Requiem for Methuselah Question

[maryh]

^^^
The writing went downhill too. Few exciting, well developed story lines with good plots, action, character interplay, and adventure. They seemed to focus more on romance or social commentary as a story line instead of a sub-plot within a good story line.

There were some decent episodes in season 3 and the earlier seasons weren't perfect but overall the writing in the third season was inferior to the previous.

 

[TOS Purist]

• most episodes feature just Kirk, Spock and McCoy

That's a bad thing...how??

• general mischaracterization of some characters (most notably Spock)

I'll give you Spock's willingness to talk about the pon farr with Droxine, and his attraction to her in "The Cloud Minders" as an example of that, but it's the ONLY example I can think of.

• Freiberger wanted only action-oriented stories and didn't like too cerebral stuff

Again, bad thing how? It was still TOS, and each episode nonetheless had a point to them, a message they were trying to tell.

• the budget was reduced to $180,000 per episode
• no shooting on location

I don't see how those things could harm the quality of a story or make it more or less "corny." The story's the same, whether it's shot on location or in a studio, or if it has more financial backing.

One of the things I really like about the 3rd season is the scope that it has. Unlike early episodes, it really goes into the technical details, from how the warp engines operate to the workings of an organization like Starfleet (but not to the sleep-inducing extremes that TNG and the like went to). By the third year it really had a depth to its background that, for me at least, definately increased my enjoyment of it. It would have been awesome to have seen TOS in a fourth season.

The old Battlestar Galactica was cheesy.

I think I made it pretty clear in my last post that I don't like unsubstanciated claims. HOW was it "cheesy?"

 

[Kryton]

Kirk falls in love at the drop of a hat.

Holy crap! I just dropped my damn hat!

 

[Doug Otte]

It has the usual 3rd season faults...

I'd like to know just exactly what those "usual 3rd season faults" are. I'm sure that saying things like that make the speaker feel "in the know" and smart by repeating things they've doubtlessly heard others say elsewhere, instead of formulating their own opinion based on their own observations...

I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it's a recurring annoyance of mine. Even Shatner says stuff like "yeah TOS was corny," but they never say WHY. They just say that it IS, because that makes them seem "cool" and "in the know" or something. Either way it's stupid and I'm tired of people making claims (like "THE OLD BATTLESTAR GALACTICA WAS CHEESY OMG") just to agree with the "cooler kids" and not look dumb for liking something.

So I ask again: What are the "usual 3rd season faults?"







And for the record, the original Battlestar Galactica was never cheesy. I've watched just about all of the episodes and I really have absolutely no idea where people get that from.

Purist, your post was very rude. I would never think of calling someone "stupid," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you lack social skills or don't feel well or something.

NCC already succinctly responded to your rant. You then challenged NCC regarding the poor characterization. I'll give you 2 examples from Methuselah. At one point, Kirk tells Spock he'll go to the lab to check on the robot's progress. Obviously, he really wanted to "check on" Rayna, but in seasons 1 and 2 I don't think Kirk would have been that unprofessional. He would instead have sent Spock, who might conceivably have actually helped. In the same scene, Spock was so enthralled w/ his discoveries about the art and music he was examining, that he didn't challenge Kirk's reason for going to the lab. Spock would certainly have done so in previous seasons.

Doug

 

[EEE]

...your post was very rude. I would never think of calling someone "stupid," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you lack social skills or don't feel well or something.

Fantastic display of double-hypocracy! If I was one of the judges, you'd definitely get bonus points!

 

[TOS Purist]

Purist, your post was very rude. I would never think of calling someone "stupid," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you lack social skills or don't feel well or something.

I'm going to assume you lack reading and comprehension skills, because if you actually read my post you'd see that I NEVER called NCC stupid. I said that the practice of making unsubstanciated claims was stupid. I remarked on an action, not a person. I too do not make a habit of attacking forum members - the mild exception being my "reading and comprehension" comment that I just made, and to be fair that was a response to an attack on me.

I'll give you 2 examples from Methuselah. At one point, Kirk tells Spock he'll go to the lab to check on the robot's progress. Obviously, he really wanted to "check on" Rayna, but in seasons 1 and 2 I don't think Kirk would have been that unprofessional. He would instead have sent Spock, who might conceivably have actually helped. In the same scene, Spock was so enthralled w/ his discoveries about the art and music he was examining, that he didn't challenge Kirk's reason for going to the lab. Spock would certainly have done so in previous seasons.

