"Serenity" SE-DVD question

[Ranger REG]

Keep in my mind, this is entirely in my opinion (or cheapness standard which may vary from others): Star Trek: TNG...

Wait. Of all the Trek series, TNG is not cheap by your standard???

(I'm surprised you do not mention Star Wars off-the-cuff.)

What are your criteria for cheap quality?

 

[Chain Lightning]

Oh, and you are fully entitled to have that opinion, and I won't knock you for it. I'm just curious to see where you're coming from.



I think that, in both cases, the look is exactly what's called for by the genre. The Wild West was not a place of high production values. The thing is supposed to look shabby, because the universe it takes place in is shabby and ramshackle.

Oh I agree. It should look shabby. But by cheap , I don't mean dirty or used looking. The sets and props in "Aliens" are very dirt and beat up but they don't look cheap. By cheap I mean .... either one or all of the following: not enough money spent on top artists that can bring cool unique looking designs to the project, not enough money to make your own costumes so you gotta borrow or re-use from other movies/costumes/props, not enough money to have the prop dept. stamp out molds for new weapons so instead you use AK-47's and such, etc, etc....

Interesting, though - you say it's his responsibility, but also want him to keep his hands off? Bit of a rock and a hard place, there.

I only infer that he keeps his hands off if the reason why it looks cheap is because of his decision making influencing art dept. If the reason isn't because of that, like for instance, the reason is because they just didn't have time or money to get things done the way the originally invisioned it.....then I'm not against him having a hand in what the art dept. does.

On a side note: the decision to steer the art dept. with your creative input and the decision to NOT involve youself in that same art dept. are both creative choices/actions taken under the umbrella of responsibilities a director has. It isn't that one is an action and one is an inaction. Their both actions done by the director.

So to your original question: "...you say it's his responsibility, but also want him to keep his hands off? Bit of a rock and a hard place, there."

You can keep your hands off and be responsible at the same time. Under your "responsibility" to create a good look for your movie/show you have decided to NOT involve youself. Perhaps because you know its not your expertise or field.

I can give you ST: TNG but it is over 10 years old, but the New Battlestar Galactica. Now I think it would be pretty expensive to build a real battlestar and vipers. They might not have to cash to build a cyclon basestar.


Now I'm dying to know what shows you don't find cheap.

I already listed some. You guys gotta follow the thread a little more carefully.

I said Serenity/Firefly looked cheap. Umbran then asked:

Interesting. Can you name a few shows you don't think look "cheap"?

Then I answered with: "Star Trek:TNG" and newest "Battlestar Galactica".

Wait. Of all the Trek series, TNG is not cheap by your standard???

(I'm surprised you do not mention Star Wars off-the-cuff.)

What are your criteria for cheap quality?

Okay, I guess to be more precise -- they were all NOT cheap, except for Enterprise...I think that one looked cheap.

What do you mean by, "I'm surprised you do not mention Star Wars off-the-cuff."? Oh wait, you mean why didn't I cite Star Wars right away as being one of those NOT cheap sci-fi choices?

I was trying to keep it to tv shows or tv shows that made it to movie features. As for my criteria for cheapness .... some of it is explained above. I could go on some more, but I'm kinda tired now. I'll come back to this thread again and discuss some more when I have more energy.