Some very good points.
And I LOVE the thought of b westerns as a directors outlet for shatner. He'd be perfect!
cheap cheap cheap
- Thread starter mahler
- Start date
Some very good points.
And I LOVE the thought of b westerns as a directors outlet for shatner. He'd be perfect!
TUC screams cheap. While the visual effects are ok (second-worse to TFF) the rest of it looks worse than the TNG episodes that were being produced at the same time. Their unbelievably heavy use of re-dressed TNG sets was the element that hurts it the most. And, the sets they did build (torpedo room, galley, Klingon Outpost, etc) were amongst the most unremarkable in the entire franchise). The Klingon makeup was by far the least convincing of any movie. They were so cheap, they used the old camera close-up trick on the phasers during the assassination so the appearance of a beam animation wasn't always necessary.
Star Trek V is shoddy from a visual effects standpoint, but the cinematography, sets, makeup and locations are more impressive than Trek VI.
The best looking / most expensive looking Trek movies are TMP and Generations.
Star Trek V is shoddy from a visual effects standpoint, but the cinematography, sets, makeup and locations are more impressive than Trek VI.
The best looking / most expensive looking Trek movies are TMP and Generations.
I always thought there was something off about TFF, in the same way that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade looked different to the previous films. I wonder if it was the film or the filters perhaps? Also, the use of matt paintings, which was alright in TWOK (although the Genesis cave looks very cheap) and TSFS (you don't really notice in TVH), spoils the look of the el Capitain scene and the campfire pan at the end.
The cheap looking special effects for TFF were do not help either, but they could be much worse.
But, overall, I do think that TUC looks most like a made for TV movie, and you can tell they did it on a smaller budget than TFF. After inflation TUC was made for 25% less than TFF.
So, rather convolutedly, TWOK looks like it's shot with savings in mind, but it still looks good. TFF looks like the effects are cheap, but that they did put money into it. TUC has excellent sets and good effects, but is shot in a way that makes it look cheap.
But, my winner is TSFS though, which with the cotton wool covered cactus, has the most obvious "we filmed this on a soundstage" look of all the films.
The cheap looking special effects for TFF were do not help either, but they could be much worse.
But, overall, I do think that TUC looks most like a made for TV movie, and you can tell they did it on a smaller budget than TFF. After inflation TUC was made for 25% less than TFF.
So, rather convolutedly, TWOK looks like it's shot with savings in mind, but it still looks good. TFF looks like the effects are cheap, but that they did put money into it. TUC has excellent sets and good effects, but is shot in a way that makes it look cheap.
But, my winner is TSFS though, which with the cotton wool covered cactus, has the most obvious "we filmed this on a soundstage" look of all the films.
For me, TFF is the worst looking of the lot. But I think it is more that the fx just didn't age well and maybe the lighting was too bright in some scenes. The shuttle pod was pretty cheap looking, and externAl enterprise shots were just bad.
The Final Frontier, The Undiscovered Country and Nemsis are all particularly cheap-looking. Even in Insurrection, the array, or whatever that Ru'afo and Picard have their Ultimate Showdown in looks like it's encased in naked Bluescreens, all over the place. It's not supposed to be bluescreens, I'm told, it looks cheap, regardless. I have not watched The Motion Picture since Collins' crimes became public, but that movie has such great production value. The biggest and best names in Science Fiction Art & Design worked on that and much of it still holds up, to this day. TMP is just awash with Eye Candy. But many of the pre STAR TREK '09 movies, regardless of cheap sets, or not, have great cinematography. Particularly The Search for Spock and Generations.
I agree with both of you there. To me TFF looks the worst, or just stands out the most. Tuc is pretty bad, too, but the lighting is darker and hides the bad looking props better. Nemesis isn't as bad and in some scenes it has some great cinemetography. The internal shots of the schimitar and dune buggy scenes are what ruin the fx for me.
Jedda is Deltan, according to stage directions in the script. There was no reason to force actor John Vargas to shave his head when there was really no story reason to have him be Deltan. In the ST II novelization, he has a female Deltan partner, Zinaida.
Vonda McIntyre gives a male Deltan hair in a novelization. In ST IV, we meet Jedda and Zinaida's other two partners: the female Verai Dva-Payjh and male Kirim Dreii-Dall, who is described as having "fine, rose-coloured hair down to his knees".
Here's my old article:
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com.au/2006/11/truth-about-efrosians-pard_116269248336471480.html
What about giving him a bald cap?
I remember reading your article a long while ago and it's nice to meet its writer.
