Those are great. Mind if I steal them? I might use them for my avatar one of these days.
Debunking TOS exceptionalism
- Thread starter A beaker full of death
- Start date
Those are great. Mind if I steal them? I might use them for my avatar one of these days.
That's what it's always looked like to me also.
The question breaks down to a number of different interpretations.
Was it exceptional sci fi? Perhaps not.
Was it exceptional entertainment? Assuredly.
Is it exceptional in being the only radio or television series to inspire countless spin-offs across all media, including records, new series, books, movies, etc.?
You bet.
The original post is sort of a trolling note. None of us would be here 40 years after launch if it were not exceptional.
Was it exceptional sci fi? Perhaps not.
Was it exceptional entertainment? Assuredly.
Is it exceptional in being the only radio or television series to inspire countless spin-offs across all media, including records, new series, books, movies, etc.?
You bet.
The original post is sort of a trolling note. None of us would be here 40 years after launch if it were not exceptional.
No, it's a fair question. I doubt anything will be really proved, but it's a good question to stimulate discussion.
One could say that Star Trek didn't originate any one idea within it, but the way it used those ideas in concert together was novel and unconventional.
Take them with my blessing, RandyS.
As a courtesy, you might want to credit Nerys Myk in your sig.
Except that the crew disappear while in the beams. They visibly fade out (watch the shoulders which protrude beyond the beams).
I think that is just a limitation of the special effects process they used. They got in them when the ship decelerated. The intent seems kind of obvious. Making them turn into energy doesn't even make sense.
I don't think the OP was trolling. Nobody was saying that TOS isn't an outstanding show. The OP (as I understood him or her) was just pointing out the genuine tendency on the part of some fans to rewrite history to make Trek even more exceptional that it actually was!
"Before Star Trek, there had never been anything intelligent or thought-provoking on TV! Star Trek changed television as we know it! The first multi-racial cast and kiss!"
And that's not a straw man. Not long ago, on this very board, I did nine rounds with a poster who absolutely refused to concede that any show, movie, or series was comparable to Trek--and who seemed positively offended when anyone dared to compare Trek to Planet of the Apes or Battlestar Galactica or whatever.
To me, "Star Trek exceptionalism" is all about treating Trek as though it exists on some higher plane, apart and unique from any other series, as opposed to being part of an ongoing continuum of cool sci-fi/pop cultural stuff . . .
(Says the guy who has written for every series under the sun!)
Turkey is many things, but it is a bit of a stretch to call it either of those (or even a 'rabidly Islamist theocracy', even with the current ruling party and its revisions to the constitution).
You mean, if presidential contenders say dangerous, stupid things, we are to consider the country threatening? By this logic the United States could have been indicted for Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, etc (cf in particular as a comparison for arguing for reinforcing Islamic law: Christian dominionists).
Give me a sitting President who says these things in office and an actual instituting of Islamic law, the abolition of the democratic process, etc. and then you'd have a point - there's a difference between the possibility that Egypt will become like Iran (which, yes, is a real concern) and the assertion that Egypt is already Iran.
I'm sorry, but given that it's a simple matte on still figures— far less complicated than other animation effects in the film—the idea that it's a limitation in the effects process doesn't hold water. The could easily have made the beams completely cover the figures had they chosen to. I'm not saying WHAT the effect is intended to be, but it does show the actors fade away and back again.
I've been following this discussion, and fail to see the point. What's the point of analyzing a special effect of a technology that doesn't exist?
We were discussing what the film was intending to portray in that scene, and the effect is one element of that. Not so difficult to follow, really.
Well considering what they were doing in that scene, what makes more sense? Holding them in a force field or beaming them nowhere. They got in the tubes right before deceleration and got out right after.
here is a picture and Atomic Rocket's take on it
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/fasterlight.php
Again, then why dissolve out the actors (you can see right right through Leslie Nielsen there) instead of overlaying a beam on top of them?
Well considering what they were doing in that scene, what makes more sense? Holding them in a force field or beaming them nowhere. They got in the tubes right before deceleration and got out right after.
here is a picture and Atomic Rocket's take on it
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/fasterlight.php
I can't see through himAgain, then why dissolve out the actors (you can see right right through Leslie Nielsen there) instead of overlaying a beam on top of them?
Well considering what they were doing in that scene, what makes more sense? Holding them in a force field or beaming them nowhere. They got in the tubes right before deceleration and got out right after.
here is a picture and Atomic Rocket's take on it
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/fasterlight.php
