# How Star Trek TOS Has Stood the Test of Time



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

As requested by drmcoy, here is a new thread to discuss how ST:TOS has stood the test of time. Let the debate ensue ...


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Oh, yes, and just to start things off: I, Mudd rated "poor"? Flipping hilarious!



Stella said:


> Harcourt Fenton Mudd! You've been drinking again ...


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3899063&postcount=575


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Paulbo said:


> Oh, yes, and just to start things off: I, Mudd rated "poor"? Flipping hilarious!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3899063&postcount=575


I refute.



Warped9 said:


> *"I, Mudd" **
> 
> _A group of androids hijack the Enterprise and intend to "take care" of humanity._
> 
> ...


For me an occasional belly laugh isn't enough to make an episode good. And for me "I, Mudd" has always been a low moment for TOS. It has done humour far better without being so stupid. Fortunately TOS produced a lot more good episodes than fair or poor. And it's much on the strength of the good work that helped TOS connect with so many viewers. If it really had had only a few memorable episodes then it never would have succeeded the way it did.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

it is late, and as i wish to give this thread considered thought, i will post within the net day or so...thanks for starting a fresh thread.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Ok, well I'll chime in.

The Turnabout Intruder is fair? What a stink bomb! Kirk doing his nails?

And Whom Gods Destroy is poor! Come on a green Yvonne Craig! Hello! 
That alone is worth the price of admission. 

In all seriousness, a great job on the list. 

I was surprised to see just how many 3rd season episodes you rated good or excellent. I agree, but we all tend to think the 3rd season is the worst season. Maybe because of Spocks Brain and The Lights of Zetar.

I think Star Treks longevity can be boiled down to 3 points.

1. production values. It may not seem like it now, but a lot of money and talent went into making TOS a great show. Gerry Finnerman's cinematography is second to none, Innovative directing, and top notch sets (For the time) are icing on the cake.

2. Writing. It really is way above par for tv. Even today. The writing staff and Roddenberry really seemed to obsess over this.

3. Acting. The top 3- Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelly are really really good and play well against each other. The next 4 supporting cast are also very competent. Lastly the guest casting was spot on.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

If you read the thread over on the TBBs you'll see that I wasn't rating these episodes by memory tinged with nostalgia. I sat down and rewatched every episode in production order (to get a better sense of series progression). I tried to evaluate each episode by how well it accomplished what it seemed to be trying to do and the degree to which it was consistent or made sense within the show's own context.

One of the biggest things I rediscovered was how well so much of the series holds up by today's standards. If everything could be equal there is relatively little story and script wise that would have to be changed to make this work today.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

A few sexist kinks ("look at my legs") & reused castle sets aside, I think it holds up perfectly. Even better with the re-done FX.
But writing & acting is what made (makes) it timelessly peerless. Plus an iconic & singularly unusual starship design.
Firefly came really close to this level with great characters & dialogue, but nothing actually approaches the SF scope that ST achieved IMO.
Nothing.


----------



## Rotwang (May 25, 2011)

Shouldn't this be over in the Sci Fi Discussion Area?


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

[How Star Trek TOS Has Stood the Test of Time]

Wasn't it because of the grid lines? 

<duck>

Gene

PS - I think it was just one of those peculiar, non-tangible instances where the planets line up for a brief moment and move on - "the right show at the right time" kinda thing.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I think the new effects and restoration work have helped a lot to make it stand the test of time. 

Most of the stories still stand up and the new cg has complemented it well.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

SUNGOD said:


> Most of the stories still stand up and the new cg has complemented it well.


THANK YOU!!! :wave:
We reach!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Irrespective of "I, Mudd," one of the reasons Trek worked so well was because it was able to integrate humor--and more specifically, character-related humor, into its format. That's one of the key reasons people remember the show fondly, even though it's probably not the first thing Trekkies would list as their favorite aspect of the show. But the humor made the characters distinctly "human" (Spock included), which was highly unusual for that kind of program. And Trek managed to do it without undercutting the believability of their universe (unlike Lost in Space, which would happily do away with even the meager amount of credibility they had for the sake of a joke).

I also want to point to "The Menagerie"--I think this two-parter has become underrated over the years because "The Cage" has been made available so most people tend to gravitate toward that as the "real" version of that story. But if you think about it, "The Menagerie" is almost single-handedly responsible for the whole Trek mythology/continuity aspect--which is another extremely important reason the show has been able to evolve and grow in its own mythology and fanbase. By showing Kirk and Co. contrasted with an earlier crew of the Enterprise--one that looks fascinatingly "dated" by the two year difference between the productions--the show established an entire history for its universe and for the Enterprise itself. And that in turn laid the foundations for showing future Enterprises and their respective crews, as well as an entire Starfleet, Federation and all the history those organizations entail. It all seemed "real"--especially in the sixties and seventies when the futurism didn't seem quite so unreasonably optimistic as it might now.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

GKvfx said:


> [How Star Trek TOS Has Stood the Test of Time]
> 
> Wasn't it because of the grid lines?


Ducking won't help!









-JK


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

jbond said:


> I also want to point to "The Menagerie"--I think this two-parter has become underrated over the years because "The Cage" has been made available so most people tend to gravitate toward that as the "real" version of that story. But if you think about it, "The Menagerie" is almost single-handedly responsible for the whole Trek mythology/continuity aspect--which is another extremely important reason the show has been able to evolve and grow in its own mythology and fanbase. By showing Kirk and Co. contrasted with an earlier crew of the Enterprise--one that looks fascinatingly "dated" by the two year difference between the productions--the show established an entire history for its universe and for the Enterprise itself. And that in turn laid the foundations for showing future Enterprises and their respective crews, as well as an entire Starfleet, Federation and all the history those organizations entail. It all seemed "real"--especially in the sixties and seventies when the futurism didn't seem quite so unreasonably optimistic as it might now.


Kudos for an amazing analysis!!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

*Warped9*

Tried using *Revisiting TOS* but with no index or even a listing of production order, there's no way I'm pouring through 75 pages to find your take on "The City On The Edge Of Forever". 

Just asking.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Weird. I thought I'd already posted about this ...



Warped9 said:


> I refute...


(In relation to my [Paulbo's] mentioning that I didn't think "I, Mudd" rated a poor rating.)

My take on it was that it was a self-referentially humorous take on "What are Little Girls Made of?". Self-consciously making fun of themselves was/is something that serious television shows just don't do.

True, there were some parts that I don't like (the phweet phweet "phaser" bit), but overall it's in my top 50% of the episodes. ("Top 50%" coming from a very non-scientific guestimate.)


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> I think the new effects and restoration work have helped a lot to make it stand the test of time.
> 
> Most of the stories still stand up and the new cg has complemented it well.


Nonsense. The new f/x are only a few years old if that. TOS stood on its own in its original form for decades before the new f/x came along.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

iriseye said:


> *Warped9*
> 
> Tried using *Revisiting TOS* but with no index or even a listing of production order, there's no way I'm pouring through 75 pages to find your take on "The City On The Edge Of Forever".
> 
> Just asking.


Go to page 15 and scroll near the bottom of the page.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Nonsense. The new f/x are only a few years old if that. TOS stood on its own in its original form for decades before the new f/x came along.


Just an fyi, the first remastered episode premiered in September 2006, so they're now 5 years old.

I completely agree that the remastering had nothing to do with the show's longevity and/or popularity. Good writing and interesting storytelling, strong performances, and solid chemistry between the cast members are what kept the fans coming back for four decades. I also concur with your earlier statement that these 45-year-old episodes would require little or no rewriting/updating to be just as relevant today as they were in the 60s.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> Just an fyi, the first remastered episode premiered in September 2006, so they're now 5 years old.
> 
> I completely agree that the remastering had nothing to do with the show's longevity and/or popularity. Good writing and interesting storytelling, strong performances, and solid chemistry between the cast members are what kept the fans coming back for four decades. I also concur with your earlier statement that these 45-year-old episodes would require little or no rewriting/updating to be just as relevant today as they were in the 60s.


I also have to say that I'm not alone in preferring to watch the episodes with the original f/x. Many of the new f/x are a fail for me because they look so contemporary and I know they couldn't have done anything like that even with feature film resources back in the day. The new f/x often jar me out of the story...

...but that's not a discussion for here.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

okay, i'll dive in...a little at first, then more as time and your interest in reading permit.

first, know that i adore the original series. love it. started watching when i was 6 or 7. i'm pushing 50. seen every episode a zillion times. no, really. a zillion.

attended conventions. ran around back yard in my captain kirk shirt with home made phaser strapped to my side. met leonard nimoy, william shatner, gene roddenberry, george takei.

built the models. bought the figures. built more models. bought more figures. 

point is, i am a trekkie and proud of it. 

that said, i still enjoy trek and appreciate it for what it was/is. but to me, as much as i love it, many of the episodes do NOT hold up for many reasons.

to keep my explanations readable, i will split them up so this post isn't a zillion paragraphs long.

i believe i will approach my explanation of why Trek does not hold up by exploring it from these angles: PLOT/STORY, CHARACTERS, ART/DESIGN, VISUAL EFFECTS. i reserve the right to change/modify this approach according to my mood/whim. 

my intent is to simply share my viewpoint on all this, not change yours or spark debate. you can certainly take issue with anything i write, but my mind is pretty much made up with how i feel, so if i do not reply to any remarks you make to my posts, it isn't because i don't find merit in them, but because it likely serves no purpose for me to do so. you have your opinion. i have mine.

that said, enough of my set-up remarks. next post will be my take on plot/story, and how they have stood the test of time...or not.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Warped9 said:


> I also have to say that I'm not alone in preferring to watch the episodes with the original f/x. Many of the new f/x are a fail for me because they look so contemporary and I know they couldn't have done anything like that even with feature film resources back in the day. The new f/x often jar me out of the story...
> 
> ...but that's not a discussion for here.




