Warped9
02-23-2007, 04:18 PM
In its day Star Trek had "state of the art" f/x...for television. That is to say that considering the constraints in time and budget of '60s television series production it gave the very best that was possible.
But that isn't to say that Star Trek had the very best f/x available for the screen. But to acheive that it would have had to have the impossible for series tv--it would had to have had the time, budget and resources more in keeping with a feature film. And that would had to have been for nearly every episode, or at least for the most f/x laden episodes. That simply was never going to happen.
But...what if by some magical fantasy Star Trek had had access to a feature film's resources? What might have been possible? It's easy today to imagine what a contemporary series might acheive simply because we have contemporary feature film examples readily at hand. Today we know that practically anything imagined can be conjured up with today's sophisticated f/x resourecs. But back in the 1960s one was limited by the resources available...and the imagination of those at the time.
I believe the real key to pondering what Star Trek might have given us if the best of means had been available is to try to see through the eyes of those who were there. What possibilities might have occured to those looking out onto the world of the 1960s and without benefit of what we know today?
We know that many ideas put forth were eventually dismissed or in the very least scaled back because of budgetary and scheduling constraints. Matt Jefferies' original shuttlecraft design was changed for something more cost effective for example. The interiors of the Enterprise were more bare and austere than they might otherwise have preferred. Certain sets or planetscapes were simplified or scaled back. Many aliens had to go without more exotic make-up and costuming. We didn't get to see as many differing ship designs as likely had been desired.
Still, Star Trek's fx stood up very well for many years and likely longer than had been expected. Those original fx had been intended for televisions lacking the resolutions of today's TVs. It is really only during these past years of digital enhancement that we are really seeing the "strings and seams" of TOS' fx. Indeed, even by today's standards I think TOS' transporter beam f/x remains one of the very best ever done in the visual medium.
Can we imagine a clearer picture of what Star Trek might have looked like under better conditions? I thinks so. I think you only have to look at contemporary '60s and even '50s feature films to have at least an inkling of what could have been done.
In terms of visualizing spacescapes and planets you need look no further than 1968's 2001: A Space Oddysey and 1955's Forbidden Planet (Note: anyone who's seen the dvd of FP already knows of the gorgeous unused space and planetary shots). 2001 is more realistic yet FP is more stylistic. I think that based on what Star Trek gave us then under the best of conditions it could have had a look somewhere between realistic and stylistic. In terms of hardware in space I think Star Trek would still have looked futuristically sleek yet would have had something of the lighting and texturing more akin to 2001. In terms of make-up a good indication of what might have been possible are the early scenes of 2001 (the primitive apes scenes) and 1968's Planet Of The Apes.
I'm sure there are other feature film examples of the era which I'm overlooking. Fantastic Voyage for example.
Suffice to say that when I look at those films I find it hard to credit that Star Trek would look like CBS' TOS-R. That isn't to slam what CBS is currently doing, but just to say that Star Trek wouldn't have looked that way if things had been magically different.
Recently I've been playing with images and screencaps to try to capture what Star Trek might have looked like under the best of conditions. When I can I'll post them here for comment. I'd like to add that I'm trying to go a bit beyond some of my "Never seen TOS scenes" images.
Any thoughts?
But that isn't to say that Star Trek had the very best f/x available for the screen. But to acheive that it would have had to have the impossible for series tv--it would had to have had the time, budget and resources more in keeping with a feature film. And that would had to have been for nearly every episode, or at least for the most f/x laden episodes. That simply was never going to happen.
But...what if by some magical fantasy Star Trek had had access to a feature film's resources? What might have been possible? It's easy today to imagine what a contemporary series might acheive simply because we have contemporary feature film examples readily at hand. Today we know that practically anything imagined can be conjured up with today's sophisticated f/x resourecs. But back in the 1960s one was limited by the resources available...and the imagination of those at the time.
I believe the real key to pondering what Star Trek might have given us if the best of means had been available is to try to see through the eyes of those who were there. What possibilities might have occured to those looking out onto the world of the 1960s and without benefit of what we know today?
We know that many ideas put forth were eventually dismissed or in the very least scaled back because of budgetary and scheduling constraints. Matt Jefferies' original shuttlecraft design was changed for something more cost effective for example. The interiors of the Enterprise were more bare and austere than they might otherwise have preferred. Certain sets or planetscapes were simplified or scaled back. Many aliens had to go without more exotic make-up and costuming. We didn't get to see as many differing ship designs as likely had been desired.
Still, Star Trek's fx stood up very well for many years and likely longer than had been expected. Those original fx had been intended for televisions lacking the resolutions of today's TVs. It is really only during these past years of digital enhancement that we are really seeing the "strings and seams" of TOS' fx. Indeed, even by today's standards I think TOS' transporter beam f/x remains one of the very best ever done in the visual medium.
Can we imagine a clearer picture of what Star Trek might have looked like under better conditions? I thinks so. I think you only have to look at contemporary '60s and even '50s feature films to have at least an inkling of what could have been done.
In terms of visualizing spacescapes and planets you need look no further than 1968's 2001: A Space Oddysey and 1955's Forbidden Planet (Note: anyone who's seen the dvd of FP already knows of the gorgeous unused space and planetary shots). 2001 is more realistic yet FP is more stylistic. I think that based on what Star Trek gave us then under the best of conditions it could have had a look somewhere between realistic and stylistic. In terms of hardware in space I think Star Trek would still have looked futuristically sleek yet would have had something of the lighting and texturing more akin to 2001. In terms of make-up a good indication of what might have been possible are the early scenes of 2001 (the primitive apes scenes) and 1968's Planet Of The Apes.
I'm sure there are other feature film examples of the era which I'm overlooking. Fantastic Voyage for example.
Suffice to say that when I look at those films I find it hard to credit that Star Trek would look like CBS' TOS-R. That isn't to slam what CBS is currently doing, but just to say that Star Trek wouldn't have looked that way if things had been magically different.
Recently I've been playing with images and screencaps to try to capture what Star Trek might have looked like under the best of conditions. When I can I'll post them here for comment. I'd like to add that I'm trying to go a bit beyond some of my "Never seen TOS scenes" images.
Any thoughts?