TV of the 1960s

[Shaw]

This came up in a thread recently... but it isn't the first time that I've seen this put forward in relation to TOS. A lot of people look at TOS today and see camp, which they associate with the bright vivid colors used in TOS production which we see while watching TOS on regular broadcast TV or DVD or Blue-ray of today. And it is assumed by most that this is how it looked to viewers of the show back when it was first aired some 43 years ago.

What people don't realize is that television technology has changed drastically over the years. And was changing drastically at the time that TOS was being aired for the first time. A majority of homes with TVs still had black & white sets, and those with color sets weren't really seeing full colors by the time their TVs got the picture back then.

There is a very good example of what color TV was like back then that can be seen here:

"Space Seed" - Original Broadcast Commercials​

But even watching that doesn't truly illustrate the difference, so here are some screen captures from that example compared against screen captures from a relatively recent DVD release.

People have either forgotten the medium that TOS was produced for... or have never experienced it themselves. Most of us who grew up watching TOS didn't see it as bright and vivid as the current versions are today the first dozen or so times we watched it. We saw it very much like what I linked to above well into the late 70s.

Trying to hold all aspects of a mid 20th century TV show against people's 21st century standards, specially when people aren't seeing it the way the makers thought it was going to be seen, seems unfair.

Of course the persons it is unfair to are those who don't know any better. Those of us who love it would love it even if everyone else hated it and made fun of us for liking it.

... Not that anything like that actually ever happen to any of us.




Edit:
This is the best description of camp (and why Star Trek isn't camp) I've seen (from here):

The problem, though, is one of context. Star Trek did not exist in a cultural vacuum. It was a contemporary of shows such as Lost in Space and Batman. Those shows are extreme camp in the intentional sense. At the same time, the other Irwin Allen shows were campy in the unintentional sense. By the standards of the time, ST was just the opposite of camp -- it was the first non-anthology SF show that approached SF in a serious, adult manner, that aspired to realism rather than larger-than-life fantasy. Yes, it had the occasional episode that fell short of that aspiration and had campy elements -- especially in the third season -- but it would be unfair to characterize the whole series as camp when overall it was the first step in the maturation of television SF beyond camp.

Camp is intrinsically unrealistic, something that makes the audience laugh at its absurdity. A key part of the reason Star Trek gained such a devoted following is because it succeeded in creating a future that felt real (even with its fanciful elements), that audiences could invest in emotionally and intellectually and really care about. Camp can't do that.

 

[Kirk1980]

Shaw, as someone who's studied history, I applaud your analysis. You have embraced 'mentalite', that is putting yourself in the mindset of the time.

 

[Kirk1980]

Somehow repeated myself...

 

[Warped9]

Shaw, this is a very valid and on-target observation. I recall exactly what you're saying. And I recall remarking that TOS in HD would reveal a multitude of "sins" (by today's standards) that were never meant to be seen.

That TOS holds up as well is it does is a testament to those who created it.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Even when I was a kid in the early eighties, broadcast television looked like this, and you had to just put up with it unless you had cable. It wasn't too much of a problem, though, because you were less interested in how vibrant the colors were and more interested in fiddling with rabbit ears until you got rid of as much snow and visual artifacts (like a duplicate picture) as possible. If you could get a fairly clear picture that wasn't annoyingly dancing around, you counted yourself lucky and didn't f*ck with the antenna anymore, however nice or crappy the color was.

Of course, there was the knob antenna thing you could turn very slowly if you wanted to dare try to get an even better picture, but usually you were satisfied if you could just make out what was happening on the screen. Or, if you had a TV like my family did, the knob wouldn't help because it was broken off and you had to change the channel with pliers.

 

[Maurice]

It's a little like silent films. People who see them now typically get to hear them accompanied by tinkly piano music, and often displayed at the wrong frame-rate, and they think that's what they were like. Sure, small theaters might have a pianist, but the big theaters has small orchestras or (late in the silent era) giant Mighty Wurlitzer pipe organs, so the music could be tremendous. But that's not what people get when they see them now most times.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I think it depended on the TV. After all, Star Trek's vivid colors were what kept it on the air; it was the top reason why people in 1967 were buying color TV sets, and the profits that brought to RCA (NBC's parent company) made up for the loss NBC was taking due to low ratings. And at the time, NBC was making its "all-color" primetime schedule one of its main selling points.

