In a different thread, I noted the amazing cost-saving measures the makers of STAR TREK shows sometimes take. I’ll mention a few, and I’d like to hear about some others.
–In VOYAGER, in the Amelia Earhart episode, they describe an amazing city in detail so they don’t have to show it. CHEAP!
–In DS9, that weird, hi-tech wall of the sickbay is a plastic stacking pallet pulled from some warehouse and spray-painted silver. REALLY CHEAP!
–In TOS, the phasers appear to have been carved from balsa wood, spray-painted black, with some toy car accessories glued on. (These were on display at the Smithsonian a few years back, so I got to see them close up.) In a different episode–one with aliens performing Shakespeare–a saboteur poisoned someone’s drink with the aid of a Windex bottle. Even for the 60s, this was pretty CHEAP!
Well, at least as far as TOS was concerned, the producers did have a small budget to work with. That’s why certain effects and shots (particularly matte paintings) were used and re-used.
I saw a behind-the-scenes once (it was on Reading Rainbow. Go ahead, make fun of me), where they showed how they made the model shuttlepods for TNG out of spare bits of things - disposable razors and so on.
Too bad I don’t remember it in more detail.
Also, let’s not forget that sometimes cheapness is good. Because Roddenberry didn’t have the budget to show a ship landing every episode, he created the transporter.
That kind of thing is a long tradition of special effects men working on tight budgets. Grab what you can, paint it right, and then pass it off as a space ship or giant robot or whatever. Another common thing is to keep repeating the same shots. You’ll note that Trek typically had one or two ship fly-bys and repeated them a lot in establishing shots.
It’s a sad fact that any SF show on television is going to have to do this. Cheap digital effects are certainly helping but there seems to be more call for effects then there are competant people doing them. You still wind up with a cheap effect but one that has a different set of problems than the cheap model. But since cheap effects are a fact of life for SF television the writing and acting are even more important that they typically are. The viewer needs them to suspend their disbelief instead of relying on the images.
Would we really want realism at any cost? Supposing an extra 10% on special effects meant one fewer show that season? Or go the other way: supposing there were as few special effects as on a Shakespearean stage in 1603. If that meant more episodes, or ones where there was much longer to rehearse, or ones with much better scripts, how much would you trade?
One could spend a movie’s entire budget on special effects. But then everything else would be shit. Of course this never happened in real life
Just spending more money isn’t the answer, either. It’s almost like an arms race. Every major movie now feels it has to produce something that would have been impossible 2 years before. Essentially the costs just escalate forever.
The only real advantage to this, at least for those of us here in California, is that it hampers the rest of the world from making films. So I guess I’m all for it. Pile on those dollars!!!
Hey, as a Dr. Who fan I’m the last guy on earth who’s going to complain about cheap effect. I just recognize it’s a matter of cost per episode and that’s why things are done the way they are.
Personally I’d be happier with more high quality scriptwriters getting to know SF or more high quality SF writers figuring out how to do a descent television script. But the question was why they do things the way they do.
In any event, if you look closely at the engineering section on TOS, the display panel is just a piece of white cardboard sliding back and forth behind another piece of cardboard with holes cut in it, trying to give the impression of lights blinking on and off.
The original Star Trek didn’t live or die by its effects, and one of the better episodes, “City on the Edge of Forever”, took place almost entirely on 1930 Earth. It was the story that made or broke an episode, not the effects. We can chuckle at the travelling mattes and constantly recycled props but the craft services alone on The Adventures of Pluto Nash cost as much as an entire season of TOS and it really sucked.
The best Trek movie to date (and the cheapest to make) is the second, from 1982, with a sizable chunk of the effects budget going to that “Genesis Simulation”, which could probably now be remade by some pimply-faced geek slugging away on an iMac. Despite massively larger budgets, no later film came close to offering as tense and intelligent a story. In December we’ll find out if $70 million was well-spent on Nemesis.
In any event, if you look closely at the engineering section on TOS, the display panel is just a piece of white cardboard sliding back and forth behind another piece of cardboard with holes cut in it, trying to give the impression of lights blinking on and off.
The original Star Trek didn’t live or die by its effects, and one of the better episodes, “City on the Edge of Forever”, took place almost entirely on 1930 Earth. It was the story that made or broke an episode, not the effects. We can chuckle at the travelling mattes and constantly recycled props but the craft services alone on The Adventures of Pluto Nash cost as much as an entire season of TOS and it really sucked.
