Star Trek: Alpha to Delta Quadrants & Everything In Between

[bradl]

What was the reaction within the show to the smacking? The person that smacked her - what generation did he represent? I think that was part of the point as in the disparity of acceptable behaviors.

I get that.. What I am saying is that that entire scene doesn't age well at all, to the point where that scene wouldn't have even been included in a show today versus how it was par for the course back then. Your point is valid for the acting in the scene; I'm arguing whether that scene - the production and even writing of that scene - would pass today.

BL.

 

[phrehdd]

I get that.. What I am saying is that that entire scene doesn't age well at all, to the point where that scene wouldn't have even been included in a show today versus how it was par for the course back then. Your point is valid for the acting in the scene; I'm arguing whether that scene - the production and even writing of that scene - would pass today.

BL.

bradl, I gather your point and appreciate your response.

Candidly, there are throughout the show several scenes and storylines I could have done without them then and some more so, now.

 

[Mainsail]

You mean more time for forgettable filler episodes. It wasn't common finding shows that could actually justify 26 episodes per year, and most of Star Trek wasn't really an exception.


Well, no. That's the exact opposite of reality. Things are much more expensive now and take much longer; you can't film an episode in a week anymore. That's generally why there are fewer episodes. Back in the 90s, $2-$3 million/episode was considered expensive, but now you have shows like House of the Dragon coming in at $20 million/ep, and a few of the Marvel shows are even more. (And Stranger Things 4 at $30 million/ep, though that's not quite comparable since the episodes were very long.)

Everything has to be in 4K, it has to be essentially movie quality since that's what audiences expect now, and you need to painstakingly create detail that would have been unreadable on a low-res NTSC screen (or slightly less low-res PAL screen). The computers don't create the effects, they just render them and automate certain things. This doesn't make anything less expensive, it just raises the bar for what you can do...the real work is done by people, and lots more of them compared to old shows. LOTS more.

Most shows have abbreviated credits that just list the fx companies and maybe the leads, but take a look at credits for, say, the Star Wars shows...literally hundreds (and hundreds) of names, with half a dozen different fx houses. And still the studios put the artists through insane hours to the point where many of them end up quitting because of the stress. It's far beyond the days where you could get away with a few modelers in a shop who can put together some plastic and cardboard and call it a spaceship.

Well, what I was referring to was the cost and quality of doing special effects. In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, it just wasn't cost effective, practical, or in some cases possible, to do elaborate special effects for television. So, they relied more on dialog, story telling and character development. Fortunately, there were more episodes, which gave more time for character development.

We will just have to disagree on our preferences for content....which is purely subjective. Watching 15 minutes of computer generated space battles just doesn't do it for me. But, I understand there is an audience for that sort of thing.

 

[Eric5h5]

Well, what I was referring to was the cost and quality of doing special effects. In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, it just wasn't cost effective, practical, or in some cases possible, to do elaborate special effects for television. So, they relied more on dialog, story telling and character development.

Except, as I pointed out, that's a false premise. It's more expensive to do special effects now, not less. You cannot fill time with cheap CGI as you claimed, as there is no such thing; realistic CGI is very labor-intensive and therefore expensive. There isn't less dialog and story-telling in modern episodes, and I'm not aware of any shows that do "15 minutes of computer generated space battles." Even the Star Wars shows, where space battles are right there in the name, don't do that.

There are fewer episodes per season, you're right about that. I don't agree that it resulted in more character development, though, just more forgettable episodes that were made to fill a quota. Not always—sometimes they really did have enough good ideas to fill out a season—but to pick a specific example, I'd say ST:TNG had about 4 seasons worth of good episodes (a lot of that concentrated in seasons 3 and 4) stretched over 7 seasons. Cutting out the filler would have resulted in a stronger show and would not have reduced the character development at all.

 

[bradl]

Well, what I was referring to was the cost and quality of doing special effects. In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, it just wasn't cost effective, practical, or in some cases possible, to do elaborate special effects for television. So, they relied more on dialog, story telling and character development. Fortunately, there were more episodes, which gave more time for character development.

We will just have to disagree on our preferences for content....which is purely subjective. Watching 15 minutes of computer generated space battles just doesn't do it for me. But, I understand there is an audience for that sort of thing.

Funny that you mention that (character development)...

Apparently, a deleted scene was just referred to in an article over at Gizmodo:

Worf and Riker Have a Heart to Heart in This Exclusive Star Trek: Picard Deleted Scene

Watch Worf open up about his zen persona in this exclusive look at a deleted scene from Star Trek: Picard season 3.

gizmodo.com

While they tend to go on about how the Dominion War affected him and how that didn't have much impact on the TNG crew, I would have preferred that they go through more of how he grew as a person. Apparently the writers of the series totally forgot that he's a 2x widower (he lost K'Ehleyr and Jadzia), as well as his brother (DS9: Sons of Mogh), nearly lost his son, and didn't even go into cannon on if he married Grillka. Going from how they didn't know what they were going to do with him in season 1 of TNG, the fact that he was the last character cast, and was basically there for show for how the future changed from TOS, his character development has really grown, and grown across 3 different series.