You say I'm talking nonsense but surely the *whole point *of the new fx *is* to do something they couldn't do back in the 60s? And why is it a problem knowing they couldn't do fx like that back then? Surely what matters is that the new fx look very similar to the original fx (and most of them do) and they blend in with the live action footage (which most of them do too). 

Or do you think they should have made the new fx look grainy, made the Enterprise transparent in parts, made the movement of the ships look stiff and made them so they looked like they were made in the 60s with primitive fx technology?


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Warped9 said:


> Nonsense. The new f/x are only a few years old if that. TOS stood on its own in its original form for decades before the new f/x came along.



Did I say it didn't? I just said the new fx compliment the stories well and most of the stories stand up too. If you don't like the new fx then that's up to you, but I'm sure many people *do* like them.

They've taken a classic series that was looking a bit long in the tooth (perhaps you can't see it but I'm sure many people can) and they've spruced it up. 

They've improved the sound, picture and although not always perfect.....the fx too.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Chrisisall said:


> THANK YOU!!! :wave:
> We reach!


Nice to see other people that appreciate the new fx.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> You say I'm talking nonsense but surely the *whole point *of the new fx *is* to do something they couldn't do back in the 60s? And why is it a problem knowing they couldn't do fx like that back then? Surely what matters is that the new fx look very similar to the original fx (and most of them do) and they blend in with the live action footage (which most of them do too).
> 
> Or do you think they should have made the new fx look grainy, made the Enterprise transparent in parts, made the movement of the ships look stiff and made them so they looked like they were made in the 60s with primitive fx technology?


And this is where I strongly disagree. I think it's an insult to the original production staff and their creativity to remake something in a way impossible back in the day. If you want to go that far then make something new from scratch rather than crap on someone else's work.

The aesthetic style between the new f/x and the remaining live-action footage is so distinctly different that I always find it laughable that some claim they think it fits perfectly. Part of this, of course, was a cost saving measure because to do it right would have taken more time, more creativity and thus more money.

What they should have done was make the new f/x look like state-of-the-art '60s era feature film production rather than early 21st century obvious cgi. In example I offer the beauty of the f/x in _2001: A Space Odyssey_ which offers beautiful f/x that certainly don't look like flat cgi.

I don't pretend to try to convince anyone. I only know what my eyes can clearly see and for that the new f/x are mostly a fail. They claimed to want to respect the original source material, but they did little of the sort particularly when they elected to change things wholesale for arbitrary reasons.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

please read Post #21 for quick recap of the story behind what I am about to post.

first up, PLOT/STORY.

to me, the best science fiction stories are those that first and foremost, tell a good STORY, and secondly, use the many varied aspects of "futuristic science" not just as set dressing, but as either the springboard that is integral to the story OR the "futuristic science" is compelling enough to become the main aspect OF the story.

to me, so many of the TOS episodes were thinly disguised morality plays, with the "science" of the "science fiction" serving merely as backdrop to the action. in other words, you could reduce the story down to one that had no inherent need for the "futuristic" backdrop other than the fact that it was indeed STAR TREK and required space ships and aliens, etc etc. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and all the usual suspects were simply there to help tell the story that was not dependent on the setting being in the future.

i hope that made some sense.

i understand the reason this was done -- after all, it was a weekly TV series whose primary task was to ENTERTAIN as wide an audience as possible so that the commercial sponsors advertisements had viewers who would see their advertising and then go buy whatever brand of soap they were selling.

so, the writers are given the guidelines on the cast/crew and told to develop dramas based on this futuristic world.

thing is, some writers told stories that, to me, were rehashes of stories that could (or were) told in other genre TV shows (westerns, thrillers, etc) but told within the Trek universe setting.

i'll have to check episode list to get a count, but my guess is that only 10 to 20% of any given seasons episodes presented unique stories that were truly science fiction-driven in nature, and not simply a rehashed story/drama with Star Trek sprinkled in.

to be fair, i need to provide some specific examples, which i will do next post later tonite or tomorrow.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Warped9 said:


> And this is where I strongly disagree. I think it's an insult to the original production staff and their creativity to remake something in a way impossible back in the day. If you want to go that far then make something new from scratch rather than crap on someone else's work.
> 
> The aesthetic style between the new f/x and the remaining live-action footage is so distinctly different that I always find it laughable that some claim they think it fits perfectly. Part of this, of course, was a cost saving measure because to do it right would have taken more time, more creativity and thus more money.
> 
> ...



How on earth is it an insult to remake something in a way impossible back in the day? The fx guys back then would have loved todays technology to create their fx work and to say the new cgi is crapping on their work is ludicrous. The series with the original fx is out there if you want to watch it so it's not as if they're trying to destroy that.

Maybe I'm on my own but when I watch the remastered series I don't find it jarring at all when the new fx come on. They've done such a good job of cleaning up the sound and picture that I don't find the new fx aesthetically that different to the live action.

Maybe it would have been a good thing to have 2001 effects with model work but even then they'd probably have used some cg fx work. And don't forget.....they scan the models anyway for the cg. So in a sense model work *has* been used.

The only real thing that could be improved is some of the lighting which I agree looks a bit flat in places......but that can probably be improved anyway in the future.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

my quick 2 cents on enhanced FX --

i certainly liked the "idea" behind this, and as much as i love to see the special embellishments (gorn eyes blinking, long exterior shots of vulcan, etc) I will say that the majority of "ship" CGI is a bit jarring -- perhaps because i have the original show FX imprinted on my brain.

not sure it is worthy of a knock down drag out debate...as i have said, you either like em or you don't, and not sure how much one can say that will sway one's opinions on this one way or the other.

that said, it would have been cool to see if they could have enhanced the ship effects more subtlely, to retain the look/feel/graininess of film, but with the enhanced angles -- that is one thing the CGI did well -- we get to see Enterprise in all her glory, and not limited to the 5 or 6 "stock" shots the original FX were limited to.

however, there is a certain charm to the original ship fx, and i still love them for what they are...i can't imagine redoing the LOST IN SPACE Jupiter II scenes with CGI -- too much love and affection for the model shots.

i suppose my biggest question is why people would think that revamping Trek FX would open this to a while new audience...i believe the younger crowd would be more apt to thumb their nose at trek NOT because of FX, but because the plots/story/acting are NOT in line with what they are accustomed to watching...i think younger generations would have a hard time sitting through some of the stiff acting and, in many cases, ludicrous plot lines.

and remember, this is coming from someone (me) who ADORES the show.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

drmcoy said:


> i think younger generations would have a hard time sitting through some of the stiff acting and, in many cases, ludicrous plot lines.


My 12 year old Son has watched ALL of the TOS eps twice now. He's seen Voyager & TNG, Stargate Atlantis, BSG (TOS), heck, even Buck Rogers.
STTOS is his hands down favourite of the bunch. He says that it's because of the characters. BUT, when I showed him some eps with the original FX, he apologized to me saying that he appreciates the FX of that time, but he finds them too distracting to the overall episodes. 
:freak:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The best solution overall for the remastering would have been to locate the original filmed effects elements (bluescreen stage and model shots, on-set setups, planets, starfields, animations, transporter, etc.) and carefully scan them at 4K resolution, digitally repair and restore them, and then recomposite them digitally with all of the state-of-the-art tools that were available in 2006 to remove blue spill, eliminate matte lines and keep everything in a "1st-generation" quality to match the original stage photography. 

That way, you would have gotten all of the benefits of the digital tools, but retain the original elements from the period, only present them in a way that would show the contemporary audience just how beautiful they really were, without the veil of excessive generational build-up of film grain, contrast and dirt. Which was a result of the limitation of optical compositing at the time.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

That would have been excellent, except for 2 things.
1) Too expensive, they'd never do it.
2) Some eps needed some entirely new shots, like Doomsday Machine & Amok Time.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

The origianl FX were among the best at that time, better than a lot of motion pictures, with the exception of a few big studio produced movies. Desilu was a very small studio in comparison to Fox or MGM, but they always strove for quality.(Mission: Impossible was a Desilu show) Also consider the extremely limited budgets for tv at the time. I think it's a credit to the production team that they were able to do what they did.

As far as the stories, they were extremely relevant for their time, addressing meaningful issues intelligently and passionately.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

True story: Back when the local TV station started running the original series with the enhanced effects I heard a friend's teenage son raving about this "new" Star Trek show that was on. He was convinced this was a new series using the characters from the first six movies, recast with younger actors because it looked new with the cgi effects and restored film elements. It was only after being shown DVD's of the original series did realize what he had been missing. He had been born during the heyday of Next Generation and grew up watching it as well as Voyager, Enterprise and Deep Space Nine. He enjoyed those shows and even the movies with the original series cast but he would not watch the original series because it was too "hokey". My friend had given up trying to get his son to watch the original series several years before, but now he is hooked on it.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

kenlee said:


> My friend had given up trying to get his son to watch the original series several years before, but now he is hooked on it.


Mission:_ Accomplished_.

