Star Trek: The Next Generation in HD (part2)

I had to catch the light just right to really see it. You only need it off of one disc though when you call.

 

This is what I tried to explain more than six months ago. The vast audience of regular people out there are going to resist watching TV shows that don't completely fill their 16x9 screens -- whether it's artistically right or wrong. From a purely dollars-and-cents standpoint, it makes sense for the studios and networks to prepare 16x9 versions of all their shows.

Before a certain point, like maybe the late 1980s, I'm not sure anybody cares. Shows like that are going to be really dated anyway, and their potential audience will be limited regardless of aspect ratio. I don't see a huge market for 16x9 versions of Perry Mason or I Love Lucy. Those I think you have to leave 4x3 forever... but those don't depict futuristic civilizations with high-tech special effects.

Any comedy made in the last 20 years, I think it'll probably work OK in 16x9, provided they do some competent remastering on it. I'd be curious to see if a later show, like Deep Space Nine, was shot in 4x3 35mm throughout its entire run (starting in 1993), or if at some point they switched to 3-perf 16x9. There was a weird transition period from about 1994-1998 where we did shows in 4x3, standard def, 16x9, high-def, and sometimes combinations of the three. There was even a period where we did anamorphic 16x9 standard def, and then the show would get de-squeezed and converted to 4x3 for broadcast delivery. That was a confusing time for many producers and technicians, I can tell you.

 

I believe you it had to be.
In Spain we had the digital "switch over" two years ago and all of a sudden everything was not only digital, but in 16:9 also. Needless to say stil today 16:9 is a mess in Spain. There's a bit of everything ranging from native 16:9 productions (the news, talk shows, some T.V. series), 4:3 widescreen movies badly flagged as 16:9, which stretches picture, 4:3 "cut" at the top and bottom to fit 16:9, 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9 so no pilar boxing is needed, it's a mess.
We also have some so called "HD Channels" which show upconverted picture from their mother channels only showing ocasionally some native HD programming, mainly sports and some movies.

 

I'd be adding TWIN PEAKS to the 4:3 list. Put's the series in the context of its time and people will think twice whether that's a cell phone Agent Cooper is using while talking to that "Diane". With TNG that's a completely different issue as you suggested.

I read at another forum from someone who seemed very reliable that with DS9 and VOYAGER they stuck with 4:3 35mm through the entire run, but consciously started protecting at some point for 16:9.

 

1.33:1 is "horrible" but 1.37:1 - which is virtually identical - is good?

Man, just when I thought you couldn't make less sense...

 

I agree, from a video mastering point of view, the differences are like 10 microseconds or something (less than 1/4" on a 20" monitor). No real difference between 1.37 and 1.33.

Some studios are adamant that we deliver "real" 1.37 for old movies, and we do what they ask. You won't see the extra 1/4" on an old 4x3 monitor, but you will see it on an HD display (matted on the sides). The key to me is to frame the picture so that as much of the area originally photographed actually gets transferred.

 

Really? Mainstream shows? What shows?

ST:TNG was shot without thinking to the future. If they HAD been thinking to the future at the time then they might have assembled it on film not on video so they wouldn't have to do that NOW.

Again, it makes no sense to claim that the show was composed for widescreen. It wasn't.

It makes sense for the regular broadcasts to do the widescreen presentation on TV since they are trying to "sell" it to an audience raised on widescreen and the expectation that any 4:3 show is old fashioned.

"Friends" was broadcast between 1994-2004, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" was broadcast between 1987-1994. By the time "Friends" rolled around it was a different story. "Seinfeld" ran from 1990-1998. While they overlapped, the other shows began anywhere from 3-7 years AFTER "ST:TNG" began so, by that point, they might have had a better idea and were "future proofing" their shows.

