What the most campy thing ever done on "TOS"?
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
If it's unintentional, it's just bad. Camp needs some level of intent, or it's not camp -- just bad.
Plan 9 From Outer Space isn't camp, for example. It's Ed Wood's masterpiece. Unfortunately, he had no conception how to make decent low-budget movies (that distinction belongs to Roger Corman). Ed Wood simply made bad movies that he thought were dynamite, sure-fire blockbusters.
When Trek stumbles ("Way To Eden," "Battlefield," "Children Shall Lead") it's not because anyone was trying to make bad episodes. They were trying to be serious the whole time -- it's just that they made some bad episodes.
I don't see how one can classify something as "camp" if the intention was to aspire to brilliance and the aspiration failed miserably.
Batman was camp. They were intentionally poking fun at the super-hero genre. Star Trek made some serious episodes that happened to come out badly.
Also, the time period matters. Until TV special effects advanced in the 1980s, many elements that we'd consider camp today weren't classified as such. The astroturf on the alien planets, the colored scrim on the far wall of the soundstage, the costumes and alien makeup ... all were considered perfectly valid and reasonable attempts to show alien life. Until the 1980s, no one ever considered them tacky or badly-done. That's a perspective available only from half a century distant.
You have to have intent. Without intent, it's not camp -- it's just bad.
Dakota Smith
This is incorrect. Batman (1966) is deliberate camp, while Plan 9 From Outer Space is naive camp.
Sorry, I gotta disagree. Plan 9 was a serious movie, seriously written, seriously made. Ed Wood never, ever intended it as anything other that totally straight.
The fact that Wood couldn't tell the difference between good and bad is what makes Plan 9 a bad movie rather than camp.
If intent didn't matter, than any schlock filmmaker could make a bad movie and then claim it was camp.
You know, kind of like the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
Dakota Smith
That's what naive camp is- a film that is made with sincerity, but winds up so bad that it is good.
The link I posted up-thread discusses naive camp in more detail (I don't agree with Sontag's dismissal of deliberate camp, but she hadn't seen Batman yet
).I'm sorry, I disagree. See Kelso's replies for the explanation of the different varities of camp that I agree with. Something can be bad and not be camp. And something can be camp and not be bad. It's the way in which it's bad that matters. But intent is not the deciding factor.
Plan 9 is bad, but it is so bad in a unique way that it became camp. OTOH, Tremors: The Series is just bad. It's painful. It can't even be enjoyed on a camp level. At least IMHO. Thus, it's not simply that any schlock filmmaker can make a bad movie and claim it is camp.
Again, without intent, how can one tell the difference between camp and bad?
The fact that we're having this conversation about TOS is indicative of the long-term problem. Past a certain point, any work of art would become camp. There comes a point in any work's history when the circumstances and conditions under which it was made start to become laughable to a modern audience.
I Love Lucy? Clearly camp by any modern definition. If you made it today, the only way it would possibly work is making it camp. Modern standards have changed to the point where that exact program couldn't be made today because the standards on which it was based have become largely comedic.
The same can be said for anything -- like TOS. By modern standards, much of it appears camp -- but that was never the intention. It wasn't camp for the first twenty years of its existence because it's only since the 1980s that the standards have changed.
If intent doesn't matter, then everything becomes camp after a sufficient length of time has passed and pop culture standards have changed.
TOS was never camp. All that happened was that the standards change, so now it looks camp to modern audiences. If intent doesn't matter, then TOS is indeed camp. So is much of TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. In 25 years, the 2009 movie will be camp.
You gotta have intent. You have to look at when something was made and the standards of the time, not eject those standards as a yardstick whenever pop culture dictates.
Dakota Smith
^ I disagree with virtually your entire post. 
First, I have literally never heard anyone, until you, attempt to claim that I Love Lucy qualifies as camp under any definition. And I don't think it is. Or even perceived as such. Of course it's subjective. But I just don't agree that modern audiences perceive it as camp. I think modern audiences still perceive it as a good, solid sitcom.
Second, I vehemently disagree that any work of art would become camp after a certain period of time if intent didn't matter. Because quality does matter. And while styles may change and a work may appear dated, that's not the same as being perceived as bad. Would 2001: A Space Odyssey appear camp because it was made in the 1960's? Would Alfred Hitchcock's films? The plays of Shakespeare? No, because those works are all good.
Lastly, let me reiterate what Kelso said. There are accepted categories of camp, two of which are deliberate camp and naive camp. What you are discussing is deliberate camp, of which the 1960's Batman series seems to be the universal example. But there is also naive camp, which you are refusing to acknowledge. Those are the "so bad it's good" quality works.