Not bad for a last character cast token alien guy.

BL.

 

[Mainsail]

Except, as I pointed out, that's a false premise. It's more expensive to do special effects now, not less. You cannot fill time with cheap CGI as you claimed, as there is no such thing; realistic CGI is very labor-intensive and therefore expensive. There isn't less dialog and story-telling in modern episodes, and I'm not aware of any shows that do "15 minutes of computer generated space battles." Even the Star Wars shows, where space battles are right there in the name, don't do that.

There are fewer episodes per season, you're right about that. I don't agree that it resulted in more character development, though, just more forgettable episodes that were made to fill a quota. Not always—sometimes they really did have enough good ideas to fill out a season—but to pick a specific example, I'd say ST:TNG had about 4 seasons worth of good episodes (a lot of that concentrated in seasons 3 and 4) stretched over 7 seasons. Cutting out the filler would have resulted in a stronger show and would not have reduced the character development at all.

I think we are talking past each other. "Expensive" compared to what...it is a relative term. Let me give you two examples:

1. How much would it cost to generate a simple scene of Enterprise orbiting a planet. In the 1960s, you would need set design, models, film crews, etc.. Today, it could be generated by a college kid in less than an hour on their parent's ten year old Mac. Significantly less expensive.

2. How much would it cost to generate a complex and lengthy battle scene of multiple starships using 4K video. In the 1960s, it was just not possible. Therefore, it would be infinitely more expensive to produce these effects in the past compared to the amount of money spent today on modern special effects.

So, I recognize that modern Star Trek has large line items in their budget for special effects. I am simply saying it is less expensive to achieve these effects today than it would have been 60 years ago. In the past, writers had to focus on other elements of story telling and character development because it simply would have been too expensive or just plain impossible to focus on special effects.

 

[obeygiant]

Spock mindmelds with V'Ger

 

[sjsharksfan12]

Anyone else excited for Lower Decks? 🤓

I am. Looking forward to both episodes coming this week.

 

[cwerdna]

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-too-many-cooks-guy-is-making-very-weird-star-trek-shorts - I did watch the first one and it was pretty funny. I can now see why they aren't considered canon...

 

[cwerdna]

Ep 1:

Ep 2:

 

[bradl]

Either she's really that young looking, or has aged really really well, or it could be that the series really ages well because of how young everyone looks on it...

But apparently 9/11 is also Roxann Biggs-Dawson's birthday.. She's 65.

BL.

 

[cwerdna]

has been out for a bit. It's a TNG-based one. Minor spoiler: it pays homage to https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/First_Contact_(episode).

I can also see why this one isn't canon.

 

[LedRush]

I get that.. What I am saying is that that entire scene doesn't age well at all, to the point where that scene wouldn't have even been included in a show today versus how it was par for the course back then. Your point is valid for the acting in the scene; I'm arguing whether that scene - the production and even writing of that scene - would pass today.

BL.

The point of that action was that the way people behaved in their time (late 20th century, IIRC) is not acceptable in the time of TNG. It is a criticism of the action. As such, it has aged incredibly well.

 

[bradl]

The point of that action was that the way people behaved in their time (late 20th century, IIRC) is not acceptable in the time of TNG. It is a criticism of the action. As such, it has aged incredibly well.

Again, I'm not criticizing the action, as the action is wrong. What I am criticizing is that the entire scene wouldn't even be shot today because of that action. We have grown to the point where that very action could get someone charged with sexual harassment or worse; prime example is the marathon runner who was fired from his job, arrested, and charged for groping a TV reporter covering the marathon. We as a society wouldn't even think of doing something similar on screen to air on TV because of the optics of such a situation.

BL.

 

[LedRush]

Again, I'm not criticizing the action, as the action is wrong. What I am criticizing is that the entire scene wouldn't even be shot today because of that action. We have grown to the point where that very action could get someone charged with sexual harassment or worse; prime example is the marathon runner who was fired from his job, arrested, and charged for groping a TV reporter covering the marathon. We as a society wouldn't even think of doing something similar on screen to air on TV because of the optics of such a situation.

BL.

It all depends on why the scene is depicted. If it is just presented as normal, then it won’t be ok. If it is presented as an indictment of the times (as it was in TNG, Mad Men, Rome, or countless other shows), it is completely fine. We still see scenes like this used all the time today, so I find the idea of this scene not aging well extremely odd.

