Watching for the first time - please advise!

[J.T.B.]

I was a bit surprised when the DVD box sets were in broadcast order, after syndication, VHS and the two-per-DVD releases had all been in production order. Original airdate order has some historical value, but the production order even more so, IMO, as you can see how the show evolved as it was being made.

 

[Ssosmcin]

The thing is, for season sets, airdate order is the general standard. Most shows, people wouldn't even notice. Star Trek, though, has the big old fan base. Also, the series visually evolved over the first half of the initial season, and had episodes scheduled based on whether or not the effects were finished. But since the series isn't serialized, it didn't really matter. I think only die hard fans care all that much. If they put Trek in production order on the season sets, it would be one of the few that did it. Yes, I know, Firefly was changed to production order, but that's because the series was kinda serialized and the aired order made no sense at all. As a kid, as much as it was apparently run in production order, I still remember noticing Uhura's uniforming changing from red, to gold, to red for a few more episodes, and then gold one more time. So, at some point in the NYC area, it was run either in airdate order or just jumbled.

Now, if TNG were released in production order, you'd have Tasha Yar in an episode after she died and the second part of "Unification" placed before the first. Or Deep Space Nine would have had "Through the Looking Glass" between "Probable Cause" and "The Die is Cast."

So, while there are exceptions, original airdate order is the norm for box sets.

 

[johnnybear]

I believe that Voyage To The Bottom of The Sea, The Time Tunnel and Land of The Giants were released in production order on DVD in the UK! And I know for a fact that Space 1999 is in production order here and in the US,Ssos!

 

[Ssosmcin]

Yeah, I did say there were exceptions. Space:1999 wasn't a US Network series. Each syndicated station aired them in whatever order they saw fit, so there wasn't a standard "airdate order" for 1999. Same goes for UFO and other ITC and series imported from across the pond.

I have the UK Voayge and Giants sets and, yes, they are also in production order. I am assuming they did this because in the UK they also ran them in any order they pleased, and didn't see the point in adhering to the US airdate order. Actually, for Giants, it made more sense to run them in production order because the first season did have a logical progression to discovering the giant's world and their society. The Time Tunnel had cliffhanger preview endings that led into the next episode, so for them to be put in production order, the had to delete the cliffhangers from the episodes. This made little sense and rightfully irked the fans of the series. In that case, leaving them in US airdate order would have made the most sense. Needless to say, I didn't buy that UK set.

In my discussion of this topic, please realize I am speaking of US Region 1 DVD and Blu-Ray releases of US produced TV Series.

 

[J.T.B.]

The thing is, for season sets, airdate order is the general standard.

Now that you say it, it does make sense. It would certainly be necessary for shows with more serialized stories. I guess my brain was just conditioned by tracking episodes with The Star Trek Compendium back in my teens.

ETA: Just checked my Andy Griffith Show DVDs: Airdate order.

 

[Elder Knight]

If one has never seen any of these, wouldn't it make sense to lead off with "The Man Trap," just to freshly experience what the 1966 viewers did?

After "The Man Trap" ended on the night of Star Trek's NBC premier, Gene Roddenberry's father went up and down the street apologizing to the neighbors. And I don't wonder.

...

The way I'd heard it, they thought that something with a scary monster that has to be destroyed would appeal to the kids.

I think it worked. The other kids at my school were unanimous in that "It's just like Lost in Space -- only better!" Note that I didn't say that the choice was a good idea, just that a new viewer should understand how it went down.

Probably because of that sentiment, I didn't revisit the show until well into the rerun era. I wish that I'd seen one of the more intelligent shows first.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

The way I'd heard it, they thought that something with a scary monster that has to be destroyed would appeal to the kids.

I think it worked. The other kids at my school were unanimous in that "It's just like Lost in Space -- only better!" Note that I didn't say that the choice was a good idea, just that a new viewer should understand how it went down.

Probably because of that sentiment, I didn't revisit the show until well into the rerun era. I wish that I'd seen one of the more intelligent shows first.

I'm sure many of us mature fans remember Leonard Nimoy's anecdote from the set of "The Man Trap." A journalist was visiting, and Nimoy told the guy how Star Trek was going to be serious, dignified, intelligent science fiction for adults. And then he had to shoot a scene with the reporter standing there watching, and Spock's line was "Captain, the creature attacked me!"

 

[Ssosmcin]

Honestly, I find the critics were too harsh with this episode. It was a well crafted story dealing with an intelligent creature with logical and understandable motivations. It wasn't a typical "monster show" you'd see on some of the rival series. The episode had subtext. And it wasn't a "monster show" until the climax, when we finally saw what the creature looked like.

I thought it was a fine start and it remains one of my favorite episodes.