From filmreference.com:
First, I have literally never heard anyone, until you, attempt to claim that I Love Lucy qualifies as camp under any definition. And I don't think it is. Or even perceived as such. Of course it's subjective. But I just don't agree that modern audiences perceive it as camp. I think modern audiences still perceive it as a good, solid sitcom.
Second, I vehemently disagree that any work of art would become camp after a certain period of time if intent didn't matter. Because quality does matter. And while styles may change and a work may appear dated, that's not the same as being perceived as bad. Would 2001: A Space Odyssey appear camp because it was made in the 1960's? Would Alfred Hitchcock's films? The plays of Shakespeare? No, because those works are all good.
Lastly, let me reiterate what Kelso said. There are accepted categories of camp, two of which are deliberate camp and naive camp. What you are discussing is deliberate camp, of which the 1960's Batman series seems to be the universal example. But there is also naive camp, which you are refusing to acknowledge. Those are the "so bad it's good" quality works.
From filmreference.com:
IMO, the most campy not-so-special effect in TOS was Sulu's pet plant, Gertrude, from the "Man Trap" episode. How did Roddenberry ever approve of an obvious human hand wrapped in a plastic glove as passing for an alien plant? Ugh! That's something that the Lost In Space production crew would have done.
"Beauregard" not "Gertrude", according to Rand. 
I think people are too quick to apply the term "camp" to things which bear only a passing resemblance to same...like all the people who apply "Art Deco" to things which are more accurately Moderne or Streamline. Not the same thing.
I think people are too quick to apply the term "camp" to things which bear only a passing resemblance to same...like all the people who apply "Art Deco" to things which are more accurately Moderne or Streamline. Not the same thing.
Last edited:
Again, one could not make that show today -- in the same way and with the same stories -- without it being perceived as camp. Seriously, a lead gets pregnant while the couple has been sleeping in separate beds? She's pregnant, but you never actually use the word "pregnant"? A show where half the comedy is based on social conventions that are considered ancient history by modern standards? "No, Lucy, you can't come to the club!" "WAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"
If you made the show today it could only be camp. "WAAAHHHHHHHH!"
If intent doesn't matter, then the only thing keeping I Love Lucy from being camp is a shared cultural acceptance of it. You simply couldn't make it today without massive re-writes -- if you didn't, it would look like camp.
In fact, yes, I know people who consider 2001 camp. The last third -- from the moment Dave encounters TMA-2 until the end -- is flatly laughable by modern standards. It's a drug trip from the 1960s. You couldn't make it today and not have it be laughed at. It looks and acts like naivete born of 1960s drug usage.
I agree, 2001 isn't camp. But it's starting to play like camp, and that will only get worse over time. If we define camp as how it appears rather than how it was intended, 2001 is on the fast-track to camp.
Dakota Smith
"Beauregard" not "Gertrude", according to Rand.
Sulu calls it Gertrude.
I guess all those aliens that are really human hands covered with plastic gloves all look alike to me.
What did Sulu say after Gertrude freaked out over the Salt Vampire..."Very sensitive!"
While this part of 2001: A Space Odyssey may be arguably dated (I don't actually agree that it is dated, though), I cannot see that it is campy. It's certainly not trying to be funny, and nor is it tasteless. Nor does it play either way. Again, it only plays as arguably dated.
This connection to drug usage that you are referring to certainly cannot be extrapolated from any part of the film's narrative. Rather, as far as I know, this connection arose from being part of the cultural experience of watching the film during its initial run. I am predisposed to assume that characterizing this part of the film as being like "a drug trip" is something that you get exclusively from knowing that the film has a reputation for being watched while stoned or tripping out. However, I would be interested to know whether Kubrick intended this part of the film necessarily to be interpreted as an allusion to a drug trip.
It is worth noting that there is a superficial similarity with the works of Andy Warhol, such as his famous portraits of Marilyn Monroe in false color. However, it's a steep uphill climb to go from this superficial similarity, coupled with arguably being dated, all the way to campy.
That's an incredible stretch to me.
Even the hotel decoration only comes across as weird, rather than flamboyant or humorous.
My instinct is to respond point-by-point, but then I realized that, yet again, you have completely ignored the issue I brought up of the well-accepted classifications of deliberate camp and naive camp. And I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Are you saying that all those sources which define it that way are wrong? I pointed you to the first one I found, filmreference.com, but I could give you a multitude of other references if you like.
I'm sorry, I was unclear:
I entirely reject those definitions.
In my opinion, intent matters. Without intent, you don't necessarily have camp: you just have dated or just outright bad material.
To me, a variety of definitions to cover different conditions are irrelevant. Did the filmmaker intend camp or were they just a crappy filmmaker? Or, as is the case with 2001, did they make something that now plays as camp but didn't when they made it?
(And yes, I'm saying it outright: I know people -- usually under 20 -- who find 2001 campy and laugh at it. Especially everything after TMA-2.)
