Today we reach "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (01/10/1969)
Here's the podcast:
Eric gets the first shot:
I've always been amazed and disgusted that “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” seems to be the most recognized Star Trek episode among non-fans. This is, as we discussed in the podcast, probably because Lokai and Bele are so striking visually. In any case, I'm sure this episode was a well-intentioned effort to make a statement about slavery and racism, but being so blatant and campy, it is very difficult to take seriously.
I suppose an argument could be made that racism based on the side on which a person is white or black is no more ridiculous than racism based on overall skin color. But was it necessary to have a sharp dividing line running vertically down the middle of the Cheronians' bodies? It's this kind of crap that has earned the third season such contempt. Apparently, no effort was made to be the least bit subtle or metaphorical, including naming Lokai, the dissident, after Loki, the troublemaker in Norse mythology.
To be fair, though, I did like is the end of the episode when Lokai and Bele return to Cheron and find it a radioactive wasteland. The footage of the burning cities was from World War II, which seems apropos and a bit poignant.
One point of interest is that the destruct sequence shown in “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” was reused (a gratifying nod to consistency) in Star Trek III. Also of interest is that while two key producers, Bob Justman and Gene Coon, left the series after this episode, Fred Frieberger (Executive Producer for the third season) said that it was one of the episodes he was most proud of working on.
Go figure.
I'm inclined to say that “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” could have been a really good episode if it had been done with a deft hand, but even if that had been the case, the racism/slavery theme may have been overused by this point in the series.
So to quote Forrest Gump: “That's all I have to say about that.”
---
Here we have yet another Third Season episode where something decent and perhaps even thought provoking could have been produced but it just wasn't in the cards. Between the lack of new original stories and inevitable "short timer" syndrome that surely must have set in by this time in the show's run, the lack of well-developed stories and production values isn't that surprising.
As usual, there are bits and pieces of the episode that are compelling. We want to hear more about how things got to where they were with Lokai and Bele's home world. Perhaps there was no budget for this, just like Bele's invisible space craft. Ahem. Also good is the scene where Kirk bluffs Bele by setting the ship to self destruct, something that is repeated of course in the third feature film. The scene is good, if a bit too drawn out. The problem for me is that later on, Bele just burns out the computer that does the destruct function. People just shrug and the show goes on. The ending is somewhat compelling where the two just continue to fight on a dead world, complete with stock burning building footage from WWII.
Besides the totally sledge-hammered approach to racism, the other part that bothered me in this episode is the way that the main characters of the Enterprise crew just seem ineffectual. Like I mentioned before, after Kirk gets Bele to back down following a tense scene where the ship is nearly blown up, Bele comes back later and uses his powers to break the computer. Kirk and the others barely react. Spock seems more interested in giving a speech about how superior his people are in the area of, uh, human rights than Bele's is. The subplot, if you can even call it that, is this mission to decontaminate a planet. Kirk's dialogue makes it sound as if this is a life or death situation. When the job is done, we are left with the impression that the Enterprise is just a galactic garbage truck and taxi service. "All right Captain, we've picked up the toxic waste on this forgettable planet, NOW can we get moving?" Mono colored trash indeed.
Eric covered the issue of having the two characters with the SO obvious faces and its symbolism. I also love the way we get to overhear Lokai ranting to some of the crew and the reactions are just dumb-sounding. Kirk makes it sound like their part of the galaxy has no interplanetary strife at all when clearly it's not the case. No wonder Lokai and Bele seem unimpressed with humans.
The new effects help by re-doing the shuttle craft footage so it isn't so obviously recycled from a previous episode.
And I just can't bring myself to quote anything from Forrest Gump.
Next time: “The Mark of Gideon”
Monday, December 15, 2014
Monday, November 17, 2014
TOS Rewind #67: "Whom Gods Destroy"
Today we take a look at: Whom Gods Destroy (1/3/1969)
Our podcast, full of amazing insights as always, is here:
As I mentioned to Eric and Rob while we were recording, I appreciated this one slightly more this time around than I did when I watched these on TV growing up. I remember feeling a basic "meh" when I discovered this episode was next on the local TV station's seemingly random rotation. As the years went by, the station showed Trek more or less on either production or original airdate order but in the early years of syndication they weren't so organized. Who knows, maybe they were still running 16MM film prints (yes, they used to do this and yes I am old) of this series and whatever Viacom mailed them is what they had to put on the air. Truly a mystery for the ages. I do distinctly remember a jump in picture quality at some point where I assume there was a changeover from those old prints to video copies more closely transferred from the original materials. The 16mm prints were heavily duplicated and were printed on film stock that tended to fade severely. I've seem some of these that are quite pink today. We do have it good today where what we can cue up on Netflix or Blu-Ray far surpasses what was ever seen in the 1960s on television.
The story for this episode is fairly ridiculous and there are plenty of opportunities to poke holes. The idea that this miracle drug the Enterprise is carrying will "cure all mental illness" is a convenient, if laughable way to establish some high stakes. But these stakes are never really mentioned again other than the drug being there to cure Garth. The story also seems somewhat padded out; there are stretches where nothing much happens other than some of the characters acting "crazy".While I enjoyed watching Steve Ihnat chew the scenery is amusing and Shatner has to mostly sit there and take it. What was disappointing about the Garth character is the lack of background. We get a couple of details about his past as a fleet captain but not enough of the dots are connected between his "glorious" past and his current madness. Unfortunately a flaw of the teleplay. The character of Marta, while having no real background at all is at least a somewhat interesting character. As female characters go, she's pretty awful but at least she has something to do and is a little bit unpredictable in her batshit crazy ways. Yvonne Craig plays well with what she's given and sells the performance. Again, this is all relative but this part could have been far worse. The rest of the "patients" at the Trek equivalent of a super-max asylum are complete non-entities. We really have no idea why they're locked up other than to be used as henchmen for Garth and become fellow "Masters of the Universe".
It's said that Nimoy had misgivings about this episode and he was right to. Spock, while having a few good zinger lines of dialogue, acts uncharacteristically dense when the showdown between Garth and Kirk occurs. In the end, I have to chalk up with episode as another lost opportunity. The show could have made some sort of statement about mental illness, our treatment of it, and perhaps even the pressures of a starfleet captain like Kirk and Garth. That may sound like a tall order but Trek has often been at its best when it has something to say. That something unfortunately didn't make the final draft.
---
And now Eric gets his shot:
With “Whom Gods Destroy,” we are two thirds of the way through the third and final season of original Star Trek. And while this episode isn't awful, there is a pall over it from a great opportunity lost.
The plot, that Kirk and Spock get trapped in an insane asylum (Elba II in this case), is a blatant rip-off of “Dagger of the Mind” from the first season, right down to reusing the prop chair with the whirly lights. But in spite of this, I found an interesting question that the episode brings up: What is the psychological toll of being in command? The question is raised by the fact that the former Fleet Captain of Starfleet, Garth of Izar, is one of the few incurably insane inmates of Elba II. (The Fleet Captain, by the way, is in charge of the entire fleet and is equivalent to the rank of Admiral.) As Garth notes in the episode, being Fleet Captain was a weighty responsibility, and he was one of the first starship commanders before that. In fact, as was also noted, he was so exceptional as a starship captain that he became the model for all of those who came after. It is reasonable to assume, then, that his stress load was quite high, enough that some kind of psychotic break would be within the realm of possibility.
Unfortunately, the writers and producers chose to attribute Garth's breakdown to being taught by the inhabitants of Antos to heal an injury through “cellular metamorphosis.” This isn't an absurd proposition, but the episode would be much more interesting and resonant (and believable) if Garth's insanity was caused by a mental weakness. If this were the case, how would it affect Kirk? He clearly admires Garth, so how would he react upon learning that his hero is just as flawed and susceptible to breakdowns as anyone else? Wouldn't Kirk then start to question his own stability? We could have had a really engaging look at how command is psychologically demanding and perhaps damaging, and it would have been a great opportunity for developing Kirk's character. Alas, it was not to be.So, while “Whom Gods Destroy” is not among the worst episodes of original Trek, I do regret that its potential was wasted.
Next time: “Let That be Your Last Battlefield”
Our podcast, full of amazing insights as always, is here:
As I mentioned to Eric and Rob while we were recording, I appreciated this one slightly more this time around than I did when I watched these on TV growing up. I remember feeling a basic "meh" when I discovered this episode was next on the local TV station's seemingly random rotation. As the years went by, the station showed Trek more or less on either production or original airdate order but in the early years of syndication they weren't so organized. Who knows, maybe they were still running 16MM film prints (yes, they used to do this and yes I am old) of this series and whatever Viacom mailed them is what they had to put on the air. Truly a mystery for the ages. I do distinctly remember a jump in picture quality at some point where I assume there was a changeover from those old prints to video copies more closely transferred from the original materials. The 16mm prints were heavily duplicated and were printed on film stock that tended to fade severely. I've seem some of these that are quite pink today. We do have it good today where what we can cue up on Netflix or Blu-Ray far surpasses what was ever seen in the 1960s on television.
The story for this episode is fairly ridiculous and there are plenty of opportunities to poke holes. The idea that this miracle drug the Enterprise is carrying will "cure all mental illness" is a convenient, if laughable way to establish some high stakes. But these stakes are never really mentioned again other than the drug being there to cure Garth. The story also seems somewhat padded out; there are stretches where nothing much happens other than some of the characters acting "crazy".While I enjoyed watching Steve Ihnat chew the scenery is amusing and Shatner has to mostly sit there and take it. What was disappointing about the Garth character is the lack of background. We get a couple of details about his past as a fleet captain but not enough of the dots are connected between his "glorious" past and his current madness. Unfortunately a flaw of the teleplay. The character of Marta, while having no real background at all is at least a somewhat interesting character. As female characters go, she's pretty awful but at least she has something to do and is a little bit unpredictable in her batshit crazy ways. Yvonne Craig plays well with what she's given and sells the performance. Again, this is all relative but this part could have been far worse. The rest of the "patients" at the Trek equivalent of a super-max asylum are complete non-entities. We really have no idea why they're locked up other than to be used as henchmen for Garth and become fellow "Masters of the Universe".
It's said that Nimoy had misgivings about this episode and he was right to. Spock, while having a few good zinger lines of dialogue, acts uncharacteristically dense when the showdown between Garth and Kirk occurs. In the end, I have to chalk up with episode as another lost opportunity. The show could have made some sort of statement about mental illness, our treatment of it, and perhaps even the pressures of a starfleet captain like Kirk and Garth. That may sound like a tall order but Trek has often been at its best when it has something to say. That something unfortunately didn't make the final draft.
---
And now Eric gets his shot:
With “Whom Gods Destroy,” we are two thirds of the way through the third and final season of original Star Trek. And while this episode isn't awful, there is a pall over it from a great opportunity lost.
The plot, that Kirk and Spock get trapped in an insane asylum (Elba II in this case), is a blatant rip-off of “Dagger of the Mind” from the first season, right down to reusing the prop chair with the whirly lights. But in spite of this, I found an interesting question that the episode brings up: What is the psychological toll of being in command? The question is raised by the fact that the former Fleet Captain of Starfleet, Garth of Izar, is one of the few incurably insane inmates of Elba II. (The Fleet Captain, by the way, is in charge of the entire fleet and is equivalent to the rank of Admiral.) As Garth notes in the episode, being Fleet Captain was a weighty responsibility, and he was one of the first starship commanders before that. In fact, as was also noted, he was so exceptional as a starship captain that he became the model for all of those who came after. It is reasonable to assume, then, that his stress load was quite high, enough that some kind of psychotic break would be within the realm of possibility.