 

[bradl]

It all depends on why the scene is depicted. If it is just presented as normal, then it won’t be ok. If it is presented as an indictment of the times (as it was in TNG, Mad Men, Rome, or countless other shows), it is completely fine. We still see scenes like this used all the time today, so I find the idea of this scene not aging well extremely odd.

It boils down to context versus optics. The context based on the script shows the differences between 20th century and 24th century, which is okay; the pure optics of the scene is what doesn't age well, because of how women today would take his actions as extremely offensive and violating.

BL.

 

[LedRush]

It boils down to context versus optics. The context based on the script shows the differences between 20th century and 24th century, which is okay; the pure optics of the scene is what doesn't age well, because of how women today would take his actions as extremely offensive and violating.

BL.

Yes, but the optics of anything being depicted which we’ve now decided isn’t ok are going to be bad. Look at any movie at all about life before around 1990 and which criticizes the social dynamics (whether racial, sex-based, or cultural) and the optics won’t look good.

If you want to talk about optics not aging well, look at the uniforms of all the women on TOS. That’s far worse than a scene attacking 1980s sexism.

 

[decafjava]

Yes, but the optics of anything being depicted which we’ve now decided isn’t ok are going to be bad. Look at any movie at all about life before around 1990 and which criticizes the social dynamics (whether racial, sex-based, or cultural) and the optics won’t look good.

If you want to talk about optics not aging well, look at the uniforms of all the women on TOS. That’s far worse than a scene attacking 1980s sexism.

I actually recall the first season of TNG there were men wearing skirt uniforms - then they made the sensible decision to have everyone wear pants* (and those tops that Picard and Riker were always pulling down ).



*Plus the not so sensible choice of Troi's top

 

[bradl]

Yes, but the optics of anything being depicted which we’ve now decided isn’t ok are going to be bad. Look at any movie at all about life before around 1990 and which criticizes the social dynamics (whether racial, sex-based, or cultural) and the optics won’t look good.

If you want to talk about optics not aging well, look at the uniforms of all the women on TOS. That’s far worse than a scene attacking 1980s sexism.

Thank you for proving my point.

And also notice how they corrected that after Troi took the command exam and went back to a traditional Starfleet uniform. Additionally, notice how they also went back and corrected the obvious error the producers owned up to from Generations in Picard. It was stated that the story behind Troi taking the conn when the star drive section of the Enterprise was destroyed and crashing the saucer section into the planet in Generations was that the running joke was "they crashed because a woman was at the wheel".

That last battle in Picard, while Data is fighting through to get to Picard, Deanna was at the conn and actually saved the Enterprise.

BL.

 

[LedRush]

Thank you for proving my point.

Your point was that a scene in which 1980s sexism was demonstrated to be bad has aged poorly. My point is that it has aged well as a critical view of then-contemporary culture, just like countless other examples in film and TV. Honestly, I don't even know why you're arguing any more other than pride.

 

[Rafterman]

Your point was that a scene in which 1980s sexism was demonstrated to be bad has aged poorly. My point is that it has aged well as a critical view of then-contemporary culture, just like countless other examples in film and TV. Honestly, I don't even know why you're arguing any more other than pride.

Yes, it seems ot me that they showed how bad sexism was in the 20th century, unlike the 24th. So I think to say it "aged poorly" misses the point of the scene in the first place.

 

[bradl]

Your point was that a scene in which 1980s sexism was demonstrated to be bad has aged poorly. My point is that it has aged well as a critical view of then-contemporary culture, just like countless other examples in film and TV. Honestly, I don't even know why you're arguing any more other than pride.

I'll say it again: Would such a scene even be filmed today?

BL.

 

[Rafterman]

I'll say it again: Would such a scene even be filmed today?

BL.

Yes. Because it was making a point of how bad things were in the 20th century, compared to an "enlightened society" of the 24th century. Even back then, it was making the point that women aren't treated equally and was calling that out. Even TODAY, women are treated poorly like that. STNG was calling it out and saying "we need to be better."

 

[bradl]

Yes. Because it was making a point of how bad things were in the 20th century, compared to an "enlightened society" of the 24th century. Even back then, it was making the point that women aren't treated equally and was calling that out. Even TODAY, women are treated poorly like that. STNG was calling it out and saying "we need to be better."

And yet for most other shows, we don't see scenes like that, because they show how far advanced we have come from such scenes; especially with seeing women in positions of power both in front of and behind the camera. Keep in mind, that McFadden herself ended up directing episodes of ST. Her and Biggs-Dawson became prominent directors of their respective series.

BL.

 

[LedRush]

And yet for most other shows, we don't see scenes like that

Of course we do. All the time. I just watched "Elvis" last night. Did you know that some people were racist in the 1940s and 50s in the US? Shocking, I know.