Species of the week: Jem’Hadar

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:53 pm

By that logic, the Tholians should never have been seen.
You do realise that a lot of the problems you listed are eliminated through the use of CGI?

The fact is; the aliens we see are incredibly unimaginative. If Trek was a show with an really tight budget, I'd let it slide. But it dosen't, ergo I complain.

Post by **Mikey** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:01 pm

If Trek was a show with an really tight budget, I'd let it slide. But it dosen't, ergo I complain.

Right on. I never complained about the effects on the original Dr. Who, because it was clear that what was done was the extent of what could be done (stick one toaster on another toaster, call it K-9.)

Even early TNG was limited by the state of videotape FX, which was far behind that of film. By DS9, however, much of what would have prevented neat stuff from showing up was eliminated.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:03 pm

Indeed, the latest series of Doctor Who is far more imaginative than Trek ever was, and it has a rather low budget.

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:04 pm

see also farscape, poo budget but great innovation

Captain Peabody · Post by **Captain Peabody** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:05 pm

By that logic, the Tholians should never have been seen.
You do realise that a lot of the problems you listed are eliminated through the use of CGI?

Obviously, as special effects gets better, more and more of the original vision of the designers can make it onto the screen. But really, CGI designs are just as controlled by time and budget constraints as model and makeup designs...if not more so, because of the more flexible nature of the older designs.

And anyway, such massive design efforts such as the Tholian (which you mention) and the huge Sacrifice of Angels battle are usually reserved for big Event shows...leaving most of the eps to get along with re-used aliens and offscreen 'Direct hit, sir's.

But I do agree with you on one thing; Trek alien designs are atrociously one-note...I'm not going to say uncreative, because the number of different alien species they've create simply by sticking lumps of plaster on a guy's face in different patterns is truly amazing...

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:07 pm

i despise the necessary reuse of battle footage in TNG and DS9, although budgetorily necessary,it still can stand out and cause debacles eg yesterdays enterprise/rascals

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:15 pm

Obviously, as special effects gets better, more and more of the original vision of the designers can make it onto the screen. But really, CGI designs are just as controlled by time and budget constraints as model and makeup designs...if not more so, because of the more flexible nature of the older designs.

The point stands, that it is far cheaper to do a CGI mockup of some crazy alien than to make a moving model or costume of it. As I pointed out above, look at Doctor Who. It has a craptacular budget, yet in nearly every episode they come out with a unique and interesting creature.

And anyway, such massive design efforts such as the Tholian (which you mention)

Yeah, the only unique race we've seen.

and the huge Sacrifice of Angels battle are usually reserved for big Event shows

Where did I ever mention a lack of battles as proof of a lack of creativity?
This is just a big red herring.

But I do agree with you on one thing; Trek alien designs are atrociously one-note...I'm not going to say uncreative, because the number of different alien species they've create simply by sticking lumps of plaster on a guy's face in different patterns is truly amazing...

Er, my whole point was that Trek races are all the same. Now are you agreeing with me?

Captain Peabody · Post by **Captain Peabody** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:31 pm

The point stands, that it is far cheaper to do a CGI mockup of some crazy alien than to make a moving model or costume of it. As I pointed out above, look at Doctor Who. It has a craptacular budget, yet in nearly every episode they come out with a unique and interesting creature.

Actually, it's almost always much easier and cheaper to take a piece of plaster, mold some wierd bumps on it, and stick it on a guy's forehead than it is to design a CG alien from the ground up. And anyways, one of the main reasons why Doctor Who can be so creative (though I've never actually seen the show myself) is that most of the time they can use modern-day sets, props, hairstyles, etc, which allows them to focus almost all their energy onto creating new and innotive creatures and desings On the other hand, the Star Trek production crew has to fabricate almost everything that appears on the screen, meaning that most of the time, when a new alien race is needed, they don't have the time and leisure to take care to make sure it is new and fresh; they simply have to get on with it.

Where did I ever mention a lack of battles as proof of a lack of creativity?

I was just using it as an example of a big-budget event...beyond that, it really doesn't have any meaning.

Er, my whole point was that Trek races are all the same. Now are you agreeing with me?

To a certain extent, yes. I agree that almost all of them are rather uncreative and cheap, but under the circumstances, I think that's relatively understandable. Today, perhaps, it might be possible for such amazing and creative races to appear on a more regular basis...yet another reason why I'm hoping for a new Star Trek televison series...

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:39 pm

I love Farscape, it was the perfect show.

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:40 pm

ditto! the skarrens were ace

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:43 pm

Actually, it's almost always much easier and cheaper to take a piece of plaster, mold some wierd bumps on it, and stick it on a guy's forehead than it is to design a CG alien from the ground up.

I meant it would be easier to make a unique creature through CGI than to make the same creature with a model that can move.

And anyways, one of the main reasons why Doctor Who can be so creative (though I've never actually seen the show myself) is that most of the time they can use modern-day sets, props, hairstyles, etc, which allows them to focus almost all their energy onto creating new and innotive creatures and desings

I'd advise you to watch it, its really a good show.

But I will point out that, although it often takes place on Earth, they are going through time too. One episode they will have Victorian London, the next they will have a space station in the year four billion. I'd imagine they spend a lot more on new sets than Trek does.
And they still end up with more creative races than Trek.

