One thing to keep in mind, especially with science fiction and fantasy shows is that they take an enormous amount of time and resources to make in UHD. It’s a very unforgiving medium that shows up every tiny flaw in prosthetic makeup, costume construction and set and prop fabrication. The primary shooting takes much, much longer for each episode, 1.5 to 2 times what it did in the 90s.
Yes, they can take short cuts but there is a price for it in terms of quality.
So does film. TNG was shot on 35mm, and even if you assume they were using cheap, shitty film with large grain, that’s still equivalent to well over 3,000 lines of vertical resolution in digital terms. Drop some extra cash on decent 35mm and it makes UHD look like a joke. Obviously I’m aware that they were then converting it to videotape for TV and expected certain shortcuts to be blended by crushing the resolution, but we can watch the film transfers officially now—and bootlegs have been circulating since before that, too, and the show looked fine. All that is to say that TNG was shot with the same considerations in mind that SNW has, but they cranked out 20+ episodes a season for 7 years and it still holds up (especially after season 1).
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, just the premise: they could do it the way they used to, but people who wear expensive suits would rather spend the money on themselves. Let’s not entertain the idea that it was ever anything else. The reason I asked who’s responsible is not because I don’t understand the motivation, I do, it’s money. I asked so I can smear dog shit on the door handle of his car.
StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 1 year ago
Yes the original film exists, but you can also see the edges of the prostheses, the wear on the sets, and the ripples in the seams of costumes (as regrettably you can see in most seasons of Picard). People watch remasterd TNG anyway, but the rough edges show.
Red and Panavision capture everything all the time now.
Yes, people have worked to that production norm in cinema for nearly a century now, but very few cinematic features are filmed in a week.
Hey, I get that you’re angry, and I totally agree that not enough of the return is going to the creators and crews, but those same folks involved in production are talking about an unrealistic norm of gruelling long hours in production. They need both decent pay and residuals and humane production schedules.
sarsaparilyptus@midwest.social 1 year ago
Right, but my point is that it still holds up even then. It still holds up with the original effects, too. Maybe the death of the mid-budget production is the real issue here, because if I were running the show I would aggressively slash the fuck out of the VFX budget to make room for additional episodes over a longer shooting schedule, and the idea of sacrificing eye candy and having the show just look decent doesn’t really fly anymore. I think even a showrunner with serious weight to throw around would still promptly be fired for shooting a science fiction show that went 5 to 10 episodes without a major action setpiece because he wanted to film people calmly talking about ethical dilemmas in a room with flat, even TV lighting.
I agree with your points about overworking the cast and crew, but that’s not actually necessary either: it’s well within Paramount’s power to spend the money on doing it right and take the time on doing it right and treat people like they aren’t animals. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Ultimately, there is one person at whom the buck stopped and the decision was made—there always is—and I still want to smear dog shit on the door handles of his car.
Don’t get me wrong, SNW is great: in my mind, it’s the first good Star Trek show to broadcast since VOY went off the air (not a high bar to clear, I know, but it’s still meant as a compliment), and I just wish there was more of it instead of the other stupid shit Paramount incinerates money on.