FLM films - My Webpage

1999-06-30 00:00:00 - curious - (Oby Jaun <anonymous@system.com>)


I know that there are quite a few differences with series like The Outer Limits, and others like Star Trek. But theres usually always a noticable difference between those two specifically. For people (including myself) that enjoy The Outer Limits very much, after a while, do they find themselves actually ....bored of series like Trek? I mean, does it get to a point were one series is just more interesting actually, that the other becomes sorta like a monotonous poorly written story "fluff"? :) I guess it might just be that I havent seen alot of trek lately, but I was hard-core for it, then I got into OL ....and things seem to sorta change I guess. Just wondering really, ummm....heh, whether its possible to actually like something like Trek, after watching a few OL ep's ....OL seems (to me anyway) like its got some incredibly genuine and thought-provoking stories. Trek seems to be in a completely different li'l world of its own ....perhaps I just need to see a good ep of Trek ...if they still exist :) just thought I'd ask ... I hope that made sense?

1999-06-30 00:00:00 - Re: curious - (Harv Laser <hrlaser@NOSPAM.netcom.com>)


"OJ" == "Oby Jaun" writes: OJ> Just wondering really, ummm....heh, whether its possible to actually like OJ> something like Trek, after watching a few OL ep's ....OL seems (to me anyway) OJ> like its got some incredibly genuine and thought-provoking stories. Trek OJ> seems to be in a completely different li'l world of its own ....perhaps I OJ> just need to see a good ep of Trek ...if they still exist :) The way I look at this is twofold: a) It all comes down to the quality of the writing. The original OL and TZ series were budgeted on a shoestring, with cheap sets and props (that looked advanced for their day, though) but with the best actors of the period, many of whom went on to become huge box office stars. But it's the writing that made those shows as good as they were. Compare them to current stuff such as Stargate SG-1. Now sure, SG-1 has some stuff to like about it, and they've done some interesting, thought-provoking episodes. But for the most part, week after week, in nearly every episode you'll see a scene where the "team" are hiding behind a column in a long hallway while a troop of bad guys walks by. These bad guys are thousands of years old and build and fly interstellar space ships, and yet they can walk down a hallway, time after time, and not know that the SG-1 guys are right there, hiding behind a column?? That's just lazy, sloppy hack writing, a cheap gimmick that always gets the "team" out of a dangerous situation. You know the "team" is safe.. their members won't be killed off, and they'll always resolve it with a happy ending. The characters are also very two-dimensional. You can count on hearing the General say "I can't allow that" or "We'll de-brief in half an hour." You know MacGyver is gonna make wise-ass comments. And so on. Their personalities never change. They're safe as milk. b) Anthology series, like TZ, OL and many others I could name are different than regular continuing series with the same continuing cast of regular characters. For one thing, in an anthology you can kill off the hero.. that rarely happens in a regular series and if it does, there's almost always some plot device that can bring him back from the dead, (i.e. Spock) or you can open the next season and say "it was only a dream" (i.e. Dallas) or stick him in a sarcoughagus and resurrect him (SG-1). In an anthology, each show is a little world unto itself. No continuing characters (although you might see the same actors recycled into new roles, as was common practice on the original TZ and OL where actors like Robert Culp, Jack Klugman, and many others were cast over and over again in different episodes). Some continuing series work and work really well. Was there ever a bad episode of Columbo made? Others seem to wear out their welcome after a few seasons.. they've used every plot device there is over and over, the characters never develop much beyond the pilot, you know how they're going to react to every situation and ofttimes, even what they're going to say, and they just have nothing new to say, so the ratings drop and since ratings and advertising is all that commercial tv is about, the show is cancelled. So it's probably not even fair to compare continuing regular series with anthologies because they're really not the same beasts, but if we have to compare them, do so on the basis of the writing, because I feel that good writing is simply the _key_ to a good tv series. :) Harv -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AmigaZone! New lower price! Visit http://www.amigazone.com for info. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1999-06-30 00:00:00 - Re: curious - (Labrys <crow@bite-me.edu>)


<good post snipped for brevity> > In an anthology, each show is a little world unto itself. Very well put. I think that's why I've always liked anthology type shows. since you don't have to rely on such ridiculous plot devices to save/bring back the main characters. > So it's probably not even fair to compare continuing regular series > with anthologies because they're really not the same beasts, but if we > have to compare them, do so on the basis of the writing, because I > feel that good writing is simply the _key_ to a good tv series. :) Absolutely. Much more important than special effects. Thats why I tend to prefer the original TZ and OL, even though the newer versions may be better "produced". They nearly always had better writing, as thay did'nt have the fancy fx to fall back on. Also, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I am a big fan of the 1st season OL in no small part due to Dom Frontiere's musical score. To this day, there is nothing quite like it. -- Teresa E Tutt http://www.mit.edu/people/tuttt/ A full and complete discussion of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle may be found on my web page, ...then again, it may not.

1999-06-30 00:00:00 - Re: curious - (Labrys <crow@bite-me.edu>)


> It all comes down to the quality of the writing. The original OL > and TZ series were budgeted on a shoestring, with cheap sets and props > (that looked advanced for their day, though) but with the best actors > of the period, many of whom went on to become huge box office stars. A good opportunity to see young versions of Martin Landau (with his own hair!), Sally Kellerman, Bruce Dern, Carroll o'Connor, Shirley Knight, David McCallum, Robert Duvall, Dabney Coleman, Leonard Nimoy, and a very young Martin Sheen. -- Teresa E Tutt http://www.mit.edu/people/tuttt/ A full and complete discussion of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle may be found on my web page, ...then again, it may not.