Home Alone is red and green. Complimentary colors are used for everything, that part I get. The muted and dark, not sure. Maybe we have to see the film, and it goes from dark and muted to more colorful when she is not feeling wanting (ie. legs) ?
Great points! Home Alone was released in 1990, well before the teal & orange era. For the most part, movies made before the advent of digital color grading relied on production design (sets, costumes, etc.) for color, so there was a lot more variety. The Back to the Future series, for example, used different color palettes to visually differentiate the various time periods in a really nice way. Newer movies and TV shows are much more heavy-handed, relying on exaggerated sepia tones and other gimmicks to indicate "the past," and so on. The trailer for The Little Mermaid does have some slightly more colorful scenes, but they're still lackluster.
So would you say the teal and orange is in fashion right now? Or the past few decades? Kind of the way orange laminate counters were in fashion in the 70s (orange and brown) and the way turquoise and magenta/red were popular in the 1950s?
Yes, although the teal & orange era probably peaked around five years ago. The up-and-coming trend is to make everything look muddy and desaturated (Exhibit A: "The Little Mermaid"). In most of the movies being released now, you'll see some combination of these two trends: a color palette smushed towards teal and orange BUT more desaturated and darker. The DC "Justice League" movies are a good example of what that looks like.
Gosh yer on a roll Alex with yer new Stack, I'm so glad to check out yer writins'! This one too rings close ta home fer me too!
Bein' a fan of earlier "woiks" of cinema, I missed out on the whole post-90's palette "witchcraft" (more like wishcraft which in this case sounds even darker as the wishes of those in control wantin' to de-saturate our very LIVES are bein' fulfilled...) so I'm intrigued no end now learnin' this stuff. (An' yes, AGREED that all the other elements apart from the issue of color gradin' also have failing grades too today--mostly at least...)
Now, as ya know, manipulatin' audiences with all them "plastic elements" is a hallmark of all filmmakin' (GREAT filmmakin' too!) but to take away the "vision" of the story-tellers (de-saturatin' it) is not just creepy--it marks the more insidious manipulation of our LIVES, removing what is REAL (what the human eye can see! which video cannot replicate even in HD...) an' screenin' (in every sense;ve the word including filtering) what we are allowed ta see... It is a form of censorship... ya just don't "see" the cuttin'! Artistic choice and COLOR (so vital to us human beans) are removed from films by unseen hands but these same GRADERz seem to be in the driver's seat of everyday life in lockstep (!) with the (visual) dimming of our world--which is now poorer, less "nourishing" an' more arty-fish-all than ever!
Our skies are lit'rally dulled & dimmed (an' cross hatched with chemtrails), the food is more bland (an' fake), music is auto-tuned (an' faked), und so weiter... SO this-all goes hand'in VR glove...with a bigger agenda I'm SURE! (dang!)
My older daughter was OBSESSED with the life of Natalie Kamus an' her "color SCHEME" (scheme, think about that!) advisory fer Technicolor. Famously, Miz Kalmus BOTH helped many of "her" patented Technicolor films achieve the incredible "look" that WAS the lofty apex of the Golden Era of Hollywood film, AND got kicked off many a set fer "enforcin' " her patented-technology-related decisions over gen-u-ine ahrtistry (she was also an' often DEAD WRONG about the capabilities of the medium....) SO there were BATTLES cuz studios were contract-bound to keep her on as a paid consultant... it got ugly, it's quite a thing! Reads like a dimestore novel! (I think she an' Edith Head went at each other good more n' once over color choices, ha!) Anywayz, all this ta say that EVEN back in the day, an' mind ya I'm like the world's biggest Technicolor FAN!--there was STRIFE over color. But as ya said, EVERYONE was passionate about it from an ahrtistic (not ideological) angle... Just sayin' that this loooong pre-dates the 90's / video-assisted timing... Even them pesky stew-dio heads ('fore MBA dumbass movie-ignorant foolz started takin' over decision makin' an' it became all about bottom lines...) would support the "best" look of a movie -- with a passion! They may have had many demands but never would they want a film to look anything "less" that what it could be... so WOW today's scenario IS so very different.