And the greatest thing is: the original FX eps have not been disappeared! We have the choice.:thumbsup:


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

kenlee said:


> My friend had given up trying to get his son to watch the original series several years before, but now he is hooked on it.


this is encouraging news. then i'll ease up on my prior remark, as it appears that there still are some of the younger generation who have been engaged by the show because of the enhanced FX.

love to hear more stories like this.

and for whoever said it would have been cool to have them take all original FX footage and plus it up to today's standards, cool idea...but i also agree with whoever said no way no how cause studio would never cough up the cash to make it happen.

too bad george lucas doesn't own TOS Trek -- we'd be getting enhanced versions every year or three


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

drmcoy said:


> too bad george lucas doesn't own TOS Trek -- we'd be getting enhanced versions every year or three


....forbid.... FOR...BID!!!!...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chrisisall said:


> That would have been excellent, except for 2 things.
> 1) Too expensive, they'd never do it.
> 2) Some eps needed some entirely new shots, like Doomsday Machine & Amok Time.


And 3) The individual effects elements don't exist anymore.

So, short of hauling the eleven footer out of its display case at the Smithsonian and setting up an effects stage in an aircraft hangar (to get those really long flybys), CGI was the only way to go.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Captain April said:


> hauling the eleven footer out of its display case at the Smithsonian and setting up an effects stage in an aircraft hangar


Oh Cap'n, stop makin' us dream.....


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Captain April said:


> And 3) The individual effects elements don't exist anymore.


Oh, yes. They do. You just have to look in the right place.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Trek Ace said:


> You just have to look in the right place.


Area 51?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> Oh, yes. They do. You just have to look in the right place.


Where? The incinerator on the Paramount lot and hope we get lucky again, like with the missing color footage from "The Cage"?


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

drmcoy said:


> this is encouraging news. then i'll ease up on my prior remark, as it appears that there still are some of the younger generation who have been engaged by the show because of the enhanced FX.
> 
> love to hear more stories like this.


My 20 year old son watches TOS, and his dorm mates will sometimes watch it in the common room at his school.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

> _("look at my legs")_


Nevertheless, that episode had some powerful acting moments. Human nature, the importance of sexual attraction, teen angst and "Lord of the Flies" mythos.............
Really showed Yeoman Rand-Grace at her best and most vulnerable. 

In my opinion, the movies could never quite capture those tender moments properly. Wasted talent.

"Tell, him Jim, tell him Jim, tell him Jim!"


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> Surely what matters is that the new fx look very similar to the original fx (and most of them do) and they blend in with the live action footage (which most of them do too).


I disagree that "most" of the new effects shots look very similar to the original effects shots. When it was first announced they would be remastering the original episodes, I recall reading an interview in which it was stated (sorry, I can't remember by who) they were simply going to dupicate the original effects shots digitally and that nothing would be changed. Then the first remastered episode aired (_Balance of Terror_) and, sure enough, some of the shots were different. They were minor changes at first, but it seems each newly remastered episode contained effects shots that had been altered more and more until they bore little resemblance to the original effects shots. Whether or not these changes were "improvements" is clearly subjective to each viewer's opinion; in my opinion, they did nothing to enhance the stories of their respective episodes.

I also disagree that the digital effects blend in with the live action footage. Yes, the restoration of the live action footage was astounding. But the new effects shots were too neat and clean by comparison, and were obviously not from the same era as the live footage. Again, this is merely my opinion.

Regardless of anyone's personal opinions (my own included), if the remastered episodes have given young viewers a new appreciation for the show (which has been stated) and have created new Star Trek fans, mission accomplished.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

^And it wouldn't have been difficult at all to match the original shots exactly, and to tweak the image to match the film look of the rest of the episode. But NOOOOOO!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> ^And it wouldn't have been difficult at all to match the original shots exactly, and to tweak the image to match the film look of the rest of the episode. But NOOOOOO!


I like the new effects shots as a novelty but they should have gone to more trouble to match the film look if they're going to redo the effects. The effects shots are a bit jarring as they stand.

Years from now when people are going back to look at these episodes, they will want the originals to view. I know that because when I do research and check out old silent movies, I want to see the original composition as created by the director before it was cut or mutilated, etc. That would equate to the original episodes of Trek as originally aired (albeit minus commercials). The images may be cleaned up but I want the original experience of the story. I may check out some of the variations but the original is that from which I derive the most satisfaction.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> ^And it wouldn't have been difficult at all to match the original shots exactly, and to tweak the image to match the film look of the rest of the episode. But NOOOOOO!



But then that might be a problem for the high definition age. If they're trying to attract new younger viewers to the original series they'll want to see crystal clear fx. In the future they'll probably be able upgrade the original picture even more.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Zombie_61 said:


> I disagree that "most" of the new effects shots look very similar to the original effects shots. When it was first announced they would be remastering the original episodes, I recall reading an interview in which it was stated (sorry, I can't remember by who) they were simply going to dupicate the original effects shots digitally and that nothing would be changed. Then the first remastered episode aired (_Balance of Terror_) and, sure enough, some of the shots were different. They were minor changes at first, but it seems each newly remastered episode contained effects shots that had been altered more and more until they bore little resemblance to the original effects shots. Whether or not these changes were "improvements" is clearly subjective to each viewer's opinion; in my opinion, they did nothing to enhance the stories of their respective episodes.
> 
> I also disagree that the digital effects blend in with the live action footage. Yes, the restoration of the live action footage was astounding. But the new effects shots were too neat and clean by comparison, and were obviously not from the same era as the live footage. Again, this is merely my opinion.
> 
> Regardless of anyone's personal opinions (my own included), if the remastered episodes have given young viewers a new appreciation for the show (which has been stated) and have created new Star Trek fans, mission accomplished.




I've been watching the show since the mid 70s and I just can't see this jarring effect between the old and new footage. There's a difference yes and the new fx look more sharp but I found it a bit jarring watching the old effects after a while because as time progressed they looked more and more stiff and grainy (I also can't stand seeing prominent matte lines and transparent ships anymore...unless I'm in the right mood to watch it with the original fx). 

The new fx might not be perfect and in some instances I agree they can change things a bit too much (I haven't found much of that though) but with all the picture and sound restoration I find the whole thing flows along much more smoothly and I rarely watch it with the original fx now.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You know I've never understood this notion that matching the original shots would have looked bad. Hello!!! We're talking about remaking the original shot so that it looks original yet with resolution and clarity matching the remaining live-action footage. No more muddy shots and excessive film graininess. What is so hard to understand about that???


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I like the new enhanced version. The Bluray set has both so I can switch back and forth as I wish. I find myself watching the enhanced version more than the original.

On reason I like the enhanced, and don't mind them changing the ship/planet shots is when they filmed the show they very rarely had ship footage dedicated to an episode. One way the show was sold was they could keep costs down by using stock footage. This really limited the views we saw of the Enterprise. Roddenberry and Co would have done a lot more show dedicated FX if they had the budget and time. 

The new shots just try and remedy that. They do not change the flow of the show or change the plot at all (unlike what Lucas keeps doing with SW).

Thats just my opinion.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The images may be cleaned up but I want the original experience of the story.


Story? Is that the right word, Perfesser? I mean, the new FX really don't change the stories any...
IMO, they HELP you concentrate on the story without that "gee, I wish I wasn't seeing that shot from ____ in _this_ episode" stuff.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Put me down as a fan of the remastered episodes. It was great to see alien ships that had previously been rendered only as a point of light. It was great to see the _Enterprise _actually deploying satellites instead of just seeing a stock "in orbit" shock in the episode about the little flying parasites. It was awesome to see a _Constellation _that didn't look like an AMT kit customized with a BIC lighter.

And if you don't like them, just set your Blu-ray player to show the original FX. No harm, no foul. 

And I think that the remastered episodes DID bring in some new viewers and create new fans...and there's nothing at all wrong with that!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Fozzie said:


> It was awesome to see a _Constellation _that didn't look like an *AMT kit customized with a BIC lighter*.


LOL, yeah, even as a kid way back in the day, that kept me from totally buying into the finale. Now it's my favourite ep of all time.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> A few sexist kinks ("look at my legs") & reused castle sets aside, I think it holds up perfectly.


Okay, maybe not the most appropriate thing in a quasi-military organization. But don’t women _always_ want men to notice their legs? (If they’ve got good legs, of course.)


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

She never did it for me, I always liked brunets like Andrea, 








but to each their own!:thumbsup:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Blonde, brunette, redhead, black, white, asian, orion It's all good!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

I will say this much about the "original effects vs. remastered effects" discussion in this thread--I appreciate the fact that (so far) it's been free of personal attacks and/or snide comments. Some people prefer the original effects, some prefer the remastered effects; simple as that, and it's all good. :thumbsup:


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

It stands the test of time now as much as H.G. Wells or Jules Verne's work. 
That is to say as a whole and it's essence at it's best, it is now truly timeless and one for the ages in the speculative fictional works of humanity.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

well, visual FX aside for a moment, here are a few things that would have made the show more engaging to today's audiences -- and before you set your phasers on "kill," know that I fully understand why many of these suggestions would not have worked and/or been affordable ways to produce a series back in the 60s'...

STORY ARCS -- with rare exception, all episodes were self contained story lines, so there was little if any chance to see background characters or story/plot issues develop any more than could be explored within that hour's episode. this, of course, changed with Next Generation and other Trek incarnations, and I feel it makes for more compelling stories and characters...at least above and beyond Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Scotty and a few others. 