 

Back to the Blu... It was nice to finally have an extra on there with Dacid Gerrold discussing some of the issues thst dogged ST:TNG during its first season. It's too bad that the whole story of Gerrold's involvement in helping to create the series really couldn't be told(although the reference to him writing the show bible more than hi Ts at it). He clearly still has a lot of affection for Roddenberry even though he kind of initially got screwed over (but the settlement I'm sure helped make him feel better. Roddenberry's lawyer was one of the worst when it came to screwing people over in the name of his client).

I have to give kudos to CBS and Paramount for being brave enough to finally include some of the negative stuff that went down behind the scenes on the show but it's too bad they couldn't or wouldn't tell the whole story.

 

I agree, and I hope that we get to hear Melissa Snodgrass talking about her involvement in future sets.

 

Speaking of which I'm pretty excited about the longer version of "Measure of a Man" a VERY good old-style "Trek" episode.

 

Yes, looking forward to that.

As she was the one who gave them that extra footage, I'm hoping they took the opportunity to interview her.

 

There was no time or money available to cut and finish a show like that on film -- it would've been humanly impossible to do. As it was, it was a tough show for Unitel to do all the post on just in video, and the dailies sessions were very time-consuming and difficult.

Yes, I consider David to be a friend, and that is pretty close to the story he's told me for 20 years. I think he initially admired Roddenberry to some degree, but was dismayed when he saw how TNG was being run. It's very telling that both Gerrold and original Trek series writer Dorothy Fontana both quit after the first season. The show got very, very difficult and political behind the scenes, and I think what finally got released on TV was not exactly what was originally planned (good and bad).

I don't think the second Mrs. Roddenberry (Majel Barrett) is anxious for old wounds and negative stories to be brought up about her dead husband. While I think Gene had many flaws, there's no denying his contribution to pop culture over the years, and I think even his detractors would admit that Star Trek could not have existed without him -- either the TV shows or the movies -- and Roddenberry could be a charming, gracious man when he wanted to be. Still, the bad stories about him are legion, particularly the sex and drugs. Joel Engel's 1995 book The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek go into this in great detail; if even half of those stories are true, Roddenberry was a terribly flawed man. Still a genius in his way, but he did some terrible things while producing his shows.

 

Marc, Mrs. Roddenberry is well beyond the point of caring about any negative remarks about her husband, as she passed on herself on December 18th, 2008. Their son Eugene Roddenberry, however, may be another story...

 

He didn't exactly shy away from the topic in his Trek Nation documentary; nor was it a focus, either. But Gene's lifestyle and many indiscretions were definitely mentioned.

 

Forgot Majel had died! But it's fair to say there are political forces at work that would rather keep Roddenberry's memory alive as being all positive. (Despite much negative stories from actors on the set, particularly Nichelle Nichols -- and I believe what she had to say.) Note that the first Mrs. Roddenberry went back and sued Gene, and got half his money for all the movies and TNG, since those were technically inspired by the first show. Quite a messy business.

One could probably make a very racy TV movie just about the making of the original show, particularly if you went into the actors' and creators' personal lives.

 

You've mentioned the wonderful "Inside Star Trek" book (by Justman & Solow) on numerous occasions.

This book goes into detail how GR could be a right bast**d at times.

Lessee...

- He cheated on his wife regularly (and with such reckless abandon & glee).
- He had a couple of fans set up Lincoln Enterprises on the sly (so his wife wouldn't know about it), then he stole the film trims in order to sell (which he did in the 70's - including frames from a now-lost unused scene from "Elaan of Troyius").
- He created lyrics for the Star Trek theme so he could claim half the royalties for himself - even though the lyrics would never be used.
- He left the show when it was gearing up for the third season because he didn't like its new time slot.
- Constantly taking credit for other people's work.
- Constantly blaming others to bolster his own "legend".

"Inside Star Trek" has got to be the best book at how the series got on the air, and how it was not the "one-man-show" that Roddenberry tried to have everyone believe.

 

Don't forget the IDIC pendants, and how freakin' awful those lyrics were...

This, however, doesn't bother me so much.

 

Oooh, the IDIC pendants. Yeah, I guess he needed to a cajole Lenny N. into wearing it on the show.