One'a my longtime dear friends wuz fer decades a color timer at indie lab DuArt (in NYSee) an' I sawr first hand how this work WAS an ahrt! Selecting the filters to match the vision of director, cinematographer, art direction, etc. (by making shots match each other too!) was careful an' tedious work. My pal was steeped in film his'try an' knew the work of all the great filmmakers -- an' he wasn't an anomaly in this way. Color Timers (many older than my pal by far...) would all "speak" the language, know the references, an' appreciated (deeply) the craft. If ya said "shoot" we lost the light that day but kin' ya bring back a Jacques Demy "Umbrellas" look fer this scene--they'd know what ya meant! Daisy here wears many hats (wigs...costumes etc....) an' I worked with my ol' pal on quite a few lil' ol' projects've my own too. But my friend was a feller in demand and also worked with MANY known filmmakers so I can attest to the ahrtistic sensy-bilities and demands of HIS craft. When films were SHOT -- on celluloid 've course--an' LIT to evoke the desired palette an' mood anyway...he was just meeting the "visions" of the director n' production team.
In the 1990s as ya said, when it all went ta video timin' THREE things happened... (an' I say this without knowin' bout the "color gradin' shipwreck" that bow-sprit'd the heart of the in-dust-ry)...
1. DPs (cinematographers 'case yer readerz are unfamiliar) got LAZY (it became similar to the sound-related "fix it in the mix" sloppy atty-tude--an' up, sound recordist were also sufferin' from similar issues)--MANY of these LAZY DPs (I can't name names cuz these folks are still workin') started to RELY on the timer to FIX (their) major errors of sloppiness like poorly lit scenes (now grain could be somewhat reduced on the viddeyo releases if not on the prints...), inconsistently lit actors, their not bothering to filter properly (eg. daylight in the winda's) and SO much more... But Color Timers (even with new viddeo tech) were NOT CGI artists (that was develop'in) and could only do "so much" as a remedy, so as a result... FILMS started ta look like SH!T (sorry ta be crude but it's TRUE)
2. Faster film stocks made DPs even LAZIER--Kodak (what's now left've it!) dumped production of it's richer slower stocks (needin' more light and nearly demanding greater production values) so a whole ERA of lazy shooting became the NORM. Folks got used ta seein' poorly lit scenes (using ambient light NOT balanced for color temp--why botha? who cares is the audience needs ta SQUINT to see the actor's expressions...it's "cool"). Folks got used ta seein' "gritty" lookin' films (often poorly shot with outta focus bits, sunspots, crap that used ta be deemed cause fer a retake!). With layzee DPs just using grainy "fast" stock rather than having to properly light dark-skinned actors, audiences got used ta that look too... ugh.
3. Direct to video OR films that would be "mostly" seen on viddeyo. SURE, even with video-aided color timing there were indeed film prints made BUT the new focus (my pal complained've this..) was on timing FOR the video... EVEN on framin' for the video! (Like the screen ratio in the viewfinder of the camera literally PLANNED for it being mostly seen on video!)... Something that would look gawd-awful on the big screen could be made to seem "fine" on the little one so many films suffered by focusin' on the end-result that their works would be shown mostly on viddeyo... blech!
All the above contributed to the "virtual" visual dumpster fire that film has become today, at least compared to pre-1980s films. ALL the tech in the world cannot fix what ain't there--EVEN if budget permits the "experts" to attempt detailed repairs...but more importantly, we humans were GROOMED to accept and to expect "less" so after all that groomin'--they were ready for meaningless orange n' blue palettes (ha! NY's colors too!) an' the newer more dour, sad, tone-deaf colors of dust (cuz the globalists wanna make the human experience just that... DUST).
I wonder what push-back'll happen? In the meantime, I'm blessin' Martin Scorsese fer usin' high tech WITH a mind for intended color choices ta RESTORE the saturation and beauty of the ol' classics.
