That Wacky Redhead

[phx1138]

This one was pretty interesting, though it's clearly pretty early in development. Also note how "first adult sci-fi" clearly meant something different back then

Looking at that, I wonder who thought anybody would actually be attracted by it... (Then again, are promos any better now?)

This one must be pretty early--it still uses "Vulcanian" to refer to Spock's race.

Very early in first season, I'd say. I also notice the emphasis on monsters, as if SF can't be anything but.

Also interesting that it's in character as Kirk--and appears to be set up to be recut for various local stations (the jump between "here on" and the station name is very noticeable--so they could substitute in alternate audio of the appropriate local affiliate).

Could be those sorts of "tailored" bits weren't common yet. Even today, I haven't seen more than a few, but I don't watch local U.S. programming much.

I'm struck by how, even in '66-7, they were touting color. Did you find any clips in B&W? I'd love to see if the uniform designs actually did show up differently. I'd also love to know if the Command color came out the green it was supposed to anywhere.

 

[vultan]

Very early in first season, I'd say. I also notice the emphasis on monsters, as if SF can't be anything but.

Hey, I love monsters! Those were always my favorite Star Trek episodes.

 

[phx1138]

Hey, I love monsters!

That's why everybody calls it "sci fi" & thinks giant ants are as good as it gets.

 

[vultan]

That's why everybody calls it "sci fi" & thinks giant ants are as good as it gets.

Well, I'm a practical effects fan, and aliens like the Gorn, the Horta, the Salt Vampire, etc were a lot more interesting to watch than the human-like ones. And I disagree that making all the races look human-like would make sci-fi any more or less respected than it already is.

(And not too long ago, two science fiction films that were heavy on creature effects were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, so...)

 

[Brainbin]

Thank you all for your kind words about my latest update! And now, for my responses - but first...

10-7-73. I'll look for my birthday present in my inbox.

Well, do you have an email subscription to this thread? Because I could try to swing an update for that day (a Sunday, this year). Anything's possible...

Tom Hulett is a good replacement for the unlamented Parker. OTL, he managed Elvis's concerts and Jimi Hendrix's concerts (I assume Hendrix died like in OTL, since his drug use predated the PoD).

Yes, I went with Hulett because he was apparently the leading candidate to replace the Colonel IOTL (and at one point, it apparently seemed like a done deal).

And yes, all of the members of the 27 Club died, more-or-less on schedule, and in similarly gruesome, mysterious ways.

Does RFK still die like in OTL?

Yes, in a decision that I made very early on, for the simple reason that keeping him alive would probably result in his becoming the Democratic nominee for President, and therefore the next President of the United States. That's obviously been done on this forum many times before (indeed, it's strongly associated with the works of one prominent member in particular), and I therefore decided to stick with the comparatively untried (and less personally identifiable) Humphrey administration.

Right, but I'm not sure that it would be a Francis Ford Coppola film. From what I can tell, Coppola really wanted to make a movie set during the war, and I'm not sure if a straight adaptation would really entice him.

Fortunately, he isn't the only part of the equation. John Milius wrote the first draft of the screenplay in the late 1960's, the one that got Coppola's attention (further suggesting that Francis would be ambivalent at best about a Heart of Darkness adaptation), and may decide to work on the project himself with the encouragement of his buddies Spielberg, Lucas, and Coppola. He'd of course have to rework it (un-rework it?) into a straight adaptation of Conrad's novel. It may very well be his directorial debut in this world instead of Conan the Barbarian.

An influential film about colonial Africa that serves as a metaphor for the plight of post-colonial Africa (that isn't set in South Africa, because that's rather cliche at this point) would have some interesting effects, though...

I like the idea of Milius "un-reworking" his topical draft back into a "straight" adaptation of Heart of Darkness - or, at the very least, as a critique of decolonization, if he wanted to keep it in "modern" times - the Congo Crisis lasted through the mid-1960s in the very setting of the original novella. Central Africa is the obvious setting for any adaptation; as far as I know, jungles and long, winding rivers aren't really endemic to South Africa (though they are to Southeast Asia, of course).

As in the OTL 1995 film Congo, it's very likely that Central America or the Caribbean would have to stand in for the region.

That said, I've never even looked for a safe list... (Now that I have, if Hotmail has one, I can't even find it...) I mostly just get junk anyhow. And my AH alerts have never turned up as junk before.