Actually seeing Jedda and Deanna next to each other... he could pass for a Betazoid...
I had similar feelings about Sickbay. I realize that in FC they just used the Voyager Sickbay set, but for some reason it just seemed to fit in better than what we saw in Nemesis.
Wrath of Khan looks super-cheap when you watch it right after TMP, and take into account all the recycled TMP footage (Klingon attack, shuttle docking, Enterprise launch, jump to warp etc)
Recycled footage is seriously my biggest annoyance with the Star Trek films. The one that really springs to mind is the Klingon BOP explosion from TUC being re-used in GEN.
There are major motion pictures. Spend a little extra money and film a new scene!
To nitpick, I believe the jump to warp in TWOK is unique to that film - either that or they messed around with the TMP footage, it looks similar but there's none of the 'rainbow' coloured stars that form a tunnel outside the Enterprise - check out 'best of warp speed' on Youtube.
To what end? That's a lot of makeup commitment every morning. Nothing in the script requires that he be Deltan. They could also have just cast a naturally bald male actor.
At some early point, they had possibly planned to focus on some aspect of his Deltan uniqueness (as in Lt Saavik was originally a male Vulcan scientist called Dr Savik, and early plans were to focus on her Vulcan/Romulan heritage), but at this point in proceedings, ST II was distancing itself from many aspects from ST:TMP.
I like the idea of keeping Deltans bald, myself. But what actress will shave her head for such a part? When Persis Khambatta did it, she cried ... tears rolled down her beautiful face and there was nothing for it but to face the world after a day's work with this ... this head ... back before the days when bald chicks weren't so fringe. How this even came up, when the STAR TREK people would've known how problematic it would've been at the time, when these performers would move on to other jobs, in that condition ... the reluctance they would have.
Nothing required most of the random alien extras in the movie to be their species and some of the had even greater make-up requirements, the Efrosian Federation President comes to mind, or just about every Andorian.
Anyway in my head-canon Jedda is now a Betazoid, he completely looks the part.
Funny I read she laughed and joked that she looked like a Hare Krishna.
Also, "nothing to do but face the world with that head" she could have just worn a wig, wearing wigs or hair pieces was not that unusual for women back then anyway (as far as I know).
Last edited:
This goes completely counter to what the average film producer would think. If they can spot a place in the budget to save money by using stock footage, you can bet on them tightening the purse strings. It's not as simple as spending a "little extra money." In fact, by the time they're working on the special effects, films are typically over their budget, so there's no extra money to be found.
Of the original 6 films, I always thought TSFS looked the cheapest. The lighting and cinematography are particularly flat (though there are some beautifully dramatic images in the film too, such as Kirk supporting Bones in Spock's quarters as he calls for help). This cheapness of the live action is balanced by the incredibly beautiful special effects, though that first shot of the Enterprise after the opening credits is horrendously flat and over-lit.
The lighting on the bridge set is often flooded with colored lights (for instance, the blue cast throughout the early part of the movie) which flattens the look of that set. It feels like TV lighting, a single setup that could be used quickly with minimal changes between camera setups.
The Genesis planet looks like the soundstage set it really is. It's just another element that makes the whole film look like a TV episode (albeit with fantastic effects). Khan's dwelling in TWOK worked very well even if it was shot on a soundstage but I think that has a lot to do with the constant overlay of "sand" blasting through the image giving the whole scene a frantic, kinetic look.
Having said this, TSFS still has some of my favorite scenes and set pieces from all the original 6 films. However I never, even for a moment, can suspend my disbelief during the live action scenes because I'm always aware that I'm looking on sets on a Hollywood soundstage rather than in the 23rd century. I could suspend my disbelief on TMP and TWOK but not on TSFS.
The lighting on the bridge set is often flooded with colored lights (for instance, the blue cast throughout the early part of the movie) which flattens the look of that set. It feels like TV lighting, a single setup that could be used quickly with minimal changes between camera setups.
The Genesis planet looks like the soundstage set it really is. It's just another element that makes the whole film look like a TV episode (albeit with fantastic effects). Khan's dwelling in TWOK worked very well even if it was shot on a soundstage but I think that has a lot to do with the constant overlay of "sand" blasting through the image giving the whole scene a frantic, kinetic look.
Having said this, TSFS still has some of my favorite scenes and set pieces from all the original 6 films. However I never, even for a moment, can suspend my disbelief during the live action scenes because I'm always aware that I'm looking on sets on a Hollywood soundstage rather than in the 23rd century. I could suspend my disbelief on TMP and TWOK but not on TSFS.
Yep.
Similar threads
- Poll