I don't see how that's out of character. Both characters are not the pristine, cardboard cut-outs that the TNG characters were, with flawless behavioral characteristics. A person in love acts a bit differently than they otherwise would, and someone who thirsts for knowledge as much as Spock would certainly be distracted when faced with such a vast repository of such, at his immediate disposal. Kirk's character did develop over the short amount of time the series progressed; originally he was VERY strict and rigid in his thinking (Gary Mitchell attested to an even more extreme version of this in Academy-aged Kirk) but eventually became more easy-going and laid back as he grew older, as did Spock. This is natural for imperfect beings.

That aside, the example(s) proposed from "Requiem" were piddling, and almost border on "nitpicky" in their overanalysis.

 

[EEE]

• the budget was reduced to $180,000 per episode

I don't see how those things could harm the quality of a story or make it more or less "corny."

I honestly don't understand how anyone cannot see a connection between money and the quality of storywriting and script editing in television.

 

[Timo]

Umm, the connection is far from obvious, logically speaking. (Whether logic should ever enter the picture is another question altogether.)

Why would anybody go "Gee, you are paying me 20% more? Wow. I guess I will write this better version of the story, then, and not the crappy one I originally prepared."? If the writer really had some "extra quality" in his back pocket, shouldn't he be putting it on paper in hopes that it will earn him that 20%, rather than wait for the 20% first? Who in his right mind would expect to be paid 20% extra in advance in hopes that it resulted in a better story?

(Script editing, now, has an obvious connection between quantity of reviews and rewrites and quality of end product, and money dictates the quantity at least to a certain limit. Still, not all scripts are improved by extensive rewriting and editing.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TOS Purist]

Why would anybody go "Gee, you are paying me 20% more? Wow. I guess I will write this better version of the story, then, and not the crappy one I originally prepared."? If the writer really had some "extra quality" in his back pocket, shouldn't he be putting it on paper in hopes that it will earn him that 20%, rather than wait for the 20% first? Who in his right mind would expect to be paid 20% extra in advance in hopes that it resulted in a better story?

Thank you, Timo, that was exactly my point.

 

[Jimmy_C]

Umm, the connection is far from obvious, logically speaking. (Whether logic should ever enter the picture is another question altogether.)

Why would anybody go "Gee, you are paying me 20% more? Wow. I guess I will write this better version of the story, then, and not the crappy one I originally prepared."? If the writer really had some "extra quality" in his back pocket, shouldn't he be putting it on paper in hopes that it will earn him that 20%, rather than wait for the 20% first? Who in his right mind would expect to be paid 20% extra in advance in hopes that it resulted in a better story?

(Script editing, now, has an obvious connection between quantity of reviews and rewrites and quality of end product, and money dictates the quantity at least to a certain limit. Still, not all scripts are improved by extensive rewriting and editing.)

Timo Saloniemi

You can hire better writers when you have a bigger budget (if you don't blow it on other things). You also get happier writers - depressed people are often less creative and just rehash to get by.

And for the record, the original Battlestar Galactica was never cheesy. I've watched just about all of the episodes and I really have absolutely no idea where people get that from.

• Uniforms: http://crazyabouttv.com/battlestargalactica.html
• Boxey and his robot: http://www.tvacres.com/robots_muffit.htm
• This stupid helmet: http://www.yourprops.com/view_item.php?movie_prop=4738
• Triad, the most stupid game I've ever seen: http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:Triad.jpg
• Over-usage of invented terms for English Equivalents (far beyond "frack"): http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/List_of_terms_(TOS)#Battlestar_Galactica_specific_terms
• Incredibly stupid plots. Most episodes were much worse than anything in Star Trek's history.
• http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/295502/battlestar_galactica_three_cheesy_things.html
• http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Galactica_1980

 

[TOS Purist]

Uniforms: http://crazyabouttv.com/battlestargalactica.html

Dude, those uniforms were awesome. Not much different than Star Wars-style outfits, and nobody has a problem with those. What's next, you're going to say the Cylons were cheesy-looking? I think the entire sci-fi fan world would collectively laugh at you at that point.

Boxey and his robot: http://www.tvacres.com/robots_muffit.htm

Hey, at least a child who tragically lost both his parents to Cylon attacks is more interesting on a dramatic standpoint than New BSG Baltar constantly fucking that "human-style" (i.e., we're too cheap to afford bad-ass robot-style CG Cylons for every episode, because we made them CG instead of physical costumes) Cylon woman in his head in EVERY. OTHER. SCENE. Gods that got old fast.

This stupid helmet: http://www.yourprops.com/view_item.php?movie_prop=4738

Dude, that helmet was totally bad-ass and helped convey the fact that these space-humans were the ancestors of the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Toltecs...dammit I'm sure you've heard the opening monologue. Point is, those helmets were cool for many reasons, on many levels.

Triad, the most stupid game I've ever seen: http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:Triad.jpg

Okay, I'll give you that one. The man-thongs they wore for Triad were pretty painful to look at. But hey, still better than the lame, forced melodrama of the new series. And it was only in one episode.