Unfortunately, the writers and producers chose to attribute Garth's breakdown to being taught by the inhabitants of Antos to heal an injury through “cellular metamorphosis.” This isn't an absurd proposition, but the episode would be much more interesting and resonant (and believable) if Garth's insanity was caused by a mental weakness. If this were the case, how would it affect Kirk? He clearly admires Garth, so how would he react upon learning that his hero is just as flawed and susceptible to breakdowns as anyone else? Wouldn't Kirk then start to question his own stability? We could have had a really engaging look at how command is psychologically demanding and perhaps damaging, and it would have been a great opportunity for developing Kirk's character. Alas, it was not to be.So, while “Whom Gods Destroy” is not among the worst episodes of original Trek, I do regret that its potential was wasted.
Next time: “Let That be Your Last Battlefield”
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
TOS Rewind #66: "Elaan of Troyius"
The wheels of progress slowly grind forward...with today's episode:
Elaan of Troyius (12/20/1968)
Eric gets the first round:
“Elaan of Troyius” is better than “The Empath,” although this may be another case of damning with faint praise. My primary complaints are that the character development is uneven and the episode in general lacks subtlety.
Elaan of Troyius (12/20/1968)
Eric gets the first round:
“Elaan of Troyius” is better than “The Empath,” although this may be another case of damning with faint praise. My primary complaints are that the character development is uneven and the episode in general lacks subtlety.
To
my first point, when we are introduced to Elaan, she is obnoxious,
arrogant, coarse, and violent. Then, after she “infects” Kirk
with her tears (about halfway through the episode), she becomes soft
and fawn-like, a diametric shift in her character. Perhaps this can
be attributed, at least in part, to the fact that she ensnares
Kirk—and there is a clear indication that this is intentional—but
the change is so abrupt and dramatic that it is jarring and stretches
credulity.
And
with regards to subtlety, or the distinct lack thereof, the title
“Elaan of Troyius” is a thinly-veiled allusion to Helen of Troy,
the mythological queen of Sparta who was kidnapped by Paris of Troy
and thus instigated the Trojan War. The similarities between this
myth and the plot of “Elaan of Troyius” are blatant. The
producer(s) may have thought this was clever, but it actually comes
across as trite and tacky. Add to this the fact that the resolution
of the episode is that Elaan's necklace is comprised of raw dilithium
crystals (common stones on her home planet), which are, purely by
coincidence, exactly what Scotty needs to save the day. Not quite a
Deus Ex Machina, but close enough.
One
interesting fact about this episode is that it was actually the
second episode filmed in the third season, and as such, it was
supposed to include the first appearance of the arboretum set we saw
in “And the Children Shall Lead.” (This is where Kirk had ice
cream with the Lord of the Flies rejects.)
So
there we are. “Elaan of Troyius” isn't a train wreck of an
episode, but neither is it a gem. The following episode, on the other
hand...
---
I always found this episode, when I was young, to be fairly ridiculous and the lead guest character annoying. Today, my opinion remains mostly unchanged but there are a few things to appreciate here.
As Eric or Rob pointed out on the podcast, the title is a thinly-veiled take on "Helen of Troy." Er, not so clever guys. The concept of this show feels tired and like the previous episode, has recycled situations. This time the setup is awfully similar to second season's "Journey to Babel" which remains superior in all respects. I feel like Eric summed up the problem with the Elaan character so I won't cover that. The aspect of this episode I think I appreciate more today is the way the scenes are played by the actors. There are scenes in the first act or two that play like actual comedy. The scenes between Kirk, Elaan, and Petri do have good comic timing and help to move the action along. The lightness and perhaps wit also adds a distraction from the stereotypes that are portrayed here.
The fact of the two leads having sex is made pretty explicit, compared to previous episodes where it was more between the lines. Third season seemed to have a bit more freedom in this area. Depending on how charitable you're feeling about late-Trek, this may be a good or bad thing. In any case, the cast, even at this low point of the series, was still doing what they could with the material.
The other plot details with the "finding the cure" and political intrigue regarding the Klingons are fairly boring. Nothing really comes of it and the plot seems like a tired contrivance. At the end Elaan leaves and we don't really care what the other outcomes are. However, the episode is more fun than I was expecting having come back to it after years of avoidance.
The enhanced effects are nice for the space "battle" (also pretty anticlimactic) scenes but the high definition is mainly helpful in this kind of episode for getting really good looks at the kooky cheap costumes the visiting guards are wearing.
Next
time: “Whom Gods Destroy”
Monday, July 7, 2014
(Not so) Bitter Dregs
Welcome to Bitter Dregs 2.0, Ceremonial Tuskout!
You, the hypothetical reader, may be wondering just what is Ceremonial Tuskout?
This page is the new home for my old blog, Bitter Dregs. That blog grew out of a long series of email postings among friends/family. The subjects usually revolved around movies, home video, and of course Star Trek (plus whatever else I wanted to blather about). As the years went by, the other content went more or less by the wayside and Bitter Dregs became mainly a landing spot for the long-running podcast series Rob, Eric, and I did where we reviewed every Original Series Star Trek episode. Actually, as of today we are still working through Season 3 but I digress.
The host for Bitter Dregs is shutting down so it needed a new home. Recognizing that the blog revolves more around the podcast than anything, I felt it was time for a reboot. If JJ can reboot Trek, then why not the Dregs? While I have always loved the name, I have found that over the years there is at least one other blog or website that uses this name so rather than stubbornly stick to my old name, I felt it was time for a new one.
The Ceremonial Tuskout is an old tradition in my strange family where two people will slowly butt heads like a couple of elephants.
I could ramble on about how this symbolizes the exchange of ideas and the nature of conflict in the world but mostly I just like the name.
Eric, Rob, and I will continue to podcast and write our reviews which will appear here from now on. We want to continue the podcast but are currently considering where to take it. We are getting pretty burned out on Trek (Third Season will do that to you) so I'm sure it will be something a little different. Will there be other content posted here? Possibly. In the meantime, I will be migrating all the old Trek-related entries from the old site to this one so it doesn't all disappear when the old system is shut down, which will happen at the end of 2014. So until Google shuts down Blogger, off we go!
Update: I'm re-posting the old "TOS Rewind" entries and a few other items I feel like retaining to this new blog. The podcast audio files will also be moving to a location TBD.
You, the hypothetical reader, may be wondering just what is Ceremonial Tuskout?
This page is the new home for my old blog, Bitter Dregs. That blog grew out of a long series of email postings among friends/family. The subjects usually revolved around movies, home video, and of course Star Trek (plus whatever else I wanted to blather about). As the years went by, the other content went more or less by the wayside and Bitter Dregs became mainly a landing spot for the long-running podcast series Rob, Eric, and I did where we reviewed every Original Series Star Trek episode. Actually, as of today we are still working through Season 3 but I digress.
The host for Bitter Dregs is shutting down so it needed a new home. Recognizing that the blog revolves more around the podcast than anything, I felt it was time for a reboot. If JJ can reboot Trek, then why not the Dregs? While I have always loved the name, I have found that over the years there is at least one other blog or website that uses this name so rather than stubbornly stick to my old name, I felt it was time for a new one.
The Ceremonial Tuskout is an old tradition in my strange family where two people will slowly butt heads like a couple of elephants.
 |
| I have no idea if real elephants do this |
 |
| Here's what it looks like when two family members do this |
I could ramble on about how this symbolizes the exchange of ideas and the nature of conflict in the world but mostly I just like the name.
Eric, Rob, and I will continue to podcast and write our reviews which will appear here from now on. We want to continue the podcast but are currently considering where to take it. We are getting pretty burned out on Trek (Third Season will do that to you) so I'm sure it will be something a little different. Will there be other content posted here? Possibly. In the meantime, I will be migrating all the old Trek-related entries from the old site to this one so it doesn't all disappear when the old system is shut down, which will happen at the end of 2014. So until Google shuts down Blogger, off we go!
Update: I'm re-posting the old "TOS Rewind" entries and a few other items I feel like retaining to this new blog. The podcast audio files will also be moving to a location TBD.
Friday, June 27, 2014
1996 Is Calling
...and it wants its rant back.
While I contemplate the future of this blog and its associated podcast, I thought I'd share something I dug up while going through some very old saved email (well, it's old for email) discussions from the mid-1990s. I'd call it a good snapshot from the time, something that among other things tells me how my friends and I treated the medium of email. The messages are often extremely long and read much like blog entries or discussion board posts. It's hard to imagine this stuff being shared over any social media today. On Facebook, no one would even get past the first couple of sentences. To bring this back to some sort of subject, I chose to post this entry because the subject loosely fits this blog. The text file this was culled from didn't have an exact date on it but it did have all the email addresses the "essay" was originally sent to. I note today that while I recognize the email addresses, not one of the people associated with them still uses the address listed here (I haven't had an AOL email address in a looooong time). I corrected a few typos and formatted it for clarity but it's otherwise exactly what I wrote so let's see what I had to say about home video in 1996:
---
Let's just wait for the video...(long)
Dear friends: Today I am going to write about video (for you tech people, I mean consumer video, (IE. VHS and Laserdiscs that most people buy and rent). Since several friends have gotten on the bandwagon and purchased VHS decks somewhat recently and seeing that I am the resident authority on the subject, a dubious distinction to be sure, I thought it'd be a good time to give you all my take on video: where it's been and where it's going, and what is both good and bad about it.
True, it may seem like a silly thing to write about (although presenting it through the Internet seems strangely appropriate), it is a device that has changed the face of home entertainment in more ways than three.
Part I: A brief history of (video) time. Way back when, in 1976 or so, Disco was going strong and a new consumer wonder was introduced: the video cassette recorder. The early VCRs were large, ungainly, crude (by today's standards; just being able to time-shift a single program was quite the big event in those days--that is, for those who were adept enough to figure out how to program the beasts (those slobs have it so easy today!), and expensive (around $2,000).
And for you Betamax diehards (that would include myself and a few others whom I will not name in order to protect their families), I shall quickly cover the great Beta/VHS war that was waged in the early 80's.
1975: Sony and JVC both introduce new VCR formats (Sony=Beta, JVC=VHS), totally incompatible with one another. Now, as we currently see it, that was a very idiotic thing for them to have done, but the entire history of the recording industry has been littered with the corpses of formats that lost the struggle. Will they ever learn? Now, these two Japanese electronics giants had different ideas of how they should go about conquering this brave new market. Sony, knowing that they had the technically superior product, (Beta was a better format; nobody who knows anything about video would ever deny this) decided to keep it all to themselves and make all the profit since they figured that all those people out there would buy the Betamax no matter what since it was better. JVC, on the other hand, began licensing other companies to manufacture its machine (for a suitable fee, of course), to the point that anybody who wanted to could manufacture and market a VHS deck. It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happens next. By the early to mid 80's, when VCRs really started to sell, Sony was still keeping Beta to themselves (they did license to Sanyo, NEC--now out of the US market--, and Toshiba--one of the only companies to make both formats for a time--but by then it was too late), profiting in the short term, but losing the format war altogether since those few companies (at most) just couldn't get the market share that JVC and the dozen other (if you count the small fry) companies could manage. So, why didn't Beta succeed at least as well as, say, the Macintosh did? Beta just wasn't different enough for most people to notice. The Mac, on the other hand, while performing similar functions to its competitors, had a distinct and different operation and look which attracted a loyal customer base who didn't mind paying extra and only buying Apple products. So, Beta was relegated to the consumer electronics scrapheap and we all got stuck with the inferior, but better marketed format. Life isn't always fair.