While discussing story lines, it would have been nice to not have Kirk solving 99.9% of the problems. Again, I understand why the stories were structured this way at the time, but I believe it would have made for more compelling and realistic drama if they allowed other crew to have a more dominant role in solving the various problems they confronted. This may have been a "shatner" thing as I believe I read somewhere that he often told Roddenberry or others that he should have others lines (this may also just be a rumor) but next time you watch a TOS episode, be mindful of how many times Kirk steps in and suggests something that would have been much more appropriate coming from Spock, McCoy, Scotty or any other crewman. Yes, I get it, Kirk is the hero, but I propose he could have been an even STRONGER hero if he concentrated on COMMAND issues and not having the answer to most every single solitary issue that arose, especially issues that would appear to be beyond his expertise.

MORE ALIEN ALIENS -- again, i know the limitations of budget and 1960's audience expectations, but it would have been neat to see more episodes with aliens that were truly alien, and not humanoid with quirky colored hair and whacky clothing. And even the humanoid aliens were often stereotyped with characteristics that unrealistically represented an ENTIRE species -- do we truly believe ALL Klingons were antagonistic jerks...was LOGIC the only thing that defined Vulcans...etc etc -- I trust you would admit that people of any race, let alone species, while they share some common traits, have a wide variety of thoughts/feelings/emotions on any number of life issues.

So many episodes centered around issues that were vastly oversimplified and, despite their inherent complexity, easily solved (usually by Kirk) in the last 5 minutes of the show. In "By Any Other Name" after all the hullabaloo, Kirk saves the day by suggesting "let the federation help find you another home." The alien replies "You'd really do that?" Cripes...why didn't we START there...oh yeah, because there would have been no conflict and therefore no show. And there were a LOT of episodes guilty of this.

Next time I post, I'll list episodes I thought were solid science fiction, great entertainment, and well written/acted/directed, as well as a few things I thought the series did well and that DO hold up.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Those are valid points, but you do have to allow for the period in which the show was made--prime time TV programs were not serialized at that point (soap operas were). If anything, before the CG creature era dawned, TOS offered up MORE non-humanoid aliens than TNG and its ilk, where all aliens were defined by the shape of their foreheads (TOS had the Salt Vampire, the Gorn, the Horta, the Tholians, the Excalbian igneous being, even those things made out of pipe cleaners and crab pinchers in "Catspaw")--they were fairly ambitious in portraying non-human-appearing aliens, although they were obviously limited by the technology of the period. Of course now anyone with a Mac can seemingly create a non-human CG creature...

Shatner was definitely behind a lot of Kirk's uber-problem-solving, although to a point that just adds to Kirk's awesomeness...  And the show was designed to present moral parables and to have stories that made a point--that was the intent more than to present elaborate science fiction stories. And a lot of this is not intended to be taken so seriously--"By Any Other Name" is really a comedy for the last 30-40% of the episode. A lot of the "simple solutions" in episodes like "Devil in the Dark" and "A Taste of Armageddon" work because they have a strong emotional or allegorical impact.

That said, TOS is hardly a flawless show--and I've seen so much of it so many times that I tend to embrace the flaws as part of the show's charm.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Shatner didn't really steal lines so much as have lines cut entirely, under the auspices of the lines being unnecessary and bogging down the story. What he failed to take into account was the feelings of the poor shmuck whose line he just had cut.

So we're not talking about egomania; more like insensitivity to the feelings of the day players.

Of course, this wasn't a problem until the conventions, with thousands of screaming fans proclaiming how Sulu/Uhura/Chekov/Scotty were their favorite characters, and the ever malleable human memory becomes convinced that they really were an ensemble cast and that rat bastard Shatner kept trying to keep them down (never mind that Nimoy was doing the _exact same thing_, yet he comes off as everybody's friend). The only one who's kept a level head about the whole thing is Walter Koenig.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

JBOND --

understood...and i agree. i am simply trying to point out why i think the show does not hold up as well as many think it does by TODAY'S standards.

if you go back and reread my earlier posts, you'll know i adore the show, flaws and all...but this thread is about it withstanding the test of time, and i believe many of the episodes do not...and, time and interest permitting (both mine and yours/others) I will continue to post reasons why I think it does and does not stand the test.

as for many episodes not being solid science fiction, granted, that is more of a personal preference than a "stand the test of time" issue...but i think it is still worth noting 

as for TOS having more ALIEN aliens (vs humanoids with colored hair/funny ears and crazy costumes) you make a valid point that TOS Trek likely presented many more than Next Gen did in it's first three seasons (I say "likely" as I did not do a direct comparison count and never will because I am far too disinterested and lazy) but I will say that in NExt Gen, the # of humanoid aliens they met that were simply some makeup appliance slapped on head/face was one of the reason i despised NExt Gen so much. First season was laughable...Ferengi a joke...but i do not intend to take this thread down a Next Gen bashing road...and there ARE a handful of Next Gen episodes I think are BRILLIANT...but out of the 9 or 10 seasons (or however many there were) I think I can count the number of truly excellent episodes on two hands and maybe one foot. 

regardless of my ramblings, i appreciate your taking the time to post your considered thoughts.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Shatner didn't really steal lines so much as have lines cut entirely, under the auspices of the lines being unnecessary and bogging down the story. What he failed to take into account was the feelings of the poor shmuck whose line he just had cut.


i suggest you buy a cheap notebook pad and keep it with you every time you happen to watch a TOS episode. In that notebook, write down how many times Kirk steps in with the solution to the problem that is obviously NOT his area of expertise, whether it be scientific, technical, medical, historical or otherwise. I bet you'll find it happens at least once in EVERY episode, if not several times per show...of course, some infractions greater than others.

also keep track of how many times Kirk uses his ability to "romance" the ladies as a means to an end.

yeah yeah yeah, i know he's the captain...but please.

but also know, as a kid, these qualities are exactly what made me think he was the shazzizzle...but looking back on it today as an adult, there are times when it is almost laughable.

also understand that no matter what i say in this thread, at the end of the day, i love the show for what it was and also know that it was simply a TV show meant first and foremost to entertain. the fact that it became such a phenomenon that inspired so many people with its stories, characters, futuristic hardware and designs, etc etc is certainly a testament to the excellence of the actors/writers/directors/art designers.

but there are still only a handful of episodes that I think stand the test of time...and someday i'll post what i think those episodes are


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

drmcoy said:


> STORY ARCS -- with rare exception, all episodes were self contained story lines, so there was little if any chance to see background characters or story/plot issues develop any more than could be explored within that hour's episode.


Funny, when Battlestar Galactica came on in '78 I was like, what's this? Story lines that continue into future episodes? They never did that on _Star Trek!!! _:freak:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Story arcs aren't the greatest thing. They can make it a real pain to get into a show midstream where you have no idea what's going on because you've missed so much.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Warped9 said:


> Story arcs aren't the greatest thing. They can make it a real pain to get into a show midstream where you have no idea what's going on because you've missed so much.


Nah, all you had to do was buy the first season reel-to-reel 2" videotape boxed set and catch up. 

I had a player, but maintenance was a beyotch:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> Nah, all you had to do was buy the first season reel-to-reel 2" videotape boxed set and catch up.
> 
> I had a player, but maintenance was a beyotch:


:lol:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I don't think it has to be either/or. There are shows where I really enjoy the episodic format and there are a few where the arc structure works for it. I also can quite like those somewhat hybrid shows---they're essentially episodic, but they can have ongoing plot lines that are focused upon periodically. _JAG_ was a decent series for that.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> I don't think it has to be either/or. There are shows where I really enjoy the episodic format and there are a few where the arc structure works for it. I also can quite like those somewhat hybrid shows---they're essentially episodic, but they can have ongoing plot lines that are focused upon periodically. _JAG_ was a decent series for that.


WARPED...I am simply pointing out that as MANY of today's popular TV series DO have story arcs, that TOS Trek would seem a bit dated in that regard.

I personally like story arcs...and characters that are with a series for a few episodes or more that suddenly leave the show or die -- much more interesting and engaging to develop an interest in a continuing character who leaves/dies as opposed to some nameless "red shirt" you couldn't give hoot about, IMHO.

But again, as this thread is about TOS Trek standing test of time, I think it is valid to point out how modern day TV series storytelling is vastly different than the episodic TV of the 1960's.

As to which is better is a matter of debate and/or personal preference, but such a debate does not concern the topic of this thread.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

drmcoy said:


> WARPED...I am simply pointing out that as MANY of today's popular TV series DO have story arcs, that TOS Trek would seem a bit dated in that regard.
> 
> I personally like story arcs...and characters that are with a series for a few episodes or more that suddenly leave the show or die -- much more interesting and engaging to develop an interest in a continuing character who leaves/dies as opposed to some nameless "red shirt" you couldn't give hoot about, IMHO.
> 
> ...


Many is not all. That says that episodic shows can still work if it's well executed. The argument is largely empty in my view.

I've enjoyed the _Law & Order_ shows which was episodic and I enjoy _Mad Men_ which is arc structured. And a lot of people are much the same way.

In the end it's really about execution.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

WARPED, you make several valid points...and i am no expert on modern TV programming...just going with what little i know and my gut.

that said, my gut tells me that TOS Trek is dated in execution/fx/acting/storytelling & editing techniques compared to what is currently on TV.

this is NOT a matter of debate...it is simply what my gut tells me based on what i see. nothing you say or explain will really change my fundamental opinion on this.

i could, of course, start listing more examples of why i think this is so, but this takes time and considered thought...and as much as i like discussing trek, i have little to gain by putting this sort of effort into it -- because atr end of the day, if you truly feel that TOS Trek does stand the test of time, so be it. not looking to change your view...i was simply expressing why i think it doesn't. go back and read my first post...it may help explain why i'm even posting here. or not. i'm not always the best communicator...and most everything i post here is stream of consciousness...which again i attribute to my laziness.

in all fairness to the other readers and yourself, perhaps i should stop posting...because i am beginning to bore myself!!!!