You can put anything in the Junk folder on your Safe List by reading the email and choosing the option (which should be at or near the top).

It's probably too late, but my other choice would be Dean Cain. (If I was rebooting "Vega$", he'd be my guy. I'd give him the '02 T-bird, tho.)

Well, Dean Cain was only a few months old at the POD. Not to mention that he only went into acting because an injury ended his prospective football career.

It suggests that was also for personal reasons, & he went for the positions that would let him have the kind of influence he wanted. Perhaps also a sense going for Mayor would attract unwanted media attention on his private life.

Takei, as OTL has shown, was (and remains!) genuinely interested in mass transit policy (fittingly, given his role on Star Trek). Unlike Eastwood or Bono, he was never really on a "crusade" for anything in particular. That said, you're absolutely right that his sexuality (apparently an open secret in Hollywood) would be a knock against any candidacy for high-profile office (cumulative with his race; though S.I. Hayakawa was elected to the U.S. Senate from California in 1976 IOTL).

I agree with all of that. Spock was no defenseless child. Nor would McCoy have gone after him so much, & so hard, if he had been. (Tho there was one time it was plain mean.) The chemistry was excellent, & the ease of these two fine actors in their characters was clear. They added a dimension without which "ST" wouldn't have been half so good. I honestly can't imagine what it would've been like without them. (Nor, TBH, do I really want to.) I'm not at all sure I'd want to watch "ST" without the two of them in it somewhere.

Believe it or not, I find myself largely in agreement with you!

It's a bit odd I haven't noticed TCM doing a "retrospective ad" for him. Maybe I missed it.

It doesn't surprise me. He did appear in movies (as did most character actors of the era), but Windom was very much a TV actor first and foremost.

Without the ongoing horrifying spectacle of The Quagmire monopolising American (and others) attention that does seem quite possible.

Is it plausible to assume that the less vigorous pursuit of Armed Tourism may have led to a different cultural perception and/or profile of the Peace Corps and its activities?

That could generate a wealth of 'American Stories' that would seem fertile ground for film-makers, writers and polemicists.

Indeed a less distracted (and subsequently wounded) US could be more emotionally engaged with the Developing World as a whole.

It is perhaps too hopeful to think that a curtailed Quagmire might entirely abort some of the more despicable interventions (especially in Latin America) but it does seem plausible that there may be less of a domestic political perception that such actions must necessarily be covert.

At the very least that might mitigate some of the worst excesses.

That's a very thought-provoking scenario. And it ties right in to the possibility of media focusing on those areas that they ignored IOTL.

I still wish Orson Well was able to do his version of Heart of Darkness in 1938. It would have either been one of the greatest films ever, or Orson Who?
The closest I seen to a great version of Heart of Darkness was the quoting of Heart of Darkness in Peter Jackson's King Kong. At that moment I wish that he done Heart of Darkness instead. He has a visual style that would work and I think that part of the film give a idea of how he would handle the work.

Poor Orson Welles. I think we were both wrong, vultan; neither Kubrick nor Coppola was (not) responsible for the Best Film Never Made; it was Welles! He must have (not) made half a dozen of them! Including Heart of Darkness, and Batman, and even movies that he did make but were ruined by others (The Magnificent Ambersons)!

I just had the thought of a King Kong movie made in the 1970's that had the feel and style of Apocalypse Now.

It would certainly be a whole other animal from the OTL version, that's for sure.

I never took up smoking and never understood why, eitehr - like stevep said it just looked so disgusting. My grandparents (who I was around a lot) smoke, but not my parents. They tried to quit at times but could only cut back some.

Another Gen-X non-smoker. I guess none of you guys spent much time around Kevin Smith

(Born late '69 in case I didn't tell you before; birthday only weeks away)

You did tell me before, thank you. I already have it in my file

I think people only think of Bones picking on Spock becasue of the minority thing, Bones being a Southerner. I enjoyed Spock's sense of humor, too. To me, the chemistry reminds me of how teammates on a ball club will razz each other.

What a charming comparison! I like that.

With no SNL I wonder if baseball might try to step in with a "Game of the Week" type thing, either live ont he West Coast or a tape daly game on Saturday nights. Baseball has made some really bad decisions regarding marketing itself, and has been since the lackadaisical 1960s and 1970s when they took for granted they were still
the national pasttime because they were living in 1952. It'd be nice to see some good come out of this. Of course, college football could, too. Of course, it's possible the Best of Carson stays for quite a while longer, too.