And now, back to our story: At this point, the 80's are in full swing and a new business is being created: the video rental retailer. Up to this point, most people who bought VCRs, did so to record television shows (there was a Supreme Court case, brought about by the networks, around this time in which it was declared legal to record broadcasts for personal use). Pre-recorded movies on tape were expensive (they were often badly duplicated television copies) and often difficult to locate, but some people got the idea that if they bought these tapes and rented them out to people (the first Blockbuster was opened in '85) that they'd make a lot of dough. Boy, were they right. By the late 80's, the price of new VCRs had dropped so much that it seemed like EVERYBODY had one (many were buying second or third machines) and the video rental retailers kept right up with them. Another force driving all this at this time was the fact that the movie studios finally caught on and began mass producing videos and releasing a large number of titles. The demand is met.
And that pretty much brings us into the present. VCRs have been getting even cheaper (in more ways than one, but that's another topic I'd rather avoid at the moment) and video stores litter the landscape of America, there to satiate our ever-increasing appetites video movies. Laserdisc? I really don't need to say much about them since those who know, use Miracle Gro.....no, that wasn't it.....oh yeah, know better and the rest of you will never understand why they're better than videocassettes....Now that we all know where that grand institution known as home video came from (or was it a hideous UN plot?!), I can zero in on its effects on the public.
Part II: What's good about video:
Convenience.
No one can deny the simple convenience and availability of the format. Video tapes are easy to use, cheap, and the choice of titles gets better all the time. I, as a rabid consumer of classic film, would be the first to admit that video has allowed me to see and own, for that matter, films I wouldn't have access to in theaters (cable is also getting quite good in this area and of course, cable and home video are getting closer and closer all the time) and this could get even better with the eventuality of video on-demand.
Cost. Yep, it's cheap.
Privacy. This could be lumped in with the convenience area, but there is no denying the fact that people often prefer to watch flicks in their living rooms (the video boom has breathed new life into the porn business) and to a certain point, I would agree. So, it would seem that video has it all wrapped up. It's convenient, cheap, there is a huge choice of titles, and you don't have to go to the trouble of going to that stinky movie theater just to see the latest Van Damme epic.
Part III: What's wrong with video:
Having said all that, I begin with this statement: I believe that the advent of home video has had the most detrimental effect on the art of film-making in its one hundred year history. This may sound a bit like an overreaction, but think about it: what other factor has had this kind of negative effect? Bear in mind that when I say "negative," I refer strictly to the "art" of film-making and not the financial performance of the film industry, which has benefited from the video surge (it helps that the film companies are actively involved in the business).
Some might argue that the coming of television in the early fifties was a more serious threat. Television was indeed a threat to the film industry, that is, the companies that produced the films (this of course, was mainly due to the studios' short-sightedness and the fact that the television networks grew out of a different industry: radio--the Sherman anti-trust act didn't hurt either). However, to the people making the films, it was a blessing in disguise. A number of positive changes came about, mainly thanks to competition with the tube:
The elimination of the Hays production code, (named for Will H. Hays, a former RNC chairman, during the Harding administration, who headed the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, which was created during the twenties by the studio moguls as a response to public pressure to exercise some kind of film censorship. Generally known as the "Hays Office," it came up with the "Hays Code" which dictated what could and couldn't be done on camera. The code was almost always strictly enforced by the Hollywood studios.) the advent of widescreen processes, such as Cinemascope (its current incarnation is known as Panavision) and the use of stereophonic sound (googlaphonic?!), and the elimination of the strict, micromanaged studio system (which is a whole other essay all by itself) which was often stifling to artists in film.
Video, oddly enough, has had the opposite effect. Instead of hurting the business end, it has damaged the creative end of the chain in more ways than one. One problem: video now often dictates how films are made (the marketing deals and strategies are figured out before the film is even shot, in many cases) from the types of films that get made to the way they are shot (oh, I guess I can't do this wide shot since it wouldn't look good on Joe Sixpack's 20" TV) to the material. "Forrest Gump" is a good example of a made-for-video film. It looks great on TV, and all those hit songs! It has also effected the way people watch films in the theaters. To many people, used to watching videos at home on their stratoloungers, going to see a film in the theater isn't much different. They seem to act the same way in a theater as they do at home (which would lead one to believe that most people are assholes in their own homes); they make noise during the film, talk, and be generally annoyed that their collective attention spans are being stretched to such extreme lengths.
So, it would seem as though the only reason most people ever go to a movie theater at all is because they can't see the material anywhere else. Now, if all the new films were simultaneously released in the theater and on video (and, yes, let's be fair: the price being the same to see the film), how many theaters would remain open? My guess would be very few. Is convenience that important to people? For you see, seeing a film in a dark theater, light through celluloid, is a different experience than watching it on television. Screen size aside, it is simply a different way to see the film for the way it is presented is different: you are actually going out to see, that is, to give your complete attention to, a film. While when seeing it on video, you're in your house, there are distractions, you can do the dishes, and so on. And then there's the technical end of it. The simple fact is, that most films, made after about 1953, were meant to be shown on a screen that's not only many times larger than a tv, but one that has a different aspect ratio (why they have to crop films when they're put on video). Letterboxing helps, but relatively few video consumers understand or care about something so complicated as screen sizes. So, am I advocating total abolishment of home video? Of course not. I find video to be quite useful, but, and I trust I can speak for most of you, I would rather see a film in a theater every time than watch it at home. A good Laserdisc of a film is a great thing to have around if you want to study a film; I like having certain films available to me because I am interested in how they are made. However, most people rent a video and forget all about it the next day and no wonder. The way they are watching it is so non-committal, that (those films that have material worthy of concentration) becomes meaningless, like the bad sitcoms they saw the night before.
And that brings me to another point: television. Television and film are becoming more and more alike, each borrowing from one another. I would almost call it, the dumbing down of film. Television/video has gained the slick production values of (this is relative) Hollywood, look at ST:TNG, and many of the films produced today have been reduced to big-budget television shows with no more depth than your average episode of 90210 (and don't even get me started on music videos!).
Part IV: Please be kind, rewind
Maybe the "American People" don't care about the art of film. Maybe they like to see good acting, writing, and direction (oh, and let's not forget special effects!) ,but only if they can see it while running on the treadmill. People obviously like to get out of their houses, but if they don't care about the films, why don't they just sit in bars and drink? There are many forces at work here and most are simply products of our society. People just don't want to concentrate on anything for very long and video is tailor made for our go-go way of living, it would seem. So, I apologize for the extreme length of this bit, but I thought some of you might be interested in this (since we are, after all, a generation of film students) to a certain extent. Chime in if you wish. I probably sound like I just joined the AARP film society, but this attitude has been built up over some time now and much of it has become more clear to me. I used to have a pretty laid-back attitude about video, but after years of use and observation, I have discovered the true, evil, twisted, government plot of this insidious device!
Help us, Sponk!!!!! See you at the video store! johnK
---
Well okay then. I really had to resist the urge to edit the hell out of that thing but the past is the past, right? I have to keep telling myself that this was five years before Wikipedia which today is a great resource for this kind of information. As far as I can remember, I really just pulled most of that essay out of my ass. There are some facts that aren't 100% correct but close enough to make the point. I like to think that I write somewhat better than that today. Oh yes, of course I do!
The other things I remember thinking as I read this piece were:
1. Where did I get off being so sanctimonious about movie and TV culture? Frustrated video store employee, guilty as-charged. I could easily write another long essay poking holes in my "video has damaged the art of filmmaking" screed but life is too short.
2. My remarks about home video: when I stop to think of the myriad forms of technology available to me today to watch movies and TV shows, I am amazed. We have it SO much better than we did in those days. Despite my ranting about the public at large disrespecting the "classic" movie-going experience, I as a film fan have never had it so good. There are so many ways to get access to content now. Sure, it's a pain to have to navigate all the different streaming/download services to find what you want but with few exceptions, we have easier access at far higher quality than ever before. And while first run movie theater ticket prices are higher, the price for purchase/rental of video today is the same or lower than it was in 1996.
Today, whenever I have to deal with video tape, I am reminded of how crummy it is as a consumer experience. I certainly have criticisms of DVD, Blu-ray, and Internet-based streaming services, but if the long term issues with digital archiving and storage can be solved, we're all a lot better off. Related to that, I have to say that I'm impressed that the few tapes from the 1980s I've played back recently (to digitize) still play and look about as good as they did decades ago. Will we be able to say the same for the digital content that's stored on servers today? Possibly. I hope.
So, if I could reach out and respond to my 1996 self, I would have two things to say:
1. Take it easy on the elitism.
2. It will get better.
While I contemplate the future of this blog and its associated podcast, I thought I'd share something I dug up while going through some very old saved email (well, it's old for email) discussions from the mid-1990s. I'd call it a good snapshot from the time, something that among other things tells me how my friends and I treated the medium of email. The messages are often extremely long and read much like blog entries or discussion board posts. It's hard to imagine this stuff being shared over any social media today. On Facebook, no one would even get past the first couple of sentences. To bring this back to some sort of subject, I chose to post this entry because the subject loosely fits this blog. The text file this was culled from didn't have an exact date on it but it did have all the email addresses the "essay" was originally sent to. I note today that while I recognize the email addresses, not one of the people associated with them still uses the address listed here (I haven't had an AOL email address in a looooong time). I corrected a few typos and formatted it for clarity but it's otherwise exactly what I wrote so let's see what I had to say about home video in 1996:
---
Let's just wait for the video...(long)
Dear friends: Today I am going to write about video (for you tech people, I mean consumer video, (IE. VHS and Laserdiscs that most people buy and rent). Since several friends have gotten on the bandwagon and purchased VHS decks somewhat recently and seeing that I am the resident authority on the subject, a dubious distinction to be sure, I thought it'd be a good time to give you all my take on video: where it's been and where it's going, and what is both good and bad about it.
True, it may seem like a silly thing to write about (although presenting it through the Internet seems strangely appropriate), it is a device that has changed the face of home entertainment in more ways than three.
Part I: A brief history of (video) time. Way back when, in 1976 or so, Disco was going strong and a new consumer wonder was introduced: the video cassette recorder. The early VCRs were large, ungainly, crude (by today's standards; just being able to time-shift a single program was quite the big event in those days--that is, for those who were adept enough to figure out how to program the beasts (those slobs have it so easy today!), and expensive (around $2,000).
And for you Betamax diehards (that would include myself and a few others whom I will not name in order to protect their families), I shall quickly cover the great Beta/VHS war that was waged in the early 80's.
1975: Sony and JVC both introduce new VCR formats (Sony=Beta, JVC=VHS), totally incompatible with one another. Now, as we currently see it, that was a very idiotic thing for them to have done, but the entire history of the recording industry has been littered with the corpses of formats that lost the struggle. Will they ever learn? Now, these two Japanese electronics giants had different ideas of how they should go about conquering this brave new market. Sony, knowing that they had the technically superior product, (Beta was a better format; nobody who knows anything about video would ever deny this) decided to keep it all to themselves and make all the profit since they figured that all those people out there would buy the Betamax no matter what since it was better. JVC, on the other hand, began licensing other companies to manufacture its machine (for a suitable fee, of course), to the point that anybody who wanted to could manufacture and market a VHS deck. It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happens next. By the early to mid 80's, when VCRs really started to sell, Sony was still keeping Beta to themselves (they did license to Sanyo, NEC--now out of the US market--, and Toshiba--one of the only companies to make both formats for a time--but by then it was too late), profiting in the short term, but losing the format war altogether since those few companies (at most) just couldn't get the market share that JVC and the dozen other (if you count the small fry) companies could manage. So, why didn't Beta succeed at least as well as, say, the Macintosh did? Beta just wasn't different enough for most people to notice. The Mac, on the other hand, while performing similar functions to its competitors, had a distinct and different operation and look which attracted a loyal customer base who didn't mind paying extra and only buying Apple products. So, Beta was relegated to the consumer electronics scrapheap and we all got stuck with the inferior, but better marketed format. Life isn't always fair.