So while I'm sure a lot of people were seeing it as washed out as in those examples, there must have been some who got more vivid colors, because the vividness (at least relative to what people back then were used to seeing) was the whole idea. It wasn't seen as "campy" back then; it was seen as visually exciting. It was like 3D in movies today (and at various times in the past), a visual gimmick that was all the rage for its novelty.

It's a little like silent films. People who see them now typically get to hear them accompanied by tinkly piano music, and often displayed at the wrong frame-rate, and they think that's what they were like. Sure, small theaters might have a pianist, but the big theaters has small orchestras or (late in the silent era) giant Mighty Wurlitzer pipe organs, so the music could be tremendous. But that's not what people get when they see them now most times.

Or like classical architecture. Modern "Greco-Roman" buildings are bare marble, but in reality Greek and Roman buildings were vividly painted. It's just that the paint wore off. Although that's kinda the reverse of what the original post is claiming. There's also the Sistine Chapel restoration -- the original colors had become so dulled with grime over the centuries that when they were restored to their original vividness, some art historians insisted it was wrong for it to look that way.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't remember TV looking quite that bad.

 

[Withers]

So...let me see if I've got this straight; you're under the assumption that people who claim to be disenfranchised by the supposed "camp" of TOS are in fact referring to the colors presented when it is viewed on DVD or on television- colors which were not originally present when it was first aired based on the limitations of the technology of the era?

Is that... right? If it isn't then you can probably just disregard the rest of this (not that I don't think you will anyway) but assuming I'm right I would pose this:

I'm one of those people who notes the "camp factor" as I put it in a different thread and, speaking for myself alone, I don't equate what I've noted about that to color. I'd be even less inclined to appreciate the visuals had I to watch it like the version of screen caps on the left. Seeing those by comparison to what I've seen actually makes me appreciate what I've got even more. It is entirely possible that I'm simply too stupid to understand but for me a clearer picture is a better one. It's really just that simple.

I'd rather see it in black and white honestly but that's just because, to me personally, I think it might make it feel more period appropriate or something. Really that just speaks to my own aesthetic tastes and to nothing else- the bottom line is the color isn't what made me note the 'camp factor.'

Of course the persons it is unfair to are those who don't know any better. Those of us who love it would love it even if everyone else hated it and made fun of us for liking it.

Out of honest curiosity... does anybody do that? Are there people who bash TOS and its fans (the way every other incarnation of Trek gets bashed) within the fandom? I'm only asking because it genuinely seems as if that is a one-way street.


-Withers-​

 

[Warped9]

I don't remember TV looking quite that bad.

It was varied. I have seen TV that bad, but memory can also blur reality. I also recall it looking reasonably good, but compared to today it probably would look not-so-great.

 

[Kelso]

How old was the physical film that those screen-caps were taken from? The age of the film and method of storage would make a pretty big difference in quality. I'd be surprised if if it looked that bad at the time of broadcast.

ETA: I'm talking about the film itself, poor reception and picture tube television resolution would cause their own problems.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't remember TV looking quite that bad.

It was varied. I have seen TV that bad, but memory can also blur reality. I also recall it looking reasonably good, but compared to today it probably would look not-so-great.

I just don't recall anything looking like 3D without the glasses on our color set.

 

[Kelso]

This clip may give a better indication of what a late 1960's color TV would have looked like. Though, this is a PAL set and I assume that he is using a small nearby transmitter for this clip, which wouldn't necessarily look the same as catching the broadcast from a tower in a nearby city. Those of you who were actually alive in the sixties- and can remember what your television picture looked like- can give us an idea of how well it compares. Also, the television picture likely wouldn't flicker quite so much if you were watching with the naked eye.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_fqtE2HuU0[/yt]

Here's an american set, though it is showing modern programs that are being broadcast with modern equipment.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTXa109ajXI&feature=related[/yt]

 

[Hober Mallow]

Nothing like an 800 gazillion pound console TV. You haven't lived until you've thrown a bowling ball through the screen and made a very big boom.

