Watching Star Trek for the first time (again)
- Thread starter Neopeius
- Start date
I really don't understand this part. Shatner absolutely nailed Kirk from scene one. He is utterly recognizable as James Kirk, no matter when you entered the series. I feel he's more "Kirk" in this episode than in The Man Trap.
As for the episode looking "cheap" I cannot agree. Sure, they reused the Talos 4 planet sets, but there was a ton of exterior Enterprise shots (which The Cage didn't have much of) plus the barrier. Lots of lasers and lightning effects. Pyrotechnics galore, repainted consoles, a sickbay set, etc. Actually it looks more expensive than it was.
There's a reason why this episode sold the series.
The idea that WHMHGB ranks lower than Miri, Mudd's Women and Little Girls just stuns me.
Last edited:
***coughdidn'tlikeforbiddenplanetcough***
But The Tammy Grimes Show ended on September 29 after only four aired episodes. So Star Trek is definitely doing better. The current competition is stiffer.
Don't know what to tell ya.
Our watching group comprises 20-30 people, of all ages, including folks who've seen these things before and some who haven't. It's also demographically very diverse. It's as good a sample as I can get.
Here ve come. Valking down the street...
Hahahaahaha.
Koenig manages to sound like that in every role he does. I don't know where his accent comes from -- it doesn't sound like Manhattan. Maybe he inherited it from his parents (I wonder if we're related -- my grandfather's family was Lithuanian Jewish).
We just watched "Dagger of the Mind" last night. Our crowds keep growing. We were near thirty, and many of the viewers were young and had never seen Trek before. They are enjoying our format.
One of the virtues of contextual watching is that we can make connections that aren't otherwise apparent. Obviously, the subject of brainwashing was a popular one at the time: viz. The Manchurian Candidate and the UK film, The Mindbenders.
But for me, the closest predecessor to "Dagger" is a 1964 story by Trek-writer, Norman Spinrad: "Your name shall be...Darkness" which also features a military officer having his ego stripped away, then reconstructed with new programming attached.
Do you think the similarity is strictly coincidental? Or is this an example of ideas first explored in literary SF makings its way to the small screen through Trek?
One of the virtues of contextual watching is that we can make connections that aren't otherwise apparent. Obviously, the subject of brainwashing was a popular one at the time: viz. The Manchurian Candidate and the UK film, The Mindbenders.
But for me, the closest predecessor to "Dagger" is a 1964 story by Trek-writer, Norman Spinrad: "Your name shall be...Darkness" which also features a military officer having his ego stripped away, then reconstructed with new programming attached.
Do you think the similarity is strictly coincidental? Or is this an example of ideas first explored in literary SF makings its way to the small screen through Trek?
I am completely biased as WHMHGB was the second episode I saw, after Balance of Terror. Yeah, Miri rates very low for me in the TOS scheme of things, including below Spock's Brain and Catspaw.
I tend to run counter to popular opinion on a lot of episodes. Spock's Brain gets more rerun traffic from me than Charlie X and This Side of Paradise, both of which fall near the very bottom of the run for me.
Charlie X is uncomfortable, while This Side gets a pass because I like exploring Spock.
Charlie X is torture for me until he lets loose and the episode becomes a Twilight Zone.
This Side of Paradise would work better for me with someone else playing Leila and if they didn't lean so damned hard on the love theme from Shore Leave every time we saw her and Spock together. The scoring was rarely subtle in the series but that was a damned sledgehammer. Kirk insulting Spock in the transporter is amazing, though. I've said it before, Shatner is ON FIRE in that scene. Because it's not the words, it's the delivery.
This Side of Paradise would work better for me with someone else playing Leila and if they didn't lean so damned hard on the love theme from Shore Leave every time we saw her and Spock together. The scoring was rarely subtle in the series but that was a damned sledgehammer. Kirk insulting Spock in the transporter is amazing, though. I've said it before, Shatner is ON FIRE in that scene. Because it's not the words, it's the delivery.
When a scene calls for Kirk to go big, it plays to Shatner's strengths. He can be hugely theatrical and pull it off . He also has a flair for drama, and for making Kirk seem like a Somebody with his bearing and mannerisms. David Hedison wasn't like that at all, he played a matter-of-fact and realistic Navy officer, while Guy Williams was closer to the Shatner School of High Drama.
The opposite situation came up in the well-known Nicholas Meyer story about wanting Shatner to be understated in TWOK. And the story goes that Ricardo Montalban came in huge, shouting Khan's anger from the word Go, and obviously that had to be toned down.
One of our crowd noted "The Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology" had been around since the 50s and was well know. They were doing CIA-funded experiments of the Adams' variety. So "Darkness" and "Danger" probably had a common origin, but may not have influenced each other.
I would have put Richard Basehart in this comparison since he had the dramatic chops to go very big when necessary and still be electric and commanding. Guy Williams was a niche performer, a great 60's hero lead but when he wasn't invested in the material, he wasn't merely so-so (compare his latter season Lost in Space work to his turns on Bonanza or his lead as Zorro). David Hedison was an excellent dramatic actor who had limited physical prowess (his stage punches were laughably weak). He was a perfect contrast to the brilliant Basehart who could do absolutely everything (his stage fighting was on par with Shatner). Hedison played Crane absolutely straight and this approach, along with Basehart's air of authority, made some of the most ridiculous scenes work. Shatner did much the same for Trek's less compelling episodes. For me, he saved the back end of third season almost singlehandedly.
Shatner, Basehart and Lorne Greene would have made an incredibly intense trio to lead a TV series.
You aren't kidding. There's a b&w episode of VTTBOTS where Crane is brainwashed to kill Nelson. The way the stress of conflicting motivations plays out in Hedison's eyes is breathtaking. You can't fake that stuff. He had to immerse himself in the character and believe it to perform like that.
This week in TV -- Mission Impossible was full of familiar faces. My favorite was seeing Eddie Paskey on Trek and then immediately after on MI -- with no lines in either! This is from tonight's excellent episode.
Eddie's voice wasn't very strong and he didn't learn the craft, but he sure looked like a star. He could have been a catalog model, or found customer-facing work in a high-end restaurant or hotel, that kind of thing. And there's money in that.
Was there decent money in what he was doing? (and did he do catalog work, too? It'd be interesting to see if he shows up in this year's Sears catalog...)
Discussion of contemporary (1960s) brainwashing and treatment of prisoners was a recurring theme in our review of "Dagger of the Mind", which just went out this morning. Y'all might appreciate it.
Overall, the show scored well in the Journey ratings, hovering just over 4 in aggregate. That puts it up with Naked Time and Enemy Within in "the good episodes".
Overall, the show scored well in the Journey ratings, hovering just over 4 in aggregate. That puts it up with Naked Time and Enemy Within in "the good episodes".
I am enjoying the reviews, but find my "suspension of disbelief" about when this is being watched unmined by the reviewers being a little too aware of the show's future legacy, etc.
Fer instance, some reviews comment on things that would flash by to quickly to be noted in a world sans freeze-frame or screengrabs. I mean, who could write down all those flashed on the screen credits like...
...and even mention the union! Or a tendency to nudge-nudge wink-wink things like...
...or specifically refer to the Desilu back lot. How much would an average viewer know about film and TV production in 1966 to even know about studio backlots?
Also, language. Two reviews of "What Are Little Girls Made Of" use the word "clone", which originated as an agricultural term at the turn of the century but I'm pretty sure wasn't in the vernacular of average people or used in its now modern sense until after Alvin Toffler's Future Shock in 1970.
Minor nits, sure, and the whole project and the reviews are fun nevertheless.
Fer instance, some reviews comment on things that would flash by to quickly to be noted in a world sans freeze-frame or screengrabs. I mean, who could write down all those flashed on the screen credits like...
Director of Photography Jerry Finnerman, Art Directors Roland M. Brooks and Walter M. Jefferies, Set Decorator Carl F. Biddiscombe, Costumer William Theiss, and their team members represented by the I.A.T.S.E. labor
...and even mention the union! Or a tendency to nudge-nudge wink-wink things like...
where they land is indistinguishable from a town in the 1960s. Mayberry, perhaps.
...or specifically refer to the Desilu back lot. How much would an average viewer know about film and TV production in 1966 to even know about studio backlots?
Also, language. Two reviews of "What Are Little Girls Made Of" use the word "clone", which originated as an agricultural term at the turn of the century but I'm pretty sure wasn't in the vernacular of average people or used in its now modern sense until after Alvin Toffler's Future Shock in 1970.
Minor nits, sure, and the whole project and the reviews are fun nevertheless.
Similar threads
- Locked