On the other hand, the Star Trek production crew has to fabricate almost everything that appears on the screen, meaning that most of the time, when a new alien race is needed, they don't have the time and leisure to take care to make sure it is new and fresh; they simply have to get on with it.

Except, in Trek they can reuse sets nearly every episode. You know all those scenes of the crew walking down corridors? Its the same set over and over again. They can't do that in Who, because having a bunch of people walking down the corridors of a spaceship in the 1500's would be a bit odd.

To a certain extent, yes. I agree that almost all of them are rather uncreative and cheap, but under the circumstances, I think that's relatively understandable. Today, perhaps, it might be possible for such amazing and creative races to appear on a more regular basis...yet another reason why I'm hoping for a new Star Trek televison series...

It's not understandable, becuase they had the ability to make these races during Enterprise. Yet the most imaginative thing we got from there was the Tholians.

Captain Peabody · Post by **Captain Peabody** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:05 pm

I meant it would be easier to make a unique creature through CGI than to make the same creature with a model that can move.

Which is another reason why such 'unique' and time-consuming creatures rarely -if ever- appear on Star Trek...

But I will point out that, although it often takes place on Earth, they are going through time too. One episode they will have Victorian London, the next they will have a space station in the year four billion. I'd imagine they spend a lot more on new sets than Trek does.

Granted you know more about the show than I do, but I think you'll find that it's quite easy to find appropriate props and costumes for just about every period in Earth's history...whereas the space station props are available simply because it's a one-episode thing; they can take some extra care on that one episode, knowing that next week they can use available 1930's sets and props...there is a trade-off present in every case.

Except, in Trek they can reuse sets nearly every episode. You know all those scenes of the crew walking down corridors? Its the same set over and over again.

But when in Who, when they travel to the 1500's, the appropriate props and sets are readily available without too much trouble, whereas if Trek wants to show so much as a Klingon broom closet, they have to build it from scratch. And this, I think, is the main reason why Trek has more 'bottle shows' than Who...because most of the time the production crew simply can't afford to go somewhere new each and every week as Who can. And in any case, Star Trek has always been a traditional 22-26 episode-a-season TV show, whereas modern Who is, unless I'm mistaken, a 12-13 episode series, with occasional longer 'specials'; this gives the production crew much more time to work on each episode. So you have to expect a certain quality gap...

Whew! These debates really wear you out... How do you and Teaos do it?

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:26 pm

Which is another reason why such 'unique' and time-consuming creatures rarely -if ever- appear on Star Trek...

Yeah, because Trek has never used this mythical 'CGI' technology before...

Granted you know more about the show than I do, but I think you'll find that it's quite easy to find appropriate props and costumes for just about every period in Earth's history...whereas the space station props are available simply because it's a one-episode thing; they can take some extra care on that one episode, knowing that next week they can use available 1930's sets and props...there is a trade-off present in every case.

I find it higly unlikely you're going to find a place that looks perfectly like 1500's London.
And it would be far easier to simply re-use the same sets over and over again (as Trek does) than to have to build a set completely from scratch for every episode (as Who does) .

But when in Who, when they travel to the 1500's, the appropriate props and sets are readily available without too much trouble,

I'll point out again the difficulty in finding a place that looks exactly like 1500's London.

whereas if Trek wants to show so much as a Klingon broom closet, they have to build it from scratch.

True, which is why its usefull that they're able to re-use the same sets.

And this, I think, is the main reason why Trek has more 'bottle shows' than Who...because most of the time the production crew simply can't afford to go somewhere new each and every week as Who can.

Its far easier if you're shooting on the same set every episode than having to make a new set every episode.

And in any case, Star Trek has always been a traditional 22-26 episode-a-season TV show, whereas modern Who is, unless I'm mistaken, a 12-13 episode series, with occasional longer 'specials'; this gives the production crew much more time to work on each episode.

I'm unsure of that, so I'll have to get back to you on that.

So you have to expect a certain quality gap...

True, but the fact remains that Trek has a lot of its props ready-built from earlier episodes. Who dosen't.

Whew! These debates really wear you out... How do you and Teaos do it?

This is nothing. There was a twelve page long thread some time back that was just me, Teaos, Seafort, and Blackstar arguing over every detail of the Prometheus.
And I find debating enjoyable.

Captain Peabody · Post by **Captain Peabody** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:45 pm

I find it higly unlikely you're going to find a place that looks perfectly like 1500's London.
And it would be far easier to simply re-use the same sets over and over again (as Trek does) than to have to build a set completely from scratch for every episode (as Who does) .

Maybe not perfectly, but when, for example, Trek had to do 1890's San Francisco, they didn't have to build anything; a large set was already available to shoot on. I'm guessing the same thing is often true for Who.

I'm unsure of that, so I'll have to get back to you on that.

This is based purely from a quick purview of Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure it's accurate. Though I could easily be wrong...

This is nothing. There was a twelve page long thread some time back that was just me, Teaos, Seafort, and Blackstar arguing over every detail of the Prometheus.
And I find debating enjoyable.

Fortunately, I do too. But I'm not really as used to massive Message Board debates as I could be....

Still, good fun.

Post by **Teaos** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:45 am

Once the CGI alien is made it is rather easy from that point on. It is just the original design they don't do.

Look at Voyager the only really good non humanoid life form is 8472.

While there is time and money issues they could just creat 2 or 3 good species and use them for more than 2 episodes rather than give us 50 crappy species like we usually get.