The lyrics brouhaha is what forced Alexander Courage away from the show, and I think the book explains how the lyrics are pretty bad from a musical standpoint.

And here they are:

Beyond
The rim of the star-light
My love
Is wand'ring in star-flight
I know
He'll find in star-clustered reaches
Love,
Strange love a star woman teaches.
I know
His journey ends never
His star trek
Will go on forever.
But tell him
While he wanders his starry sea
Remember, remember me.

Yeah, Roddenberry wasn't really missed when he bolted.

The big crime there was Roddenberry still pulled in his Executive Producer's salary - even though he was AWOL.

That money could have bee spent on getting some better third season scripts, and not having to go back to previously-rejected ones.

 

And was involved with tons of drugs, which (depending on who you talk to) led to many health problems in the 1980s. Roddenberry was really stunned when he was pushed aside on the movies -- first by Robert Wise, and later by Harve Bennett -- and eventually made sure when TNG started that he would be in control. Unfortunately, he started to have several strokes in 1990, and that pretty much ended his day-to-day involvement.

I interviewed him a couple of times, including one occasion at his office at Paramount in 1975, and he was gracious, funny, interesting, and very articulate. I never saw a bad side of him. The script he was working on at the time (for the unproduced Star Trek II TV series) was later reworked for the 1979 feature film.

 

And I'd wager this is why Herb Solow took a chance on him and his show.

To give him his props, the way he worked "The Cage" into much more emotional and satisfying "The Menagerie" was truly inspired.

And his multi-racial crew with women in key positions was a radical idea in the 60's. (But him constantly trying to get his girlfriend into the series - even after NBC nixed her - shows one of his flaws.)

I think in the early-to-mid 70's, Gene was trying to prove that he had other ideas and that he wasn't just a one-trick pony. But, by the time ST:TMP rolled around, he realized that series was his bread & butter.

Perhaps it was during after all the Star Trek conventions began springing up and he suddenly became a celebrity to many people, the adulation went to his head and his stories (and his own accomplishments) began to get embellished.

One of my favorite anecdotes about GR's character his how he continued to talk to convention goers about how Harlan Ellison had "my Scotty dealing drugs" in the first draft of "The City on the Edge of Forever" - even after he was repeatedly "reminded" that Scotty wasn't dealing drugs, nor was he even in the script!

I guess it's time to pull out "Inside Star Trek" again. It's such a good read!

 

I found his "GF" in some roles, to be even more annoying than Wesley Crusher.

Wesley was a character I hated originally, but after rewatching most of the series over the last several months, he is not as bad as I remember, but how they Treat him and so on is still kinda bad.

 

I was lucky enough to meet and chat with him at an English Trek convention in the early 80s, and he was all of these things.

It was a real pleasure.

 

From all te interviews and pictures I've seen fo Roddenberry from my homeland Spain, He looked to me not be a very focused and clever guy, but of course any one can get out with the right product. In my opinion seasons 1 and 2 of Star Trek The Next Generation are so so. Seasons 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the best of all, when Roddenberry wasn't involved. Sorry, my 0.2 $.

 

Off-topic but Roddenberry oriented: his pre-"Trek" creation "The Lieutenant" comes to DVD on Tuesday, at least according to a press release I got. It says that the show's available on WarnerArchive.com, but I couldn't find it listed there...

 

According to Cinefex # 37 the studio execs wanted the show to be edited on film so they could also exploit it for theatres overseas (as had been done for Europe with BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and BUCK ROGERS). But with all the VFX shots involved it became clear that TNG would become too expensive so a decision was finally made to do the 'smaller' VFX and the final edit on video.

In "The Making of DS9" the authors pointed out that all the film stock had been saved (pretty thoughtful in my opinion) and that redoing the show would be to put it through the entire postproduction again.

What really still amazes me, is that they a) are actually doing it and b) how they have been able to locate all the film rolls thus far. Pretty impressive.