Was TOS low budget?

[Maurice]

Lobster suits would not due.

Due? Do!

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.

Gotta call you on that one. The only Alien set full of "christmas lights" is the "Mother" computer room. The rest of the equipment is fairly functional looking. Where there are little lights, they're generally paired with switches, indiciting if the item in question is "on".

 

[gomtuu20]

Yes, you are right. But Mother's control room is still an example of what I'm trying to point out. Most people didn't notice that they were nothing but blinking lights. I must say that Next Gen panels actually looked like they were designed to do something.

 

[gomtuu20]

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.

I agree Nerdius. One of the things I like about Trek BBS is that opinions can be discussed in a fun atmosphere and that those posting don't seem to get nasty and defensive when someone disagrees with them. Unfortunately, people nowadays seem to go straight for the jugular rather than consider someone's idea(s) and try to convince them of their own position. That is not just true of the TOS/NG debate, but in society as a whole.

 

[NTRPRZ]

In many respects, we're comparing apples and oranges here.

I always considered the sets and SFX on Lost in Space to be superior in many respects to Trek. While, as an earlier poster pointed out, in seasons one and two, LIS used the same planet set, while Trek had to recreate different worlds, in many cases the sets were much more believable on LIS than Trek. There always was a painted background with mountains and clouds, while on Trek there was just a wall that was supposed to be a sky.

Much of the "alien" equipment on LIS was used over and over again to be sure (as it was on Trek) it actually was surplus USAF missle and computer panels, etc. Much of the equipment on Trek (except the bridge) was very simple -- big, colored clunky dials, no instructions, blinking lights, etc. It hardly conveyed a sense of reality.

But also remember we're looking at these shows with a vantage point of 40 years. Each was what it was. I still think the Jupiter II was a beautiful spacecraft (which was shot live vs Trek's bluescreen and IMHO more believable) just as I feel the Enterprise is beautiful. The Jupiter II's interior, both upper and lower levels, was very beleivable, unlike much of the Enterprise, except the bridge.

Both were designed with different aesthetics in mind, and both have their place.

 

[Captain Robert April]

In today's dollars, Star Trek's budget would come in around a million bucks an episode. And since they had to essentially create a lot of the infrastructure that TNG and the others built upon, they had to make those bucks go a lot further.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

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.

I agree Nerdius. One of the things I like about Trek BBS is that opinions can be discussed in a fun atmosphere and that those posting don't seem to get nasty and defensive when someone disagrees with them. Unfortunately, people nowadays seem to go straight for the jugular rather than consider someone's idea(s) and try to convince them of their own position. That is not just true of the TOS/NG debate, but in society as a whole.

It's the anonymity that the internet provides that allows people to be more rude than they are in real life. People say things that they wouldn't dare say to your face.

 

[Basil]

While focusing on budget and technical issues is part of the discussion, remember that the aesthetics for film and television at the time were very different -- and that's probably more responsible for the look of the show than anything else. The "look" of Star Trek, with indoor sets, minimalist interiors, and atmospheric lighting is not inconsistent with many shows of the period, including non-sci-fi ones like Bonanza and The Man from UNCLE. "Mainstream" audiences by and large weren't interested in hyper-realism for what were what my grandfather used to say were "just made-up stories."

As further evidence, my mother and father, who were casual sci-fi watchers, along with others walked out of 2001: A Space Odyssey, in part because it bored them to tears and in part because its look was "cold and sterile." They expected something colorful and along the lines of what was normal then, a la Star Trek or Lost in Space but with a bigger scale -- instead, they got something that looked like a hospital surgery, and that was off-putting. A decade later the look may have been in vogue, but it wasn't in 1968.


And here's the best part -- almost everything that looks so modern and realistic today will look silly to audiences 40 years from now.

 

[gomtuu20]

While focusing on budget and technical issues is part of the discussion, remember that the aesthetics for film and television at the time were very different -- and that's probably more responsible for the look of the show than anything else. The "look" of Star Trek, with indoor sets, minimalist interiors, and atmospheric lighting is not inconsistent with many shows of the period, including non-sci-fi ones like Bonanza and The Man from UNCLE. "Mainstream" audiences by and large weren't interested in hyper-realism for what were what my grandfather used to say were "just made-up stories."

As further evidence, my mother and father, who were casual sci-fi watchers, along with others walked out of 2001: A Space Odyssey, in part because it bored them to tears and in part because its look was "cold and sterile." They expected something colorful and along the lines of what was normal then, a la Star Trek or Lost in Space but with a bigger scale -- instead, they got something that looked like a hospital surgery, and that was off-putting. A decade later the look may have been in vogue, but it wasn't in 1968.


And here's the best part -- almost everything that looks so modern and realistic today will look silly to audiences 40 years from now.

Yup

 

[Maurice]

Yes, you are right. But Mother's control room is still an example of what I'm trying to point out. Most people didn't notice that they were nothing but blinking lights. I must say that Next Gen panels actually looked like they were designed to do something.

That's fine, but you didn't say that in the post I was replying to. You said "most of the panels are", which is the only reason I felt it prudent to comment.

As to 2001 being sterile for a sci-fi movie of the era, someone want to point me to a cinematic spacecraft interior of the era that isn't sterile?

 

[Borjis]

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.

like most of the movies made today.