And now, back to our story: At this point, the 80's are in full swing and a new business is being created: the video rental retailer. Up to this point, most people who bought VCRs, did so to record television shows (there was a Supreme Court case, brought about by the networks, around this time in which it was declared legal to record broadcasts for personal use). Pre-recorded movies on tape were expensive (they were often badly duplicated television copies) and often difficult to locate, but some people got the idea that if they bought these tapes and rented them out to people (the first Blockbuster was opened in '85) that they'd make a lot of dough. Boy, were they right. By the late 80's, the price of new VCRs had dropped so much that it seemed like EVERYBODY had one (many were buying second or third machines) and the video rental retailers kept right up with them. Another force driving all this at this time was the fact that the movie studios finally caught on and began mass producing videos and releasing a large number of titles. The demand is met.
And that pretty much brings us into the present. VCRs have been getting even cheaper (in more ways than one, but that's another topic I'd rather avoid at the moment) and video stores litter the landscape of America, there to satiate our ever-increasing appetites video movies. Laserdisc? I really don't need to say much about them since those who know, use Miracle Gro.....no, that wasn't it.....oh yeah, know better and the rest of you will never understand why they're better than videocassettes....Now that we all know where that grand institution known as home video came from (or was it a hideous UN plot?!), I can zero in on its effects on the public.
Part II: What's good about video:
Convenience.
No one can deny the simple convenience and availability of the format. Video tapes are easy to use, cheap, and the choice of titles gets better all the time. I, as a rabid consumer of classic film, would be the first to admit that video has allowed me to see and own, for that matter, films I wouldn't have access to in theaters (cable is also getting quite good in this area and of course, cable and home video are getting closer and closer all the time) and this could get even better with the eventuality of video on-demand.
Cost. Yep, it's cheap.
Privacy. This could be lumped in with the convenience area, but there is no denying the fact that people often prefer to watch flicks in their living rooms (the video boom has breathed new life into the porn business) and to a certain point, I would agree. So, it would seem that video has it all wrapped up. It's convenient, cheap, there is a huge choice of titles, and you don't have to go to the trouble of going to that stinky movie theater just to see the latest Van Damme epic.
Part III: What's wrong with video:
Having said all that, I begin with this statement: I believe that the advent of home video has had the most detrimental effect on the art of film-making in its one hundred year history. This may sound a bit like an overreaction, but think about it: what other factor has had this kind of negative effect? Bear in mind that when I say "negative," I refer strictly to the "art" of film-making and not the financial performance of the film industry, which has benefited from the video surge (it helps that the film companies are actively involved in the business).
Some might argue that the coming of television in the early fifties was a more serious threat. Television was indeed a threat to the film industry, that is, the companies that produced the films (this of course, was mainly due to the studios' short-sightedness and the fact that the television networks grew out of a different industry: radio--the Sherman anti-trust act didn't hurt either). However, to the people making the films, it was a blessing in disguise. A number of positive changes came about, mainly thanks to competition with the tube:
The elimination of the Hays production code, (named for Will H. Hays, a former RNC chairman, during the Harding administration, who headed the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, which was created during the twenties by the studio moguls as a response to public pressure to exercise some kind of film censorship. Generally known as the "Hays Office," it came up with the "Hays Code" which dictated what could and couldn't be done on camera. The code was almost always strictly enforced by the Hollywood studios.) the advent of widescreen processes, such as Cinemascope (its current incarnation is known as Panavision) and the use of stereophonic sound (googlaphonic?!), and the elimination of the strict, micromanaged studio system (which is a whole other essay all by itself) which was often stifling to artists in film.
Video, oddly enough, has had the opposite effect. Instead of hurting the business end, it has damaged the creative end of the chain in more ways than one. One problem: video now often dictates how films are made (the marketing deals and strategies are figured out before the film is even shot, in many cases) from the types of films that get made to the way they are shot (oh, I guess I can't do this wide shot since it wouldn't look good on Joe Sixpack's 20" TV) to the material. "Forrest Gump" is a good example of a made-for-video film. It looks great on TV, and all those hit songs! It has also effected the way people watch films in the theaters. To many people, used to watching videos at home on their stratoloungers, going to see a film in the theater isn't much different. They seem to act the same way in a theater as they do at home (which would lead one to believe that most people are assholes in their own homes); they make noise during the film, talk, and be generally annoyed that their collective attention spans are being stretched to such extreme lengths.
So, it would seem as though the only reason most people ever go to a movie theater at all is because they can't see the material anywhere else. Now, if all the new films were simultaneously released in the theater and on video (and, yes, let's be fair: the price being the same to see the film), how many theaters would remain open? My guess would be very few. Is convenience that important to people? For you see, seeing a film in a dark theater, light through celluloid, is a different experience than watching it on television. Screen size aside, it is simply a different way to see the film for the way it is presented is different: you are actually going out to see, that is, to give your complete attention to, a film. While when seeing it on video, you're in your house, there are distractions, you can do the dishes, and so on. And then there's the technical end of it. The simple fact is, that most films, made after about 1953, were meant to be shown on a screen that's not only many times larger than a tv, but one that has a different aspect ratio (why they have to crop films when they're put on video). Letterboxing helps, but relatively few video consumers understand or care about something so complicated as screen sizes. So, am I advocating total abolishment of home video? Of course not. I find video to be quite useful, but, and I trust I can speak for most of you, I would rather see a film in a theater every time than watch it at home. A good Laserdisc of a film is a great thing to have around if you want to study a film; I like having certain films available to me because I am interested in how they are made. However, most people rent a video and forget all about it the next day and no wonder. The way they are watching it is so non-committal, that (those films that have material worthy of concentration) becomes meaningless, like the bad sitcoms they saw the night before.
And that brings me to another point: television. Television and film are becoming more and more alike, each borrowing from one another. I would almost call it, the dumbing down of film. Television/video has gained the slick production values of (this is relative) Hollywood, look at ST:TNG, and many of the films produced today have been reduced to big-budget television shows with no more depth than your average episode of 90210 (and don't even get me started on music videos!).
Part IV: Please be kind, rewind
Maybe the "American People" don't care about the art of film. Maybe they like to see good acting, writing, and direction (oh, and let's not forget special effects!) ,but only if they can see it while running on the treadmill. People obviously like to get out of their houses, but if they don't care about the films, why don't they just sit in bars and drink? There are many forces at work here and most are simply products of our society. People just don't want to concentrate on anything for very long and video is tailor made for our go-go way of living, it would seem. So, I apologize for the extreme length of this bit, but I thought some of you might be interested in this (since we are, after all, a generation of film students) to a certain extent. Chime in if you wish. I probably sound like I just joined the AARP film society, but this attitude has been built up over some time now and much of it has become more clear to me. I used to have a pretty laid-back attitude about video, but after years of use and observation, I have discovered the true, evil, twisted, government plot of this insidious device!
Help us, Sponk!!!!! See you at the video store! johnK
---
Well okay then. I really had to resist the urge to edit the hell out of that thing but the past is the past, right? I have to keep telling myself that this was five years before Wikipedia which today is a great resource for this kind of information. As far as I can remember, I really just pulled most of that essay out of my ass. There are some facts that aren't 100% correct but close enough to make the point. I like to think that I write somewhat better than that today. Oh yes, of course I do!
The other things I remember thinking as I read this piece were:
1. Where did I get off being so sanctimonious about movie and TV culture? Frustrated video store employee, guilty as-charged. I could easily write another long essay poking holes in my "video has damaged the art of filmmaking" screed but life is too short.
2. My remarks about home video: when I stop to think of the myriad forms of technology available to me today to watch movies and TV shows, I am amazed. We have it SO much better than we did in those days. Despite my ranting about the public at large disrespecting the "classic" movie-going experience, I as a film fan have never had it so good. There are so many ways to get access to content now. Sure, it's a pain to have to navigate all the different streaming/download services to find what you want but with few exceptions, we have easier access at far higher quality than ever before. And while first run movie theater ticket prices are higher, the price for purchase/rental of video today is the same or lower than it was in 1996.
Today, whenever I have to deal with video tape, I am reminded of how crummy it is as a consumer experience. I certainly have criticisms of DVD, Blu-ray, and Internet-based streaming services, but if the long term issues with digital archiving and storage can be solved, we're all a lot better off. Related to that, I have to say that I'm impressed that the few tapes from the 1980s I've played back recently (to digitize) still play and look about as good as they did decades ago. Will we be able to say the same for the digital content that's stored on servers today? Possibly. I hope.
So, if I could reach out and respond to my 1996 self, I would have two things to say:
1. Take it easy on the elitism.
2. It will get better.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
TOS Rewind #64 and #65: "Wink of an Eye" and "The Empath"
Due to reasons far too boring to go into here, we doubled up this entry with TWO episodes! Wow, are you people lucky...
Our podcast, also covering both episodes:
Up for our consideration:
Wink of an Eye (11/29/1968)
and The Empath (12/06/1968)
"Wink of an Eye" feels like it has a lot of recycled ideas. The story of aliens taking over the ship is one that we've seen before. Wait a minute, am I actually recycling my reviews in response?!?! The ways in which our heroes overcome the aliens, while not exactly the same as other episodes, has a familiar feel. There are some interesting concepts on display, such as the way that the aliens are operating on such an elevated speed that they can't even be seen. This is interesting but the way in which this idea is portrayed in the show is sloppy to say the least. The science in this episode is glaringly bad, even for classic Trek. To be fair, aside from a few fantastical concepts such as the transporter, Trek tried harder than most shows and movies to make the science believable. But this episode displays a lack of detail that you don't see earlier in the series.
On the advice of Rob, I have been reading These Are The Voyages which chronicles (in great detail) the production history of this show. I've only read through the first half of the first season but what is very apparent is how much effort was put into making the scripts ready for production. A number of writers and producers had a hand in refining or outright re-writing the stories submitted by the authors. This may or may not have been for the best but there was a lot of effort going on to make the show consistently interesting and entertaining. I suspect that as the final season wore on, there was less of this, certainly by Gene Roddenberry who had little involvement with the show, and it shows with the way these later episodes come across. You can't blame everything on low budgets.
There are decent character scenes between the series regulars and it's somewhat amusing to see Kirk explicitly (as could be done in 1968 Trek) sleep with alien woman as part of a ruse to buy more time. However the ending of this episode feels off to me. The Enterprise just leaves the aliens back on the planet without much resolution, other than their implied destruction I guess. Kirk must have not wanted to share the cure with them...
The HD/remastered version looks great of course. The main difference I see is the backdrop on the planet wasn't reused from an earlier episode.
Ah, "The Empath".
This is another one I was never that fond of in the (distant) past. The ideas of the story seem familiar: aliens experimenting on people to test them. Yep, seen/done it. The Vians, who are this super race that we learn next to nothing about, bear a close resemblance to the "butt heads" of Talos IV ("The Cage"/"The Menagerie") but are far less interesting.
The sets and direction of this episode are pretty unusual, I'll give it that. I kept thinking as I watched that this could be an abstract stage version of Star Trek. The sets are really minimalistic and obviously set up on a darkened sound stage. Cheap, but the stripped bare sets don't benefit the story all that much. The environment isn't really supposed to be an improv-theater, more like a laboratory.
The performance of the woman who plays "Gem" (the empath) is actually quite good, if exaggerated. The lack of dialogue makes her acting come across like an old silent movie dramatic performance. Or maybe she's a mime. In any case, I have no doubt the actress was directed to perform the scenes in this way. The quirkiness of her scenes along with the interactions with our usual characters kept me interested even when the details of the story didn't really work. Like I said above, this episode could have benefited from a healthy dose of the Roddenberry script hatchet treatment. Like the Vians, who are cast using actors who probably were used to playing such roles as cab drivers or union foremen, no one seemed to care enough to make this story work well.
Some of the stylistic elements of the episode, such as this long sequence where Kirk is falling in slow motion, just go on too long and needed some editorial intervention. This is, by the way, a classic scene where one could poke fun at Shatner's acting style. However, I can't blame him for this one as I'm sure he's doing exactly as directed. Somebody thought this was a good idea...The pacing doesn't move well which tends to undermine the occasionally creepy atmosphere that the episode manages to convey.
I don't recall much different in the HD/remastered version but the sharper picture sure made the yellow carpeting stand out on that set platform Gem is found on!
---
And Eric's turn:
Friday the Thirteenth, full moon, Mercury in retrograde, and our black cat has crossed my path multiple times. If I were superstitious, I'd be royally screwed. But I'm not, so on with the original Star Trek review. This time, "Wink of an Eye" is up.
The only episode that rivals this one for getting the science so ludicrously wrong is "Operation Annihilate." We cover many of the inaccuracies in our podcast, but there are some other egregious gaffes:
Unless the radiation sickness is highly selctive by gender, the women would've been streilized too.
If McCoy found an antidote for the radiation sickness that worked on Kirk and Spock, with a little work, wouldn't he have been able to help the Scalosians too?
Unless time was accelerated too, the phaser beam Kirk shot at Deela would have moved at the speed of light as usual.
The story is very similar to a short story by H.G. Wells titled "The New Accelerator." It also strongly resembles and episode of The Lone Ranger, and an episode of The Wild Wild West titled "Night of the Burning Diamond."
Gene Coon was the first season Producer for The Wild Wild West, and he wrote "Wink of an Eye."
Finally, what still nags me is that Kirk simply left the Scalosians there to die. This is really out of character for the good captain, and it seems to be at serious odds with the high ideals of the supposedly benevolent United Federation of Planets. "Wink of an Eye" is not, however, wholly irredeemable. The one scene I like is where Kirk is running down the corridor and sees the recently accelerated Spock. He simply smiles as if he's pleased but not altogether surprised.
So, to quote Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
"The Empath"
I've been trying to think of something to say about "The Empath" that we didn't discuss in our podcast. The only thing I can think of is to reiterate how pointless it seems. Wouldn't it have been simpler and more revealing for the Vians to observe Gem's race to see if they met the criteria for being saved?
Also, Kathryn Hays, the actress who played Gem, seemed to be channeling an old silent movie actress. And while that may have been apprpriate for the role, I still found the overwrought emoting annoying.
And finally, I really didn't appreciate having to listen to bible quotes.
Before I sign off, I was just looking at the Memory Alpha entry for "The Empath," and apparently it was DeForest Kelley's favorite episode. Go figure. Anyway, there's some small hope that the next episode will be an improvement. LLAP.
Next time: "Elaan of Troyius"
Our podcast, also covering both episodes:
Up for our consideration:
Wink of an Eye (11/29/1968)
and The Empath (12/06/1968)
"Wink of an Eye" feels like it has a lot of recycled ideas. The story of aliens taking over the ship is one that we've seen before. Wait a minute, am I actually recycling my reviews in response?!?! The ways in which our heroes overcome the aliens, while not exactly the same as other episodes, has a familiar feel. There are some interesting concepts on display, such as the way that the aliens are operating on such an elevated speed that they can't even be seen. This is interesting but the way in which this idea is portrayed in the show is sloppy to say the least. The science in this episode is glaringly bad, even for classic Trek. To be fair, aside from a few fantastical concepts such as the transporter, Trek tried harder than most shows and movies to make the science believable. But this episode displays a lack of detail that you don't see earlier in the series.
On the advice of Rob, I have been reading These Are The Voyages which chronicles (in great detail) the production history of this show. I've only read through the first half of the first season but what is very apparent is how much effort was put into making the scripts ready for production. A number of writers and producers had a hand in refining or outright re-writing the stories submitted by the authors. This may or may not have been for the best but there was a lot of effort going on to make the show consistently interesting and entertaining. I suspect that as the final season wore on, there was less of this, certainly by Gene Roddenberry who had little involvement with the show, and it shows with the way these later episodes come across. You can't blame everything on low budgets.
There are decent character scenes between the series regulars and it's somewhat amusing to see Kirk explicitly (as could be done in 1968 Trek) sleep with alien woman as part of a ruse to buy more time. However the ending of this episode feels off to me. The Enterprise just leaves the aliens back on the planet without much resolution, other than their implied destruction I guess. Kirk must have not wanted to share the cure with them...
The HD/remastered version looks great of course. The main difference I see is the backdrop on the planet wasn't reused from an earlier episode.
Ah, "The Empath".
This is another one I was never that fond of in the (distant) past. The ideas of the story seem familiar: aliens experimenting on people to test them. Yep, seen/done it. The Vians, who are this super race that we learn next to nothing about, bear a close resemblance to the "butt heads" of Talos IV ("The Cage"/"The Menagerie") but are far less interesting.
The sets and direction of this episode are pretty unusual, I'll give it that. I kept thinking as I watched that this could be an abstract stage version of Star Trek. The sets are really minimalistic and obviously set up on a darkened sound stage. Cheap, but the stripped bare sets don't benefit the story all that much. The environment isn't really supposed to be an improv-theater, more like a laboratory.
The performance of the woman who plays "Gem" (the empath) is actually quite good, if exaggerated. The lack of dialogue makes her acting come across like an old silent movie dramatic performance. Or maybe she's a mime. In any case, I have no doubt the actress was directed to perform the scenes in this way. The quirkiness of her scenes along with the interactions with our usual characters kept me interested even when the details of the story didn't really work. Like I said above, this episode could have benefited from a healthy dose of the Roddenberry script hatchet treatment. Like the Vians, who are cast using actors who probably were used to playing such roles as cab drivers or union foremen, no one seemed to care enough to make this story work well.
Some of the stylistic elements of the episode, such as this long sequence where Kirk is falling in slow motion, just go on too long and needed some editorial intervention. This is, by the way, a classic scene where one could poke fun at Shatner's acting style. However, I can't blame him for this one as I'm sure he's doing exactly as directed. Somebody thought this was a good idea...The pacing doesn't move well which tends to undermine the occasionally creepy atmosphere that the episode manages to convey.
I don't recall much different in the HD/remastered version but the sharper picture sure made the yellow carpeting stand out on that set platform Gem is found on!
---
And Eric's turn:
Friday the Thirteenth, full moon, Mercury in retrograde, and our black cat has crossed my path multiple times. If I were superstitious, I'd be royally screwed. But I'm not, so on with the original Star Trek review. This time, "Wink of an Eye" is up.
The only episode that rivals this one for getting the science so ludicrously wrong is "Operation Annihilate." We cover many of the inaccuracies in our podcast, but there are some other egregious gaffes:
Unless the radiation sickness is highly selctive by gender, the women would've been streilized too.
If McCoy found an antidote for the radiation sickness that worked on Kirk and Spock, with a little work, wouldn't he have been able to help the Scalosians too?
Unless time was accelerated too, the phaser beam Kirk shot at Deela would have moved at the speed of light as usual.
The story is very similar to a short story by H.G. Wells titled "The New Accelerator." It also strongly resembles and episode of The Lone Ranger, and an episode of The Wild Wild West titled "Night of the Burning Diamond."
Gene Coon was the first season Producer for The Wild Wild West, and he wrote "Wink of an Eye."
Finally, what still nags me is that Kirk simply left the Scalosians there to die. This is really out of character for the good captain, and it seems to be at serious odds with the high ideals of the supposedly benevolent United Federation of Planets. "Wink of an Eye" is not, however, wholly irredeemable. The one scene I like is where Kirk is running down the corridor and sees the recently accelerated Spock. He simply smiles as if he's pleased but not altogether surprised.
So, to quote Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
"The Empath"
I've been trying to think of something to say about "The Empath" that we didn't discuss in our podcast. The only thing I can think of is to reiterate how pointless it seems. Wouldn't it have been simpler and more revealing for the Vians to observe Gem's race to see if they met the criteria for being saved?
Also, Kathryn Hays, the actress who played Gem, seemed to be channeling an old silent movie actress. And while that may have been apprpriate for the role, I still found the overwrought emoting annoying.
And finally, I really didn't appreciate having to listen to bible quotes.
Before I sign off, I was just looking at the Memory Alpha entry for "The Empath," and apparently it was DeForest Kelley's favorite episode. Go figure. Anyway, there's some small hope that the next episode will be an improvement. LLAP.
Next time: "Elaan of Troyius"
Thursday, May 1, 2014
TOS Rewind #63: "Plato's Stepchildren"
Today we tackle Plato's Stepchildren (11/22/1968)
Our podcast is here:
Unlike our previous episode, this was never one I enjoyed much as a kid. I think I can appreciate the episode's virtues slightly more today. Maybe.
I have to wonder what Shatner and Nimoy thought when they read this script. "You mean, I have to crawl around and act like a HORSE?!" All in a day's work I guess.
We find ourselves back in another story about power corrupting: and man, how these people are corrupt! The acting is often bad this time around and Parmen just doesn't impress as a villain. The constant humiliation that Kirk and Spock (particularly Spock) have to endure has a point, as far as it goes, but the payoff just isn't there at the end. Parmen turns out to be a coward when faced with Kirk gaining the telekinetic powers and just weasels his way out of the situation. There's some twisted (for 1968) things the characters have to do and we get the message loud and clear that the Platonians are a bunch of twisted assholes and have been that way forever. The problem is that the situation just doesn't make for a compelling episode of Star Trek, even if you put aside the costumes and the "horseplay." It seems hard to believe that no one in Starfleet wanted to come back here and do something with this powerful substance but it's probably best that the Platonians be largely forgotten going forward for the sake of the viewers at least.
Michael Dunn, as Alexander, partially redeems the episode. Dunn delivers a dramatic performance and is quiet convincing, especially when Kirk offers Alexander the power to overthrow Parmen. The exchanges between Kirk and Alexander seem genuine and have just a bit of the spirit of Trek. The idealism that living in the world of the Federation means not having to put up with people like the Platonian pricks. Well at least that's the idea. These good scenes are almost undone however by Kirk's line at the end of the episode, "I have a little surprise for you." Ouch. I remember Dunn from the 1965 film, Ship of Fools where he managed to stand out with another cast of scenery-chewers.
Also memorable is Spock's "Bitter Dregs" song (yes!). Just be glad Shatner didn't sing it. The kiss, though forced by the Platonians, is important for TV history and Nichelle Nichols plays the scene well.
