Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "Star Trek" 40th Anniversary

This is topic "Star Trek" 40th Anniversary in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000540

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-08-2006, 07:04 PM:

On September 8, 1966, NBC broadcast the first episode of "Star Trek." Today is the 40th anniversary of that broadcast.

Any Trekkies/Trekkers out there celebrating?

The shows were not broadcast in the same sequence as they were produced. Therefore, the "first episode" wasn't really the first episode. But I imagine the Trek fans already know that...and a whole lot of other crazy details not necessary to know! (I'm reminded of Shatner's "Get A Life" segment from "Saturday Night Live.")

Anyway, thought it worth mentioning that the thing was seen for the first time 40 years ago today.

Anyone old enough to remember seeing these shows on their original prime time broadcasts? Did you like the show at that time?

Favorite character? Favorite episode(s)? Favorite movie?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-08-2006, 08:36 PM:

I saw a few of the episodes in their original airing. I was underwhelmed at the time. It wasn't until around the mid-to-late 70s when it went into heavy reruns in syndication that I really got into it. I've seen all the original episodes more times than I can count.

And the people that made those original episodes and preserved the elements over the years deserve a big Thank You, because ST:TOS looks better today than any of the subsequent iterations of Trek in my opinion. ST:TNG always looked like there was something smeared on the camera lens. Are the DVDs any better video quality?

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 09-08-2006, 09:47 PM:

I remember as a kid growing up watching the Re-Runs of the Original Series in the 1970's. My favorite episode was "The Doomsday Machine" and my favorite character was Scotty. Movies, hmmmmmm, well, I would have to say my favorite one was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 09-08-2006, 11:00 PM:

I used to watch the re-runs in the 70's too - and I'd record them onto 8-track tapes to listen to over and over in my room. I collected the Topps trading cards of the series - unfortunately I have very few of the stickers - most of which ended up on my locker, peecee, etc. I was such a ST geek I was trying to memorize the "laws of the federation" from the ST Concordance. Later when I started collecting Super 8 I got The Man Trap - which became my favorite episode. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is still my favorite even with all it's faults - but hey - it has an overture!

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-08-2006, 11:36 PM:

quote: Mathew Molloy
Later when I started collecting Super 8 I got The Man Trap - which became my favorite episode.

"The Man Trap," by the way, was the episode that NBC selected for the inaugural Sep. 8, 1966 broadcast. (I believe it was the fifth or sixth episode that was produced.)

I forgot to mention my faves in my initial post, so here goes.

Favorite character: Scotty

Favorite episode: too many to choose. Broken down by seasons, I'd say:

1st Season: "The City On The Edge Of Forever"
2nd Season: "A Piece Of The Action"
3rd Season: "The Tholian Web"

Favorite Movie: Toss-up between "II" and "IV"

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-09-2006, 12:02 AM:

Not a real Trekkie, but I enjoyed II and IV too, with IV edging out as my winner because I liked the comedy in it.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 09-09-2006, 09:52 AM:

So everybody knows that the original series has been remastered with the old effects shots stripped out and new CGI effects added (a la Star Wars) and will begin airing soon, right?

Details

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 09-09-2006, 11:04 AM:

Has anyone seen this fan-produced "episode" ? The acting may not be all that, but overall it looks very good. E for effort.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-09-2006, 01:48 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
ST:TNG always looked like there was something smeared on the camera lens. Are the DVDs any better video quality?

From what I understand, it was a cost saving measure. They filmed some SFX sequences with crappy video. If you notice, you can always see jaggy lines on the ships during space sequences and sometimes see a "luching" effect like they were using an underpowered computer or something to make the effect. Unfortunately, this transfers over to video as well. I wouldn't have minded owning TNG DVD's, but the poor quality and high price kept me from buying. Star Trek: TOS looks damn good on DVD, so I bought the DVD's. I dont think I'm a real fan of the 5.1 sound, but overall, TOS DVD's are well worth the cash

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 09-09-2006, 09:27 PM:

How are Trekkie fans reacting to the changes with CGI and all? I dont care for the show at all or the movies, but knowing how SW fans are with their movies, I'd imagine the Trekkies would be disappointed. But then again, these episodes are available on DVD already so I guess it can't be that bad.

Posted by Keith Peticolas (Member # 971) on 09-10-2006, 12:32 AM:

I will bet the Star Trek fans, like myself, won't be as rabid about the updates as the Star Wars fans were/are. Star Trek was about the stories and the effects came second. Star Wars ended up being about nothing but the effects. Personally, I am really looking foward to some sweet assed cgi NCC-1701 beauty shots. And remember, any non-berman/bragga infected Star Trek is good Star Trek. Even if it was shot with a PlaySkool camera and enjoyed on a ViewMaster.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-10-2006, 05:48 AM:

quote: Mark Ogden
So everybody knows that the original series has been remastered with the old effects shots stripped out and new CGI effects added (a la Star Wars) and will begin airing soon, right?

That is as sinful as colorizing "Plan 9 From Outer Space"...

How sad!

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-10-2006, 10:02 AM:

Yesterday I was at a Star Trek convention and had a fairly long conversation with Dave Rossi, the guy who is in charge of these new effects. It sounds like his primary interest in this is to bring in kids who would normally be turned off by the primitive nature of the effects. He also made it clear that the originals would not go away. He said that if the studio had come to him and told him that they wanted to replace the originals, ala STAR WARS, he would have kicked them. He also said that the two dirtiest words in their office are George Lucas, and that they are not in any way changing the stories.

The fan reaction seemed to be mixed, but most people who were complaining were mainly saying that they didn't want to lose the originals. Rossi assured everyone that that wouldn't happen.

My personal take on this is that it's a bad idea. If the original creators wanted to change it, that's one thing. But this is being done by people who were kids when that show was being made. That being said, these guys know their shit, and if someone's going to do it, it might as well be them. And I am going to watch at least a couple episodes out of curiosity.

Favorite Character: Captain Kirk
Favorite Episode: The 10-part arc that ended DEEP SPACE NINE
Favorite Movie: VI

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-10-2006, 02:33 PM:

Get an Afterlife!

But, seriously, I've read that they can't very easily do an HD remaster on The Next Generation because all those shows, while shot on film, were post-produced in good, old, Standard Definition video. Oops! Remastering to HD would require an all-new transfer of the original elements and a complete re-edit to create what was already done. All this first, and then they could consider re-doing the visual effects.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-10-2006, 04:22 PM:

I noticed that on the first episode of Star Trek: TNG. I was only like 13 or 14 years old at the time, but the special effects had a much higher FPS than the show itself. When the Enterprise was generating a beam down to the planet or whatever the hell it was doing, the Enterprise was at 24fps and the beam was at 60fps. My reaction was "Ewwwww..." It looked like it should have been on PBS with those effects.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 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

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 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.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 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

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 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.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 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.