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

WARPED, also, for what it is worth, i do agree that episodic TV can be excellent, and that there are indeed episodic series on today that are engaging and well written and do tell interesting stories.

i personally happen to enjoy series that have story arcs, such as the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and LOST. But I also enjoy some modern episodic shows, I'm sure...but none top of mind at the moment. I did enjoy episodic series from the 60's like OUTER LIMITS and TWILIGHT ZONE....along with LOST IN SPACE.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

drmcoy said:


> my gut tells me that TOS Trek is dated in execution/fx/acting/storytelling & editing techniques compared to what is currently on TV.


I agree to a point. It IS dated. Kinda like Twilight Zone. And Lawrence Of Arabia.
That era when the terrible rush to the next cut took a back seat to telling the story.
Hey- one of my favourite popcorn flicks is Armageddon, so it's not that I don't LIKE crazy editing & a breakneck pace, it's just that Armageddon had something most blockbusters & TV don't have that Star Trek DID; characters that mattered & humour amidst the drama.
So, dated execution/fx/acting/storytelling & editing techniques? Most certainly.
Does it hold up?
No worse than any other classic film or TV show. And in most cases, better.
Will anyone really groove to Lost Or the new BSG ten years from now? Who knows. But The Wizard Of Oz, I Love Lucy, It's A Wonderful Life & Star Trek will always be around IMHO.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

drmcoy said:


> that said, my gut tells me that TOS Trek is dated in execution/fx/acting/storytelling & editing techniques compared to what is currently on TV.


I concur; by comparison, television was much *better* in 1966! 

When it comes to movies, television shows, and/or music, whenever someone asks me if "fill-in-the-blank" has stood the test of time, I ask myself one simple question: Do I enjoy watching/listening to it as much now as I did then? To me, the same answer applies to both questions. First and foremost, Star Trek is entertainment. Regardless of how dated the execution/effects/acting/storytelling/editing/set design/wardrobe/makeups/whatever may be, I still enjoy watching Star Trek as much now as I did in the 60s and 70s and I still find it entertaining. So in that regard (and that really is my only criteria) my answer is yes.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Zombie_61 said:


> I concur; by comparison, television was much *better* in 1966!


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Danger, DANGER WILL ZOMBIE!
To the Batboat!
....Master.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Recently I've been revisiting _The Saint_ from the early 1960s. I'm really enjoying it even though there are aspects to it that really don't work anymore. If one thinks TOS' music can be a bit obtrusive then you haven't watched some other shows from the era when music in the wrong place can actually undermine the scene's suspense or dramatic impact. In that light a lot of TOS' music was understated and restrained and much more in sync in terms of supporting the story effectively.

A "gut feeling" isn't really substantiative evidence because it can be too influenced by subjective preference. I generally don't care for arc based storytelling---much like those voluminous novels that are deliberately set up for sequels to rope you into having to read them to get the whole story. Sorry, but if you can't tell me a complete story in 250-400 pages then you're probably a lousy writer in my view. :lol:

Same with arc based television. My bias tells me this is largely a gimmick along the lines of conning people to buy bottled water. That said I've enjoyed some arc structured shows, but not many. I generally dislike watching television in chapters and having to wait a week between segments. There has to be more going on for me.

I feel much the same about film. I don't care for those films that try to put across the idea that they need more than 2-3 hours to tell a story. There are exceptions, like _The Lord Of The Rings_ trilogy, but the rest is bunk. With that said all you need to see of _The Matix_ and the _Pirates Of The Caribbean_ franchise is the first of each to get the best of it and jettison the rest.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Warped9 said:


> With that said all you need to see of _The Matix_ and the _Pirates Of The Caribbean_ franchise is the first of each to get the best of it and jettison the rest.


Yeah, but Pirates 4 was pretty darn good! It broke from the arc thing. Just sayin'.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

ok, rather than me ramble on further about story arcs and such, allow me to present what i feel are the TOS Trek episodes that i think have solid sci-fi based stories and were well executed...this is one i am open to for debate and will try to take the time to provide considered responses to those with differing view. later, i might make a list of the other episodes that did not make list with brief reason why.

FIRST SEASON - best season, i believe

MAN TRAP - good, although the crewman leaving his post in the beginning to follow the "blonde" waving the hanky always bothered me -- is this REALLY how disciplined Federation crew are? Geesh. Other than than, an interesting story.

CHARLIE X - solid

WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE - excellent, one of the best

NAKED TIME - excellent for the first "weird alien disease overtakes crew/ship" story, but gets tiresome when used as storyline on future episodes

ENEMY WITHIN - somewhat absurd to think transporter could have this type of malfunction, but i loved the episode nonetheless

WHAT LITTLE GIRLS ARE MADE OF - the original BLADE RUNNER. solid.

DAGGER OF MIND - wonderful.

THE MENAGERIE - one of the best

BALANCE OF TERROR - solid

TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY - i love time travel stories, but only if they are few and far between...this was first time travel TOS story, and solid, although i'm not sure how beaming the modern day people back into their past time selves worked...a little extra "sci fi" story magic there, but still, an engaging story

SPACE SEED - solid, one of the best

DEVIL IN THE DARK - for an episode written around a costume, i thought this was excellent

CITY ON EDGE OF FOREVER - time travel again, but interesting and engaging -- would have been better as a two hour episode -- if you overlook how damn fast Kirk falls in love, this is an excellent episode

OPERATION ANNIHILATE - solid

If i left out a first season episode you adored, let me know which one and why you like it and i'll follow up with a reply as to why it didn't make my list


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've already commented on my thoughts on each TOS episode (through the link I provided upthread) so I needn't comment further.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> I've already commented on my thoughts on each TOS episode (through the link I provided upthread) so I needn't comment further.


i'll check them out...thanks.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

WARPED,

Here is brief reason why some of your FIRST SEASON picks did not make my list:

CORBOMITE MANEUVER -- not sure what the story really was...space buoy draws a line in the sand, Enterprise confronts deathstar size ship that for some unknown reason wants to blast Enterprise to pieces using a schlocky alien ventriloquist to instill "fear" (really -- is this the most unusual looking alien the Federation has ever encountered, but maybe i misremember that they were scared by its appearance) but then Kirk uses his "poker face" to bluff alien (really? some silly word play from Kirk and alien backs off?? geesh) only to find out it's a bald Clint Howard drinking orange kool aid. if you can tell me what's engaging about that story, i'll change my opinion, but otherwise, the only interesting portion is when Baley goes postal and asks bridge crew why they aren't taking action -- this small portion was interesting....but not enough to like the entire episode.

GALILEO SEVEN - almost had this on my list, but a little heavy handed on "Spock only uses logic" story. Also, aliens were hokey -- but if i leave production values out of it, i could be swayed to say this was a compelling story...and i imagine you needed the "spock logic" up front to have the ending be satisfying. okay, i talked myself into it -- this was a good episode.

COURT MARTIAL - boring to me...Perry Mason in space. laughable when, knowing the ship could crash into planet, the jury decides to stay on ship to see hoe things play out even thought they know full well Finny is alive. The lawyer who defended Kirk was mildly interesting, but not enough to enagge me for an hour. if they had a trial for Kirk like this every time a crew member died, you'd have four seasons of "trial" episodes. Yawn.

SHORE LEAVE - personally liked this episode, but the premise is lame. Vacation planet that lets you relive your deepest passions/dreams...AND DOESN'T BOTHER TO GIVE YOU A BROCHURE EXPLAINING THIS? Really? Production wise, they should have made the Wonderland rabbit CGI, because the bunny suit is laughable...and the ending is laughable...cue romantic Trek music and Kirk walks off with old flame THAT HE KNOWS IS FAKE -- really?? Is Kirk this hard up for a roll in the hay? I can accept him punching out Finnegan, but the ending was lame...and what was up with McCoy and the ladies in this episode? romantic relationships in TOS Trek would have been far better served if they did story arcs and not "one episode-night stands"

ARENA -- love the gorn, but story is simple/lame, to me. i think there was an outer limits with same story -- man and woman battle it out with weird alien


TASTE OF ARMAGEDDON -- interesting concept, i might be swayed on this one, but why is Starfleet interfering - what happened to prime directive?? and how lame that Kirk/Spock kick one computer panel and ENTIRE PLANET DEFENSE SYSTEM is knocked out.

ERRAND OF MERCY - again, i loved this one personally, but not quite sure what the story is -- why do the aliens put on the act? why don't they just tell Kirk/Klingons up front what/who they are -- were they testing us?? if so, why? oh yeah...no story otherwise. i want to like the story more, but it falls short for me...

in fairness, warped, i did not read your explanation on each, which i will do soon.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ The link I PM'd you goes to a thread I ran on the TBBS. There are not only my reviews and observations, but also insightful and interesting discussion from other posters. I actually just reread the first eighteen pages which covers the first season. Later I'll pickup with the second season reread on page 19. Season 3 starts on page 40.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

"Corbomite" is brilliant for its establishment of the Trek characters, all three in place for the first time. Check out some of the dialogue between Kirk and McCoy, like when McCoy asks Kirk what he's going to do with that extra 6% efficiency when he gets it and Kirk looks at him and says "I'm going to take it, and I'm going to..." Now what do you think he's going to say? There's some very adult stuff going on there, and you see Kirk lose his temper. The story is simple but effective--remember this is not necessarily the first time the Enterprise crew is confronting a frightening alien, but 1966 network TV audiences confronting one--and the message is that fear is a potent weapon, but one we have to overcome if we're going to be a mature species.

