Was TOS low budget?
- Thread starter Aike
- Start date
Difficult to say. I've read accounts of what other shows cost during the same period, but can't speak to their veracity. Lost in Space's budget was reported to be $130,980 in its first season (1965), while Star Trek's 2nd season episode budget was something like $187,500 per, while the the 1st season was something on the order of $192,000, if I recall correctly. I'll have to dig through some books to confirm it.
Where Star Trek ran into budget problems was the planet of the week problem. Most of Lost in Space's episodes (during the first two seasons) took place on one or two planets and around the Jupiter II, and with very few guest stars. Every trip to Eminiar 7 or other planet called for new sets, set costumes, and, often, multiple guest stars and extras and their costumes. So, Star Trek might've had more money than LIS, but it had to do a lot more with the dollars it had.
Well, except for its standing sets. The Jupiter II upper deck was really well done.
$190,635 for the first season. $192,000 and $187,500 are both from the 2nd season. The budget was cut partway through the season. $178,500 for the 3rd season. Also, once Paramount bought Desilu, a lot of stuff that used to be covered by the studio had to be bought by the show production instead.
It was probably one of the more expensive shows of the time, but when Roddenberry and co say its low budget, they mean it didn't get the budget it deserved for the production complexity AND compared to shows in later years.
The pilots on the other hand, cost almost 700,000 and 300,000 for 50 minutes!! Big budget!
RAMA
Well, except for its standing sets. The Jupiter II upper deck was really well done.
So true, and anyone who "disses" Robert Kinoshita's work culminating in the famous "Environmental Control" Robot, Model B9, will have ro answer to me!
Sincerely,
Bill
This whole "low budget" critcism always annoys me. I get so tired of people trashing TOS because of "cardboard sets, cheezy FX", etc.
Clearly ST was a weekly television show, not an A-list movie, so obviously, the producers had to work within a limited budget(but that doesn't mean "low") and within a certain time-frame.
Low budget, to me, would be Ed Wood filming in his basement.
Star Trek utilized what was for the mid-60's, state-of-the-art film making technology. The only difference between an episode of ST and 2001(as one example) was the amount of money and time they had to refine the FX and sets.
However, fundamentally, they used the same techniques, mostly-wooden models against blue-screen, sets made mostly of 2X4's and plywood, with plastic and some flashing lights, and re-dressed objects made to look like futuristic objects.
The ST permanent sets lasted through 3 years of weekly use and wear and tear, and looked as good at the end as they did at the beginning. I have no doubt that if the show hadn't been cancelled they would have stood just fine for several more years.
Yes, they were designed to be shown on 20-25" TV screens, so minute detail wasn't as important as it was for a motion picture. The bright-primary colors were important in that regard, and also reflects the design aesthetic of the 60's(just like TNG's bland pastel color scheme reflected the 80's).
And I am always impressed by even the one-episode sets, like Trelane's drawing room, and Flint's house. The designers clearly had a love for their art, and made the absolute best with what they had.
If they were so bad, why did the DS9 crew re-create them so lovingly and accurately in Trials and Tribbleations?
Clearly ST was a weekly television show, not an A-list movie, so obviously, the producers had to work within a limited budget(but that doesn't mean "low") and within a certain time-frame.
Low budget, to me, would be Ed Wood filming in his basement.
Star Trek utilized what was for the mid-60's, state-of-the-art film making technology. The only difference between an episode of ST and 2001(as one example) was the amount of money and time they had to refine the FX and sets.
However, fundamentally, they used the same techniques, mostly-wooden models against blue-screen, sets made mostly of 2X4's and plywood, with plastic and some flashing lights, and re-dressed objects made to look like futuristic objects.
The ST permanent sets lasted through 3 years of weekly use and wear and tear, and looked as good at the end as they did at the beginning. I have no doubt that if the show hadn't been cancelled they would have stood just fine for several more years.
Yes, they were designed to be shown on 20-25" TV screens, so minute detail wasn't as important as it was for a motion picture. The bright-primary colors were important in that regard, and also reflects the design aesthetic of the 60's(just like TNG's bland pastel color scheme reflected the 80's).
And I am always impressed by even the one-episode sets, like Trelane's drawing room, and Flint's house. The designers clearly had a love for their art, and made the absolute best with what they had.
If they were so bad, why did the DS9 crew re-create them so lovingly and accurately in Trials and Tribbleations?
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!
There is plenty of low budget silliness in Trek: The Mr. Microphone, for instance, but I never thought the sets looked like cardboard even if that's what they were made out of. The look like metal to me.
Honestly, TNG with its membrane keyboards and naugahyde seats looked cheaper and stupider to me.
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
Hey Neopeius, you're dissin' the show with that 'Mr. Microphone' crack!
Seriously, I'm a musician and my Shure vocal microphone looks just like that prop. But that's not unusual. I've had that mic since the '70s and used it a lot on stage. Yeah, I always thought that prop looked kinda funny.
Robert
Seriously, I'm a musician and my Shure vocal microphone looks just like that prop. But that's not unusual. I've had that mic since the '70s and used it a lot on stage. Yeah, I always thought that prop looked kinda funny.
Robert
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! We got a color TV somewhere during the first run. It took me 10 years to find out that Kirk was not supposed to have a green tint!
As for the question, my impression is that Trek had a semi-high for the times budget, but low for the budgetary needs. As to the primary colors, that's part of the story on how Star Trek came to be. NBC was shooting to become an "all color" network, and primary colors really highlighted that black and white was dying.
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.
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.
Well, you have to admit, some of the stuff was pretty cheap. I think it was in "The Menagerie" where you could look out the window of Starbase 11 and see the corner of the set.
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.
Again, new viewers don't compare TOS to other contemporary shows, but to modern day ones. TOS wasn't made for today's TVs, so it has obviously affected quality.
Because they were trying to create a feeling of nostalgia. It was a TRIBUTE episode.
Now, in no way am I bashing TOS, but I don't think you can say TOS still looks amazing. Sure it was groundbreaking at the time, but nowadays, you can clearly see the constraints the producers were under.
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. LOL. Love my 47"HD widescreen now!
Similar threads