Again, without intent, camp becomes entirely subjective. Without intent, there is literally no way to differentiate camp and bad. Any filmmaker can justify a crappy product with the explanation, "It's camp."
I say again: Star Trek has never been camp. It was never so intended; it didn't play as such for the first 20 years of its existence; and to classify it as camp now seems entirely wrong-headed to me.
It's not camp, it's just old. Unfortunately, the older it gets, the more it plays like camp to modern audiences. That was never the intent, however.
Dakota Smith
I think "camp" requires something to be perceived as comical, and while the effects of the 2001 Stargate are not stunning as they once were, I've never seen anyone laugh at them, or if they did find them quaint and antiquated, that passes, unless they're trying to be the life of the party and show how funny they are by commenting on the screen.
The fact that many people find artifacts of the past laughable says more about their sensibilities than necessarily anything about the work itself. Sure, many old films are campy, but most of them were perceived as such when they were new, not as a product of age.
The fact that many people find artifacts of the past laughable says more about their sensibilities than necessarily anything about the work itself. Sure, many old films are campy, but most of them were perceived as such when they were new, not as a product of age.
That's my point about intent. Age makes every movie look comical eventually. Thirty years from now, the 2009 movie will appear comical -- I guarantee it.
Appearing comical by modern standards (which is where TOS falls) doesn't make it camp.
(And as regards 2001: the youngsters have no idea. I have seen young-uns laugh outright at the film. As noted elsewhere, I am apparently officially old.)
Dakota Smith
Some of us think the 2009 movie appears comical now.
Seriously, though, this is my biggest fundamental disagreement with your argument. You are operating from the premise that audiences are automatically going to find anything older than a certain point to appear comical and/or campy simply because of its age. I completely reject that. I see no evidence of it being true.
As others have pointed out, even though the 2001 stargate sequence might not be made that way today, I don't know of anyone who finds it to be comical. I think people still take the movie seriously, hence it being viewed as a science fiction classic.
I mentioned Hitchcock's films before. I don't think people find them comical simply because they are older. I don't think folks laugh at Gone with the Wind. Or the plays of Shakespeare. Heck, just ask around this board about TMP or TWOK and see how many people find them comical because they are old.
It simply doesn't wash. Yes, the way we construct movies, and any form of art, changes over time. That doesn't mean that everything made in the past becomes comical, or unacceptable to modern audiences, or that if intent didn't matter, that everything would be viewed as camp. That's simply not true.
The fact that we're discussing TOS as camp is indicative that, at least for TOS, it's true.
The notion that TOS is in any way camp didn't occur during the first twenty years of its existence. Until high-end special effects came to TV, it played as straight -- occasionally bad, but not camp.
There is now an entire generation who finds TOS unwatchable due to its age. It strikes them a cheesy, corny, and campy. This wasn't the case pre-high-end TV SFX.
I do. They're generally under 20.
This is changing. That's kind of my point. 2001 is still a classic now, but it's viewed as less of a classic than it was 20 years ago. It's now approaching "boring" status (see the Confused Matthew reviews) and edging toward laughable.
The fact that you may not know anyone personally who finds it boring or laughable probably just means you don't deal with twenty-somethings or younger. I'm now teaching undergrad IT courses and deal with them a great deal. Geek conversations are common in lab, and I've heard 2001 discussed.
I don't think modern viewers watch Hitchcock or Gone with the Wind. "Old" equates to "boring" in the 20-something and under ages.
One of my students -- very bright and something of an SF history buff -- says he cannot watch TOS. It's just too cheesy for him. It all looks completely fake in a way that he and his contemporaries find jarring. The dramatic conventions seem dated and amusing.
How does Nosferatu play today? The Great Train Robbery? Ben Hur? Birth Of A Nation?
Yes, one can appreciate them as classics. Yes, one can appreciate them in the day and age in which they were made.
Most people don't. Most people don't even watch them, and the movies feel corny if they do. You couldn't make them today in exactly the same way without it being intentionally camp -- that's why they make re-makes.
Like it or not, there comes a point in all art where it just doesn't play any more. It starts to look camp because the people watching it have no experience with the circumstances in which it was made. They will not willingly suspend their disbelief.
Seen any Francis Beaumont plays, lately? He was a contemporary of Shakespeare and at the time much more popular. His works are taught in history and literature classes, but are very rarely performed. Shakespeare aged better, as it turns out. Beaumont didn't. People stopped suspending their disbelief and now he's virtually gone.
Again, this entire conversation is indicative. Star Trek was never camp. If you think it was, it's because you're judging it based on modern standards rather than those of late-1960s broadcast TV. If you're judging it from those standards, it proves my point.
Dakota Smith
Similar threads
