my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » "Star Trek" 40th Anniversary (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: "Star Trek" 40th Anniversary Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-15-2006 09:52 AM                        I was in high school when TOS came out and was blown away. But then you have to remember what else there was and had gone before. The previous mention of the importance of story vs spfx hits the nail right on the head. If you look at the writers of the TOS episodes there are a lot of the big names in SciFi and it shows. Worst episode The way to Eden Favorites City on The Edge of Forever Requiem for Methusala  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 09-16-2006 10:12 AM                     quote: Greg Mueller The previous mention of the importance of story vs spfx hits the nail right on the head. If you look at the writers of the TOS episodes there are a lot of the big names in SciFi and it shows. I see this as being one of the show's biggest strengths and biggest weaknesses. Yeah there are some great episodes by some great writers. CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER, ARENA, THE TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES, etc. They work wonderfully as stand-alone stories. But when I was at the convention they had a thing about Gene Roddenberry where he said that he essentially set up the premise of the show, and then just hired good writers and let them do whatever the hell they wanted. I'm guessing some people would question how true this is (Harlan Ellison?) but regardless, that was still his philosophy going into it. I think that television history has proven that the best shows are the ones with a single driving force behind them that can get all of that great talent on the same track. And look what happens when you apply Roddenberry's approach to a structure without the level of talent associated with TOS. You get the first two seasons of TNG. This is going to sound awful, but I honestly believe that STAR TREK didn't reach its full potential until Roddenberry was out of the picture.  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-16-2006 12:06 PM                        Roddenberry originally sold TOS as a "wagon train to the stars". (I heard him say this more than once). If you recall the "Wagon Train" series, ST:TOS was just like that. Each week a different story, tied together by continuing cast members. Beyond that, I see TOS as a story about a ship's captain and his crew's influences. In talking with people about the series I have often likened it to having a little devil and and a little angel sitting on his shoulders giving him advice. Or more accurately an emotional side and a logical side constantly at battle. As far as Roddenberry giving free reign, I have heard him say that he would stop (whoever) when they went outside his character's behavioral characteristics. Which would give the characters a personality which would not vary through the series. I stongly disagree that the franchise got better after he died. Quite the opposite, it turned to shit. TNG was politcal correctness gone wild, with no central character and the worst stories ever. It was not until the final season, that they finally did have some good stories with the final 2 part episode being the best they made. The spin-offs of TNG got progressively worse. Once "The Great Bird of the Galaxy" was gone, there was no more overseeing guideline(s) and it turned into a free-for-all which was painfully obvious on the screen. I guess it's just a matter of taste. If you liked stories with a sense of right and wrong with a moral at the end, then you'd like TOS. If you like empty headed razzle dazzle spfx, with all the cast members fighting to see who gets the most attention, then you'd like TNG and beyond. Just my opinion  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 09-16-2006 01:25 PM                     I don't really see any of the Star Trek series as being pure spectacle. Ultimately, the filmmakers are too scared to do something visually daring. In film school, we were actually taught the basics of coverage by watching TNG episodes with their constant "over over two-shot" configurations. If anything, I'd say TOS had more visual pizazz than its spin-offs. I would agree that TNG tried and usually failed at capturing TOS' formula for little moral tales, and VOYAGER wanted so desperately to be TNG, but it just plain sucked. But DEEP SPACE NINE, the first show to be made without Roddenberry's involvement, suceeds where all the others fail. DS9 was written by a bunch of guys who didn't buy into Roddenberry's utopian vision of the future. They made a show about the underbelly of that universe, and the people who do the dirty work to keep Picard's Enterpise squeaky clean. That, to me, is far more interesting than a premise so devoid of internal conflict that it can barely be classified as drama. The other area where DS9 excelled is in character development. People change. Roddenberry failed to acknowledge that, for monetary reasons more than anything else. But Ira Steven Behr and Co. insisted on it, and the result is a show which offers a far better commentary on today's society than Roddenberry's restrictive vision could ever hope to.  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 09-17-2006 04:48 PM                    Well, I caught an episode of the original series that had the special effects tune up. It looks pretty good...although I dont think I'm a big fan. I'm a a big fan of the theory that one a movie (TV show in this case) reaches cult status, it should be left alone. The CGI work on the new ships is interesting, but a little cartoony. I didnt get to see any planets or backgrounds that were redone, but the space sequences were marginally better, but I dont think they were desirable.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.