Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Trek Movie)   Herbert F. Solow, after living long and prospering, voyages to the final frontier at age 89   (trekmovie.com) divider line
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

1809 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 22 Nov 2020 at 12:34 PM (2 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



22 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2 days ago  
I am not Herbert
Youtube IsTQ1cM-Hpg
 
2 days ago  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2 days ago  
RIP Han Solo
 
2 days ago  
I was reading on the history of Star Trek recently, and I learned that it broke Desilu. Lucy had to sell the studio because the episodes were so expensive to produce. But she believed in the show, and she was right in the end.
 
2 days ago  
Fark user imageView Full Size


This is twinkling merrily away on my desk as I read this article.

/RIP Mr. Solow. Thank you for being a big part of my childhood by creating something so amazing.
 
2 days ago  

thatguyoverthere70: I was reading on the history of Star Trek recently, and I learned that it broke Desilu. Lucy had to sell the studio because the episodes were so expensive to produce. But she believed in the show, and she was right in the end.


Desilu's success overall was its failure, not Star Trek by itself. They could barely afford one big budget spectacle of a show, much less the three they had going into the 1967 season (Trek, Mission Impossible, and Mannix). They went from producing pretty much only The Lucy Show to having three resource intensive shows within a single season. So, it was more profitable to sell to Paramount, who wanted their own TV arm, than to keep it going the way they were.
 
2 days ago  

thatguyoverthere70: I was reading on the history of Star Trek recently, and I learned that it broke Desilu. Lucy had to sell the studio because the episodes were so expensive to produce. But she believed in the show, and she was right in the end.


Then why does the show look like they spent little to nothing on the episodes?

Even for the 60s it was terrible production.
 
2 days ago  

cman: thatguyoverthere70: I was reading on the history of Star Trek recently, and I learned that it broke Desilu. Lucy had to sell the studio because the episodes were so expensive to produce. But she believed in the show, and she was right in the end.

Then why does the show look like they spent little to nothing on the episodes?

Even for the 60s it was terrible production.


My understanding is that the show required expensive special effects so they cut corners everywhere else they could. For instance, the reason for teleportation instead of using a ship shuttle was to cut down on sets and props.
 
2 days ago  

thatguyoverthere70: I was reading on the history of Star Trek recently, and I learned that it broke Desilu. Lucy had to sell the studio because the episodes were so expensive to produce. But she believed in the show, and she was right in the end.


Is that the Bob Justman book?  Read it years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. Even the Shatner book about his time on the series is interesting.
 
2 days ago  

Great_Milenko: thatguyoverthere70: I was reading on the history of Star Trek recently, and I learned that it broke Desilu. Lucy had to sell the studio because the episodes were so expensive to produce. But she believed in the show, and she was right in the end.

Is that the Bob Justman book?  Read it years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. Even the Shatner book about his time on the series is interesting.


No, the book by Justman and Solow is where I got my info from.
 
2 days ago  

cman: Then why does the show look like they spent little to nothing on the episodes?

Even for the 60s it was terrible production.


I disagree. I've been rewatching TOS. For a show first conceived in 1964, it it had a lot of special effects and ambitious concepts compared to something like Lost In Space, and they had to design and build almost every single thing from scratch. Compare it to something like I Love Lucy or The Lucy Show, or even The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, which could often use generic sets, modern locations, existing props, rented costumes, ect. and could be produced relatively cheaply. For Star Trek, there were sets, models, planets, costumes, music, ect. that had to all be designed and built specifically for the show.

Yeah, there ware budget limitations and they showed onscreen, but, as was pointed out above, Desilu was not anywhere close to being a huge studio with unlimited resources. Producing a half hour sitcom about a suburban housewife is quite different from an hour long science fiction drama, much less while also producing something like Mission: Impossible at the same time. Plus, the budget for Star Trek got cut every season, while the actors salaries went up. So, every year they had to do more with less. It seems that they succeeded, since we're still talking about the show half a century later.
 
2 days ago  

thatguyoverthere70: cman: Then why does the show look like they spent little to nothing on the episodes?

Even for the 60s it was terrible production.

I disagree. I've been rewatching TOS. For a show first conceived in 1964, it it had a lot of special effects and ambitious concepts compared to something like Lost In Space, and they had to design and build almost every single thing from scratch. Compare it to something like I Love Lucy or The Lucy Show, or even The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, which could often use generic sets, modern locations, existing props, rented costumes, ect. and could be produced relatively cheaply. For Star Trek, there were sets, models, planets, costumes, music, ect. that had to all be designed and built specifically for the show.

