![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.166.204.16
In Reply to: Anybody familiar with the old V sci fi mini series? posted by NuWave on April 25, 2005 at 14:38:50:
I don't recall whether "V" was cropped & resized for WS televisions because I watched this on someone else's academy formated (4:3) screen set a year or so back at an SF club meeting, but I do recall being dismally disappointed in the campy, dated 70's look (i.e., reliance on bright primary colors, nerdy dark glasses and uniforms a'la DEVO), the lack of fluid camera movement combined with the overuse of mid-range shots, the sincere, wooden acting of the leads and the cheap looking FX.Perhaps I've just become too jaded to more realistic looking SF fare or maybe it's that most of the stuff shot back in the 1970's doesn't float my boat, but "V" sure didn't hold up to my recollections. Of course, YMMV, and everyone's recollection and nostalgia for programs shot decades ago is going to be different.
Regarding altered perceptions and the suspension of disbelief, I've noticed a curious fact about television production from the 60's and 70's: color often negatively impacts dramas (i.e., including mini-series, such as "V") in ways it may or may not affect feature films from the same era. This may be the result of the color photography drawing attention to cheaper production values and sparsely furnished fabricated sets or it may just be the claustrophobic set-up shots, lighting, style, etc., but in either case it often stands out like a sore thumb when these programs are viewed retrospectively.
Follow Ups:
I've never considered Marc Singer,(the always great)Michael Ironside, and Faye Grant to be 'wooden'. Diana was such a bitch, you gotta lover her! Some of the matted effects were a bit old looking, but the interior sets I thought were pretty decent, along with some of the coolest laser guns/sound effects from that decade. I still like it better than some of the newer offerings. Some of these are so soaked with digital effects, it looks like a live actor walking in front of a video game. As for the 70's, anyone who thinks the double-sun shot in Star Wars looks 'dated' is just downright looney. I've seen great things from all decades. Saturn 3 is 1980, and I defy anyone to find a greater, more colorful scifi-looking interior design than THAT one! I always wondered what the budget was for that film, but it had very few actors and only a few matte/model effects to deal with.
![]()
I'm not criticizing your taste, just sharing my impressions, which obviously differ somewhat from your own. In retrospect, "V" just bored me, but that's just me and not meant to imply anything about your particular likes or dislikes.Dated material doesn't usually bother me, unless it draws too much attention to itself through employing of campy symbolism reflective of the time it was made. Not everything in the 60's & 70's did this; certainly not every feature film. However, some television fare is quite dated in my estimation; that doesn't necessarily detract from it's enjoyment, but in some cases it obviously will.
When a program reminds it's audience too much of the period in which it was produced, then it draws too much attention to it's production values. If this occurs it may become cliche` and more easily appreciated as nostalgia or campy hokum by most folks. Look at the 60's Batman TV series or the 70's Buck Rogers; heck, even take more mainstream fare like Starsky & Hutch or Dragnet (circa '67, w/Harry Morgan).
I don't wish to argue about differing perceptions of a particular television series, especially since I generally agree with you about the films of that era (i.e., Direction and budget having much more to do with the "look" achieved). In the case of SF, fantasy & adventure feature films the budgets tend to be far better than achieveable for television and you usually "see" where the money was spent on the screen. Those films don't date badly (i.e., Andromeda Strain, 2001, Clockwork Orange, Silent Running, Alien, Close Encounters, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc.).
One example of excellent television fare from the period which hasn't dated badly is Shogun; of course, it isn't SF or a special effects extraveganza, but the high-caliber writing, cinematography and acting are all first rate and ageless! As television mini-series go this one is still crisp and the fact that it was produced in the 1970's doesn't draw attention to itself.
Sadly, speculative SF has been given short shrift on television until recently; there are notable exceptions throughout television's history, but the tendency has been to shy away from the deeper, weightier SF concepts in favor of whammy special effects and hammy acting (i.e., space opera). Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a certain amount of junk food in my diet too, but too much leads to recreational atrophy.
Buck Rogers is the one show that had aged badly when it was still NEW! I didn't care for that one. If you can get past the costumes, which is usually the leading culprit in dated material, Space:1999 is still pretty cool, although some episodes roll a bit slow. Earth-based sci fi is the most susceptible to being attached to the genre it came out of, specially tv productions. Like you said though, budget plays a big part. Enough cash, and you can remove all visual references to the current culture. Tried to watch a couple tv movies lately, and the common theme in all of them was what seemed to be a camera mounted on a rubber pogo-stick. Zooming in AND out each time someone talks near the lens, over-editing, and general shotty panning seems to be the new norm. I think they are trying to give the 'amateur home-video' feel by not having refined and level camera shots, but in the end it looks sloppy. You see that a lot in commercials, and now in television movies.
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: