Stoopid Smart Reviews: The Original Series

[Rookie Trekkie]

Hey all!

I'm new to the Star Trek fandom, but I've got to say, I really got a kick out of the original series and plan to continue on to the films and other tv series.

In case anyone is interested, I've posted my thoughts to my blog and though some of you would like to check it out!

I'm certainly open to criticism. Lay it on me!

http://stoopidsmartreviews.blogspot.com/2014/03/star-treking-original-series-1966-1969.html

 

[JohnChod]

I have to take exception to a few of the more general comments you make.

- Campy: Star Trek was not campy. Look at the old Adam West Batman series for an example of campiness.
- Silly: Again, I do not feel that 'silly' is the word you are looking for. Compare with Lost in Space for an example of silliness.
- Low Budget: Trek was among the highest budgeted show of its time. Some episodes, typically ones that took place entirely on board the ship, were done to make up for budget over runs on other episodes.

Many of the actors, including Shatner, were stage trained and experienced. This led to some of the affects that might be called 'over acting.'

Like any show, it is a product of its times. It is unfair to criticize special effects as being poor when they were typical of the day, especially for a TV show.

I will allow that some episodes could be termed 'silly' or have some aspects that were silly - Shore Leave and A Piece of the Action to name a couple. Episodic TV could, and still does to an extent, include some episodes that differ in tone from the bulk of the series. This can be attributed to different writers or to wanting to introduce some variety to the show or just to actually have some fun. Star Trek was noted for its use of humor and humor produced some excellent episodes, such as The Trouble with Tribbles. It was also successfully employed in STIV - The Voyage Home (although fans differ on whether this was a 'good' use of humor or not).

 

[Bixby]

Many of the actors, including Shatner, were stage trained and experienced. This led to some of the affects that might be called 'over acting.

That William Shatner gets grief for ''overacting'' has always been funny to me. Wasn't this a usual occurrence in 60s television? Just look at Larry Hagman's performance in I Dream of Jeannie and he hams and mugs and overacts with the best of them. But it's funny how that didn't stop him from playing one of the icons of bad guy television villains about 12 years later on Dallas...

Al Pacino is guiltier of being a bigger ham on screen (''ooh Wahh'')

 

[BoredShipCapt'n]

Hagman was a comic genius, but then again Jeannie was a comedy...

 

[Ssosmcin]

In agreement with those above. Also, to add, about your mom, who was Not a "trekkie" per say... It's "per se." Thanks for covering the series, even though you weren't a major fan.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Is it a requisite, though, for someone to revere STAR TREK, the original series, for someone to enjoy it? If Rookie Trekkie, or anyone else for that matter, happens to find it to be a hoot and unintentionally funny and enjoys the series for those reasons, is that really such a crime? Can't we just be glad that someone enjoys it, instead of being so concerned with how? It's not the same thing, really, as judging it harshly. Quite the contrary, in fact ...

 

[Ssosmcin]

There’s a story about the day Irwin Allen and Anthony Wilson screened the Lost in Space pilot episode for CBS. Irwin Allen sought to make a serious adventure film, but the executives were howling with laughter. He was about to halt the film when Wilson stopped him and said, “relax, they’re enjoying it!” End result: CBS bought the series.

Which eventually became a comedy, but that’s another thing altogether…

 

[Rookie Trekkie]

Thanks for all your feedback! I plan to review the Star Trek Films as well.