I like that, too. We'll have to see! Baseball could use a comeback in this decade of football's ascent.

Yet another fascinating update !

Thank you!

Did Nadia Comăneci score a perfect ten in the gymnastics ? IOTL it caused a minor difficulty because the electronic scoreboard could only display scores up to 9.99 . Her score was shown as 1.00 and it took a while before the crowd could work out what it meant.

Yes, I'm willing to allow that her phenomenal OTL success was not butterflied.

While Montreal may not have been as much of a financial disaster as OTL, it likely was still an expensive thing. (I once saw a book describing the Montreal games as a disaster, along with various other noted disasters not involving finance.)

Montreal 1976 was probably about as expensive ITTL as IOTL; the main difference is that the Canadian government has seized the financing reins, basically saving the city's hide in the process. IOTL, that never happened, leaving the city (and its mayor, Jean Drapeau) with egg on its face. Indeed, as a combination of Olympics fallout and restrictive language laws, the mid-1970s marked the shift from Montreal to Toronto as the dominant conurbation in Canada, which the latter has remained ever since.

One minor error- the 1960 Games were in Squaw VALLEY.

Thanks for catching that - I've already taken care of it.

Nice work, as usual.

Thank you

I confess, I don't really remember Montreal, except for the financial troubles. (I had no idea they'd cut it so close.) I'd have been happy to see Toller Cranston break his leg & never be heard from again, myself.

Sorry, you'll have to wait for Elvis Stojko for that to become a possibility.

What, the Swiss forgot how to ski? (Sorry, I've never been impressed with Canada's Olympic performance. My first thought on hearing Moscow was going to boycott was, "Canada might actually win medals".)

Yes, of course Canada has a long history of choking at the Olympics IOTL, but I am writing an AH here - and I've even provided a perfectly reasonable butterfly to boot

Doubtless you know, but for those who don't: hockey's the de facto national sport, but the official one is lacrosse.

You're half-right. Lacrosse is the official summer sport, and ice hockey is the official winter sport. The legislation to support this was passed surprisingly recently (1994) IOTL, and that will not be happening ITTL (in fact, I could even see the Stanfield government passing a law to recognize ice hockey as the official national sport in the mid-1970s, just to stick it to the Soviets in their perpetual rivalry). My apologies to any lacrosse enthusiasts out there - though I'm not sure if both of them are reading this thread

I did not know about his. Can you offer a couple of examples?

As already mentioned, the torch relay is one of them; as is the opening ceremony.

A model, sadly, abandoned since. Did you notice the U.S. networks trying to claim Canadian successes? They're "North American"...

I teasingly alluded to this in the update itself - isn't it a good thing that the gold-medal-winning Crazy Canuck (Ken Read) was, in fact, American-born?

Don't have much to say, except that it was a great update! Not a huge Olympics fan, I'm sorry to say.

Fair enough; neither am I, actually Thanks for the kind words, all the same.

So, this isn't really relevant to the Olympics post, which I did like, particularly the revolution in coverage--growing up in the 90s, it's simply "always been that way," so it was interesting to learn about when it started always being that way, as it were.

It really is fascinating - for the first forty years of their existence, the Olympics were small potatoes, until Berlin 1936 made them a big deal. And then the Olympians were just cogs in the machine for another forty years, until Montreal 1976 humanized them and gave them all the attention. I can't help but wonder if any other revolutions in Olympics coverage and/or presentation might reveal themselves after another forty years in Rio 2016.

However, that aside, I was digging around on youtube, and came across a few early promos for Star Trek, which I thought were interesting examples of how the show was sold to audiences back in the period.

And thanks for sharing these! You know, in some ways, it really is remarkable that Star Trek actually managed to last for three seasons...

I'm struck by how, even in '66-7, they were touting color.

IIRC, all primetime programming in the US was in colour by 1967. But NBC kept on using that "In Living Color" peacock well into the 1970s. Why? Very simple - viewers at home still had black-and-white sets! And it certainly didn't hurt that NBC just so happened to be owned by RCA, who also manufactured television sets.

Hey, I love monsters! Those were always my favorite Star Trek episodes.

