Wow-Original Star Trek is pretty cool.

[Particle_Man]

You mean like the original Twilight Zone of the 50's and 60's? Those were cool.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah... there was a generation of sci-fi storytellers that thought their audiences had intelligence and imagination.

And, often poor taste. As Umbran said, good storytelling was often sacrificed so the author could either explore the ramifications of some scientific principle, or get on a soapbox about some social agenda.

These days its all about "you are there FX" and a belief that their audiences are stupid.

Not stupid... just not necessarily interested in the same things that audiences 50 years or so ago were. Also, keep in mind that the early sci-fi writers wrote to a limited niche audience of folks who went all crazy about the scientific speculation; today, science fiction plays to a mass audience. It's big business in TV and movies, at least, if not as much in written form anymore.

Oh, and I never really liked the OT. I've seen plenty of reruns of it over the years, and it never did much for me. I can recognize that it was groundbreaking for its time, but that's not enough for me anymore.

 

[Umbran]

And, often poor taste.

To make use of your own phraseology - Not poor taste, just not necessarily interested in the same things that audiences 50 years or so later would be.

I mean, honestly - we start sounding like such snobs. There's much to be said for keeping ourselves open, if only because the most full understanding of the genre includes an understanding and appreciation for it's history.

 

[Desdichado]

To make use of your own phraseology - Not poor taste, just not necessarily interested in the same things that audiences 50 years or so later would be.

Could be, from the literary side of things, I suppose.

I mean, honestly - we start sounding like such snobs. There's much to be said for keeping ourselves open, if only because the most full understanding of the genre includes an understanding and appreciation for it's history.

Or we sound like people who have our opinions already formed from long experience.

 

[Rykion]

Corny? CORNY??!!!

Yep. It was corny, hokey, altogether very silly at times.

It was the writing, as well as the acting and special effects. Anyone that has seen "Spock's Brain" is deluding themselves if they deny it. Space Hippies and tribbles do not a serious sci-fi show make. That said, it did make sci-fi OK for more mature audiences. Sci-fi was considered children's programming in theaters and on TV in the 50's and 60's. It also tackled some of the serious issues of the day. The original series is still my favorite Star Trek series and second only to the even cornier Doctor Who for my favorite sci-fi show.

 

[Desdichado]

Sci-fi was considered children's programming in theaters and on TV in the 50's and 60's.

Where'd you hear that? I seriously doubt that the sci-fi movies of the 50s and 60s were considered children's programming. Star Trek was no more mature than The Forbidden Planet or The Day the Earth Stood Still. And in many cases it sank to the maturity level of Teenagers from Outer Space or Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy. Although that wasn't exactly children's programming either.

 

[Vigilance]

And, often poor taste. As Umbran said, good storytelling was often sacrificed so the author could either explore the ramifications of some scientific principle, or get on a soapbox about some social agenda.

Well, I grew up on the original Trek. It used to show in my hometown on Saturday mornings in place of a cartoon and I was hooked. The local station down there used to run Trek and then some *very* low budget live action sci-fi instead of cartoons (Land of the Lost, Ark II, Isis, that sort of stuff).

So as someone who started watching it LESS than 50 years I can say this: some of the episodes were hokey, Shatner could be a huge ham. Some of the episodes are all time classics (The Cage, Where no Man has gone before, Balance of Terror, Errand of Mercy, Mirror and the Doomsday Machine leap to mind) that stand against any Trek made since.

Chuck

 

[Desdichado]

Oh, I wasn't talking about Trek in particular, I was talking about (some) older sci fi in general.

 

[Henry]

Where'd you hear that? I seriously doubt that the sci-fi movies of the 50s and 60s were considered children's programming. Star Trek was no more mature than The Forbidden Planet or The Day the Earth Stood Still. And in many cases it sank to the maturity level of Teenagers from Outer Space or Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy. Although that wasn't exactly children's programming either.

Actually, you're both correct, sort of; the 1950's was when the perception BEGAN to change; the public view still largely saw it as "childish", but the 50's were the birth of popularity for Arthur C. Clarke, Jack Vance, Isaac Asimov, etc. in the 30's it was all "Weird Tales" or "Weird Fiction", but by the 50's public perception was slowly changing.

 

[Umbran]

In addition, there's the simple matter that the mainstay of the literary form has changed. Back in the 50s and 60s, the mainstay of the genre was the short story. Today, the mainstay is the novel. Fans these days often don't read short fiction at all, and so are far more used to the conventions, structures, and uses of the longer form.

The older series tend to be episodic and concept based, rather than character-development based, because the short form is far better suited to stories of that kind.