The best Trek movie to date (and the cheapest to make) is the second, from 1982, with a sizable chunk of the effects budget going to that “Genesis Simulation”, which could probably now be remade by some pimply-faced geek slugging away on an iMac. Despite massively larger budgets, no later film came close to offering as tense and intelligent a story. In December we’ll find out if $70 million was well-spent on Nemesis.
I’ve got to agree that acting and writing are more important to me than effects.
My favorite TOS episode, Balance Of Terror, takes place almost entirely on the bridge.
My Favorite Next Gen, The Inner Light, features mediocre age make-up on Patrick Stewart. The Village from that episode was used in more episodes than I can remember. But the writing and acting are incredible. For me, the episode would have worked just as well if all the actors had been wearing street clothes on an empty stage.
BTW- The thought maker globe from one episode, is split in half and used as helm controls in another.
And in early NextGen episodes, you can clearly see the fabric of the dome used for alien skies.
When Ryker briefly becomes a Q, he creates a Klingon ummm party girl. She wears lingerie, but her arms are ornamented with the metal-spine from Klingon uniforms.
In the episode where Reg has transporter phobia, we see the container chief O’Brian carries his pet in-a half-globe-party-light(Available at Spencer’s Gifts and similiar stores) covered in metallic paint.
HOWEVER- I don’t dislike the use of common items or the re-use of props. I see it as a display of ingenuity and creative thinking. A lot of alien exterior shots are actually large hunks of styrofoam, expertly carved and painted.
Re-Dr Who
Over the past year or so, I’ve become a fan of the Doctor. Special effects are routinely, cheesy low-budget crud. But the writing and acting can be sublime.
I’ve got to agree that acting and writing are more important to me than effects.
My favorite TOS episode, Balance Of Terror, takes place almost entirely on the bridge.
My Favorite Next Gen, The Inner Light, features mediocre age make-up on Patrick Stewart. The Village from that episode was used in more episodes than I can remember. But the writing and acting are incredible. For me, the episode would have worked just as well if all the actors had been wearing street clothes on an empty stage.
BTW- The thought maker globe from one episode, is split in half and used as helm controls in another.
And in early NextGen episodes, you can clearly see the fabric of the dome used for alien skies.
When Ryker briefly becomes a Q, he creates a Klingon ummm party girl. She wears lingerie, but her arms are ornamented with the metal-spine from Klingon uniforms.
In the episode where Reg has transporter phobia, we see the container chief O’Brian carries his pet in-a half-globe-party-light(Available at Spencer’s Gifts and similiar stores) covered in metallic paint.
HOWEVER- I don’t dislike the use of common items or the re-use of props. I see it as a display of ingenuity and creative thinking. A lot of alien exterior shots are actually large hunks of styrofoam, expertly carved and painted.
Re-Dr Who
Over the past year or so, I’ve become a fan of the Doctor. Special effects are routinely, cheesy low-budget crud. But the writing and acting can be sublime.
Doc, you’re making some good points here. I like a lot of those same episodes. Also remember that the container that Wesley accidentally let the nanites out of was a film developing tank. (I use them all the time)
I also applaud the designers on TOS because they were on a tight budget according to everything I’ve read, and still did some good work for TV in the sixties.
So I have to ask Doc, were you serious or kidding in the thread with Lekatt?
Not to mention this one: How boring would Star Trek have been if somebody had said to William Ware Theiss, “Here’s more money for fabric. I don’t want to see so much female skin.”
There’s also a point of diminishing return with special effects. Those who remember seeing the initial “Star Wars” on a big screen when it first came out will remember feeling and thinking “Oh, my God!” in the opening scene with the Imperial Cruiser. “What’s going to happen next?” Real emotional engagement.
Zoom ahead 25 years… Now when the most modern special effects appear you think “Oh, that’s new, isn’t it?” Providing you’re one of those who notices.
It’s worth spending millions to generate a moment of passing audience interest?
The escalating special effect budgets are due partly to inertia: Lucas and Hollywood together have an enormous vested interest in producing movies difficult for others to duplicate. Special effects are less risky: one could blow $1,000,000 and end up with a poor script, or miscast actors, but $1,000,000 on special effects is going to make a difference. Finally, there’s the lowest-common-denominator: one doesn’t have to be a PhD in theater arts to appreciate a really big explosion tearing up a screen. Heck, one doesn’t have to be out of first grade.
Now, now, all ye naysayers, there’s a difference between making fun of a show for its cheap effects and just looking back at all the cost-cutting measures and taking them for another source of amusement. Hell, my favorite series was TOS… my least favorite was Voyager… guess which one had the cheaper (especially by today’s standards) effects?
