• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Was TOS low budget?

According to the book on TOS production (title I can't recall), it was (for TV) definetly high budget.
Even so, I'm sure the producers would have liked more money, and could have put it to good use.
I think TOS was a high budget TV show, but that high budget was still stretched thin due to expensive opticals and custom set and prop work.
 
No doubt about it, and what they did was phenomenal. However, compared to today's work, it is somewhat lacking. You can't blame people for noticing the difference. Once you see realistic fx, you really can't go back.

Sure you can. I'll be happy to concede that the Enterprise looks dorky when they cut one of the supporting strings to indicate it's been damaged (thought so even back in the day), but the bridge looks awesome, the transporter looks awesome...

And while we're on the topic of f/x, most people only give consideration to their eyes, but the aural f/x, i.e. the score, was WAAAAAY better in TOS than any subsequent Trek,
 
Sure you can. I'll be happy to concede that the Enterprise looks dorky when they cut one of the supporting strings to indicate it's been damaged (thought so even back in the day), but the bridge looks awesome, the transporter looks awesome...

There are no strings. It was a 11 foot model. Strings wouldn't have held it up. It was on a post on the ground:

P25_2_circa66_1.jpg
 
I find it amusing to see people dis effects and then shoot themselves down in flames by illustrating their ignorance on how they were accomplished.
 
Inside Star Trek by Solow and Justman, p. 175.

Claims a budget of $193,000 per episode. Supposedly, a HIGH cost for those days. Mission: Impossible regularly exceeded their allowed budget but supposedly was being paid more by CBS than NBC was paying Star Trek.
Mission was a big ratings success compared to Star Trek.
 
Sure you can. I'll be happy to concede that the Enterprise looks dorky when they cut one of the supporting strings to indicate it's been damaged (thought so even back in the day), but the bridge looks awesome, the transporter looks awesome...

I hated when the cardboard sliding doors would buckle, and when paint would rub off of the tricorder prop, revealing that it was really a box of Rice Krispies. :(
 
One aspect beyond opticals that cuts into the budget figure is that Desilu's overhead charged to the show was apparently WAY above what a normal fully operational studio would charge, so I'm guessing at least 20 grand per ep was eaten up that way.

The very last eps of OUTER LIMITS were done for around 130 grand, and those look almost like nothing at all in some cases. So trek did pretty well with the dollars it had.

What killed me is to find out that TNG had a visual effects budget of 75 grand per show (when the eps started out costing 1.2 mil per) at startup. That is such a tiny sliver of 1.2 mil given that it is so important to that series, and might explain why so many shots in the first season look worse than bad TOS ones to me. (dinky ships in LAST OUTPOST that move all wrong, etc.)
 
Sure you can. I'll be happy to concede that the Enterprise looks dorky when they cut one of the supporting strings to indicate it's been damaged (thought so even back in the day), but the bridge looks awesome, the transporter looks awesome...

I hated when the cardboard sliding doors would buckle, and when paint would rub off of the tricorder prop, revealing that it was really a box of Rice Krispies. :(

Hehehehe.

Actually, the overhead monitors don't look that great in the new super definition and on a big TV. I didn't notice back in the black and white days.
 
Sure you can. I'll be happy to concede that the Enterprise looks dorky when they cut one of the supporting strings to indicate it's been damaged (thought so even back in the day), but the bridge looks awesome, the transporter looks awesome...

There are no strings. It was a 11 foot model. Strings wouldn't have held it up. It was on a post on the ground:

P25_2_circa66_1.jpg

Yeeees.... It was hyperbole. :)

I find it amusing to see people dis effects and then shoot themselves down in flames by illustrating their ignorance on how they were accomplished.

I'm right here, you know.
 
You must've come from the rich part of town if you didn't have a pair of vice-grips for a channel changer and one hand on the vertical hold at all times!


:guffaw::guffaw::guffaw:

Thanks. Now I have sugary coffee and spittle all over my new keyboard.

It's the "vice-grips" mention that got me...............
 
Budget limitations never really affect my enjoyment of a show.

You can show me the prettiest effects you ever did see but without a good story and fun characters, they're useless and a waste of budget.
 
You must've come from the rich part of town if you didn't have a pair of vice-grips for a channel changer and one hand on the vertical hold at all times!

