Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
Posted by websbestcomics:
Personally, I find it difficult to enjoy watching TOS without being distracted by the generally archaic-looking special effects and sets.(splice)..but I think about 85% of all the visual effects and set pieces have seemed unrealistic and unconvincing to most people for at least the last 10 years or so (and that's being very generous in my estimate). In truth, TOS effects were considered outdated as far back as the late 1970's, when Star Wars came out. But the overwhelming quality of the stories and characters kept TOS interesting to a new generation. But that was YEARS ago.
Get distracted by the archaic-looking special effects?
First, I don't watch TV shows or movies for eye candy? I don't believe that I ever have. As an avid reader, I watch the stories whether
Romeo and Juliet, CSI, Casablanca, Lord of the Rings, or
Star Trek for the purpose of recreational entertainment...for the story...plot, characterization, twists, and turns.
For those people who need eye candy to enjoy entertainment, I fear that they will miss what GR called, "the human story." If you go back and read GR's original pitch (found at
http://www.ydg.com/trek5/trek_pitch.pdf), TOS was "built around characters who travel to worlds similar to our own." He simply used the format of science fiction to tell the story of those characters. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were no different from Matt, Doc, and Festus. They were characters we loved and cared about what happened to them. Through the story, we saw how others dealt with common everyday problems. Yes, I'm rather introspective, but the story is the most important part, not the eye candy.
As for the
Star Wars fx, Lucas himself thought they need updating in the late 90s, true. However, did the fx updates improve the quality of the stories upon rerelease? No! There were things that I had gotten familiar with in the first releases, so the changes then became a distraction for me in the story. When TMP came out, I accepted its new look because there was the understanding that it was at least 2-5 years later. It was understandable that technology would have improved.
You can't tell me that Roddenberry and others intentionally chose to make the shuttle look like a giant bread box, or that the Gorn was supposed to look like a cheap lizard suit. No, they did it because of budget.
True,
The Art of Star Trek shows a sleeker shuttle, and true, budget constraints turned into a fondly-loved (by some of us) bread box. TAS solved those problems, but many people unfortunately reject it as well, today.
GR ordered research (go back and read
The Making of Star Trek) into what would the future would look like. They were also given charge to remain in the budget. Even Shakespeare had to remain in a budget. The fact of the matter was and remains TOS's fx and set designs were two decades ahead of their time. TWOK's graphics were 1982 equivalents, not 2002. TNG, likewise, was no more than its day either.
Warped9 indicated that the story was in a context. He is right. Earlier, I listed
Romeo and Juliet as a story. That story had a context - Medieval Verona - if I remember correctly. I watched about fifteen minutes of the Leonardo diCaprio version in 1996; after which, I got up and left the theater. It wasn't in context, so I couldn't watch it.
Personally, I am a fan of "The Cage", always have been since I first saw clips of it during "The Menagerie". Graphics wasn't what impressed me about the show. I find myself fascinated by its refusal to allow fx to rule the day. I have to side on the side of "context".
) effects were tremendously state of the art for a 1960s science fiction TV show.