That's right - "Arena" is your #1. Am I to assume that this makes "The Devil in the Dark" your #2? Great episode, it's on my Top 10 list for sure, as you may recall.

 

[NCW8]

Another piece of sad news, I've just heard that Neil Armstong has passed away. The moon landing is one of my earliest tv memories and is certainly the earliest historical event that I can remember witnessing.

Requiem aeternam ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei.

Nigel.

 

[Thande]

Sad indeed about Neil Armstrong.

Now, re the Olympic update (the Olympics were on this year, you know )

A lot of interesting stuff there, I like the use of butterflies.

Your coverage of the Canadian team reminds me of when I was watching the 2008 Olympics on telly in Canada and how the CBC commentators obsessed over the Canadian competitors (who weren't doing very well for the most part) at the expense of everyone else. Of course you expect some of this from any nation, but it was very tunnel-visiony, I didn't even find out how well the UK had done until months later because the commentators never mentioned the existence of any other country other than Canada

I can see the decision to use Montreal without an accent being A Big Thing to our friends in the poutine-scoffing community and possibly having Levesque-esque repercussions down the line...

It just occurred to me that I doubt Muskie will win in 1976 as the Democrats have now won four presidential elections in a row. Presumably from the POV of American political historians in TTL, they are still in the period of Democratic dominance that started in 1936 and Eisenhower's two terms are considered an aberration. Amateur historians who don't think through the details will probably think Adlai Stevenson was some kind of terrible or disastrous candidate because he's the only guy (twice!) to lose to a Republican in the entire period, and in a landslide at that.

 

[phx1138]

You can put anything in the Junk folder on your Safe List by reading the email and choosing the option (which should be at or near the top).

I've now looked twice. I find no such option anywhere.... The "not junk" option I have used, but it doesn't appear reliable in all cases...

Then again, it's not a huge deal. I keep a tab with this page open most of the time anyhow.

aliens like the Gorn, the Horta, the Salt Vampire, etc were a lot more interesting to watch than the human-like ones.

Visually interesting, maybe. I found the emphasis on makeup took the attention away from making the stories good--or, at least, seemed to. (It didn't help I found the Gorn to be plain silly-looking. Was it possible "TOS" could have had appliances nearer in appearance to "Planet of the Apes", but a lizard?)

And I disagree that making all the races look human-like would make sci-fi any more or less respected than it already is.

I don't oppose "funny-looking aliens", provided the "monster" is an interesting character in a good story. "Alien Nation" would not have been worse for more "monsterish" makeup. "Devil in the Dark" would not be helped by a more anthropoid alien, & indeed, would have been worse for it. In both cases, the stories were good.

not too long ago, two science fiction films that were heavy on creature effects were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, so...

Neither do I exclude good stories using creature makeup. "Enemy Mine" & "An American Werewolf in London", frex, would not have been better without. The problem was, is, producers effectively saying, "We've got a great-looking monster, who needs a story?"

decided to stick with the comparatively untried (and less personally identifiable) Humphrey administration.

I'd also say the more interesting, if only because it's less usual. TTL, RFK might have been killed in another place or at another time, but still killed, since the influence of butterflies after POD wasn't yet enough to save him. (Unless that was intended, for other reasons.) I also take a view some people just can't avoid having a gargoyle fall on them. (Which may be contrary to the usual idea of AH, like JFK living to be 90 & 5 times divorced.)

I like the idea of Milius "un-reworking" his topical draft back into a "straight" adaptation of Heart of Darkness - or, at the very least, as a critique of decolonization, if he wanted to keep it in "modern" times - the Congo Crisis lasted through the mid-1960s in the very setting of the original novella.

I like this idea. If it could prevent some of the chaos that ensued later...

Well, Dean Cain was only a few months old at the POD. Not to mention that he only went into acting because an injury ended his prospective football career.

Which means his whole TV & film career could end up butterflied... (OK, except for "Lois & Clark", I wouldn't consider that a huge loss.)

Takei, as OTL has shown, was (and remains!) genuinely interested in mass transit policy (fittingly, given his role on Star Trek). Unlike Eastwood or Bono, he was never really on a "crusade" for anything in particular. That said, you're absolutely right that his sexuality (apparently an open secret in Hollywood) would be a knock against any candidacy for high-profile office (cumulative with his race; though S.I. Hayakawa was elected to the U.S. Senate from California in 1976 IOTL).

