Chiclets on the TOS bridge really believable as controls.

I have the Flight Manual; giving buttons fanciful labels doesn't make them "practical." There were a limited number of switches in banks at several of the stations that would activate specific lights or mechanical gags, and proposed promixity/"theremin"-like gadgets may or may not survived the transition to the movie version. The claims that "you could hook engines up to this and fly it" were PR poobah.

More important by far is that the TMP bridge stations didn't look attractive or all that believable. The simple, most important principle in this kind of design is: if it doesn't look right, it doesn't matter whether or not it is right. That's just a fact.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Personally, I've found the completely flat touch-screen controls on TNG to be unrealistic. When I type, I rely partially on tactile contact with the keyboard to get my bearings. Tactile information about where each control is seems to be totally lacking on those flat-screen controls.

I do see the way they hold their hands, almost like a violin player (where, in case you don't know, a violin is a stringed instrument without frets, so that to be successful the feel for where all the notes are must be more highly developed than for say a guitar).

Still, I would think some old-school physical buttons giving tactile sensation would be more reliable, in general. Furthermore, in emergency situations, raised/lowered physically real buttons might be essential, such as in the case of partial power failure (oops, blank flat-screen/wrong control template on my flat-screen!), or partial inertial dampener failure (oops, I can't get a good grip on my console, while the ship is spinning out of control!).

The point I am trying to make is that, sometimes, perhaps what is thought of as "futuristic" is really too exaggerated or too one-track actually to be practical in the real future.

Oh, and are they never going to strap into their chairs on the bridge?

 

[Duane]

I saw Walter Koenig speak at a convention in the summer of '79, months before TMP came out. He mentioned that a Federal Authority (I can't remember if it was CIA, FBI or whatever) visited the set to view all of the control panels. I wish I could remember more about what he said.

I agree with the original post - TMP looks and feels more futuristic to me that ST '09. But I have to admit that the bridge looks very dated now.

 

[beamMe]

When they made TMP, they didn't all sit at the table and plan out 5 additional movies on the spot. It just happened. Everyone came into TMP as if it was a one shot deal, all the other movies were just flukes. TMP's budget was planned for TMP, not for for the other movies.

But not at 46.000.000 - that number includes the costs for the first proposed film and then Phase II.

 

[BillJ]

When they made TMP, they didn't all sit at the table and plan out 5 additional movies on the spot. It just happened. Everyone came into TMP as if it was a one shot deal, all the other movies were just flukes. TMP's budget was planned for TMP, not for for the other movies.

But not at 46.000.000 - that number includes the costs for the first proposed film and then Phase II.

I'm pretty sure that $46,000,000.00 included everything starting with Planet of the Titans up to The Motion Picture.

 

[Merky]

When they made TMP, they didn't all sit at the table and plan out 5 additional movies on the spot. It just happened. Everyone came into TMP as if it was a one shot deal, all the other movies were just flukes. TMP's budget was planned for TMP, not for for the other movies.

But not at 46.000.000 - that number includes the costs for the first proposed film and then Phase II.

15 mil came from whatever they brought over from Phase II plus initial production costs, actor fees, etc. 31 mil was still costs incurred from TMP alone from special effects and other costs incurred during production and post production. They still had to rebuild some of the sets, they still had to redo all the costuming, they still had to recreate a lot of things to transform a production made for a television series into a movie made for the big screen. That costs money.

No matter what you guys say, the movie cost 46 million dollars to make. I mean, there's really no other way to look at it and it doesn't matter how they put it together or how they made it, it still was a 46 million dollar movie. Even if they did take away the initial 15 mil from Phase II and other budgeting towards the movie, it still cost 31 million to make. It still is the most expensive ST film out of all the 6.

 

[BillJ]

I wonder if and how the reuse of a films sets/models affects the original films bottom line?