What is it about TOS that makes it look so distinctly 1960s?

[Captain Al]

At first glance, this may sound like a dumb question. But I've been watching my blu-rays with the new effects, and overall, the episodes are so crisp and clean, it's like watching a new show.

But not quite. No matter what the episode (even when I watched them on DVD and VHS before that (and Beta before that!)) TOS still looks like a product of the 1960s.

I'm not talking about production values. Ignore production--costumes, sets, sound effects, etc. It's something else.

Is it the hairstyles? I've always noted how the male actors especially "look" 1960s. I can't nail it down. Maybe it's their hair. The women, especially, with the beehive hairdos and tons of eye makeup.

Or is it the overall style of the show, the way it's shot and lit. Modern TV just doesn't look like Star Trek.

So, what is it then?

(Oh, haven't posted in a long time. Hi, all!)

 

[xortex]

I've asked this question too. It is unexplainable. That's what makes it so good. It's magic. Everything else is dark and gritty.

 

[Bishop76]

I'm gonna take a guess here and say... because it was shot in the 60's?

Look back on TNG - it looks distinctly 80's/90's, DS9 had a slightly more alien look, but the hairstyles are very 90's, and VOY has a definite 90's look to it as well. With DS9, VOY, and ENT it's a bit harder to say because we're still pretty close to the 90's and the 00's, but look at TNG seasons 1 and 2 specifically - VERY 80s.

 

[Chrisisall]

Or is it the overall style of the show, the way it's shot and lit. Modern TV just doesn't look like Star Trek.

So, what is it then?

Mainly I think it's the use of colour. It was new on television back then, and if you pay attention, there's colour EVERYWHERE!!! And sometimes for absolutely no logical reason (green & violet light washing the walls near the ceiling??).

I love it!

 

[Tribble]

Besides the hairstyles and makeup, I think it's the colours. Mostly primary colours, very bright, many reds and pinks and purples.

 

[Biggshow]

It is a combination of everything that's been mentioned; the lighting and use of color washes, use of color in general, hairstyles, make-up, mini-skirts, pop-art sensibilities in the designs. A product of its time.

 

[Christopher]

Film stock is probably a factor as well.

 

[Wingsley]

Plotting - the way stories for television were written in the 1960's is very distinctive from recent decades.

Music - the background music is also very provincial.

Hairstyles - TOS had a very '60's look

Fashion - mini-skirts everywhere. 'nuff said.

Kirk - only in the 1960's would network TV drama show a brash young, JFK-esque captain like Kirk.

"Why?" - Look at McCoy's reaction in "The Doomsday Machine" after they discover Decker. He asks why anyone would build such a monster. Over the last 40 years, our culture has lost the capacity to think like that.

And yes, I love all of this!

 

[Chrisisall]

Fashion - mini-skirts everywhere. 'nuff said.

As far as I'm concerned, it was the 60's finest contribution to timeless fashion. So no, that one aspect doesn't count as 60's because it will never go out of style. Not on MY starship, certainly.

 

[RAMA]

At first glance, this may sound like a dumb question. But I've been watching my blu-rays with the new effects, and overall, the episodes are so crisp and clean, it's like watching a new show.

But not quite. No matter what the episode (even when I watched them on DVD and VHS before that (and Beta before that!)) TOS still looks like a product of the 1960s.

I'm not talking about production values. Ignore production--costumes, sets, sound effects, etc. It's something else.

Is it the hairstyles? I've always noted how the male actors especially "look" 1960s. I can't nail it down. Maybe it's their hair. The women, especially, with the beehive hairdos and tons of eye makeup.

Or is it the overall style of the show, the way it's shot and lit. Modern TV just doesn't look like Star Trek.

So, what is it then?

(Oh, haven't posted in a long time. Hi, all!)

Two main things...color and realism...as hard as they tried, the sets of TOS don't hold up to the solidness/completeness of modern ST shows. It almost looks like they are acting in a play rather than tv. The modern shows really seem to put you into that world. The added 60s color makes it appear like a comic book.

Of course lighting, makeup, and photography are different today...they used harder lighting and thicker greasy makeup back in the 60s. That prob adds to the differences.

RAMA

 

[Nerys Myk]

Besides the hairstyles and makeup, I think it's the colours. Mostly primary colours, very bright, many reds and pinks and purples.

The colors man, the colors.