So the city is safe.

Believe it or not, I find myself largely in agreement with you!

I'm obviously having a corrupting influence. (Now if I could only get that to work on Christie Brinkley. Or Myrka Dellanos.)

Baseball could use a comeback in this decade of football's ascent.

While no fan of baseball (so I'm happy with baseball going the "DS9" route), I do wonder if a late-night game in "SNL"'s OTL timeslot would really make a difference.

Yes, I'm willing to allow that her phenomenal OTL success was not butterflied.

She was really good, but, as I said, there was pressure on the judges (or a deal cut, I don't recall which) to score her higher than she actually deserved. (Could be there was pressure to score the whole Sov team higher, I don't recall.) This came out following the "French judge scandal" (so-called).

a combination of Olympics fallout and restrictive language laws, the mid-1970s marked the shift from Montreal to Toronto as the dominant conurbation in Canada, which the latter has remained ever since.

Which seems to suggest both that TTL's GTA isn't a monster. It also suggests Toronto's cultural influence may be reduced (tho with the HQs of so many English-language networks, maybe not...).

Sorry, you'll have to wait for Elvis Stojko for that to become a possibility.

On that, I'm indifferent. I never had a strong opinion on him. Except that his parents really shouldn't have named him Elvis.

Yes, of course Canada has a long history of choking at the Olympics IOTL, but I am writing an AH here - and I've even provided a perfectly reasonable butterfly to boot

It wasn't an unbelievable outcome. I suppose I just expected the usual choking.

You're half-right. Lacrosse is the official summer sport, and ice hockey is the official winter sport. The legislation to support this was passed surprisingly recently (1994)

That's probably why I didn't know. I'd have read this before then.

lacrosse enthusiasts out there - though I'm not sure if both of them are reading this thread

As already mentioned, the torch relay is one of them; as is the opening ceremony.

I had the sense you meant individual event coverage, rather than the ceremonial stuff. That is, the difference between the way film presents baseball, or F1 racing, as opposed to the way TV does.

I teasingly alluded to this in the update itself - isn't it a good thing that the gold-medal-winning Crazy Canuck (Ken Read) was, in fact, American-born?

Your subtlety eluded me.

It really is fascinating - for the first forty years of their existence, the Olympics were small potatoes, until Berlin 1936 made them a big deal. And then the Olympians were just cogs in the machine for another forty years, until Montreal 1976 humanized them and gave them all the attention. I can't help but wonder if any other revolutions in Olympics coverage and/or presentation might reveal themselves after another forty years in Rio 2016.

Y'know, it seems to me there's a TL worth of stuff in why that happened... You'd have to really be interested in the Olympics to write it, tho.

viewers at home still had black-and-white sets!

I keep forgetting how slow the adoption of color TVs was.

 

[Thande]

I keep forgetting how slow the adoption of color TVs was.

Some of you will probably be surprised to hear this, but I remember watching the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Nth Degree" on a black and white TV.

 

[NCW8]

Some of you will probably be surprised to hear this, but I remember watching the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Nth Degree" on a black and white TV.

"Of course, we had it tough..."

My parents bought their first colour tv in about 1975. I "inherited" the old black and white one, which I continued to use until I finally bought my own colour tv in 1984. So there were some series that I was still watching regularly in black and white in the early eighties. MASH was one as it was on at the same time as the news.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[vultan]

Visually interesting, maybe. I found the emphasis on makeup took the attention away from making the stories good--or, at least, seemed to. (It didn't help I found the Gorn to be plain silly-looking. Was it possible "TOS" could have had appliances nearer in appearance to "Planet of the Apes", but a lizard?)

The makeup effects for Planet of the Apes were devised by John Chambers, who also designed much of the makeup effects for Star Trek. The person you want to learn more about, though, was Wah Chang, who created the costumes for pretty much all of the "man-in-a-rubber-suit" monsters in the series. You have to remember that the show was working on a budget, and the makeup effects for Planet of the Apes were revolutionary for the time. The technology to make a Gorn with a fully-articulated, life-like animatronic suit simply wasn't there, at least not with the kind of budget Star Trek had for it's first couple seasons. For the time, it was pretty good.