Yeah, there ware budget limitations and they showed onscreen, but, as was pointed out above, Desilu was not anywhere close to being a huge studio with unlimited resources. Producing a half hour sitcom about a suburban housewife is quite different from an hour long science fiction drama, much less while also producing something like Mission: Impossible at the same time. Plus, the budget for Star Trek got cut every season, while the actors salaries went up. So, every year they had to do more with less. It seems that they succeeded, since we're still talking about the show half a century later.


I believe I read somewhere that going into the 1966 season, Desilu expected either Star Trek or Mission Impossible to be picked up. One or the other.

Then they both got picked up, and Desilu was farked.
 
2 days ago  
I bet his family feels so low right now.
 
2 days ago  
alternateending.comView Full Size


RIP
 
2 days ago  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Hey, he helped create modern science-fiction!  Not bad!
So let's give the guy a Han!
 
2 days ago  

thatguyoverthere70: cman: Then why does the show look like they spent little to nothing on the episodes?

Even for the 60s it was terrible production.

I disagree. I've been rewatching TOS. For a show first conceived in 1964, it it had a lot of special effects and ambitious concepts compared to something like Lost In Space, and they had to design and build almost every single thing from scratch. Compare it to something like I Love Lucy or The Lucy Show, or even The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, which could often use generic sets, modern locations, existing props, rented costumes, ect. and could be produced relatively cheaply. For Star Trek, there were sets, models, planets, costumes, music, ect. that had to all be designed and built specifically for the show.

Yeah, there ware budget limitations and they showed onscreen, but, as was pointed out above, Desilu was not anywhere close to being a huge studio with unlimited resources. Producing a half hour sitcom about a suburban housewife is quite different from an hour long science fiction drama, much less while also producing something like Mission: Impossible at the same time. Plus, the budget for Star Trek got cut every season, while the actors salaries went up. So, every year they had to do more with less. It seems that they succeeded, since we're still talking about the show half a century later.


Yeah, the money issues are why ST:TOS season 3 had the issues it had.
 
2 days ago  
Kelly's Heroes (1970) Official Trailer - Clint Eastwood, Donald Sutherland War Movie HD
Youtube Iby1Ni0VJxg
 
2 days ago  

thatguyoverthere70: I was reading on the history of Star Trek recently, and I learned that it broke Desilu. Lucy had to sell the studio because the episodes were so expensive to produce. But she believed in the show, and she was right in the end.


Roddenberry staged a giant letter-writing campaign from Trek fans to NBC calling on them to save the show when it was doubted NBC would renew it for a 2nd season. The execs ****ing hated Trek after that because they spent, independently, an amount of money comparable to a appreciable fraction of the show's own budget just replying to Trek fanmail, because their policy was to reply to fanmail.

This is widely suspected of playing a part in Trek being moved to the late-friday Death Slot for season 3.

cman: thatguyoverthere70: I was reading on the history of Star Trek recently, and I learned that it broke Desilu. Lucy had to sell the studio because the episodes were so expensive to produce. But she believed in the show, and she was right in the end.

Then why does the show look like they spent little to nothing on the episodes?

Even for the 60s it was terrible production.


Senor, what are you talking about? The only comparable contemporary space sci-fi episodic show was Lost In Space, which was just as hokey from our perspective and which lived out many of the same goofy 60s sci-fi tropes that Trek did.

Most Trek episodes had to be made for $180K each (decreasing with successive seasons). The absolutely groundbreaking effects and sets of The Cage cost a then-astounding $650K, almost unheard of for a pilot episode.

In particular the matted-in phaser effect, and attack on the Talosian elevator specifically, were obviously inspired by The Forbidden Planet's monster fight scene. Forbidden Planet, itself, was famously the most expensive sci-fi movie ever made at the time - $2M for the giant sets, the gorgeous background paintings, the frame-by-frame matte animation special effects, and an estimated $50K to build Robbie.

Trek's budget shrank about 5% both seasons, and that shrinkage was enough to mean that the show could by season 3 rarely afford to do on-site filming - at the same time NBC demanded *more* beaming down to planets.
 
2 days ago  

cman: why does the show look like they spent little to nothing on the episodes?


Because they did?

i0.wp.comView Full Size
 
2 days ago  
Fark user imageView Full Size
.
 
2 days ago  
Star Trek put so much positivity and hope for the future into the world. It inspired so many people to go on and work for that future.

May he be honored in stovokor.
 
1 day ago  
This sucks.

Also the Justman/Solow book is awesome, some great behind the scenes stuff about the entire cast in crew in that book.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



X
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.