Did anyone see this?this:http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/68/68startrek.php
TOS minimalist magic
- Thread starter Ronald Held
- Start date
I'm glad he wrote it out, though he simplifies a lot. I'm often surprised at how many modern viewers don't get this.
A
Amaris
Guest
The sounds and colors of the show do indeed set it apart from the others. TOS is instantly recognizable.
Great article, I really enjoyed it. I've always felt TOS had a greater intensity than the other shows, and could feel all the consistencies that this article better elucidates.
I think it was partly by design, and partly by chance. Chance in getting Shatner instead of Hunter, circumstance influencing artistic direction.
In early TNG we see a few planetscapes that are very TOS - and its interesting to read this article and re-examine what it is about that minimalist approach that sparks the imagination in deeper, or broader, ways.
I think it was partly by design, and partly by chance. Chance in getting Shatner instead of Hunter, circumstance influencing artistic direction.
In early TNG we see a few planetscapes that are very TOS - and its interesting to read this article and re-examine what it is about that minimalist approach that sparks the imagination in deeper, or broader, ways.
Indeed. Wonderfully composed -- and lit -- shots, unlike the talking heads of modern Trek. "Minimalist" sure didn't mean "unsophisticated."
Not sure I agree with some of his conclusions -- he falls into that semi-bigoted trope that lighter-haired white people are somehow more "friendly" or attractive than people with dark hair, and so far as I can tell, Shatner and Hunter have the same skin tone but are sometimes lit and made up differently . . . Shatner sometimes looks more pale than Hunter, and Hunter's coldness comes mostly from his steely blue eyes and stern facial expressions not his overall coloring -- but his basic ideas are more or less correct. But he gives too much credit to Star Trek and not enough to its predecessors.
The Twilight Zone, for instance, was eminently better at the minimalism thing. The lighting and color for Star Trek were pretty standard for the mid 60s . . . check out Batman, The Man from UNCLE, The Monkees, the first season of Mission: Impossible!, etc. Color TV was mostly a luxury item, and TV was trying hard to lure viewers away from technicolor films so that's what they mimicked. The result was beautiful, ebullient color that contrasts sharply with the beige blah and stark lighting of later shows.
The Twilight Zone, for instance, was eminently better at the minimalism thing. The lighting and color for Star Trek were pretty standard for the mid 60s . . . check out Batman, The Man from UNCLE, The Monkees, the first season of Mission: Impossible!, etc. Color TV was mostly a luxury item, and TV was trying hard to lure viewers away from technicolor films so that's what they mimicked. The result was beautiful, ebullient color that contrasts sharply with the beige blah and stark lighting of later shows.
Argh, you beat me to Twilight Zone. I'm not sure about minimalism, but DEFINITELY composed, intentionally photographed works of art. [And the words, again. Sigh again.]
Trek way outsplashed other shows in color at the time, though you are right they were very colorful and saturated. But, oh my, all those pastel splashes of light up against walls for no practical spacefaring reason . . . it's art. Go Star Trek!
EDIT: Also the mood lighting of early first season. I love it, wish they'd continued. Bridge got brighter, more uniformly lit, and I know the character lighting bugs people b/c it's not realistic. But neither is warp travel and transporters. Again, it's art. Wonderful. Thanks for making me think positive and feel expansive. Think I'll put on some Bach.
I suspect theater-goers prefer (or at least are not put off by) the lighting style of TOS. It probably stands out more to people less familiar with the stage.
The guy lost me when he said the command color was light brown. Blech!!! He'd been better off saying it was yellow! 
I thought that it was a fair article, demonstrating that even if funds were not very generous, there was a deliberate style and feel to the series.
Agreed, The Twilight Zone was beautifully photographed, using the best of black-and-white lighting and composition . . . at times it was expressionistic, at times noir, but almost always stunning.
But the sci-fi episodes often used minimalist sets, along the same lines as the simple geometric patterns and shapes that Star Trek sets used frequently. However, one thing that Star Trek benefited from was having a first season more influence by the Golden Age of television, of which The Twilight Zone was just one show. Such shows often were more artistic than the shows that followed, which increasingly aimed for "realism" rather than creativity, and one can see this readily in the lighting, camera set ups, set design, and acting in the earlier episodes. Still, even the Golden Age of television essentially was mimicking the best of film . . . of course, many television shows of the era were shot using the same film stocks and cameras as the films of the era, and there was some crossover of the production talent from one medium to the other. Anyone can do "realism" without much effort, but it takes legitimate creativity to produce programming that is at once both meaningful drama and artistic expression.
Did someone mention the soundscape of "Star Trek," or was that in the article? Not minimalist but very important and effective. Esp. bridge background noises. I wonder if they influenced Lucas for THX 1138, much more worth experiencing for the sound than for other stuff IMO.