There are too many ridiculous elements to list here, and perhaps it was best for the writers not to even try to explain much of what happens in this episode. There's one scene where Kirk calls the Enterprise and Scotty just says that things are "stuck." They could have at least tried to make some bogus techno-babble beyond "the ship is broken, Captain".
The enhanced effects were fine but since much of the episode happens on the planet, there wasn't much to see.
---
Eric's take:
To be fair, there aren't many original Trek episodes that would've been a satisfying follow-up to "The Tholian Web," and I don't think any of them come from the third season. That said, I found on rewatching "Plato's Stepchildren" that it is not as ridiculous as I remembered. Our podcast covered the episode well, but there are three points that bear repeating.
First, the premise of the story is interesting, that a spacefaring jet set (space set?) visits Earth during the time of Classical Greece and happens upon Plato. They dig his ideas, and the colony they set up after they leave Earth is modeled on Plato's Republic. As it turns out, however, their republic is conspicuously perverted, which forms an intriguing basis for the episode.
Next, the scenes where Kirk and Spock are forced to debase themselves (e.g. the Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum song and dance duet) are cringe-worthy. I still find them rather painful to watch, but it occurred to me that that is the purpose of those scenes. Parmen's stated intention is to humiliate Kirk and Spock, so it follows logically that they are made to act in humiliating ways. And our reaction (disgust, embarassment, etc.) is exactly the kind of reaction that is supposed to be evoked.
Finally, it could easily be argued that the late Michael Dunn, who played Alexander, steals the show. (He outdoes Shatner in scenery chewing, and that's saying something.) When I've thought about this episode over the years, it is Alexander who I remember. Dunn's performance is superb, utterly convincing and at the same time endearing. He was a noted character actor who also played, to great effect, Dr. Miguelito Loveless in The Wild Wild West, a Spy/Western TV series that ran concurrently with original Star Trek. Sadly, Dun passed away in 1973 at the much too young age of 38.
So there we have it. Although it remains among the less-notable episodes, upon reconsideration, "Plato's Stepchildren" is not as ridiculously campy as it seems.
Next time: "Wink of an Eye"
Our podcast is here:
Unlike our previous episode, this was never one I enjoyed much as a kid. I think I can appreciate the episode's virtues slightly more today. Maybe.
I have to wonder what Shatner and Nimoy thought when they read this script. "You mean, I have to crawl around and act like a HORSE?!" All in a day's work I guess.
We find ourselves back in another story about power corrupting: and man, how these people are corrupt! The acting is often bad this time around and Parmen just doesn't impress as a villain. The constant humiliation that Kirk and Spock (particularly Spock) have to endure has a point, as far as it goes, but the payoff just isn't there at the end. Parmen turns out to be a coward when faced with Kirk gaining the telekinetic powers and just weasels his way out of the situation. There's some twisted (for 1968) things the characters have to do and we get the message loud and clear that the Platonians are a bunch of twisted assholes and have been that way forever. The problem is that the situation just doesn't make for a compelling episode of Star Trek, even if you put aside the costumes and the "horseplay." It seems hard to believe that no one in Starfleet wanted to come back here and do something with this powerful substance but it's probably best that the Platonians be largely forgotten going forward for the sake of the viewers at least.
Michael Dunn, as Alexander, partially redeems the episode. Dunn delivers a dramatic performance and is quiet convincing, especially when Kirk offers Alexander the power to overthrow Parmen. The exchanges between Kirk and Alexander seem genuine and have just a bit of the spirit of Trek. The idealism that living in the world of the Federation means not having to put up with people like the Platonian pricks. Well at least that's the idea. These good scenes are almost undone however by Kirk's line at the end of the episode, "I have a little surprise for you." Ouch. I remember Dunn from the 1965 film, Ship of Fools where he managed to stand out with another cast of scenery-chewers.
Also memorable is Spock's "Bitter Dregs" song (yes!). Just be glad Shatner didn't sing it. The kiss, though forced by the Platonians, is important for TV history and Nichelle Nichols plays the scene well.
There are too many ridiculous elements to list here, and perhaps it was best for the writers not to even try to explain much of what happens in this episode. There's one scene where Kirk calls the Enterprise and Scotty just says that things are "stuck." They could have at least tried to make some bogus techno-babble beyond "the ship is broken, Captain".
The enhanced effects were fine but since much of the episode happens on the planet, there wasn't much to see.
---
Eric's take:
To be fair, there aren't many original Trek episodes that would've been a satisfying follow-up to "The Tholian Web," and I don't think any of them come from the third season. That said, I found on rewatching "Plato's Stepchildren" that it is not as ridiculous as I remembered. Our podcast covered the episode well, but there are three points that bear repeating.
First, the premise of the story is interesting, that a spacefaring jet set (space set?) visits Earth during the time of Classical Greece and happens upon Plato. They dig his ideas, and the colony they set up after they leave Earth is modeled on Plato's Republic. As it turns out, however, their republic is conspicuously perverted, which forms an intriguing basis for the episode.
Next, the scenes where Kirk and Spock are forced to debase themselves (e.g. the Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum song and dance duet) are cringe-worthy. I still find them rather painful to watch, but it occurred to me that that is the purpose of those scenes. Parmen's stated intention is to humiliate Kirk and Spock, so it follows logically that they are made to act in humiliating ways. And our reaction (disgust, embarassment, etc.) is exactly the kind of reaction that is supposed to be evoked.
Finally, it could easily be argued that the late Michael Dunn, who played Alexander, steals the show. (He outdoes Shatner in scenery chewing, and that's saying something.) When I've thought about this episode over the years, it is Alexander who I remember. Dunn's performance is superb, utterly convincing and at the same time endearing. He was a noted character actor who also played, to great effect, Dr. Miguelito Loveless in The Wild Wild West, a Spy/Western TV series that ran concurrently with original Star Trek. Sadly, Dun passed away in 1973 at the much too young age of 38.
So there we have it. Although it remains among the less-notable episodes, upon reconsideration, "Plato's Stepchildren" is not as ridiculously campy as it seems.
Next time: "Wink of an Eye"
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
TOS Rewind #62: "The Tholian Web"
Up today: The Tholian Web (11/15/1968)
Our podcast for this one is here:
Eric get the first shot:
As far as I'm concerned, "The Tholian Web" is the best episode from the third season. And although that isn't saying much, it is also among my top 15, if not top10, original Star Trek episodes.
I watched it three times, ostensibly in preparation for this review but really for no reason other than it's damn good, a favorite for as long as I can remember. The story is both great Trek and great science fiction. The premise of another Constitution Class starship caught in an destabilizing, interspatial rift cleverly allows the producers to use a credible SF concept to do what is in ways a ghost story (which Gene Roddenberry forbade, although I think he would've let this one slide).
One reason this episode is so good is that the characterizations are spot-on. In particular, Spock's eulogy at Kirk's memorial shows this in its simplicity and elegance: "I shall not attempt to voice the quality of respect and admiration which Captain Kirk commanded. Each of you must evaluate the loss in the privacy of your own thoughts." This is beautifully characteristic of Spock. And as I'm thinking about it, I realize it is echoed (at least in sentiment and simplicity) by Kirk in Spock's funeral scene in Star Trek II: "Of my friend, I can only say this; of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most human."
Similarly touching are Kirk's last orders, which Spock and McCoy listen to after the memorial service. I can't think of a scene in any episode that better shows the depth of the friendship between these characters. Spock and McCoy are in a heated argument, but when they hear Kirk's voice, they immediately stop and are visibly moved. And Kirk shows how well he understands and cares for his friends when he accurately predicts the tactical situation, both with the enemy ships and between Spock and McCoy, and offers advice to help defuse both situations. This is the real beauty of the scene--the underlying affection and care that is so easily believable.
Finally, a point about McCoy came up in our podcast that deserves, I think, to be reiterated. At more than one point in the episode, McCoy is argumentative with Spock to the point of seeming mean-spirited or cruel. "[Kirk] was a hero in every sense of the word, yet his life was sacrificed for nothing," for example. Or "Do you suppose they're seeing Jim because they've lost confidence in you?" This can, of course, be attributed to the mental instability caused by the interspatial rift, but I think McCoy's "meanness" is actually a way of helping Spock. The barbs and insults are a conscious attempt to provoke an emotional reaction in order to engage Spock's human half, which is arguably where his intuition resides. (And as Kirk points out in his last orders, intuition is vital to being able to command effectively.) With this possibility, McCoy's irascible and crotchety nature becomes an intentional facade while the character takes on new depth, and we see just how true a friend he is.
So in the end, "The Tholian Web" is really a collection of excellent character scenes interwoven with a great story that reveals the power of true friendship. Once again, a damn good episode.
---
Eric's review is tough to follow but here goes...
I once heard Roger Ebert say, regarding the film Casablanca, that he didn't necessarily think it was the best movie ever made but that it might be the one he enjoyed watching the most (paraphrasing). I think this could be a good way to look at this episode. Taken as a whole, with regards to the entire series, I think it falls very slightly short of the very best but if I have to pick one episode to just randomly watch, when I want a Star Trek fix, this would be it. As Rob reminded me recently, this was always the episode I claimed to be the best as we were youthfully watching Trek.
This episode also happens to be the highlight of Season 3. The story is compelling and the familiar character dynamic is firing on all cylinders. The early scenes where Kirk and the landing party are investigating the interior of the Defiant are tense and chilling. The music and having the characters in space suits really ratchets up the atmosphere (or lack thereof, heh). These scenes take place without the usual shipboard sounds, just the music and the men talking to each other. The place just feels off.
Once Kirk has been lost, Spock is thrown into command with another crisis: the Tholians, a race we have never seen before. We discussed on the podcast how there is perhaps too much going on in this episode: the missing Defiant, the deterioration of the crew's mental condition, the combat with the Tholians, and of course Spock trying to keep everyone under his command in order. Looking back on this episode, I think it all works and I don't ever feel as though extra plot elements are being thrown in to keep things from getting too slow. The pacing is tight and yet most things don't feel rushed. The scene between McCoy and Spock in Kirk's quarters takes the time it needs, a moment of quiet reflection in an otherwise high-powered storyline that doesn't lack for drama. I like the fact that the aforementioned scene was included as it wasn't strictly necessary; the story would have worked without it. What the scene adds is sensitivity between two old friends, fighting not unlike a pair of stubborn, opinionated brothers.
Despite the fact that only the existing ship sets were used, the episode never feels cheap. The actual Tholian that is shown, only its head and a hazy background really, reveals just enough to make it seem alien and leaves much to the imagination. A little colored aluminum foil and good lighting can go a long way. The way the Defiant scenes are shot and lit makes it seem somehow different from the familiar Enterprise. The space combat and effects shots are very good, as good as anything they did in the series; a real standout in a season that often feels short-changed.
I really enjoy watching how Spock handles command in this episode. You get the impression that he has learned from his previous experiences and does rather well under pressure. Even though episodes like "The Galileo Seven" aren't referenced, I have to wonder if the writers were up to speed about how the character handled command then versus this time, two seasons later. Either way, it works. Kirk is absent for much of the episode but it really missed by the crew. Kirk's disappearance leaves a hole that some characters don't know how really fill.
Idea-wise, the episode is not really that original, but the concepts (space madness, alien contact, alternative universes, etc) are weaved together in such a way that the story feels fresh and not nearly so borrowed like other episodes in this season. The sad part is that I know that this is as good as it gets and it's only downhill from here in the quality department. Oh well, at least space hippies are good campy fun.
