Was TOS low budget?

[RAMA]

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.

That's cheap these days. Some lead actors get paid that much an episode. STNG started off at $1.3 million per ep, but in real dollars, it was only slightly higher than what TOS had. The technology had come so far that it was easier (mind you not easy) to produce a complex regular drama show every week.

RAMA

 

[Redfern]

Oh, concerning "Mother" from Alien and its main interface chamber containing nothing but lights, I must politely debate that. True, on regular definition analog TV, it does appear to be nothing but lights, but in one or two close-ups even at that resolution, one can just make out tiny labels under each light. I suspect the new Blu-Ray releaqse (if there is one for it) would show them much sharper.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Captain Robert April]

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.

Mannix and M:I didn't have to figure out what an Aldeberan coffee table or a Rigelian espresso machine or the latest fashion trend on Gamma Triangulae VI looked like on a weekly basis. Mannix's snub nose .38 was probably used in a half dozen other shows, before and since. And while the IMF team used some pretty exotic gear, it was all clearly of 20th Century Earth origin.

So, those two shows were able to make those bucks go a helluva lot further, while Star Trek had to rummage through M:I's dumpters and find strange and unusual uses for the packing material for the aforementioned exotic spy gear.

 

[Maurice]

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.

Your exact quote was "its look was 'cold and sterile.'" I read this as a comment on the production design more than the content or the way the actors performed.

Stripping away the stuff that isn't actual sci-fi in that list, there's nothing less sterile about the production design of those spaceships in those shows. What's different is the way they're shot and the style of acting.

I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I'm just making sure I get your point.

 

[Basil]

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.

Your exact quote was "its look was 'cold and sterile.'" I read this as a comment on the production design more than the content or the way the actors performed.

Stripping away the stuff that isn't actual sci-fi in that list, there's nothing less sterile about the production design of those spaceships in those shows. What's different is the way they're shot and the style of acting.

I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I'm just making sure I get your point.

Sure, I can see where that would be confusing. I certainly shouldn't have included dialogue in the list.

But my parents -- and to some degree I feel the same way -- would say that the "look" went beyond production design, and included the color schemes of costumes, the lighting, and, indeed, the general "blank" quality of the actors, who understandably turned in performances that were less emotive than might have been usual.

The visual theme Kubrick was after seemed to be ultra-realism, which wasn't quite yet what they or many audiences at the time went to the movies to see. And though sci-fi in general uses lots of monochromatic colors, there is a difference between the relative starkness of so much in 2001 and the more romanticized imagery and lighting in other sci-fi productions. Few if any of the hues, for instance, in 2001 are all that warm, even when red and orange appear on screen -- the colors are often used in stark contrast to all of the white or black in the rest of the screen. Of course, since films after 2001 adopted a lot of its visual qualities, we probably see the film as more colorful than it would have seemed to some of the people back in 1968.

 

[Cap'n Caveman]

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.

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! And whats a UHF antennae? We had a wire hangar and tinfoil-and when Carson came on you had to wiggle the right side back towards the waterpipe running up the wall or it was all snowy.

Why, ours was so small...we... we didn't even have a TV! We had to take turns with a nocular (we couldn't afford binoculars) looking at our neighbor's 5" set across the street, and half the time he had the shades closed so that we had to stare at the shades and make up our own story, and we had to rig two cans and a string to hear anything. You city folks with your fancy wives and fancy ways...

 

[spoonunseptium]

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

As an 18 year old just getting into TOS, I think that for its time, the sets look excellant in HD. Yea, the planet shots all look pretty much the same, as if the crew just went out to a nearby field and shot it from different angles, but I think the story, intrigue, and characters of TOS far outweigh the quality of the sets. They are simply backdrops to really interesting stories.

That's why I like TOS, because it can still be amazing without having to look amazing.

 

[Basil]

Welcome to the joy that is TOS, spoonunseptium!

 

[Therin of Andor]

That's the difference between old Star Trek fans and the new breed of hateful, mean-spirited a-holes who have taken their place.

To be fair, some old time TOS fans were pretty unforgiving and hateful about ST: TMP, and the fans who entered fandom due to the movies.

 

[Noname Given]

That's the difference between old Star Trek fans and the new breed of hateful, mean-spirited a-holes who have taken their place.

To be fair, some old time TOS fans were pretty unforgiving and hateful about ST: TMP, and the fans who entered fandom due to the movies.

They were pretty unforgiving and hateful regarding TAS too - so yeah, Trek Fandom has always had 'splinter groups' as early as 1973.

(And I was one of them as - even though I was 10 when it started airing in 1973 on Saturday mornings - I hated the animated series, as I felt is was a really watered down version of Star Trek; and hated the new theme it used. Funny thing is - the series grew on me and even though I still don't think it was that good, compared to the original Star Trek I still have the DVD set).

 

[gomtuu20]

That's the difference between old Star Trek fans and the new breed of hateful, mean-spirited a-holes who have taken their place.

To be fair, some old time TOS fans were pretty unforgiving and hateful about ST: TMP, and the fans who entered fandom due to the movies.

They were pretty unforgiving and hateful regarding TAS too - so yeah, Trek Fandom has always had 'splinter groups' as early as 1973.

(And I was one of them as - even though I was 10 when it started airing in 1973 on Saturday mornings - I hated the animated series, as I felt is was a really watered down version of Star Trek; and hated the new theme it used. Funny thing is - the series grew on me and even though I still don't think it was that good, compared to the original Star Trek I still have the DVD set).

STTMP was a big disappointment to me in 1979, but perhaps that is because I was not expecting Trek's version of The Changling vs. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Star Wars was such a monster hit that I was expecting something more along the lines of TWOK than STTMP. I now love Star Trek: The Motionless Picture. Especially the director's cut! I was terribly disappointed in TAS too, but, like you, I own the DVDs and have enjoyed them. I'm not certain whether I just missed how good they were when they first came out or they just seem a lot better now compared to most of the rest of today's television. Anyway, to get back to the original thread....In summary: TOS's budget was comparable to other TV series of the day, but they had to do a lot more with it. If there were a lot of special effects, they might not be able to afford to build all the sets. Nearly every set had to be manufactured to look like the 23rd century and therefore could not just be purchased at the local K-Mart. Props all had to be hand built. All in all, when you consider the challenges the producers had to overcome, it is pretty remarkable that the series was able to be made at all. It was so good and so special, that we are still talking about it today

 

[Maurice]

Nearly every set had to be manufactured to look like the 23rd century and therefore could not just be purchased at the local K-Mart.

I wasn't aware that K-mart sold sets for television series...although I knew they sell TV sets. I think you means props and set dressing.

 

[gomtuu20]

Nearly every set had to be manufactured to look like the 23rd century and therefore could not just be purchased at the local K-Mart.

I wasn't aware that K-mart sold sets for television series...although I knew they sell TV sets. I think you means props and set dressing.

Obviously