Arena was based on a neat little short story by sci fi writer Fredric Brown--and in that story things were exactly as they seem: an earthman has to defeat an alien adversary, and the god-like aliens that arranged the combat will allow the winner's civilization to prevail. Gene **** actually improved on that ending--in the Trek story the aliens want to see which race will demonstrate its superiority by rejecting violence. What I like about this and "Errand of Mercy" is that it shows our hero, Kirk, bowing down to his worst instincts initially--his realization at the end of "Errand of Mercy" that he's been totally wrong is one of the greatest moments in the series, in my opinion. The Organians have retreated from the conflict and pettiness of the galaxy and present an illusion of primitive simplicity to keep others away, until the threat of interstellar war forces their hand.

In "A Taste of Armegeddon" the Prime Directive isn't in operation because they're dealing with an advanced, space-faring civilization (and a potential Federation member, since the starship that visited earlier had been sent to open up diplomatic negotiations). As for blowing up one computer panel, it's simply more dramatic (and cheaper) to do that than show a montage of 50 computer panels being blown up. I have more problems with Kirk's brilliant tactical use of the "human bowling ball" fighting maneuver to take out half a dozen guards.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

jbond said:


> "Corbomite" is brilliant for its establishment of the Trek characters, all three in place for the first time. Check out some of the dialogue between Kirk and McCoy, like when McCoy asks Kirk what he's going to do with that extra 6% efficiency when he gets it and Kirk looks at him and says "I'm going to take it, and I'm going to..." Now what do you think he's going to say? There's some very adult stuff going on there, and you see Kirk lose his temper. The story is simple but effective--remember this is not necessarily the first time the Enterprise crew is confronting a frightening alien, but 1966 network TV audiences confronting one--and the message is that fear is a potent weapon, but one we have to overcome if we're going to be a mature species.


In short, "Lost In Space" this ain't! 



> Arena was based on a neat little short story by sci fi writer Fredric Brown--and in that story things were exactly as they seem: an earthman has to defeat an alien adversary, and the god-like aliens that arranged the combat will allow the winner's civilization to prevail. Gene **** actually improved on that ending--in the Trek story the aliens want to see which race will demonstrate its superiority by rejecting violence. What I like about this and "Errand of Mercy" is that it shows our hero, Kirk, bowing down to his worst instincts initially--his realization at the end of "Errand of Mercy" that he's been totally wrong is one of the greatest moments in the series, in my opinion. The Organians have retreated from the conflict and pettiness of the galaxy and present an illusion of primitive simplicity to keep others away, until the threat of interstellar war forces their hand.


Odd bit of trivia: **** wrote the script first, thinking he'd thought it up himself. Then the legal department noted the similarity to Brown's short story, prompting **** to borderline panic. Turns out he'd forgotten he'd read the story years earlier, meaning his script might very well have been a case of what is legally termed "unconscious plagiarism" (See George Harrison and the lawsuit over "My Sweet Lord"). So, the episode is put on hold until they can get Brown's widow to sell the rights of the story (leaving out the bit where they'd already written a script based on it). She signs, gets a check, everybody's happy.



> In "A Taste of Armegeddon" the Prime Directive isn't in operation because they're dealing with an advanced, space-faring civilization (and a potential Federation member, since the starship that visited earlier had been sent to open up diplomatic negotiations). As for blowing up one computer panel, it's simply more dramatic (and cheaper) to do that than show a montage of 50 computer panels being blown up. I have more problems with Kirk's brilliant tactical use of the "human bowling ball" fighting maneuver to take out half a dozen guards.


The real winners in this episode: The Klingons. Not only do they get the disruptor pistols from this episode, they also get tank tops made out of that material Anan 7 had draped over his shoulder.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Zombie_61 said:


> I concur; by comparison, television was much *better* in 1966!
> 
> When it comes to movies, television shows, and/or music, whenever someone asks me if "fill-in-the-blank" has stood the test of time, I ask myself one simple question: Do I enjoy watching/listening to it as much now as I did then? To me, the same answer applies to both questions. First and foremost, Star Trek is entertainment. Regardless of how dated the execution/effects/acting/storytelling/editing/set design/wardrobe/makeups/whatever may be, I still enjoy watching Star Trek as much now as I did in the 60s and 70s and I still find it entertaining. So in that regard (and that really is my only criteria) my answer is yes.


That's one of the best stated posts that really cover what's at the heart of this discussion thread. If something "stands the test of time", it's generally meant as it appeared in the original form. I'm one of those people. When it comes to Trek or any other classic SciFi series, I can sit down and watch it with the same "eyes" (as I like to call it) as I did when it was first broadcast and accept it for what it is.

When I read all of these posts about "I like the updated effects", that's very telling about an individual viewer's likes and dislikes. But it also casts a bit of a shadow on the timeless nature of the original production. It's perfectly fine to like the newer releases with the CGI effects if that's your thing, but it's not the same thing as liking it for what it was originally.'

One thing about classic SciFi, whether it's Trek, Lost in Space, Space:1999 or the classic BSG, one thing that I've always marveled at is how much they accomplished with what they had in terms of visual effects. When I see CGI stuff, I can appreciate the quality and detail, but knowing that it was done on a computer takes some of the wonder out of it all. Part of the charm of the original in my book.

Bryan


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Gemini1999 said:


> When I read all of these posts about "I like the updated effects", that's very telling about an individual viewer's likes and dislikes. But it also casts a bit of a shadow on the timeless nature of the original production.


Bryan, I like the new FX because I feel (in most cases) they 'connect the dots' & visually flesh out the story. Funny, in my teens I made audio tapes of all the eps, & went to sleep listening to them most nights. In my mind's eye, the Constellation looked REAL, not like my AMT model before painting. The stories, writing, music, acting- all were and are tops shelf IMO. But even as a kid watching Tomorrow is Yesterday, I kept wondering _where the Sun was..._


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

look guys, i stick by my guns on Corbomite and Arena as not being the most compelling sci fi stories, and here's why -- the stories have fundamental weaknesses that, when examined more closely, make the entire story fall in on itself like a house of cards...i'll explain why towards end of this post, but first, my overview on entire series...

yes, each and every TOS Trek episode had brilliant moments...wonderful insights into the characters, etc, and growing up i loved and adored every single episode for one reason or another.

but over the past 40 years, i've been exposed to other literature...other TV series...other movies...and i've realized that what is usually most important to me is a compelling STORY followed and/or conjoined with interesting CHARACTERS. And when it comes to Trek (or any book/tv series or movie of the sci fi genre) I have an expectation for an engaging story and that the "science" of the "fiction" is more than set dressing

So, why at first blush CORBOMITE MANUEVER seems like a great episode for many of the reasons several of you have posted, when the show is said and done, and you have to write down on paper in a sentence or two what the STORY was about, it doesn't make much sense. What did Balock have to gain with the ruse? If it was his method of understanding humans as a species, then Balock comes across as a jerk, because he taunted the crew with DEATH for NO SIGNIFICANT REASON. Crew was exploring, they come across space buoy that won't get out of there way...in fact, i believe it threatens the safety of the crew. They make every effort to contact it and ask it nicely to get out of the way...it won't...they risk dying if they do not take action...so they finally blow it up. Seconds later, here comes Daddy ship -- no "hi, how are you?" No, "whazzup with you blowing up my space buoy?" Just a "sorry buddy, you broke my toy, and now you will die." Kirk saves the day with his little bluff (wow...if only this worked every time he and the crew had a conflict...he could just bluff his way out) and then, falling for the bluff (or maybe even pretending to fall for the bluff having known al the time kirk was bluffing, which would make Balock an even bigger jerk) he invites them aboard his ship for a nickel tour.

Look, it was an engaging story to me when i was 7 years old...and the acting was good...and there were some moments of interesting dialogue between characters...but when you spell out the story in a sentence or two, it sounds ridiculous. If you don't agree, tell me your story synopsis in a sentence or three and then see if it holds up.

ARENA...interesting concept, but again, if you start breaking it down, it falls apart...at least as a solid sci-fi story. two species get in a fight...species that have both evolved thousands of years to make tools that allow them to explore space, and the "enlightened" being puts them on planet and tells them to duke it out....right away you have to ask yourself, is this really the kind of stuff an truly enlightened being would do to pass the time? but okay, let's go with it for sake of discussion. So, what you essentially have is a cock fight between two species...may the best alien win. Will it be brute strength? of course not...Kirk figures out how to make a weapon out of stones and such...he uses his mind to build a bigger club...so again, it's about using brute force to subdue the enemy. yeah, some would say it shows how Kirk (representing human race) used his MIND to defeat Gorn...but how is that much different from using mind to create enterprise and phasers to begin with? only thing enlightened being has done is put both species on planet with nautral resources...but what if GORN planet did not have same chemistry as earth? would this not have been an unfair advantage for Gorn? and i suppose you could say maybe planet had the same natural resources as Gorn home world and Gornw as too dumb to figger that out...so essentially, Gorn is the loser because he's dumber??? wow, some story. dumb aliens deserve to die. But wait, Kirk has mercy....where was his mercy in Errand of Mercy? does kirk not LEARN anything from episode to episode? well, of course not, because then we wouldn't have a chance to see his shirt ripped open again in next week's fight sequence. And how feasible is it that GORNS could even INVENT space ships -- their hands/fingers could barely hold the universal translator, let alone the types of tools one would think would be used to build devices for interstellar travel...but this may simply be due to the limitations of costume designer.