NOW if they'd just start strikin' 35mm prints again of the OLD films (when they were tee-riffic) an' would kindly fire up the actual film projectors we'd be in bizness!
Thanks fer the deep dive inta color gradin'--I knew the viddyo tech had started the downfall but boy golly they've reached rock bottom with this 'un
ps (just a factual note) Kodak didn't make Technicolor--Technicolor was not only it's OWN filmstock, OWN patented set of cameras AND films, but ALSO a LAB! (it' was like a monopoly on the process). You couldn't even develop or print the footage without Technicolor patented chemicals. Technicolor labs long outlasted their "era" and they eventually went on to (ironically) process Kodak movie film as well as Fuji (with a good rep at least in NYC!)
Wow, Daisy, thanks for that great perspective! It's interesting that, as you say, audiences became trained to expect the lower-quality imagery. In fact, that training was so effective that CGI artists now have to add in the lens flares, grain, vignetting and other artifacts that cinematographers once sweated and prayed to avoid!
u bet! insane, right? back in the day it'd take half a day ta light a scene... now it's pernt'n'shoot an' it looks like it too! irony, tho, it used'ta cost a tenth as much (less even!) when they took time an' each image was indeed a storytellin' work of ahrt!
I actually think JJ Abrams is a pretty good storyteller, but his fetishization of lens flares is a good example of how contemporary filmmakers fixate on the superficial artifacts of the craft, rather than on the fundamental substance.
Mebbe so, but ta me there is ONLY one Star Trek (no lens flares either!) and it had quite the look (clean, crisp, steady camera like steady-Kirk! camera rocked only when they were under attack!, an' no ugly flares, lightin' flatterin' to the actors, sets! etc) I stick by the original series' polly-ticks too, which in retrospect was kinda like Libertarianism in Space (I don't side now-a-daze w/ any pahrty but just sayin'); it wuz very Free ta be U n' Me separate but equal, weapons ONLY in face've threats, non-interventionist yadayada cuz later in-tar-nations mucked it up a bit an' not in a good way imo (however well told )... THIS was the look! https://tinyurl.com/bdcubn8w
I wouldn't say it's libertarian exactly ... Earth in Star Trek is governed by a benevolent one-world government with electronic currency, and of course the Enterprise itself is a military vessel, but I get your point.
yup, not xactly--but it's indeed (mostly) a non-globalist / "we go in peace"--team an' Kirk never imposes his worldview on others even when he's repulsed by some've what he sees. He honors the rules of "his" federation but will buck'em an' answer fer it too if he senses something is wrong in the bigger picture--takin' the moral high ground as they say. Always curious, sometimes bemused, never does his ship (in the original I mean) trigger 'er start wars EVEN if/when the other planet's "ways" are totalitarian, warin', anti-"human" or cult-like (eg Children of Eden) The references are purdy timely too! They are armed but their mission ain't military. When it gets hairy (or Harry Mudd!) they try ta "diffuse" an' only pull out the "big guns" if their lives depend on it, NEVER to proselytize or push democracy on others...
I see it as a "better" more pacifist vision 've America with a groovy multi-national team (with strong women thar!) that represents America's meltin' pot in the BEST sense it used'ta have (even if the team is technically multi-national). I don't recall--in the original--any currency at all. But the way I see it, in the show Earth=America and the other nations are represented by "The Galexies" so in this expanded model it's more like these other planets in other constellations 'r like sovereign nations--here they're just "beyond" Earth....
Thus, what'cha say is right technically but it still doesn't look like feel like 'er work like globalism because the model has shifted focus (wide angle) with a host've sovereign nations bein' represented by other planets, galexies, etc..
Just my take on it... I'd ruther have Kirk as POTUS than much've what we wuz hornswaggled inta acceptin' at the helm here -- somehow I think Gene Roddenbarry, a former pilot himself, felt the same!
I'd like to agree with you, because I really do love Star Trek (although I'm partial to Picard), but as anthropologist David Graeber has explained persuasively, the future envisioned by Roddenberry is very much a global Marxist utopia. The fact that everyone is on board with the agenda, and the society has no malcontents is a huge red flag. Capitalism is represented by the Ferengi, who are probably the most loathsome caricatures of Jewish stereotypes short of the Gringott's trolls, and anyone who objects to Federation hegemony (notably the Romulans) is cast as the villain, simply because they dissent.
Growin' up with the series what I kept "im kopf" was universally positive--the overall picture was ta me one've "democracy in space" (in fact the cultish/"marxist" utopias--eg Children of Eden--were failures! others too tho' I'd have ta revisit... The show was sort of like a surface study of diff. societies...). To a kid (at least), it was very American--like a Western in space an' space wuz the wild West! Admittedly I recall zilch about Ferengi (one episode? more?) Soitenly with Messers Coike n' Schpock at the Chelm (!), it's hard ta imagine what ya describe stereotype-wise gettin' past those two scmarties (btw Nimoy did Yiddish theater!). Both performers were great personalities on any plate (Shatner is still sharp!), even outside them famous "rolls" (bialy-style). It's possible but sometimes even an "intended" readin' (if such was the case--tho mebbe not cuz Roddenberry was a straight-shooter military guy, not pro USSR... from what I gather..) but yeah, even if writers pushed one "message" at times the intended one is not the one most folks git as a take-away... To wit, all the supposedly "sexist" women's films where the dame gives up her career (Annie Git Yer Gun style / His Girl Friday style) ta keep her man. NOBUDDY buys it--we all KNOW Annie & Hildy ain't down fer the count). It's not even readin' against the grain to see that there are two sets've messages... Mebbe so with Star Trek too?! BUT....
I'll give it a look see at Mista Grabber! (fwiw I do recall a lotta malcontents on the shipperoo includin' among the key players, in fact each one gits an epi-sode ta do some donkey kicks--an' many times Kirk's authority is challenged by such issues so he's gotta prove his onions ta the others...) Thanks fer lettin' me know 'bout this guy--not sure if I'll buy his-story but hey, histry' is a living thing includin' that've teevee! Thx!
Ps I found this frum the Forvard online (a counter narrative? anyway fun stuff!):
"However horrendous the Ferengi are — and they’re pretty awful — many forget their noble equivalents, the Bajorans. The Bajorans (not from orig. series) are a displaced tech-savvy species who have been compared to Jews in the Diaspora or modern Israelis (though more recently people have made the case for this advanced race serving as a Palestinian analogue). But even more important than the Bajorans are the Vulcans.
Thanks to Leonard Nimoy’s Jewish upbringing, Vulcans salute the cabin crew with a V-shaped hand symbol that resembles the spread fingers of the Kohanim blessing their congregation. Any time Trekkies make the gesture, and they’re wont to, they’re paying homage to this legacy. "
So there's a good reason I don't 'member these supposedly "anti-Jewish" Ferengi -- they were not part of the original series that ended in 1969! They were invented in 1987, a far cry from the groovy sixties. Again, I only know the original series with Shatner & Nimoy that I wartched religiously (!) in reruns growin' up (in them also groovy 70's!) an' loved it--I saw one new one, not my cuppa tea...) -- so I'm'a gonna stick ta my spaceguns on this fer now--couldn't find anythin' compelling from Graeber on the topic 'cept a tweet that the show was a "marxist wannabbe" series (not buyin' it) but please DO post a link if there is more... Again, I'm speakin' 'bout the series that ended in '69--ta me it's the ONLY one (we certi-fried crackpots have a lotta strong op-onions on stuff!) ;-)
HERE is the bit that I read 'bout them Ferengi:
The Ferengi (/fəˈrɛŋɡi/) are a fictional extraterrestrial species in the American science fiction franchise Star Trek. They were devised in 1987 for the series Star Trek: The Next Generation...
Well said.
Thanks, Jacque!
Home Alone is red and green. Complimentary colors are used for everything, that part I get. The muted and dark, not sure. Maybe we have to see the film, and it goes from dark and muted to more colorful when she is not feeling wanting (ie. legs) ?
Great points! Home Alone was released in 1990, well before the teal & orange era. For the most part, movies made before the advent of digital color grading relied on production design (sets, costumes, etc.) for color, so there was a lot more variety. The Back to the Future series, for example, used different color palettes to visually differentiate the various time periods in a really nice way. Newer movies and TV shows are much more heavy-handed, relying on exaggerated sepia tones and other gimmicks to indicate "the past," and so on. The trailer for The Little Mermaid does have some slightly more colorful scenes, but they're still lackluster.
So would you say the teal and orange is in fashion right now? Or the past few decades? Kind of the way orange laminate counters were in fashion in the 70s (orange and brown) and the way turquoise and magenta/red were popular in the 1950s?
Yes, although the teal & orange era probably peaked around five years ago. The up-and-coming trend is to make everything look muddy and desaturated (Exhibit A: "The Little Mermaid"). In most of the movies being released now, you'll see some combination of these two trends: a color palette smushed towards teal and orange BUT more desaturated and darker. The DC "Justice League" movies are a good example of what that looks like.
Gosh yer on a roll Alex with yer new Stack, I'm so glad to check out yer writins'! This one too rings close ta home fer me too!
Bein' a fan of earlier "woiks" of cinema, I missed out on the whole post-90's palette "witchcraft" (more like wishcraft which in this case sounds even darker as the wishes of those in control wantin' to de-saturate our very LIVES are bein' fulfilled...) so I'm intrigued no end now learnin' this stuff. (An' yes, AGREED that all the other elements apart from the issue of color gradin' also have failing grades too today--mostly at least...)
Now, as ya know, manipulatin' audiences with all them "plastic elements" is a hallmark of all filmmakin' (GREAT filmmakin' too!) but to take away the "vision" of the story-tellers (de-saturatin' it) is not just creepy--it marks the more insidious manipulation of our LIVES, removing what is REAL (what the human eye can see! which video cannot replicate even in HD...) an' screenin' (in every sense;ve the word including filtering) what we are allowed ta see... It is a form of censorship... ya just don't "see" the cuttin'! Artistic choice and COLOR (so vital to us human beans) are removed from films by unseen hands but these same GRADERz seem to be in the driver's seat of everyday life in lockstep (!) with the (visual) dimming of our world--which is now poorer, less "nourishing" an' more arty-fish-all than ever!
Our skies are lit'rally dulled & dimmed (an' cross hatched with chemtrails), the food is more bland (an' fake), music is auto-tuned (an' faked), und so weiter... SO this-all goes hand'in VR glove...with a bigger agenda I'm SURE! (dang!)
My older daughter was OBSESSED with the life of Natalie Kamus an' her "color SCHEME" (scheme, think about that!) advisory fer Technicolor. Famously, Miz Kalmus BOTH helped many of "her" patented Technicolor films achieve the incredible "look" that WAS the lofty apex of the Golden Era of Hollywood film, AND got kicked off many a set fer "enforcin' " her patented-technology-related decisions over gen-u-ine ahrtistry (she was also an' often DEAD WRONG about the capabilities of the medium....) SO there were BATTLES cuz studios were contract-bound to keep her on as a paid consultant... it got ugly, it's quite a thing! Reads like a dimestore novel! (I think she an' Edith Head went at each other good more n' once over color choices, ha!) Anywayz, all this ta say that EVEN back in the day, an' mind ya I'm like the world's biggest Technicolor FAN!--there was STRIFE over color. But as ya said, EVERYONE was passionate about it from an ahrtistic (not ideological) angle... Just sayin' that this loooong pre-dates the 90's / video-assisted timing... Even them pesky stew-dio heads ('fore MBA dumbass movie-ignorant foolz started takin' over decision makin' an' it became all about bottom lines...) would support the "best" look of a movie -- with a passion! They may have had many demands but never would they want a film to look anything "less" that what it could be... so WOW today's scenario IS so very different.
One'a my longtime dear friends wuz fer decades a color timer at indie lab DuArt (in NYSee) an' I sawr first hand how this work WAS an ahrt! Selecting the filters to match the vision of director, cinematographer, art direction, etc. (by making shots match each other too!) was careful an' tedious work. My pal was steeped in film his'try an' knew the work of all the great filmmakers -- an' he wasn't an anomaly in this way. Color Timers (many older than my pal by far...) would all "speak" the language, know the references, an' appreciated (deeply) the craft. If ya said "shoot" we lost the light that day but kin' ya bring back a Jacques Demy "Umbrellas" look fer this scene--they'd know what ya meant! Daisy here wears many hats (wigs...costumes etc....) an' I worked with my ol' pal on quite a few lil' ol' projects've my own too. But my friend was a feller in demand and also worked with MANY known filmmakers so I can attest to the ahrtistic sensy-bilities and demands of HIS craft. When films were SHOT -- on celluloid 've course--an' LIT to evoke the desired palette an' mood anyway...he was just meeting the "visions" of the director n' production team.
In the 1990s as ya said, when it all went ta video timin' THREE things happened... (an' I say this without knowin' bout the "color gradin' shipwreck" that bow-sprit'd the heart of the in-dust-ry)...
1. DPs (cinematographers 'case yer readerz are unfamiliar) got LAZY (it became similar to the sound-related "fix it in the mix" sloppy atty-tude--an' up, sound recordist were also sufferin' from similar issues)--MANY of these LAZY DPs (I can't name names cuz these folks are still workin') started to RELY on the timer to FIX (their) major errors of sloppiness like poorly lit scenes (now grain could be somewhat reduced on the viddeyo releases if not on the prints...), inconsistently lit actors, their not bothering to filter properly (eg. daylight in the winda's) and SO much more... But Color Timers (even with new viddeo tech) were NOT CGI artists (that was develop'in) and could only do "so much" as a remedy, so as a result... FILMS started ta look like SH!T (sorry ta be crude but it's TRUE)
2. Faster film stocks made DPs even LAZIER--Kodak (what's now left've it!) dumped production of it's richer slower stocks (needin' more light and nearly demanding greater production values) so a whole ERA of lazy shooting became the NORM. Folks got used ta seein' poorly lit scenes (using ambient light NOT balanced for color temp--why botha? who cares is the audience needs ta SQUINT to see the actor's expressions...it's "cool"). Folks got used ta seein' "gritty" lookin' films (often poorly shot with outta focus bits, sunspots, crap that used ta be deemed cause fer a retake!). With layzee DPs just using grainy "fast" stock rather than having to properly light dark-skinned actors, audiences got used ta that look too... ugh.
3. Direct to video OR films that would be "mostly" seen on viddeyo. SURE, even with video-aided color timing there were indeed film prints made BUT the new focus (my pal complained've this..) was on timing FOR the video... EVEN on framin' for the video! (Like the screen ratio in the viewfinder of the camera literally PLANNED for it being mostly seen on video!)... Something that would look gawd-awful on the big screen could be made to seem "fine" on the little one so many films suffered by focusin' on the end-result that their works would be shown mostly on viddeyo... blech!
All the above contributed to the "virtual" visual dumpster fire that film has become today, at least compared to pre-1980s films. ALL the tech in the world cannot fix what ain't there--EVEN if budget permits the "experts" to attempt detailed repairs...but more importantly, we humans were GROOMED to accept and to expect "less" so after all that groomin'--they were ready for meaningless orange n' blue palettes (ha! NY's colors too!) an' the newer more dour, sad, tone-deaf colors of dust (cuz the globalists wanna make the human experience just that... DUST).
I wonder what push-back'll happen? In the meantime, I'm blessin' Martin Scorsese fer usin' high tech WITH a mind for intended color choices ta RESTORE the saturation and beauty of the ol' classics.
NOW if they'd just start strikin' 35mm prints again of the OLD films (when they were tee-riffic) an' would kindly fire up the actual film projectors we'd be in bizness!
Thanks fer the deep dive inta color gradin'--I knew the viddyo tech had started the downfall but boy golly they've reached rock bottom with this 'un
ps (just a factual note) Kodak didn't make Technicolor--Technicolor was not only it's OWN filmstock, OWN patented set of cameras AND films, but ALSO a LAB! (it' was like a monopoly on the process). You couldn't even develop or print the footage without Technicolor patented chemicals. Technicolor labs long outlasted their "era" and they eventually went on to (ironically) process Kodak movie film as well as Fuji (with a good rep at least in NYC!)
Wow, Daisy, thanks for that great perspective! It's interesting that, as you say, audiences became trained to expect the lower-quality imagery. In fact, that training was so effective that CGI artists now have to add in the lens flares, grain, vignetting and other artifacts that cinematographers once sweated and prayed to avoid!
u bet! insane, right? back in the day it'd take half a day ta light a scene... now it's pernt'n'shoot an' it looks like it too! irony, tho, it used'ta cost a tenth as much (less even!) when they took time an' each image was indeed a storytellin' work of ahrt!
I actually think JJ Abrams is a pretty good storyteller, but his fetishization of lens flares is a good example of how contemporary filmmakers fixate on the superficial artifacts of the craft, rather than on the fundamental substance.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-star-trek-has-so-much-lens-flare-2015-11
Mebbe so, but ta me there is ONLY one Star Trek (no lens flares either!) and it had quite the look (clean, crisp, steady camera like steady-Kirk! camera rocked only when they were under attack!, an' no ugly flares, lightin' flatterin' to the actors, sets! etc) I stick by the original series' polly-ticks too, which in retrospect was kinda like Libertarianism in Space (I don't side now-a-daze w/ any pahrty but just sayin'); it wuz very Free ta be U n' Me separate but equal, weapons ONLY in face've threats, non-interventionist yadayada cuz later in-tar-nations mucked it up a bit an' not in a good way imo (however well told )... THIS was the look! https://tinyurl.com/bdcubn8w
I wouldn't say it's libertarian exactly ... Earth in Star Trek is governed by a benevolent one-world government with electronic currency, and of course the Enterprise itself is a military vessel, but I get your point.
yup, not xactly--but it's indeed (mostly) a non-globalist / "we go in peace"--team an' Kirk never imposes his worldview on others even when he's repulsed by some've what he sees. He honors the rules of "his" federation but will buck'em an' answer fer it too if he senses something is wrong in the bigger picture--takin' the moral high ground as they say. Always curious, sometimes bemused, never does his ship (in the original I mean) trigger 'er start wars EVEN if/when the other planet's "ways" are totalitarian, warin', anti-"human" or cult-like (eg Children of Eden) The references are purdy timely too! They are armed but their mission ain't military. When it gets hairy (or Harry Mudd!) they try ta "diffuse" an' only pull out the "big guns" if their lives depend on it, NEVER to proselytize or push democracy on others...
I see it as a "better" more pacifist vision 've America with a groovy multi-national team (with strong women thar!) that represents America's meltin' pot in the BEST sense it used'ta have (even if the team is technically multi-national). I don't recall--in the original--any currency at all. But the way I see it, in the show Earth=America and the other nations are represented by "The Galexies" so in this expanded model it's more like these other planets in other constellations 'r like sovereign nations--here they're just "beyond" Earth....
Thus, what'cha say is right technically but it still doesn't look like feel like 'er work like globalism because the model has shifted focus (wide angle) with a host've sovereign nations bein' represented by other planets, galexies, etc..
Just my take on it... I'd ruther have Kirk as POTUS than much've what we wuz hornswaggled inta acceptin' at the helm here -- somehow I think Gene Roddenbarry, a former pilot himself, felt the same!
I'd like to agree with you, because I really do love Star Trek (although I'm partial to Picard), but as anthropologist David Graeber has explained persuasively, the future envisioned by Roddenberry is very much a global Marxist utopia. The fact that everyone is on board with the agenda, and the society has no malcontents is a huge red flag. Capitalism is represented by the Ferengi, who are probably the most loathsome caricatures of Jewish stereotypes short of the Gringott's trolls, and anyone who objects to Federation hegemony (notably the Romulans) is cast as the villain, simply because they dissent.
Okey dokey, I hear ya--gotta revisit!
Growin' up with the series what I kept "im kopf" was universally positive--the overall picture was ta me one've "democracy in space" (in fact the cultish/"marxist" utopias--eg Children of Eden--were failures! others too tho' I'd have ta revisit... The show was sort of like a surface study of diff. societies...). To a kid (at least), it was very American--like a Western in space an' space wuz the wild West! Admittedly I recall zilch about Ferengi (one episode? more?) Soitenly with Messers Coike n' Schpock at the Chelm (!), it's hard ta imagine what ya describe stereotype-wise gettin' past those two scmarties (btw Nimoy did Yiddish theater!). Both performers were great personalities on any plate (Shatner is still sharp!), even outside them famous "rolls" (bialy-style). It's possible but sometimes even an "intended" readin' (if such was the case--tho mebbe not cuz Roddenberry was a straight-shooter military guy, not pro USSR... from what I gather..) but yeah, even if writers pushed one "message" at times the intended one is not the one most folks git as a take-away... To wit, all the supposedly "sexist" women's films where the dame gives up her career (Annie Git Yer Gun style / His Girl Friday style) ta keep her man. NOBUDDY buys it--we all KNOW Annie & Hildy ain't down fer the count). It's not even readin' against the grain to see that there are two sets've messages... Mebbe so with Star Trek too?! BUT....
I'll give it a look see at Mista Grabber! (fwiw I do recall a lotta malcontents on the shipperoo includin' among the key players, in fact each one gits an epi-sode ta do some donkey kicks--an' many times Kirk's authority is challenged by such issues so he's gotta prove his onions ta the others...) Thanks fer lettin' me know 'bout this guy--not sure if I'll buy his-story but hey, histry' is a living thing includin' that've teevee! Thx!
Ps I found this frum the Forvard online (a counter narrative? anyway fun stuff!):
"However horrendous the Ferengi are — and they’re pretty awful — many forget their noble equivalents, the Bajorans. The Bajorans (not from orig. series) are a displaced tech-savvy species who have been compared to Jews in the Diaspora or modern Israelis (though more recently people have made the case for this advanced race serving as a Palestinian analogue). But even more important than the Bajorans are the Vulcans.
Thanks to Leonard Nimoy’s Jewish upbringing, Vulcans salute the cabin crew with a V-shaped hand symbol that resembles the spread fingers of the Kohanim blessing their congregation. Any time Trekkies make the gesture, and they’re wont to, they’re paying homage to this legacy. "
Who'd a thunk?
A late note...
So there's a good reason I don't 'member these supposedly "anti-Jewish" Ferengi -- they were not part of the original series that ended in 1969! They were invented in 1987, a far cry from the groovy sixties. Again, I only know the original series with Shatner & Nimoy that I wartched religiously (!) in reruns growin' up (in them also groovy 70's!) an' loved it--I saw one new one, not my cuppa tea...) -- so I'm'a gonna stick ta my spaceguns on this fer now--couldn't find anythin' compelling from Graeber on the topic 'cept a tweet that the show was a "marxist wannabbe" series (not buyin' it) but please DO post a link if there is more... Again, I'm speakin' 'bout the series that ended in '69--ta me it's the ONLY one (we certi-fried crackpots have a lotta strong op-onions on stuff!) ;-)
HERE is the bit that I read 'bout them Ferengi:
The Ferengi (/fəˈrɛŋɡi/) are a fictional extraterrestrial species in the American science fiction franchise Star Trek. They were devised in 1987 for the series Star Trek: The Next Generation...