 

[Borjis]

As to 2001 being sterile for a sci-fi movie of the era, someone want to point me to a cinematic spacecraft interior of the era that isn't sterile?

2001 was supposed to be sterile. Kubrick wanted it as practical/real as it could be.....the believable factor and all.

 

[Captain Robert April]

As to 2001 being sterile for a sci-fi movie of the era, someone want to point me to a cinematic spacecraft interior of the era that isn't sterile?

Not a lot of cinematic choices of that era to choose from. At least not any that are well known (I'm sure there are probably a few obscure films floating out there that were pretty lively).

 

[Basil]

Yes, you are right. But Mother's control room is still an example of what I'm trying to point out. Most people didn't notice that they were nothing but blinking lights. I must say that Next Gen panels actually looked like they were designed to do something.

As to 2001 being sterile for a sci-fi movie of the era, someone want to point me to a cinematic spacecraft interior of the era that isn't sterile?

Wasn't just the spacecraft interiors that made things cold and sterile, but everything about the film, from the emotionless acting to the minimalist dialogue to the browns, grays, and beiges of the clothes to the flourescent-looking lighting as opposed to the more colorful theatrical lighting common in movies and television. My parents said it was like watching a half-baked movie about robots rather than people, and not very interesting robots at that.

But to answer your question, don't forget that Forbidden Planet was only a decade old at the time, Fantastic Voyage and James Bond's foray into space, You Only Live Twice, were recent memories, dozens and dozens of colorful "B" sci-fi movies like Queen of Blood were de riguer, and people could watch sci-fi, which was still thought of as mostly for kids, on TV through Lost in Space, Time Tunnel, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, and others, not including colorful shows with a sci-fi or fantasy influence, like Batman, the Monkees, The Man from UNCLE or The Wild, Wild West.

 

[Basil]

As to 2001 being sterile for a sci-fi movie of the era, someone want to point me to a cinematic spacecraft interior of the era that isn't sterile?

2001 was supposed to be sterile. Kubrick wanted it as practical/real as it could be.....the believable factor and all.

True, one of the elements that contributed to its box office failure and mixed response from critics. It did, however, significantly influence sci-fi from that point on.

 

[trevanian]

As to 2001 being sterile for a sci-fi movie of the era, someone want to point me to a cinematic spacecraft interior of the era that isn't sterile?

2001 was supposed to be sterile. Kubrick wanted it as practical/real as it could be.....the believable factor and all.

True, one of the elements that contributed to its box office failure and mixed response from critics. It did, however, significantly influence sci-fi from that point on.

It played for 2-1/2 years without break in San Jose, and many other parts of the US. Even using the 2.5 multiplier, it broke into profit within a few years just on domestic, not counting worldwide, so it certainly wasn't a failure financially.

 

[arch101]

[QUOTE

15"? You were so lucky! our TV was so little that when I watched Nixon resign he appeared on the tv as small as his soul really was! /QUOTE]



I enjoyed TOS in the late 70s on a 12" b/w set in my room (although my father had watched it first-run in color) It looked pretty impressive when I was able to catch it on a color set, especially if it was on cable. CH 11 in NYC showed TOS for years at 6pm every night.

 

[Esteban]

I always considered the sets and SFX on Lost in Space to be superior in many respects to Trek.

Don't forget 20th Century Fox was a far larger and more experienced studio than Desilu.

To paraphrase Bob Justman, the only special effect Desilu knew how to do was to keep Lucy's hair red.

OTOH, Fox had the experienced hands from all those 50's sci-fi movies, not the least of which was "The Day The Earth Stood Still". Irwin Allen got a free pass on alot of talent (now that I think of it, didn't the LIS pilot steal music from TDTESS?)

ST farmed out most of its work to Anderson, Vandeveer, Film Effects of Hollywood, etc, while LIS kept them in house under the watchful and competent eye of LB Abbott. Desilu had Bill Heath (post-production executive)--who was a deer in the headlights. Had it not been for Eddie Milkis who hired and kept an eye on the vendors, most of TOS would have looked like Sky King.

 

[Basil]

2001 was supposed to be sterile. Kubrick wanted it as practical/real as it could be.....the believable factor and all.

True, one of the elements that contributed to its box office failure and mixed response from critics. It did, however, significantly influence sci-fi from that point on.

It played for 2-1/2 years without break in San Jose, and many other parts of the US. Even using the 2.5 multiplier, it broke into profit within a few years just on domestic, not counting worldwide, so it certainly wasn't a failure financially.

Interesting. Everything I'd ever read said it opened and closed quickly in many theaters, though playing at length in some arthouse theaters and recouping and surpassing its costs years later. But I looked this up and several sources, indeed, say it began to get considerable repeat business after a dismal beginning -- though the time it took and in how many theaters is vague.

 

[cooleddie74]

Back in 1966, $150-200,000 per episode for a weekly, one-hour dramatic series was pretty darn high. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, MANNIX and the like all cost similar or even less depending on the season.

 

[Kirk1980]

Back in 1966, $150-200,000 per episode for a weekly, one-hour dramatic series was pretty darn high. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, MANNIX and the like all cost similar or even less depending on the season.

Don't tell that to Solow (I was gonna say Justman but....er...) because he knew their budgets and....well, he said both got TONS more money than Trek did.