Over-usage of invented terms for English Equivalents (far beyond "frack"): http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/List_of_terms_(TOS)#Battlestar_Galactica_specific_terms

I never felt they were overused. I always got the impression that they blended seamlessly into the dialogue while enhancing and deepening the universe of BSG.

Incredibly stupid plots. Most episodes were much worse than anything in Star Trek's history.

...have you ever actually WATCHED the show?!?

 

[Jimmy_C]

Way off topic, but I can't send PMs to TOS Purist.

Uniforms: http://crazyabouttv.com/battlestargalactica.html

Dude, those uniforms were awesome. Not much different than Star Wars-style outfits, and nobody has a problem with those. What's next, you're going to say the Cylons were cheesy-looking? I think the entire sci-fi fan world would collectively laugh at you at that point.

No, those uniforms sucked. The turtleneck collars are too elaborate for the plain bottoms. And matching top and bottom doesn't look good in those colors. Why do you think the pilots wore jackets (the only thing I liked in those uniforms)? They hid the ugly parts!

Boxey and his robot: http://www.tvacres.com/robots_muffit.htm

Hey, at least a child who tragically lost both his parents to Cylon attacks is more interesting on a dramatic standpoint than New BSG Baltar constantly fucking that "human-style" (i.e., we're too cheap to afford bad-ass robot-style CG Cylons for every episode, because we made them CG instead of physical costumes) Cylon woman in his head in EVERY. OTHER. SCENE. Gods that got old fast.

The new series has nothing to do with the cheesy-ness of the old series. Boxey didn't act tragic very often in the old series either.

And most people find head-Six more interesting than Boxey. You are the exception, actually. There is a reason the new series is called the "best show on tv" by more than a few critics.

Dude, that helmet was totally bad-ass and helped convey the fact that these space-humans were the ancestors of the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Toltecs...dammit I'm sure you've heard the opening monologue. Point is, those helmets were cool for many reasons, on many levels.

The fact that they were the ancestors of the those races was cheesey. Even as a kid, I could never accept those helmets. Too impractical. What exactly makes them cool except to a pseudo-historical buff?

Okay, I'll give you that one. The man-thongs they wore for Triad were pretty painful to look at. But hey, still better than the lame, forced melodrama of the new series. And it was only in one episode.

The new series has nothing to do with the cheesy-ness of the old series. There is a reason the new series is called the "best show on tv" by more than a few critics.

Over-usage of invented terms for English Equivalents (far beyond "frack"): http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/List_of_terms_(TOS)#Battlestar_Galactica_specific_terms

I never felt they were overused. I always got the impression that they blended seamlessly into the dialogue while enhancing and deepening the universe of BSG.

Seemlessly? Most of the time I could not figure out what they were talking about as a kid. When the audience is constantly trying to use context clues to figure out if they have a lot of time left or a little bit of time left, because you don't understand the language, then your new language is not blended seemlessly into the dialgue while enhancing the entertainment value of the show.

Incredibly stupid plots. Most episodes were much worse than anything in Star Trek's history.

...have you ever actually WATCHED the show?!?

Have you? In the first episode, after the genocide and exodus, the writers feel the story should next visit a casino planet. Then there is C.O.R.A. Or what about the Space Nazis in the Terra-arc? Or the C3PO-like annoying robot (but written much more annoyingly)?

This is way off-topic for this thread and forum, sorry!

 

[EEE]

Umm, the connection is far from obvious, logically speaking. (Whether logic should ever enter the picture is another question altogether.)

I honestly thought the ability to afford decent story writers was obvious. I did however think the ability to keep decent previous writers submitting drafts wasn't as obvious.

(Script editing, now, has an obvious connection between quantity of reviews and rewrites and quality of end product, and money dictates the quantity at least to a certain limit. Still, not all scripts are improved by extensive rewriting and editing.)

Well, at least the script editing part was obvious enough. A portion of my script editing angle was that money can also be a factor in hiring not only a better reviewer, but one dedicated to reviewing and continuity etc. versus having Harvey's cousin do it, because he's just working here for free thanks to him thinking it's "totally too cool dude." But my primary angle was indeed the ability to afford the time factor.

And no, not all scripts are improved. Some are merely salvaged, if they can be at all. If not, perhaps one should revisit the money connection in hiring good writers to begin with.

And I'm one who actually likes the 3rd season overall. But the money connection to quality stories seemed obvious to me. *shrug*

 

[Michael]

@ TOS Purist: I don't know why you get so worked up about people claiming the original BSG was cheesy. Just because it's cheesy doesn't make it a bad series. From today's viewpoint many aspects of Star Trek (TOS) seem cheesy. But this doesn't take away from it being one of the best series ever. (In fact, The Way To Eden is one of my favorite episodes – I love it for it's camp factor and cheesiness.)