The new effects for the HD version of this one are very good but the old effects weren't too bad to begin with. Perhaps the added clarity of the new shots is the best thing: the old shots were optical process shots that tend to look a bit on the fuzzy side.
Next time: "Plato's Stepchildren"
Our podcast for this one is here:
Eric get the first shot:
As far as I'm concerned, "The Tholian Web" is the best episode from the third season. And although that isn't saying much, it is also among my top 15, if not top10, original Star Trek episodes.
I watched it three times, ostensibly in preparation for this review but really for no reason other than it's damn good, a favorite for as long as I can remember. The story is both great Trek and great science fiction. The premise of another Constitution Class starship caught in an destabilizing, interspatial rift cleverly allows the producers to use a credible SF concept to do what is in ways a ghost story (which Gene Roddenberry forbade, although I think he would've let this one slide).
One reason this episode is so good is that the characterizations are spot-on. In particular, Spock's eulogy at Kirk's memorial shows this in its simplicity and elegance: "I shall not attempt to voice the quality of respect and admiration which Captain Kirk commanded. Each of you must evaluate the loss in the privacy of your own thoughts." This is beautifully characteristic of Spock. And as I'm thinking about it, I realize it is echoed (at least in sentiment and simplicity) by Kirk in Spock's funeral scene in Star Trek II: "Of my friend, I can only say this; of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most human."
Similarly touching are Kirk's last orders, which Spock and McCoy listen to after the memorial service. I can't think of a scene in any episode that better shows the depth of the friendship between these characters. Spock and McCoy are in a heated argument, but when they hear Kirk's voice, they immediately stop and are visibly moved. And Kirk shows how well he understands and cares for his friends when he accurately predicts the tactical situation, both with the enemy ships and between Spock and McCoy, and offers advice to help defuse both situations. This is the real beauty of the scene--the underlying affection and care that is so easily believable.
Finally, a point about McCoy came up in our podcast that deserves, I think, to be reiterated. At more than one point in the episode, McCoy is argumentative with Spock to the point of seeming mean-spirited or cruel. "[Kirk] was a hero in every sense of the word, yet his life was sacrificed for nothing," for example. Or "Do you suppose they're seeing Jim because they've lost confidence in you?" This can, of course, be attributed to the mental instability caused by the interspatial rift, but I think McCoy's "meanness" is actually a way of helping Spock. The barbs and insults are a conscious attempt to provoke an emotional reaction in order to engage Spock's human half, which is arguably where his intuition resides. (And as Kirk points out in his last orders, intuition is vital to being able to command effectively.) With this possibility, McCoy's irascible and crotchety nature becomes an intentional facade while the character takes on new depth, and we see just how true a friend he is.
So in the end, "The Tholian Web" is really a collection of excellent character scenes interwoven with a great story that reveals the power of true friendship. Once again, a damn good episode.
---
Eric's review is tough to follow but here goes...
I once heard Roger Ebert say, regarding the film Casablanca, that he didn't necessarily think it was the best movie ever made but that it might be the one he enjoyed watching the most (paraphrasing). I think this could be a good way to look at this episode. Taken as a whole, with regards to the entire series, I think it falls very slightly short of the very best but if I have to pick one episode to just randomly watch, when I want a Star Trek fix, this would be it. As Rob reminded me recently, this was always the episode I claimed to be the best as we were youthfully watching Trek.
This episode also happens to be the highlight of Season 3. The story is compelling and the familiar character dynamic is firing on all cylinders. The early scenes where Kirk and the landing party are investigating the interior of the Defiant are tense and chilling. The music and having the characters in space suits really ratchets up the atmosphere (or lack thereof, heh). These scenes take place without the usual shipboard sounds, just the music and the men talking to each other. The place just feels off.
Once Kirk has been lost, Spock is thrown into command with another crisis: the Tholians, a race we have never seen before. We discussed on the podcast how there is perhaps too much going on in this episode: the missing Defiant, the deterioration of the crew's mental condition, the combat with the Tholians, and of course Spock trying to keep everyone under his command in order. Looking back on this episode, I think it all works and I don't ever feel as though extra plot elements are being thrown in to keep things from getting too slow. The pacing is tight and yet most things don't feel rushed. The scene between McCoy and Spock in Kirk's quarters takes the time it needs, a moment of quiet reflection in an otherwise high-powered storyline that doesn't lack for drama. I like the fact that the aforementioned scene was included as it wasn't strictly necessary; the story would have worked without it. What the scene adds is sensitivity between two old friends, fighting not unlike a pair of stubborn, opinionated brothers.
Despite the fact that only the existing ship sets were used, the episode never feels cheap. The actual Tholian that is shown, only its head and a hazy background really, reveals just enough to make it seem alien and leaves much to the imagination. A little colored aluminum foil and good lighting can go a long way. The way the Defiant scenes are shot and lit makes it seem somehow different from the familiar Enterprise. The space combat and effects shots are very good, as good as anything they did in the series; a real standout in a season that often feels short-changed.
I really enjoy watching how Spock handles command in this episode. You get the impression that he has learned from his previous experiences and does rather well under pressure. Even though episodes like "The Galileo Seven" aren't referenced, I have to wonder if the writers were up to speed about how the character handled command then versus this time, two seasons later. Either way, it works. Kirk is absent for much of the episode but it really missed by the crew. Kirk's disappearance leaves a hole that some characters don't know how really fill.
Idea-wise, the episode is not really that original, but the concepts (space madness, alien contact, alternative universes, etc) are weaved together in such a way that the story feels fresh and not nearly so borrowed like other episodes in this season. The sad part is that I know that this is as good as it gets and it's only downhill from here in the quality department. Oh well, at least space hippies are good campy fun.
The new effects for the HD version of this one are very good but the old effects weren't too bad to begin with. Perhaps the added clarity of the new shots is the best thing: the old shots were optical process shots that tend to look a bit on the fuzzy side.
Next time: "Plato's Stepchildren"
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
TOS Rewind #61: For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
And now we land on For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky (11/08/1968)
Here's our podcast:
Once again, our heroes find themselves with a wayward society run by some ancient civilization's computer. This time, they're on an asteroid that happens to be a spaceship and will soon collide with an inhabited world unless it's put back on course. Oh, and this computer really doesn't like to be told what to do and is kind of a control freak.
I think it's pretty safe to say that this episode is very heavily borrowed from earlier science fiction, including Robert Heinlein and even earlier this very season in "The Paradise Syndrome". The ideas here are very similar: "primitive" group of people being guided by a now-faulty caretaker computer. Our heroes get to fix things.
This one would be pretty much a throw-away exercise in lazy duplication were it not for the focus on McCoy. The plot element where Bones self-diagnoses himself with a fatal, incurable illness is quite melodramatic. It could be that we have already gone so far beyond this point in Star Trek to not take McCoy's impending death seriously but in the episode it seems subdued as well. Kirk seems to display very little emotion when he hears the news and callously orders Starfleet to send out a replacement doctor. This part of the episode seems inconsistent given how close the main characters are by this time. I have to wonder if the writers felt this would make it more realistic when McCoy decides to stay behind with his new girlfriend.
However, the romance between McCoy and Natira, the leader of the people on the asteroid, is the primary attraction of this episode. Unless I'm forgetting something, this is the only other episode with the exception of "The Man Trap" way back at the beginning of the series where McCoy is portrayed as having any relationships other than those of friendship (with Kirk/Spock). Abbreviated as it is, it's nice to see this character branch out just a little and the scenes have a certain sweetness to them. On the other hand, like many other subplots of the original series, the relationship has no life outside of this episode.
Otherwise, the costumes are extremely silly and the sets reused or cheap. We do get an unusual scene with Kirk talking to Starfleet; that didn't happen all the time but there's not that much new or interesting going on.
The new effects for this episode look nice and improve on the shots where the Enterprise is following the asteroid/ship.
---
Eric's take:
The best word to describe my feelings about "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky" is meh. Profound mehness.
To be fair, there are things I like about this episode. McCoy getting the girl is a refreshing change of pace. I wonder, though, what happened behind the scenes to convince Mr. Ego (aka Bill Shatner) to relinquish his sex god role, if only temporarily. I also enjoyed, as usual, the interactions between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. By this point in the series, both the writers and actors know the characters inside out, so even the average (or pitiful) episodes have good character moments. And lastly, there really isn't any overt or egregious sexism or misogyny.
But now the reasons for this episode's aforementioned mehness. To begin with, the sub-plot of McCoy having a terminal illness seems like a contrived plot device. It could be argued that it provides the necessary incentive for him to stay on Yonada with Natira, but I question whether it is necessary given McCoy's admission of deep loneliness. It actually would've been more genuinely dramatic for McCoy's decision to leave the Enterprise to simply be a life choice.
Also the premise of the story--our brave captain and crew versus the artificially intelligent supercomputer--is derivative of at least three much better episodes: "Return of the Archons," "The Changeling," and "The Ultimate Computer." And in a similar vein, the story also plagiarizes one of my favorite science fiction books by one of my favorite science fiction authors. "Orphans of the Sky" by Robert A. Heinlein is a novel about a massive starship full of colonists who not only do not know they are colonists, but also do not know they live inside a starship. (As you might guess, I recommend this book quite highly.)
So "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky" is neither great nor excremental. It's just, once again, meh. The next episode, though, is a real gem.
Next time: "The Tholian Web"
Here's our podcast:
Once again, our heroes find themselves with a wayward society run by some ancient civilization's computer. This time, they're on an asteroid that happens to be a spaceship and will soon collide with an inhabited world unless it's put back on course. Oh, and this computer really doesn't like to be told what to do and is kind of a control freak.
I think it's pretty safe to say that this episode is very heavily borrowed from earlier science fiction, including Robert Heinlein and even earlier this very season in "The Paradise Syndrome". The ideas here are very similar: "primitive" group of people being guided by a now-faulty caretaker computer. Our heroes get to fix things.
This one would be pretty much a throw-away exercise in lazy duplication were it not for the focus on McCoy. The plot element where Bones self-diagnoses himself with a fatal, incurable illness is quite melodramatic. It could be that we have already gone so far beyond this point in Star Trek to not take McCoy's impending death seriously but in the episode it seems subdued as well. Kirk seems to display very little emotion when he hears the news and callously orders Starfleet to send out a replacement doctor. This part of the episode seems inconsistent given how close the main characters are by this time. I have to wonder if the writers felt this would make it more realistic when McCoy decides to stay behind with his new girlfriend.
However, the romance between McCoy and Natira, the leader of the people on the asteroid, is the primary attraction of this episode. Unless I'm forgetting something, this is the only other episode with the exception of "The Man Trap" way back at the beginning of the series where McCoy is portrayed as having any relationships other than those of friendship (with Kirk/Spock). Abbreviated as it is, it's nice to see this character branch out just a little and the scenes have a certain sweetness to them. On the other hand, like many other subplots of the original series, the relationship has no life outside of this episode.
Otherwise, the costumes are extremely silly and the sets reused or cheap. We do get an unusual scene with Kirk talking to Starfleet; that didn't happen all the time but there's not that much new or interesting going on.
The new effects for this episode look nice and improve on the shots where the Enterprise is following the asteroid/ship.
---
Eric's take:
The best word to describe my feelings about "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky" is meh. Profound mehness.
To be fair, there are things I like about this episode. McCoy getting the girl is a refreshing change of pace. I wonder, though, what happened behind the scenes to convince Mr. Ego (aka Bill Shatner) to relinquish his sex god role, if only temporarily. I also enjoyed, as usual, the interactions between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. By this point in the series, both the writers and actors know the characters inside out, so even the average (or pitiful) episodes have good character moments. And lastly, there really isn't any overt or egregious sexism or misogyny.
But now the reasons for this episode's aforementioned mehness. To begin with, the sub-plot of McCoy having a terminal illness seems like a contrived plot device. It could be argued that it provides the necessary incentive for him to stay on Yonada with Natira, but I question whether it is necessary given McCoy's admission of deep loneliness. It actually would've been more genuinely dramatic for McCoy's decision to leave the Enterprise to simply be a life choice.
Also the premise of the story--our brave captain and crew versus the artificially intelligent supercomputer--is derivative of at least three much better episodes: "Return of the Archons," "The Changeling," and "The Ultimate Computer." And in a similar vein, the story also plagiarizes one of my favorite science fiction books by one of my favorite science fiction authors. "Orphans of the Sky" by Robert A. Heinlein is a novel about a massive starship full of colonists who not only do not know they are colonists, but also do not know they live inside a starship. (As you might guess, I recommend this book quite highly.)
So "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky" is neither great nor excremental. It's just, once again, meh. The next episode, though, is a real gem.
Next time: "The Tholian Web"
Sunday, February 9, 2014
TOS Rewind #60: "Day of the Dove"
Our podcast for this episode...oh, just listen to the damn thing here.
Up today: Day of the Dove (11/01/1968)
This episode is perhaps the opposite of the last one: where "Spectre of the Gun" looks better with age, this one is perhaps not quite as good. My younger self also greatly preferred "Day of the Dove" to "Spectre" for pretty obvious reasons. This episode contains a fair amount of action and the Klingons were always fun villains in the old series. The only thing missing, according to John, aged 12, was a space battle. Nobody's perfect.
The idea for this episode is fairly compelling: two rival groups are thrown together in a situation that almost plays like an evil science experiment where the subjects placed into an artificial situation while the aliens observe. In this case, the alien just feeds off the hostile emotions. It may seem extremely contrived but it does sound like someone's idea of Hell; unending hatred, pain, and violence with no release. The resolution comes off as a bit pat, but the setup where the Klingon ship and the Enterprise are lured to the planet is very effective. The only thing that lessens the drama is the way that the presence of the alien is revealed early in the first act. We know the alien is there way before the characters do and it robs some of the suspense. It would have been more satisfying if we'd gotten a bit more insight into this alien but that would have required slowing down the action. Next Gen was far more adept at this.
The character interplay, like many episodes this late in the series, well broken in like a comfortable shoe. A side benefit of Third Season is that we often get Sulu and Chekov at the same time (George Takei was absent for much of Season 2 and Chekov wasn't introduced until after Season 1). Speaking of Chekov...the poor guy gets another round with the Agonizer just like his mirror universe self did in Season 2; a cosmic joke if there ever was one. Chekov also gets the ugliest scenes in the episode where he attempts to rape and possibly kill the Klingon captain's wife until Kirk intervenes. Pretty edgy stuff for 1968 television, but he was a Russian so all is good, right?
The rest of the crew is good and Kirk once again is mostly immune to the alien influence, though his decision to destroy the disabled Klingon ship at the beginning of the episode is another clue that perhaps not everyone is right in the head. The scenery chewing duties are shared by pretty much everyone, except perhaps Sulu and even Spock and Scotty get into the action.
The casting of Michael Ansara as Kang was fortunate. Ansara's performance is right for the character where John Colicos, who was supposed to come back as Kor from "Errand of Mercy" might not have worked as well. Nothing against Colicos, who is still great but his flavor of Klingon is perhaps a bit too, well, nuanced for the story of this episode. Kang fits. Kang's wife, Mara is a welcome addition to the Boys Club. There are criticisms to be made about her but she is a prominent character with authority so overall this was a plus.
The original series Klingons haven't aged at all well, at least the way the appear. In the clear light of HD, they have this unfortunate look of actors with a lot of black/brown makeup on with a few costume flourishes. Options were of course limited back then but when Trek made the move to bigger screens and budgets, the showrunners were smart to "update" the Klingons. Some have dinged this episode for having almost all its action confined to the existing Enterprise sets. I don't really see a problem with this. The episode works for this and playing this out on a cheap-looking planet set or the same old California location wouldn't have improved anything. The sword fights are pretty anemic but fight choreography has come a long way.
The HD effects and picture are of course very good again this time. The enhanced effects are welcome for the ship shots and planet effects.
---
Eric?
Oh joy, a warming trend. It's 0 degrees outside, which is still cold enough to freeze the balls off of a brass monkey, and still has absolutely nothing to do with our current episode, which this time is "Day of the Dove."
Like "Spectre of the Gun," the budget constraints worked in favor of this episode. Since it was least expensive to film on the standing sets, almost all of "Day of the Dove" takes place on the Enterprise. Luckily, however, this is exactly what the story called for. It didn't seem at all contrived to me (which can often make the difference between a good episode and a lousy one). I also applaud the late Michael Ansara's portrayal of Kang, who is one of my favorite Klingons. He combined the warrior aggression and ruthlessness with nobility and dignity. Very nicely done and a good template for ST:TNG Klingons like Worf. (Geeky Note: A much older Kang appeared in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Blood Oath" with William Campbell as Koloth and John Colicos as Kor. Great fun. If you haven't seen that episode, it comes highly recommended.) And I like the basic story: A powerful alien entity sets up a situation of continual, regenerative warfare and violence on the Enterprise in order to feed off of the negative emotions and actions of the Klingon and human crews. The implication that this entity has been responsible for some (or much) of humanity's bloody inhumanity is also interesting, if improbable.
Despite the fact that I enjoy the story, the swirly, multicolored entity bears too strong a resemblance (at least in terms of nature and function) to Redjac from the second season episode "Wolf in the Fold." In addition, the fight scenes look staged, especially by the standards of the later Trek shows. Klingons are vicious warriors, but they don't look or act like it in "Day of the Dove." And finally, what happened to the Organian Peace Treaty that was established in the first season in "Errand of Mercy?!" One would think that the Organians would have taken notice and put an end to the battle given their enormous power and obvious determination to prevent the Federation and the Klingon Empire from fighting. Evidently, whoever was in charge of continuity was asleep at the switch.
In spite of these flaws, "Day of the Dove" still stands out as one of the better third season episodes. Although I'm not sure whether that's saying a great deal or very little...
Next time: "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky"
Up today: Day of the Dove (11/01/1968)
This episode is perhaps the opposite of the last one: where "Spectre of the Gun" looks better with age, this one is perhaps not quite as good. My younger self also greatly preferred "Day of the Dove" to "Spectre" for pretty obvious reasons. This episode contains a fair amount of action and the Klingons were always fun villains in the old series. The only thing missing, according to John, aged 12, was a space battle. Nobody's perfect.
The idea for this episode is fairly compelling: two rival groups are thrown together in a situation that almost plays like an evil science experiment where the subjects placed into an artificial situation while the aliens observe. In this case, the alien just feeds off the hostile emotions. It may seem extremely contrived but it does sound like someone's idea of Hell; unending hatred, pain, and violence with no release. The resolution comes off as a bit pat, but the setup where the Klingon ship and the Enterprise are lured to the planet is very effective. The only thing that lessens the drama is the way that the presence of the alien is revealed early in the first act. We know the alien is there way before the characters do and it robs some of the suspense. It would have been more satisfying if we'd gotten a bit more insight into this alien but that would have required slowing down the action. Next Gen was far more adept at this.
The character interplay, like many episodes this late in the series, well broken in like a comfortable shoe. A side benefit of Third Season is that we often get Sulu and Chekov at the same time (George Takei was absent for much of Season 2 and Chekov wasn't introduced until after Season 1). Speaking of Chekov...the poor guy gets another round with the Agonizer just like his mirror universe self did in Season 2; a cosmic joke if there ever was one. Chekov also gets the ugliest scenes in the episode where he attempts to rape and possibly kill the Klingon captain's wife until Kirk intervenes. Pretty edgy stuff for 1968 television, but he was a Russian so all is good, right?
The rest of the crew is good and Kirk once again is mostly immune to the alien influence, though his decision to destroy the disabled Klingon ship at the beginning of the episode is another clue that perhaps not everyone is right in the head. The scenery chewing duties are shared by pretty much everyone, except perhaps Sulu and even Spock and Scotty get into the action.
The casting of Michael Ansara as Kang was fortunate. Ansara's performance is right for the character where John Colicos, who was supposed to come back as Kor from "Errand of Mercy" might not have worked as well. Nothing against Colicos, who is still great but his flavor of Klingon is perhaps a bit too, well, nuanced for the story of this episode. Kang fits. Kang's wife, Mara is a welcome addition to the Boys Club. There are criticisms to be made about her but she is a prominent character with authority so overall this was a plus.
The original series Klingons haven't aged at all well, at least the way the appear. In the clear light of HD, they have this unfortunate look of actors with a lot of black/brown makeup on with a few costume flourishes. Options were of course limited back then but when Trek made the move to bigger screens and budgets, the showrunners were smart to "update" the Klingons. Some have dinged this episode for having almost all its action confined to the existing Enterprise sets. I don't really see a problem with this. The episode works for this and playing this out on a cheap-looking planet set or the same old California location wouldn't have improved anything. The sword fights are pretty anemic but fight choreography has come a long way.
The HD effects and picture are of course very good again this time. The enhanced effects are welcome for the ship shots and planet effects.
---
Eric?
Oh joy, a warming trend. It's 0 degrees outside, which is still cold enough to freeze the balls off of a brass monkey, and still has absolutely nothing to do with our current episode, which this time is "Day of the Dove."
Like "Spectre of the Gun," the budget constraints worked in favor of this episode. Since it was least expensive to film on the standing sets, almost all of "Day of the Dove" takes place on the Enterprise. Luckily, however, this is exactly what the story called for. It didn't seem at all contrived to me (which can often make the difference between a good episode and a lousy one). I also applaud the late Michael Ansara's portrayal of Kang, who is one of my favorite Klingons. He combined the warrior aggression and ruthlessness with nobility and dignity. Very nicely done and a good template for ST:TNG Klingons like Worf. (Geeky Note: A much older Kang appeared in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Blood Oath" with William Campbell as Koloth and John Colicos as Kor. Great fun. If you haven't seen that episode, it comes highly recommended.) And I like the basic story: A powerful alien entity sets up a situation of continual, regenerative warfare and violence on the Enterprise in order to feed off of the negative emotions and actions of the Klingon and human crews. The implication that this entity has been responsible for some (or much) of humanity's bloody inhumanity is also interesting, if improbable.
Despite the fact that I enjoy the story, the swirly, multicolored entity bears too strong a resemblance (at least in terms of nature and function) to Redjac from the second season episode "Wolf in the Fold." In addition, the fight scenes look staged, especially by the standards of the later Trek shows. Klingons are vicious warriors, but they don't look or act like it in "Day of the Dove." And finally, what happened to the Organian Peace Treaty that was established in the first season in "Errand of Mercy?!" One would think that the Organians would have taken notice and put an end to the battle given their enormous power and obvious determination to prevent the Federation and the Klingon Empire from fighting. Evidently, whoever was in charge of continuity was asleep at the switch.
In spite of these flaws, "Day of the Dove" still stands out as one of the better third season episodes. Although I'm not sure whether that's saying a great deal or very little...
Next time: "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)