Look, i realize i am sounding cynical and a bit hateful towards the series...but if you go back and read my first few posts, you'll realize I do indeed love the series...but for what it is. And if you go back and rewatch the episodes with your mind focused on STORY, you may start to see that as amazing as TOS Trek was, many of the stories were somewhat, shall we say, "light" or not truly thought through or had oversimplified pat endings or overlooked CRUCIAL plot issues. 

I know why this was done and can be forgiving of this (it was a 1960's episodic TV series being done on a budget with excruciating deadlines for a company whose goal was to attain biggest viewership so they could sell more soap.

This is why i may stop posting...there is little any of you can do to make me believe otherwise...and i have no further interest in trying to explain my view because i am not all that interested in changing yours...and as i'm sure anyone who reads or writes these posts knows, it is time consuming...and as much as i enjoy talking about trek...i simply do not have any further interest in taking the time to state my case.

for those who love Trek and think any particular episode is golden, then by golly, good for you. as for me, when it comes to looking at the entire body of TOS Trek and reviewing the stories as solid science-fiction, there are a handful that are good, but most are just okay and some are flat out lame. But I can still love and appreciate every single episode of the series for what it is.

for those that continue the debate, my best to you -- but i am signing off from this thread and spending the time i would use to post here for building some models that have been begging for my attention.

peace, live long and prosper.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I spent a few hours building today so I don't feel the least guilty about posting further. 

Your points are very valid, they just leave out context. Star Trek is television, not science fiction literature, and it was cutting edge FOR ITS TIME. Of course latter day TV shows and movies have elements that are more sophisticated.

In TV shows that are not anthologies, character is everything--while Trek had strong stories, its popularity and longevity is due to the characters more than anything else. And in fact that's why I still enjoy the show far more than any of the later Trek series--because on TOS, you could have a lousy story (and TOS had a number of lousy stories), but the character interaction still kept the show entertaining (try watching a TNG episode where the story stinks--it's just plain BORING, the worst possible sin). You can pick apart Trek's stories on countless levels--but almost everything can be traced back to the limitations of television and the need to tell a story in 50 minutes of screen time. Why do all aliens speak English? Because showing them speaking an alien language would eat up precious screen time and confuse the audience. Why do most aliens look human? Because there are no working extraterrestrial actors working in Hollywood (that we know of).

I agree if you hold all Trek stories to the standards of sci-fi literature, they will come up wanting, but this is television, and 1960s television at that.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

jbond said:


> I agree if you hold all Trek stories to the standards of sci-fi literature, they will come up wanting, but this is television, and 1960s television at that.


:thumbsup:


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

valid points, gentlemen.

i suppose that, to me, standing the test if time opens comparison to all entertainment media, but if you keep this test limited to just other TV series, it changes things a bit, i guess.

perhaps if this thread had been called "Why Ted has a Love/Hate Relationship with Star Trek" my points would all be acceptable to you 

the better news is, I got started on my Black Pearl model kit (YAY!) I have never built a ship model before, and this one has all the complicated string rigging. I have NO idea how I will develop the skills and patience to complete it, but I did get started.

cheers...and keep on Trekkin!

ted


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Ah, I'll never tackle a sailing ship model! But this is almost as bad:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazymodeler/6183534504/in/photostream/


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Don't sell 60s TV short. 60s and 60s sci fi TV managed some decent sci fi topics. It wasn't till the 70s that it started to turn to mindless action/adventure like Logan's Run and Buck Rogers.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

If a piece of literature or music or television or film can still find a decent audience then it has stood the test of time. Classical music is still with us after a very long time. I daresay that quite a bit of music from the 20th century is going to hang around and rear its head every so often. Film and television has changed a lot over the past few decades, but there are things that still manage to draw attention while others (while recalled) just gather dust in the dustbin of historical memory.

I just reread Fleming's _Casino Royale_ and _Live And Let Die,_ after many years and while they're not heavyweight literature they're still damn good entertaining reads. I also enjoyed them on the own terms rather than using a mind's trick of trying to reinterpret what I'm reading through a contemporary perspective like I did in my '20s.

If something still sells and stills finds an audience then it's still working.

There is a tendency of many of the young to dismiss what is not immediately new and familiar as outdated, obsolete and irrelevant. But the more perceptive can often find value in what came before and see the newer generation really isn't any smarter than their predecessors as they like to think.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Agreed--Star Trek and Twilight Zone didn't have much competition in terms of quality until the '90s actually. The big three networks tended to take the dumbest possible approach to science fiction and I think that's another reason why Star Trek had such a great reputation for so many years--when you placed it alongside things like Buck Rogers, Fantastic Journey and the TV version of Logan's Run Trek looked amazingly sophisticated in comparison.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A lot of contemporary SF is dressed up with slick f/x, but even the good stuff (of which there really isn't that much) really isn't any smarter or more sophisticated than TOS and TZ. It's just more contemporary. In time it, too, will seem dated and then it will be tested against time.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Sci fi still mostly action/adventure set in space or a future Earth.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

jbond said:


> Ah, I'll never tackle a sailing ship model! But this is almost as bad:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazymodeler/6183534504/in/photostream/


JBOND - valley forge from Silent Running -- sweet. i am jealous!

Some sci-fi movies you guys might like if you haven't seen:

PRIMER

SOLARIS

MOON

SUNSHINE


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

Didn't like Moon nor Solaris.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> There is a tendency of many of the young to dismiss what is not immediately new and familiar as outdated, obsolete and irrelevant.


Sadly, this is nothing new. I witnessed the same thing among classmates and friends as I was growing up, and I've never understood the mentality behind it. But I look at it this way--if they don't want to know what they're missing out on, it's their loss.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> Sadly, this is nothing new. I witnessed the same thing among classmates and friends as I was growing up, and I've never understood the mentality behind it. But I look at it this way--if they don't want to know what they're missing out on, it's their loss.


Yes, and I didn't mean to excuse previous generations such as my own. Fortunately not all the younger are like that and many of us outgrow it.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I very much enjoyed Primer, Moon and Sunshine--I actually have Solaris on my DVR; I've seen the Russian version. I got a chance to talk to the writer/directors of both Primer and Moon in my magazine work--and I love the Moon truck model...


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

cool on magazine interviews, jbond.

as for 70's/80's sci fi (Battlestar, Logan, Buck Rogers) i agree, a step in the wrong direction, provided you enjoy compelling stories, good acting and interesting characters 

so, in that regard, TOS Trek waaaaaay ahead of it's time.

as for my model work, primed my Black Pearl and started weathering it with acrylics...but i will start a new thread to discuss this.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It's often been said that TOS is/was ahead of its time, but considering we really haven't gotten that much smart SF on TV then we're still waiting. :lol: Put another way I have seen very little come along since TOS that is as good or arguably better.

You can't argue that f/x and post production standards have gotten more polished, but when it comes to writing, to content and overall approach and execution I think TOS still ranks among the best.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Warped9 said:


> It's often been said that TOS is/was ahead of its time, but considering we really haven't gotten that much smart SF on TV then we're still waiting. :lol: Put another way I have seen very little come along since TOS that is as good or arguably better.
> 
> You can't argue that f/x and post production standards have gotten more polished, but when it comes to writing, to content and overall approach and execution I think TOS still ranks among the best.




I don't think there's any doubt the os was ahead of it's time and special effects aside.......most of the stories still stand up fairly well now.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Why has Star Trek stuck around while, say, "My Mother The Car" is lost to the trivia books?

Pretty much all of the above reasons listed, plus Star Trek's ability to become a part of American mythology. Terms like "warp speed" and "beam me up" are a part of the lexicon, used by people who probably haven't seen a millisecond of any of the shows.

It's now on a level like Superman, Batman, and Mickey Mouse. A part of the culture, and able to survive bad tv ("Threshold", "Spock's Brain", "These Are The Voyages...") and bad movies (ST V, Nemesis, JJTrek), because it's become a part of the culture.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> It's often been said that TOS is/was ahead of its time, but considering we really haven't gotten that much smart SF on TV then we're still waiting. :lol: Put another way I have seen very little come along since TOS that is as good or arguably better.
> 
> You can't argue that f/x and post production standards have gotten more polished, but when it comes to writing, to content and overall approach and execution I think TOS still ranks among the best.


agreed. i always thought it would have been cool to take the TOS Trek characters and recreate Trek using CGI the same way they did FInal Fantasy -- BUT with heavier emphasis on good "science" fiction stories. Don't change a THING as far as ship design, art direction, lighting techniques, etc., and stay true to the characters -- BUT do either a season of 1/2 hour or hour episodes OR a few 2-hour specials...maybe even with story arcs. Trick would be to find voice talent that matched the original actors back in the day -- AND to stay true to TOS universe in every single way BUT give the stories a bit of a facelift to bring more modern-day storytelling techniques/drama/etc.

In other words, stay true to the spirit/look/feel of original series, but elevate the storytelling a bit AND the CGI would allow for the creation of alien worlds and aliens that were not feasible back in the 60's.

Could even be stylized CGI animation like CLONE WARS.

I imagine the reason this hasn't been done is licensing/cost issues associated with using original actors likenesses and/or the fact that any studio bankrolling this likely does not see a huge audience for it -- but i would be front row and center should they ever attempt this. But if they did, they would likely use Next Generation universe or JJ Abrams universe as it is more current.

and yes, i loved the JJ Abrams trek -- but have no desire to slug it out with anyone who did not...and i know there are many of you....but i will say this -- not since the original TREK TV series have i see an incarnation of Trek that seemed to be true to the spirit of the original in character, tone and overall vibe.

t


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

drmcoy said:


> and yes, i loved the JJ Abrams trek -- but have no desire to slug it out with anyone who did not...