 

[scotpens]

This article goes a long way toward explaining the unique and distinctive look of Trek TOS, and why it's so firmly rooted in the 1960s:

Minimalist Magic: The Star Trek Look

Music - the background music is also very provincial.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by “provincial.”

The original Star Trek had excellent music, written by some of Hollywood's most talented composers. In some third-season episodes, the music was better than the script. In more recent times, incidental music for TV drama has come to resemble aural wallpaper.

 

[Chrisisall]

Minimalist Magic: The Star Trek Look

WOW! Great find, Scot!!! It's spot on & intuitively written!
Thanks.

The colours, man...

 

[Chrisisall]

Now I also realize why TOS Enterprise is my favourite, it's not that it was the first, it's that it was part of the Minimalist style of the show! Clean lines, no ultra/over-textured hulls...
Wow, we REALLY lost something in the subsequent movies & series when Minimalist gave way to the busy-techie visual nonsense IMO.
Thank GOD(DESS) for Mike Okuda keeping with that Minimalist feel in the new FX for TOS' "special editions"!!
And too bad JJ Abrams did not set out to recapture that feel for his new movie (apart from costumes, which I felt were REALLY REALLY nice in that way!).

60's Trek was ONE OF A KIND.

 

[Chrisisall]

Music - the background music is also very provincial.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by “provincial.”

The original Star Trek had excellent music, written by some of Hollywood's most talented composers. In some third-season episodes, the music was better than the script. In more recent times, incidental music for TV drama has come to resemble aural wallpaper.

Funny, the music, LEAST of all, is something I would point to as nailng TOS as "60's", with the notable exception of the 'wah wah' riff used for the like of shots of Mudd's Women's & fake Nancy Crater's butts.

 

[GSchnitzer]

Mervyn Nicholson's article is right on the money and we at Phase II were all excited when it first came out last month. It summarizes so much of what we try to capture on our show.

I think Star Trek (or in our case, trying to reproduce Star Trek) is a lot like a moasic: so many tiny pieces. They need to be the right size and right shape and right color. And when they are all positioned right, it looks like a Star Trek episode. When the details are wrong, the episode looks a bit "off"--and casual viewers might not even know why. But most of them have all been mentioned: the right make-up, the right hairstyles, the right sets and set decorations and furnishings, the right costumes, the right vintage props, the right use of vintage Matt Jefferies art design, the right sound effects, the right music, the right lighting, the right use of color, the right use of contrast, the right cinematograhy, the right composition of the frame, the right acting, the right style of fighting and stunt work, the right amount of activity by the background extras. (What did I miss?)

You can be off on one or two of these things--maybe three or four or even five. But the more things that are off, the wider you are of the mark. Will people notice or even care? Some will, some won't.

This all explains why Star Trek is Star Trek, but it doesn't really explain why Star Trek looks "'60s." You'd have to look at shows lik Mannix and Mission: Impossible to find the commonalities between all the shows.

This article goes a long way toward explaining the unique and distinctive look of Trek TOS, and why it's so firmly rooted in the 1960s:

Minimalist Magic: The Star Trek Look

Music - the background music is also very provincial.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by “provincial.”

The original Star Trek had excellent music, written by some of Hollywood's most talented composers. In some third-season episodes, the music was better than the script. In more recent times, incidental music for TV drama has come to resemble aural wallpaper.

 

[Chrisisall]

aural wallpaper.

Most of later TV Trek, sadly.

 

[A beaker full of death]

...realism...as hard as they tried, the sets of TOS don't hold up to the solidness/completeness of modern ST shows. It almost looks like they are acting in a play rather than tv.

What a really odd perspective. Of course it was more like a play. Everyone in the industry had started on stage. Legitimate theater was where most actors and artists not only started, but wanted to be.
They weren't trying to get away from the stage. They were adopting the same conventions as the stage, assuming the audience would not only be able to suspend disbelief, but to appreciate the artistry.
And they were right. The audiences were able to.
In the 1960s.

 

[Chrisisall]

It summarizes so much of what we try to capture on our show.

And you guys are more successful than Hollywood peeps with all their executive know-how. Buddha bless you for your attention to Minimalist detail.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Plotting - the way stories for television were written in the 1960's is very distinctive from recent decades.

true, they were far less formulaic and predictable.

Music - the background music is also very provincial.

ummm.... I don't think that word means what you think it means.