(BTW, isn't there a "TOS Purist" at TrekMovie.com, too? Is that you?)

 

[EEE]

Hey, at least a child who tragically lost both his parents to Cylon attacks is more interesting on a dramatic standpoint than...

I have to award points for being able to use the character "Boxey" and the word "dramatic" in the same sentence without shooting soda out of your nose and frying your keyboard!

 

[TOS Purist]

(BTW, isn't there a "TOS Purist" at TrekMovie.com, too? Is that you?)

Yep, it's me! I use the handle "TOS Purist" on pretty much every Trek-related forum I sign up on.

I can see how people might think TOS was cheesy; the rocks didn't always look 100% real, and a lot of the series required the viewer to utilize their ability to suspend disbelief to a great extent. Fortunately I am able to do just that, and I'm able to look past the styrofoam rocks and see the amazing substance that TOS had.

Classic BSG, on the other hand, has great effects and doesn't require much suspension of disbelief (except for the spacewalk scene from "Fire in Space," where you can clearly see the cables holding Dirk Benedict and Rick Hatch to the ceiling). It's practically "Star Wars: The Series," and although I can see how people might consider TOS Trek to be cheesy, I still can't see how people could see TOS BSG as cheesy. Only if you nitpick it to death or just hate the slightest things about it does that happen, but the things they call "cheesy" about Classic BSG pretty much apply to any TV show made by human beings.

It doesn't have to be perfect, and I think people exaggerate it's "cheesiness." Why else would a show like "Knight Rider" or "The A-Team" have more cred than Classic BSG?!?

 

[Doug Otte]

Purist, your post was very rude. I would never think of calling someone "stupid," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you lack social skills or don't feel well or something.

I'm going to assume you lack reading and comprehension skills, because if you actually read my post you'd see that I NEVER called NCC stupid. I said that the practice of making unsubstanciated claims was stupid. I remarked on an action, not a person. I too do not make a habit of attacking forum members - the mild exception being my "reading and comprehension" comment that I just made, and to be fair that was a response to an attack on me.

Yes, but if you state that a person's actions are stupid, then that person can reasonably infer that you are insulting them. It's the same as my original comment about the "usual 3rd season faults." Most Trek fans here generally agree upon those details, as we've discussed them ad nauseum. Thus, we can infer the details from my shorthand comment. Obviously, you disagree with the majority, and that's well and good. I applaud you for discussing your opposing views here. However, it's quite different when you imply that I'm mimicking the party line because I can't think for myself.

I'll give you 2 examples from Methuselah. At one point, Kirk tells Spock he'll go to the lab to check on the robot's progress. Obviously, he really wanted to "check on" Rayna, but in seasons 1 and 2 I don't think Kirk would have been that unprofessional. He would instead have sent Spock, who might conceivably have actually helped. In the same scene, Spock was so enthralled w/ his discoveries about the art and music he was examining, that he didn't challenge Kirk's reason for going to the lab. Spock would certainly have done so in previous seasons.

I don't see how that's out of character. Both characters are not the pristine, cardboard cut-outs that the TNG characters were, with flawless behavioral characteristics. A person in love acts a bit differently than they otherwise would, and someone who thirsts for knowledge as much as Spock would certainly be distracted when faced with such a vast repository of such, at his immediate disposal. Kirk's character did develop over the short amount of time the series progressed; originally he was VERY strict and rigid in his thinking (Gary Mitchell attested to an even more extreme version of this in Academy-aged Kirk) but eventually became more easy-going and laid back as he grew older, as did Spock. This is natural for imperfect beings.

That aside, the example(s) proposed from "Requiem" were piddling, and almost border on "nitpicky" in their overanalysis.

I agree that the characters developed over time; that normally happens in any TV series. However, it's one thing to say that they became more easy-going, and quite another when they ignore hundreds of dying people to become wrapped up in a beautiful woman and interesting art/music to the point of ignoring their duties.

It is not nitpicky and piddling when the mischaracterization takes the devoted viewer out of the story.

Doug

 

[shatastrophic]

Great discussion guys, I like points made from all parties involved!
Say what you want about the 3rd season, but it had some of the best episode titles in television. "And The Children Shall Lead", "Is There in Truth No Beauty", "Spectre of the Gun", "Day of the Dove", "For The World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky"-my favorite, "Plato's Stepchildren", "Whom Gods Destroy", plus a few more i liked but can't remember. It is a good question though. I would think Edith Keeler made more of an impression than this chick. If Kirk's main girl was the Enterprise, which is how he got thru past situations, why did Spock decide to erase her?