I liked it lot. Mainly because it was so well cast. And it had the energy from the series. And humour. And cool references. 
In fact, the practical concrete & beer factory interiors were the only part I actually hated- I own the flick & watch it regularly.:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

drmcoy said:


> ...i loved the JJ Abrams trek -- but have no desire to slug it out with anyone who did not...and i know there are many of you....but i will say this -- not since the original TREK TV series have i see an incarnation of Trek that seemed to be true to the spirit of the original in character, tone and overall vibe.


:beatdeadhorse: _Grrr... Must not respond, must not respond..._ *AAARRGH!!!*

I've got to find some wood or glass to chew on...


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

no worries, warped...if you did not like it, so be it. but i can tell you that nobody on this entire planet wanted the MOTION PICTURE or ANY of the Trek movies to recapture the spirit and soul of the TOS Trek TV series more than i did...and they ALL came up flat for me...with exception of WRATH OF KAHN, which showed hope.

i know the JJ Trek has its story flaws - but overall, characterizations, tone, etc -- all had the EPIC feel of what I always thought Trek TV series COULD have been if someone had just done it right.

but hey, that's me -- your mileage may vary. 

no need to explain why you thought JJ Trek was stinky...nothing anyone could ever say will change my feelings about it one way or the other.

but regardless, it sure would be cool if someone could do the CGI TOS Trek i mentioned...could be like watching Trek The Lost Episodes!


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I heard a great description about the difference between movie and a TV show episode ...

A movie is about the most important thing that happened in somebody's life, a TV episode is about the most important thing that happened in somebody's life ... that week.

Given that series of movies come out every couple of years, I guess that could mean that a movie in a series is about the most important thing that happened in somebody's life that year (or that couple of years).

It changes the scope of what one expects from a movie version of a TV show that's in a series of movies. It can't possibly be "just another episode" because the scope isn't big enough.

(Think the original Star Wars trilogy - we don't know all the stuff that'd make for great weekly TV that happens between the movies, just the super important stuff that happened every couple of years for the movies.)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Warped, I share you pain...


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

And I share drmcoy's opinion....


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Warped9 said:


> :beatdeadhorse: _Grrr... Must not respond, must not respond..._ *AAARRGH!!!*
> 
> I've got to find some wood or glass to chew on...


:lol:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Paulbo said:


> It changes the scope of what one expects from a movie version of a TV show that's in a series of movies. It can't possibly be "just another episode" because the scope isn't big enough.


Funny, I liked Insurrection even thought it was just a big episode, in fact, BECAUSE it was just a big episode!:thumbsup:

I also thought STIV & V came REALLY close to the spirit of the series, but both just missed because
A) STIV had no Enterprise all though it
and
B) STV had crappy FX, too much editable goofy, & a gutted finale.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

I'm a fan of Star Trek V as well. Yes it was goofy and over the top. Yes I wish there was more substance in the plot. Yes, the quality of the effects shots were lacking. (but creative)

But I do feel the dynamics between Kirk, Spock and McCoy were spot on to the original series characters. More so than any other film. One of my favorite "comedy" episodes from TOS was "A Piece Of The Action", and Star Trek V lives up that in grand fashion. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Solium said:


> One of my favorite "comedy" episodes from TOS was "A Piece Of The Action", and Star Trek V lives up that in grand fashion. :thumbsup:


Agreed!:wave:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

As far as ST V goes, I prefer the MST3K version.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Captain April said:


> As far as ST V goes, I prefer the MST3K version.


Hey, it's all good!:thumbsup:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Ah, here we go again. Yet another Trek thread that's talking about the original, but then people bring up the remake film as a preference. While I can respect that preference, I don't see how this supports the thought that original Trek has withstood the test of time. If anything, it says nothing about the original series at all.

It's like saying that the original BSG was great, but they prefer the 2003+ version, which has only the thinnest of connections to the original.

Bryan


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Gemini1999 said:


> While I can respect that preference, I don't see how this supports the thought that original Trek has withstood the test of time.


TOS is like the mighty towering oak, all else is in its shadow.
Unlike Galactica or Lost In Space, the 're imagined' new Trek HAD to stick closer to the original because of the sheer power of the impact ingrained in our culture.
THIS is how I define 'withstood the test of time'!

:thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Paulbo said:


> A movie is about the most important thing that happened in somebody's life, a TV episode is about the most important thing that happened in somebody's life ... that week.


I remember that, too. Didn't David Gerrold write that in _The World of Star Trek,_ (1974)?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I agree with Chrisall. 

I interviewed JJ Abrams (you know, the focus of all evil in the universe) when he was working on Mission Impossible 3 and there was a rumor he was interested in doing Star Trek. I asked him if there were any other Paramount franchises he might be interested in working on and he didn't hesitate to say Star Trek--by which he meant TOS. "I just think those characters could live again," he said.

Now regardless of what you think about the remake, the point is what drew Abrams to the idea was the original Trek characters and THEY have stood the test of time well enough to be reimagined and accepted by a new audience (if not entirely by the OLD audience of Trekkies). It shows the durability and the simplicity of those characters--because even if they never watched the show, anyone exposed to American culture understands who those people are and how those characters function and can imagine them working in a new context. You can't say that about many old television properties.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

ST09 could do TOS a favour actually. A lot of folks might get introduced to Trek through the film then look into the series that came first. A lot of them might come away thinking, "Man did they royally mess that up. The series is way better. It's certainly a lot smarter." :lol:

Which, of course, it is.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Warped9 said:


> ST09 could do TOS a favour actually. A lot of folks might get introduced to Trek through the film then look into the series that came first. A lot of them might come away thinking, "Man did they royally mess that up. The series is way better. It's certainly a lot smarter." :lol:
> 
> Which, of course, it is.


New properties have that effect on the landscape, IMO.
Luckily.
:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I recall seeing the remake of _3:10 To Yuma_ with Russell Crowe and then soon after seeing the 1957 original with Glenn Ford on TCM. I like the original better. There's no question the original _The Day The Earth Stood Still_ is vastly superior to the crappy remake with Keanu Reeves.

I didn't much care for the new _The Outer Limits_ that ran several years ago, but I quite liked a lot of the original series that I bought on dvd about a year ago. The original _Hawaii Five-O_ was a first-rate classic series while the new one is just garbage. And the Tom Cruise _MI_ films have got nothing on the original _Mission Impossible_ series, particularly the first three seasons with Martin Landau and Barbara Bain still in the cast.

That said there are newer versions that can be good. The original _The Fly_ is a classic, but the Cronenberg remake is a skin crawler. The original _Invasion Of The Body_ Snatchers is another good classic, but the 1978 remake was effectively creepy. The remakes of _The Thomas Crown Affair_ and _True Grit_ are better than the originals.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

The new version of "The Prisoner" was horrible.:freak:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Chrisisall said:


> The new version of "The Prisoner" was horrible.:freak:


And if you watched it closely, it didn't resemble the original not even in the smallest measure. It used the name and the idea and that's about it. The original was one of those very quirky, unique shows that managed to gather a following well after it aired. I never saw an episode of The Prisoner until last year when I rented it from Netflix. I fell in love with it, despite how dated and wonky it was. Hell, I loved The Village...! They could send me there and set me up in the same place that Patrick McGoohan's character was set up in and I never would have complained. My only complaint was the wardrobe, but with a bit of time...anything could happen.

I also remember A&E doing a remake/miniseries of _The Andromeda Strain_. They might have had more screen time to tell the story and cast some very good actors in it, but the result was nothing short of a hot mess. The original film had that oddly creepy feeling that only genre films of its day could have. You can't duplicate that even if you tried.

Sometimes, they get it right, but most times, remakes fail to become as iconic as the originals.

Bryan


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I couldn't believe how awful the Prisoner remake was! They missed the point entirely!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

There are aspects of the remake of True Grit that I appreciated, but I still give the nod to the Duke, if only for the happier ending.

And I rather like the new Hawaii Five-O.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Captain April said:


> And I rather like the new Hawaii Five-O.


You mean you like Grace Park...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I like Grace Park, but I don't like the new 5-0.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

John P said:


> I like Grace Park, but I don't like the new 5-0.


Amen to that... If someone tunes in just to see a hot bod on a poorly written show, it explains why there's so much crappy TV with attractive people cast in it. No wonder so many people (that don't care for the attractive cast) migrate over to reality TV instead.

Bryan


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It's a complete reboot, so I can deal with it on its own terms, instead of constantly referring back to the original series (same way to deal with the revamp of BSG). Plus, we're learning a lot more about these characters than we ever did in over a decade of the original show.

And, yes, Grace Park is a definite bonus.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Captain April said:


> And, yes, Grace Park is a definite bonus.


Ahhhh, she's so _cylon_. 
All SF TV after Firefly has sucked anyway. Just end it- we have STTOS to live on in our BR players. Episodic broadcast television is dead. Face it. Cancellation after cancellation. It's a *miracle* CHUCK & Burn Notice have lasted as long as they have. 

The Networks in television will be slaughtered. Then we will overrun the internet and force their "Server" to bow to Hulu. And then the Turner God will fall and finally the Murdock God will be cast down and forgotten. 

:freak: Sorry. Went nuts there for a second.

Ummm, yeah, Star Trek is still really cool.


----------

