अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंChronicles rare and fascinating details of how "Star Trek" began, where it's been, and how it's going where no television series has gone before.Chronicles rare and fascinating details of how "Star Trek" began, where it's been, and how it's going where no television series has gone before.Chronicles rare and fascinating details of how "Star Trek" began, where it's been, and how it's going where no television series has gone before.
एपिसोड ब्राउज़ करें
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
There's a great documentary about the history of Star Trek to be made but this ain't it. There are some good interviewees -- writers, producers, cast members, and others actually involved with the show -- but there's just as much or more useless stuff from people who just sound like superfans reciting history which should have instead been in the narration. If these people actually do have real expertise/in-depth knowledge, it's not made plain by their onscreen identifications. One is billed as "professor of sociology". So what? Does he teach a Trek class? Has he written a book? Why is he being interviewed instead of some other professor? If you want me to care what he has to say, how about telling me his actual credentials on the subject matter? Another is said to be a "writer and producer". Writer of what? Producer of what? Those who actually worked on Trek shows are identified as such, so who is this guy and why should I care about his opinions?
As for the actual narration, instead of an informative voice we get Gates McFadden doing her best to sound like she's saying interesting things--and regularly being forced to repeat herself because this is designed with ad breaks in mind--often in an inappropriately silly/jokey way. Her disembodied voice sometimes literally "interacts" with the interviewees, which I found to be a distractingly awful stylistic choice.
Worst of all is what's onscreen when it's not interviews or snippets from the shows/movies themselves. Every time D. C. Fontana is mentioned, they trot out the exact same picture -- a weird glamour shot from when she was very young. Roddenberry is represented by three, maybe four, repeatedly recycled photos. They endlessly reuse two photos of Robert Wise but only one of him actually on set of The Motion Picture. At some point, it becomes embarrassing how little effort the producers of this spent researching archival materials. And there's also absolutely moronic cutaway inserts of things like film being placed into a can, pointless stock footage and, in one particularly cringeworthy moment somebody's disembodied hands pounding on a table because an interviewee is telling a story which ends that way. Much of these--particularly the stock footgae--get repeated many times as well. These are the choices of people who have no business making documentaries and/or greedy Paramount executives who want to promote the cash-cow they've been milking for gazillions of dollars in the cheapest way possible, with no actual respect for the people who produced it for them.
As for the actual narration, instead of an informative voice we get Gates McFadden doing her best to sound like she's saying interesting things--and regularly being forced to repeat herself because this is designed with ad breaks in mind--often in an inappropriately silly/jokey way. Her disembodied voice sometimes literally "interacts" with the interviewees, which I found to be a distractingly awful stylistic choice.
Worst of all is what's onscreen when it's not interviews or snippets from the shows/movies themselves. Every time D. C. Fontana is mentioned, they trot out the exact same picture -- a weird glamour shot from when she was very young. Roddenberry is represented by three, maybe four, repeatedly recycled photos. They endlessly reuse two photos of Robert Wise but only one of him actually on set of The Motion Picture. At some point, it becomes embarrassing how little effort the producers of this spent researching archival materials. And there's also absolutely moronic cutaway inserts of things like film being placed into a can, pointless stock footage and, in one particularly cringeworthy moment somebody's disembodied hands pounding on a table because an interviewee is telling a story which ends that way. Much of these--particularly the stock footgae--get repeated many times as well. These are the choices of people who have no business making documentaries and/or greedy Paramount executives who want to promote the cash-cow they've been milking for gazillions of dollars in the cheapest way possible, with no actual respect for the people who produced it for them.
Overall it had a lot of ground to cover so kudos there. I did not care for the short takes and goofy approach - whoever decided to take that tack I think a bit over used.
One thing that I noticed after the last episode was besides mentioning the music themes was the lack of the music scoring in general - specifically TOS incidental music - name any show you can recall the music during the episodes (maybe outside of Mission Impossible) that you can, years later, recall the music... Klingon theme, Doomsday/Immunity Syndrome theme, 'spore' music, etc.
Other than that not addressed, it was a decent show. Gates did good job narrating.
And yes Enterprise theme stunk - made me not want to watch.
One thing that I noticed after the last episode was besides mentioning the music themes was the lack of the music scoring in general - specifically TOS incidental music - name any show you can recall the music during the episodes (maybe outside of Mission Impossible) that you can, years later, recall the music... Klingon theme, Doomsday/Immunity Syndrome theme, 'spore' music, etc.
Other than that not addressed, it was a decent show. Gates did good job narrating.
And yes Enterprise theme stunk - made me not want to watch.
It's obvious that the interviewees spoke at some length, but the editors appear to think that the audience has no attention span. So their responses and recollections are clipped to show clips from the various shows. Much is left on the virtual cutting room floor.
Gates McFadden is a great narrator, though.
Star Trek deserves a Ken Burns style documentary, not this.
Gates McFadden is a great narrator, though.
Star Trek deserves a Ken Burns style documentary, not this.
Just when you thought you knew everything, and i was born in 1971 and only just missed the first run, theres this.... a revisit thats manages to unleash new facts you hadnt heard before.
That its wonderfully narrated by Gates McFadden is a bonus
Trek is everything. My childhood was watching Star Trek at midday Saturdays, every week. No binge watching, so you had a sense of anticipation from week to week thats now missing with binge watching...people now will never appreciate tv like we did....
Learning new facts about Trek is more better!
That its wonderfully narrated by Gates McFadden is a bonus
Trek is everything. My childhood was watching Star Trek at midday Saturdays, every week. No binge watching, so you had a sense of anticipation from week to week thats now missing with binge watching...people now will never appreciate tv like we did....
Learning new facts about Trek is more better!
The Star Trek franchise does a celebratory 11-episode documentary series on itself. As with this type of shows, one has to be weary about personal slants of its creators. Of course, Gene is long gone and nobody has to tip-toe around his drug use. Nobody is deliberately trashing the man, ok except for one guy. They do walk that line of celebrating the show while not hiding its warts. This is very much for its fans. There is some fun information. Quite frankly, I remember the Desilu logo but I didn't know about Lucy fighting for the show. I do have a question or two which the show fails to answer. That's fair enough. This has good info and has some fun.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाDuring the history of Star Trek V, there was no mention about Lawrence Luckinbill (Sybok) for one reason. There was a mention of Lucille Ball who gave Star Trek TOS life on TV; Kirstie Alley (Saavik on Star Trek II) who met and played with Lucille Ball on a game show; and when it came to Lawrence Luckinbill, the only mention was Sean Connery was considered the role of Sybok. Not mentioned was Lawrence Luckinbill (married to Lucie Arnaz) was the son-in-law of Lucille Ball who gave Star Trek TOS life on TV.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How many seasons does The Center Seat: 55 Years of Star Trek have?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Inside Star Trek: Hinter den Kulissen des Enterprise-Universums
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि
- 46 मि
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें