 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 31, 2010 - 4:26 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
This is a follow-up to this thread:
http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=72178&forumID=7&archive=0
...and in a way to this one:
http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=20562&forumID=1&archive=1
Well, I've now seen most of the recommended titles in the first thread, in addition to the first ones (I like to see the start of any new TV show):
THE CAGE (pilot)
WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE (pilot)
THE MAN TRAP
CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER
BALANCE OF TERROR
THE NAKED TIME
AMOK TIME
DOOMSDAY MACHINE
THE ENEMY WITHIN
THE MENAGERIE (which was basically just a remake of THE CAGE)
These were, according to the people in the first thread, some of the best episodes ST had to offer, that didn't include silly rubber monster thingies and so on.
Well, I'm sorry to say that I have to concede to Jehannum's prediction - none of them are really my cup of tea, and really constitute a type of sci fi that I don't connect to very easily. They are not that much different from its colleague LOST IN SPACE, IMO; although perhaps slightly less campy. very often, it's a little too much of this, which kinda turns me off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHjFxJVeCQs
That said, my favourite of these was probably THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE. Effects were pretty OK, the narrative tight and credible (within a sci fi setting), with some looming, mythological back stories, which I always love.
I also liked Nimoy's acting when his logical exterior was under pressure, like in AMOK TIME and one of the other ones, I can't remember.
I connect far more easily to the "space opera" version (STAR WARS) or the serious approach (ALIEN) than I do this. Sorry. At least I gave it a shot.
Also, I'm not necessarily saying that I won't be seeing more TOS episodes. There were some nice bits here and there, and there's probably some of those in episodes I haven't seen too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the "dramatic prairie dog" stinger-type-stuff you don't care for is just the inevitable "cut-to-commercial" kind of suspense technique typical of late-'60s commercial television.
Does this kind of thing bother you in a James Bond movie of the period, or can you sort of "adjust for it."
(. . . Or is it just not worth the effort?)
Did any of the music stand out for you? "Doomsday Machine" has one of the great scores by Sol Kaplan, but all the series music is excellent IMHO.
Do you get any sense of the three main characters, their chemistry, and a development of their relationship at all, over the course of the episodes you watched? How would you compare it with the Star Wars characters? As you know, I've ALWAYS found them to have MUCH more depth by comparison, but to be fair, they've been "friends of mine" for decades now. 
Thanks for taking the time to investigate the original series, Thor. I look forward to any further observations you may have, and to all future attempts, should you ever feel like getting back to it. Let me know if any other recommendations would help. 
I'm trying to think which other episodes have looming, mythological back stories. Hmm . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 31, 2010 - 5:07 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I guess the "dramatic prairie dog" stinger-type-stuff you don't care for is just the inevitable "cut-to-commercial" kind of suspense technique typical of late-'60s commercial television.
Does this kind of thing bother you in a James Bond movie of the period, or can you sort of "adjust for it."
(. . . Or is it just not worth the effort?)
Well, the Bond films have other (film musical) issues that I don't connect to, as I talk about in the other thread. Not necessarily so much the dramatic stinger type.
But yeah, these things prevent me from being ENGROSSED in the narrative for the most part. I am, however, perfectly aware that they were a common technique at the time. So the enjoyment or appreciation goes more from being engrossed to having a more academic interest (as in "hmm, interesting to see how they made films and tv shows back then"). They kinda pull me out a bit, as much as I try to look BEYOND them., but it creates other kinds of interest. Like when I watch the first KING KONG film.
Did any of the music stand out for you? "Doomsday Machine" has one of the great scores by Sol Kaplan, but all the series music is excellent IMHO.
Well, I remembered the dramatic outbursts in the AMOK TIME duel, mostly because they were parodied in Jim Carrey's THE CABLE GUY. DOOMSDAY was pretty lugubrious too. I also remember the more gritty, jazzy, urban 30's thing for CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER (fun seeing Joan Collins in an early role, btw!). It's not really my kind of music, but I can see and hear the musical qualities and skill going into it.
Do you get any sense of the three main characters, their chemistry, and a development of their relationship at all, over the course of the episodes you watched?
A little bit, yes, it's interesting to see how the characters are set up - with Spock and McCoy being the polar opposites, with Kirk inbetween. They are Kirk's emotional spectrum, in a way.
How would you compare it with the Star Wars characters?
Well, STAR WARS operates on a more operatic level, with characters drawn from the galleries of Germanic literature and art. As such, they are aggrandizements of human values, emotions, urges and dreams (and all the conflicts they entail). STAR TREK seems to be more "pointed" in terms of specific human features, and then materialized in the various characters. Personally, I dont' quite get the "depth" here, but as I said earlier - it's interesting when Spock tries to add nuance by showing the inner conflicts of his human/Vulcan biology.
Thanks for taking the time to investigate the original series, Thor. I look forward to any further observations you may have, and to all future attempts, should you ever feel like getting back to it. Let me know if any other recommendations would help.
Thank you, I will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 31, 2010 - 11:48 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ToneRow
(Member)
|
none of them are really my cup of tea, and really constitute a type of sci fi that I don't connect to very easily. They are not that much different from its colleague LOST IN SPACE, IMO; although perhaps slightly less campy.
I connect far more easily to the "space opera" version (STAR WARS) or the serious approach (ALIEN) than I do this. Sorry. At least I gave it a shot.
Also, I'm not necessarily saying that I won't be seeing more TOS episodes. There were some nice bits here and there, and there's probably some of those in episodes I haven't seen too.
I find it interesting that classic American sci-fi television, which had scripts written by authors such as Richard Matheson, Robert Bloch, Harlan Ellison, etc. fails to appeal to Thor.
THE TWILIGHT ZONE, THE OUTER LIMITS, STAR TREK, plus others all had superbly written shows which were like plays adapted for television, with fine characterizations, florid dialogue, wide-ranging vocabulary, usually expressionistic photography, and full-blooded music.
To me, there is a world of difference between Gene Roddenberry's STAR TREK and Irwin Allen's LOST IN SPACE in terms of levels of sophistication and sensibilities; nevertheless, they both can appear similar (with respect to their time periods and medium in which they were made) in comparison to cinema decades later.
Films such as ALIEN and OUTLAND rely heavily on production design and set decoration and special effects for their atmosphere. We don't hear Sigourney Weaver or Sean Connery reciting yards of Rod Serling-style vernacular in these movies to achieve audience impact.
If these types of fantasy/horror/sci-fi hardware movies, with high body counts or juvenile saber fights or exploding heads are your type of fiction, then go ahead and be my guest...
...speaking for myself, I prefer to watch 2 or 3 performers act in a single set for 5 minutes, pronounce impressive dialogue (even if 1 of them is wearing a rubber mask), with globs of moody lighting in the background (with or without music) 
P.S., Thor, if you are going to watch any further episodes of the original STAR TREK series, my favorite segments are "Is There In Truth No Beauty?" and "The Ultimate Computer"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 31, 2010 - 12:56 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I find it interesting that classic American sci-fi television, which had scripts written by authors such as Richard Matheson, Robert Bloch, Harlan Ellison, etc. fails to appeal to Thor.
Well, they could have been written by Shakespeare for that matter. It's more a question of execution than storytelling (although there's obviously a connection between the two).
Films such as ALIEN and OUTLAND rely heavily on production design and set decoration and special effects for their atmosphere. We don't hear Sigourney Weaver or Sean Connery reciting yards of Rod Serling-style vernacular in these movies to achieve audience impact.
No, thank God.
If these types of fantasy/horror/sci-fi hardware movies, with high body counts or juvenile saber fights or exploding heads are your type of fiction, then go ahead and be my guest...
Well, that's your "strawman" rhetoric speaking, I think (i.e. reducing the contents of the films I prefer to something which they're not). No, I guess you could say I'm more interested in the ART aspect of science fiction, the utilization of audiovisual means to communicate moods and symbolism.
If there's going to be humanoids with pointy ears and twisted foreheads speaking broadly American, it must be in an all-out space opera idiom, like STAR WARS or arguably BABYLON 5. Otherwise, there's no way I'm buying into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 31, 2010 - 3:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
A person's like or dislike of TOS is always according to their interpretation of it, of course. Sort of like, "what you get out of it is what you put into it". But I find it is the most useful to take the approach that, even though it's commonly called a sci-fi show, it's really not that at all. It was hardly ever about technology, it's mainly about humanity. It just happens to be set in outer space.
Good stories about human foibles, even when the characters are not human.
Forget the hardware, it's just the accoutrements upon which the plots are occasionally hung.
I think that's my main beef with the series. If it's going to be a serious depiction of inter-human relations set in space, I prefer things that don't have any "pointy ears", if you know what I mean. DEFYING GRAVITY did this, as did BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (the new version), both of which I love. Either go all the way realistic, like those series, or go all the way space opera, like STAR WARS. Or alternatively go the more arty route, where you use elements of visuals and sound to create a moody/symbolic amalgam (like ALIEN or SOLARIS or 2001).
STAR TREK seems to want to do this, but I can't take it seriously because of all the "camp" surrounding it. It becomes superficial and, in my opinion, a bit silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 31, 2010 - 5:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
I grew up watching TNG and all that followed and only know the TOS crew from the movies. And in those movies the chemistry was good and Shatner's acting was tolerable. Watching the original show feels awkward to me, because I feel like it's something I've missed out on and the universe of TOS seems small in comparison to that of TNG, DS9 & Voyager.
By the time of TNG, the Trek universe had become all bureaucratized; it was a geek heaven. DS9 took that starting point and then want to war, militarizing the bureaucratic setup and swinging Star Trek as close to Star Wars as it can get. But go back to Star Trek, and it's not about the protocol you follow when you explore strange new worlds -- it's about exploring strange new worlds -- worlds that often happened to be dark reflections of humanity, when they weren't simply crazy! And there was much craziness, and our pajamed adventurers figured it out and moved on, unless they happened to be in red shirts, in which case they'd often die screaming. In TNG there was a whole system, a peaceable Starfleet exploring the galaxy. In TOS, Starfleet was nuts. It didn't work. It wasn't the point. Its only point was to serve up crazy commodores every so often. TOS was rugged and a bit nuts; TNG was stately and dignified.
I grew up on TNG and DS9, and to me they defined Star Trek, and really still define it, and I spent a whole lot of years not "getting" the original series. It seemed primitive, this bizarre thing that had formed the foundation of this huge, coherent fictional universe that I loved, but that didn't really seem of that universe, not anymore. It wasn't until after I stopped being a Trekkie, stopped being so uptight about the continuity and technicalities and all that and was ready to simply enjoy the shows as entertainment, that I was finally able to start to enjoy the original Trek.
Voyager tried to go back to the strangeness and insanity, but I think they forgot to add in a dash of fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 1, 2010 - 5:35 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
By the time of TNG, the Trek universe had become all bureaucratized; it was a geek heaven. DS9 took that starting point and then want to war, militarizing the bureaucratic setup and swinging Star Trek as close to Star Wars as it can get. But go back to Star Trek, and it's not about the protocol you follow when you explore strange new worlds -- it's about exploring strange new worlds -- worlds that often happened to be dark reflections of humanity, when they weren't simply crazy! And there was much craziness, and our pajamed adventurers figured it out and moved on, unless they happened to be in red shirts, in which case they'd often die screaming. In TNG there was a whole system, a peaceable Starfleet exploring the galaxy. In TOS, Starfleet was nuts. It didn't work. It wasn't the point. Its only point was to serve up crazy commodores every so often. TOS was rugged and a bit nuts; TNG was stately and dignified.
You make some good points. The bureaucracy element is certainly true, heck, they even have board meetings to discuss action. But aside from the structure, there is also the human element. The family factor is so much more present in the later shows. Instead of seeing these characters simply perform their job (doctor, captain, ensign, ...) we get acquainted with their personal lives, hobbies, family... TNG did a great job with putting families on the ship, making ten forward a place to blow out steam and having Whoopi Goldberg present. Also Worf and Crusher both have their son aboard, even Data's daily habits make for good entertainment. It adds more to the family factor of the show which at the end of the day makes star trek more appealing than just another spaceship going to battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They are not that much different from its colleague LOST IN SPACE, IMO; although perhaps slightly less campy. That said, my favourite of these was probably THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE. Effects were pretty OK, the narrative tight and credible (within a sci fi setting), with some looming, mythological back stories, which I always love.
The Doomsday Machine is actually my favorite episode of the series. It is very tight with no distracting bits to pull away from the story. It's very lean writing, and with the absense of Uhura and Chekov, there's little room for pointless dialog to justify screen time.
The series recently had a CGI facelift. While, as an old school fan, I found that unecessary it did help a few episodes. This was one of them. If you have a chance to check out the re-done version, give that a spin. At the very least, it takes the old AMT model kit out of the segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 1, 2010 - 6:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Lee S
(Member)
|
Obviously all this comes back to personal taste; not only what is compelling or dull to different people, but also what kind of material is of interest. However...
One of the things I look for in drama is levels: in how many different ways is the piece offering sources of ideas or feelings at the same time? Star Trek (and I am referring to the show itself, not the spin-offs) was always operating on several levels at once. Different episodes combine adventure and suspense, characterization and relationships, social allegory, broader philosophy, classical homages and paraphrases, and science fiction "what ifs?" Not all the levels work equally well in all the episodes, but the success rate is high enough that after all these years, I can keep returning to Star Trek and finding new things to see and new ways of seeing them. For me, Star Wars and some of the other work discussed here is enjoyable (I definitely like Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back a lot), but lacks the multi-faceted nature of Star Trek.
The only issue I would take up as far as comparisons go is the use of the word "realistic." Alien and Blade Runner et al. may be more physically detailed, but their view of the future is, at best, an equally valid interpretation. Philosophically and psychologically, their view of human beings in the future (and, by extension,now) is very different from Star Trek's, but pessimism does not automatically offer greater legitimacy (Mad Men notwithstanding).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 1, 2010 - 7:22 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I wonder, did you see the new Star Trek movie by J.J. Abrams featuring the same characters? I'm sure this is more up your alley as it has that big space opera Star Wars look and was IMO a good revamp of the series.
Yes, I did see that, and it was OK (although, to be blunt, I can't remember much of it other than the scene with Kirk driving a fast car and the Spock/Spock encounter....guess it didn't make much of an impact). Still not my sci fi preference, but entertaining, spectacular and slightly more realistic in execution.
Thor,
I want you to order the DVD of Amazon Women on the Moon! You will laugh hard (it's a spoof).
I don't understand why realism should be part of the criteria for sci-fi (or any film) being good.
In my eyes, it should. Still, I can enjoy a spoof or comedy like SPACEBALLS, obviously, which has been made to be INTENTIONALLY funny. Maybe even the film you mention, if it's in the same genre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