As for the Gorn, they don't show up later in the original series ITTL, according to Brainbin, I'd imagine it's possible that in the fourth or fifth season the *Saurians (who don't look like the Motion Picture version except for being reptilian) show up as a one-off villain with realistic animatronic masks developed by Jim Henson, making them look like brutal, scaly, life-like warriors- essentially, what the Gorn would have looked like if with better special effects. Overall, the creature effects would improve over the course of the series ITTL, instead of IOTL where they just gave up after a while.

I don't oppose "funny-looking aliens", provided the "monster" is an interesting character in a good story. "Alien Nation" would not have been worse for more "monsterish" makeup. "Devil in the Dark" would not be helped by a more anthropoid alien, & indeed, would have been worse for it. In both cases, the stories were good.

True, true, but remember, in "Arena", it's revealed at the end that the Gorn weren't evil warmongers, but were just defending their territory from (unintended) Federation encroachment, which puts into context some of the Gorn captain's earlier trash-talking. So there was a lesson to be had there.

Neither do I exclude good stories using creature makeup. "Enemy Mine" & "An American Werewolf in London", frex, would not have been better without. The problem was, is, producers effectively saying, "We've got a great-looking monster, who needs a story?"

Very true, and you see that logic today a lot with special effects in general (for instance, the Michael Bay Transformers movies), but my contention is that Star Trek didn't ever stoop to that.

 

[NCW8]

The makeup effects for Planet of the Apes were devised by John Chambers, who also designed much of the makeup effects for Star Trek. The person you want to learn more about, though, was Wah Chang, who created the costumes for pretty much all of the "man-in-a-rubber-suit" monsters in the series. You have to remember that the show was working on a budget, and the makeup effects for Planet of the Apes were revolutionary for the time. The technology to make a Gorn with a fully-articulated, life-like animatronic suit simply wasn't there, at least not with the kind of budget Star Trek had for it's first couple seasons. For the time, it was pretty good.

As for the Gorn, they don't show up later in the original series ITTL, according to Brainbin, I'd imagine it's possible that in the fourth or fifth season the *Saurians (who don't look like the Motion Picture version except for being reptilian) show up as a one-off villain with realistic animatronic masks developed by Jim Henson, making them look like brutal, scaly, life-like warriors- essentially, what the Gorn would have looked like if with better special effects. Overall, the creature effects would improve over the course of the series ITTL, instead of IOTL where they just gave up after a while.

An interesting comparison to the Gorn are the Draconians, who appeared in Dr Who in 1973:

Given the budget that they had to work with, the make-up is pretty effective. It's no wonder that Jon Pertwee said that they were his favourite aliens.

Very true, and you see that logic today a lot with special effects in general (for instance, the Michael Bay Transformers movies), but my contention is that Star Trek didn't ever stoop to that.

Sometimes the most effective monster special effect is to not show it at all.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[Thande]

Given the budget that they had to work with, the make-up is pretty effective. It's no wonder that Jon Pertwee said that they were his favourite aliens.

Yes, it's a shame they didn't become regulars (except in the expanded universe and fandom).

Mind you, Star Trek has also had some rather elaborate alien makeups that only seemed to appear once, like the Selay, the Anticans and those subspace aliens from TNG.

 

[vultan]

An interesting comparison to the Gorn are the Draconians, who appeared in Dr Who in 1973:

Given the budget that they had to work with, the make-up is pretty effective. It's no wonder that Jon Pertwee said that they were his favourite aliens.

...and with the increased budget Doctor Who has here, it's likely that by the time they show up ITTL, they'll look even better.

Sometimes the most effective monster special effect is to not show it at all.

Cheers,
Nigel.

In some circumstances, a valid point. Just ask Steven Spielberg about his time filming Jaws.

 

[unclepatrick]

That's why everybody calls it "sci fi" & thinks giant ants are as good as it gets.

Hey "Them" is a great film.

 

[unclepatrick]

Another piece of sad news, I've just heard that Neil Armstong has passed away. The moon landing is one of my earliest tv memories and is certainly the earliest historical event that I can remember witnessing.

Requiem aeternam ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei.

Nigel.

I was living in Japan in 1969. I had just turn 4. My parents let me and my Two year old sister stay up. Dad had a bunch of Friends over. My sister wonder around and kept sipping from everyone glasses. She got sick and My Mother missed the Landing because she was in the Bathroom dealing with my sick sister.
I sat in my normal spot which was off to the left of the TV, up close and I kept being told to move because I was block the guest view of the TV. Some time between the Landing and Neil stepping on the Moon, I fell asleep and Dad put me to bed.

God Speed Neil

 

[unclepatrick]

An interesting comparison to the Gorn are the Draconians, who appeared in Dr Who in 1973:

Given the budget that they had to work with, the make-up is pretty effective. It's no wonder that Jon Pertwee said that they were his favourite aliens.



Sometimes the most effective monster special effect is to not show it at all.

Cheers,
Nigel.

Wish that the Draconians would return. My favorite of the Pertwee years aliens.
(Wish I could Forget Alpha Centauri)

 

[phx1138]

Hey "Them" is a great film.

If you can get past the main characters being too stupid to realize they're chasing giant ants in Act 1.

makeup effects for Planet of the Apes were revolutionary for the time

That I did not know. I guess I'm so used to those kind of latex appliances...

The technology to make a Gorn with a fully-articulated, life-like animatronic suit simply wasn't there

Here, I should say, I'm not (now...) sure I have my alien right, here. I'm thinking of the lizard-headed guy Kirk took the improvised shotgun to. (No, I didn't look it up, & maybe should have.)

Neither am I demanding a full suit, only a "mask". If "Apes" changed the state of the art, tho, it seems even that was impossible when "TOS" shot this episode.

essentially, what the Gorn would have looked like if with better special effects

That was my thinking exactly: "Enterprise" got the name wrong, becuause Archer didn't know the species' name.

True, true, but remember, in "Arena", it's revealed at the end that the Gorn weren't evil warmongers, but were just defending their territory from (unintended) Federation encroachment, which puts into context some of the Gorn captain's earlier trash-talking. So there was a lesson to be had there.

It was less that than the (yet again) super-powerful alien referees creating conflict, apparently for their amusement.

Star Trek didn't ever stoop to that.

The Gorn & the Salt Vampire were pushing it, IMO: the "monster" overpowered the story. IMO, "Devil in the Dark" was the ideal: you only see the "monster" briefly until Act 4, by which time the issue is becoming clear & extensive interaction is driven by the story, not by the visual appeal of a "monster". Put it another way: would "Balance of Terror" have been better if we'd seen the Romulans from Act 1? Would "Devil" have been?

Or, for "Arena", could they have written it more like "Galileo 7", where we don't see the Gorn til the last few minutes, & they spend the budget on a hi-grade mask that's only used for one day of shooting?

Nor do I mean to accuse Gene & Co of "stooping", but some of these were pretty low-rent for "TOS".

Sometimes the most effective monster special effect is to not show it at all.

Indeed. Le the audience's imagination, & fears, make the creature whatever they can think of. And there's at least one low-budget monster film I've seen (name of which escapes me...) that did exactly that...because they didn't have the money for a monster.

I come back to the principal: "solve it in the typewriter". IMO, "Arena" would have worked better if it had been Kirk on the planet being pursued relentlessly by a creature he can't see, while Enterprise does her damndest to repair damaged scanners & transporter to find & rescue him. (You'd also want to explain why they can't use shuttles...) As John Wayne might say, "If you can see 'em, they ain't Gorn."

On Armstrong: even the highest fliers with the Right Stuff run out of time. This day deserves a holiday. Or his birthday. 20 July '69, there was one world, for the first time ever, & his skill helped make it possible.

One strange thing: Arthur Clarke wrote a story about the first manned moon landing, & the astronaut he named Armstrong. (In '69, Isaac kidded him, "You got the first name wrong, Arthur.")

 

[Nivek]

I was wondering if in the near future, a Max-Headroom Esque figure can be sucessful ITTL?

 

[vultan]

Here, I should say, I'm not (now...) sure I have my alien right, here. I'm thinking of the lizard-headed guy Kirk took the improvised shotgun to. (No, I didn't look it up, & maybe should have.)

Neither am I demanding a full suit, only a "mask". If "Apes" changed the state of the art, tho, it seems even that was impossible when "TOS" shot this episode.

No, you got the right monster. The reptilian humanoids, yes. At the time, it wouldn't have been feasible to make a fully articulated "lizard mask" with Star Trek's weekly budget. By seasons four and five ITTL, however, that would change, especially since Jim Henson is involved here.