Thanks. Now I have sugary coffee and spittle all over my new keyboard.

It's the "vice-grips" mention that got me...............
(the pliers were always getting lost)

While I wasn't really joking, this subject reminds me of a cheapskate friends' favorite joke when remote controls became a standard... "Who needs a remote control? That'll be the day I'm so damn lazy I can't yell at the kid to change the channel!"
 
Budget limitations never really affect my enjoyment of a show.

You can show me the prettiest effects you ever did see but without a good story and fun characters, they're useless and a waste of budget.

Thank You!
 
Did you know the avg home tv set in the late 80s was still 19"? Seems so long ago.

RAMA

I cut my ST teeth on a 15" B&W...

with rabbit ears, and one of those circular UHF antennaes, and a matchbook crammed under the tuner knob to keep it on station.

Now that's HD!

I had a B&W 13" tv set in my room as an 11 year old. That's where I started watching TOS late night! At 13 I got a 13" color tv in my room.

RAMA
 
One of the major hurdles in producing the original show versus a "contemporary" 1960's show was the cost in props and set dressing. If you needed a table and a set of chairs for a scene, they were not often something that you could just go out and easily rent or purchase - they had to be designed and built to look like they belonged in the 23rd century. Ditto just about every other item or piece of wardrobe used in the show.

A much more expensive situation than your typical sitcom or Mission: Impossible.
 
I think in the 60s it was nearly impossible to make a space show look like it was going on in space, all sci fi from the era that took place in space needed a bigger budget. You didn't have the technology of today to make any of it look realistic, while the budget was big for the show they had to do a lot of things to make it look like they were really a space show.
 
Yes, everything had to be made or purchased and altered. When they made Trials and Tribbulations they couldn't really recreate the chairs. My earliest TV memories are an astronaught wiping the camera lens on the moon and the shot taken from the back of the Enterprise nacelles. At the time, Trek fx were AMAZING! Part of the suspension of disbelief was making allowances for the back of the nacelles sort of "blinking into existence" as the ship got closer while orbiting a planet. I think people were a bit more creative back then and that their minds filled in the missing pieces without even noticing they were doing it. As a child, it was one of the things that attracted me to the show. The budget for the show was similar and sometimes slightly lower than other shows at the time, but other shows didn't have to try and recreate the 23rd century in every shot. If they needed a table and chair, they could just get one from the prop department or just go buy one. Trek had to design and make the table from scratch. Lost in Space was a kiddies show that could have someone put on a lobster suit when they needed a monster. Trek was made for a more adult, and a more sophisticated, audience. Lobster suits would not due.
You have to remember that in the late sixties, the attitude was "just put in some blinking christmas lights and it will look like a space ship". This philosophy can still be seen as late as the eighties in the first Alien movie. You will notice that most of the panels are nothing but blinking lights. There was a lot of pressure for Trek to become a kiddy show like LIS, but they resisted the pressure. Ok, maybe they bowed to the pressure when they made "Spock's Brain", but generally they resisted. There were no other shows that looked as good as Trek at the time. The use of colors was to attract viewers who had just purchased color TV sets. Trek was the most popular show among people who had just purchased a new color set. Compare it to anything made in black and white and you will kind of get the idea. The rail around the bridge, for example, was painted red. Look at it in "The Cage" or the subsequent clips in "The Menagerie" and you will kind of get the idea. The uniforms were made in multiple colors for the same reason. Trek popped when compared to anything else on the air at that time. It still looks pretty good, even though it is obviously aged.
 
This whole "low budget" critcism always annoys me. I get so tired of people trashing TOS because of "cardboard sets, cheezy FX", etc...

Agreed. I never did (and still don't) think it looked cheap. Even in HD, the sets look very convincing to me. Maybe if I could approach it with fresh eyes, and not 40 years of viewing from an early age...

Doug

Well, people don't have any sense of imagination anymore. They can't "fill in the blanks" when they're watching something old, so they need to have new fx inserted into the show in order to enjoy it. It's too much to ask for said people to enjoy something for what it is and look at the bigger picture of the whole thing. That's the difference between old Star Trek fans and the new breed of hateful, mean-spirited a-holes who have taken their place.
 
At that time, TOS along with shows like MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE ranked among the most expensive hour-long shows on network television.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top