Not that I speak from experience or anything...

Ah... TV's that blow up... (nostalgic sigh...)

 

[Warped9]

Nothing like an 800 gazillion pound console TV. You haven't lived until you've thrown a bowling ball through the screen and made a very big boom.

Not that I speak from experience or anything...

Ah... TV's that blow up... (nostalgic sigh...)

Now that I'd Have liked to see.

 

[Shaw]

Well, one of the other factors for how it looked when it was originally televised was how the stations got it. As I recall, some markets got 35 mm prints while others got 16 mm, but all were using a projection technique that introduced the film grain effect and effected the saturation. A lot of that would have gotten better with video tape I would imagine.

As for the general quality, that is about how I recall it in the two markets I watch it in the 70s (San Diego and Denver). Both of those were smaller markets than they are presently, so in larger markets the broadcast quality might have been better.

(not that I don't think you will anyway)​

Good call.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Nothing like an 800 gazillion pound console TV. You haven't lived until you've thrown a bowling ball through the screen and made a very big boom.

Not that I speak from experience or anything...

Ah... TV's that blow up... (nostalgic sigh...)

The worst that happened to us was losing the channel knob and having to use pliers.

 

[Eric Cheung]

It's a little like silent films. People who see them now typically get to hear them accompanied by tinkly piano music, and often displayed at the wrong frame-rate, and they think that's what they were like. Sure, small theaters might have a pianist, but the big theaters has small orchestras or (late in the silent era) giant Mighty Wurlitzer pipe organs, so the music could be tremendous. But that's not what people get when they see them now most times.

I don't know. Most of the silent movies I watch feature piano as only one of a few instruments. In fact, when it comes to Lon Chaney films or German Expressionism or darker films like that, then it's often pretty edgy new compositions created for specific DVD releases, with synthesizers and everything.

Of course, on the couple of times I went to the Silent Movie Theater in Hollywood, they had an organist who would use a piano for the cartoons and shorts and then switch to an organ for the main picture (the first time I went it was a Mary Pickford melodrama called Sparrows. The second time, it was a Lon Chaney classic, The Unholy Three--the only one of his films to be remade later as a talkie with him reprising his role.).

That said, I grew up in the 80s and 90s, so it's fascinating looking at the videos of TV reception pre-cable. I always just assumed that before cable, the antennas on top of houses were strong enough to receive a reasonably clear picture. Once they became less common, you would need rabbit ears, a dial antenna, or later, a DTV box to receive programming, which would always be spotty at best.

 

[Tom]

Nothing like an 800 gazillion pound console TV. You haven't lived until you've thrown a bowling ball through the screen and made a very big boom.

Not that I speak from experience or anything...

Ah... TV's that blow up... (nostalgic sigh...)

Think that is something, I used to try and fix those old monsters. Nothing like get zapped by 50 thousands volts (lol, not that much but felt like a million) from an non-discharged tubes.

Anyways, I remember most shows looking shitty like that. Keep in mind in those days (well for me, the 70's) cable was not available to most (we got ours in the 80's). So, to get a crystal clear pic was very hard unless you lived in close range to the broadcast towers. For me, I lived 35 miles from Boston where most towers and stations (the good stations) were/are based.

 

[Eric Cheung]

Nothing like an 800 gazillion pound console TV. You haven't lived until you've thrown a bowling ball through the screen and made a very big boom.

Not that I speak from experience or anything...

Ah... TV's that blow up... (nostalgic sigh...)

Think that is something, I used to try and fix those old monsters. Nothing like get zapped by 50 thousands volts (lol, not that much but felt like a million) from an non-discharged tubes.

Anyways, I remember most shows looking shitty like that. Keep in mind in those days (well for me, the 70's) cable was not available to most (we got ours in the 80's). So, to get a crystal clear pic was very hard unless you lived in close range to the broadcast towers. For me, I lived 35 miles from Boston where most towers and stations (the good stations) were/are based.

In what direction? I grew up in a suburb of Springfield, so about 70 miles WSW of Boston. So, I got a mix of Springfield, Boston, Connecticut, and even WPIX 11 from New York City.