6 ms·

Sometimes appreciating something old requires digging into context. For example, most books released in the 1800s will seem like gibberish without an understand

Sometimes appreciating something old requires digging into context. For example, most books released in the 1800s will seem like gibberish without an understanding of the sociopolitical climate. And then there's that whole situation where those same books were padded in a way that makes the modern one-book trilogy look concise because they were paid by the word. I couldn't enjoy 2001 until I knew about all the detailed model work that went into it. The uncut version is still super boring, but it's easier to stay awake knowing what to look for. It's kind of the same situation with the various '90s Star Trek series. I am no longer impressed by long scenes of a ship passing by planets, so the intros are boring.

laumars 9y ago
The reruns of TNG you're watching and likely the HD remastered copies which had the CGI redone for Blu-ray. So it isn't really 90s effects you're watching. Furthermore I don't think those scenes you've described are there purely for the sake of impressing the audience. I think they are there to help explain the narrative. Like how in other - eg non sci-fi - shows you'll often get scenes of a car pulling up to a building to help explain that person has just arrived. Or scenes from outside a building to help explain to audiences where the following inside scene is based.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  You're talking about establishing shots. I'm talking about the intros where the ship passes by planets and things with an orchestra booming from the cosmos for what seems like several minutes. It's the exact same thing in every episode and comes after the establishing scenes in the first 1-3 minutes. This is true of every single Star Trek series post-TOS, aside from Enterprise with its cheesy theme and clips from aviation history. (I haven't seen Discovery)
  - ambrosite 9y ago
    You mean, the opening credits/music? Well yeah, those are the same in every episode, but I assume almost everyone skips those after they've seen it the first few times. Even the Battlestar Galactica reboot had an opening credits sequence which I usually skipped.
    - bitwize 9y ago
      You know you're old when you have to explain opening credit sequences to people because everyone younger than you is just used to TV shows jumping right in (often in medias res)
      - ambrosite 9y ago
        The thing is, I get why opening credit sequences have fallen out of fashion. They were a holdover from the broadcast television era where they served a legitimate purpose, but they are completely unnecessary in an online, on-demand viewing environment. It actually annoys me now to have to sit through a title sequence of any kind, whether it be in a television show or a video game (I am one of those people who will edit a game's config files to get rid of them).
        laumars 9y ago
        Opening sequences weren't required for the old broadcaster either as the had a special pre-show clock that would count down on the tape before the start. I'm fact You sometimes saw this on TV. Moreover, some older shows didn't have opening credits and a great many that did, often only did so after an acted prelude
        bitwize 9y ago
        Yeah, just like I totally get why today's computer and video displays are all LCDs. I still get wistful and sad when I hear someone dimly recall "those TVs with the big things on the back".
      - brownbat 9y ago
        Lost was the first big show I can remember that just had a one to two beat opening theme. It's weird that it took so long. Early films, the Jazz Singer if you go way back, had a fifteen minute overture, reminiscent of the orchestral opening to stage plays while people found their seats. Movies eventually realized that, artistic merit notwithstanding, that was boring. They first shortened those intros to a card of the main players. Sometime later the guilds required credits include all craftsman, but just stars. A fair and egalitarian move with the unintended consequences of reexpanding credits, making them... Less fun. Studios just moved the credits to the end and began with some establishing scene instead, as a compromise between the contributors and audience. I guess anyone who mostly watched things after Lost wouldn't expect long tv intros. But then, most streaming services let you skip them, so it shouldn't be a big deal
  - laumars 9y ago
    Oh the opening credits? Almost every show - old and new - has them. It's not even something that is specific to Sci-Fi. So I don't really get why you're comparing that to 2001. Anyhow I do agree they're often boring. The most annoying one is for House of Cards - it goes on forever. Thankfully you can usually fast forward the intros. Which I what I reckon most people do - at least for the longer ones anyway.
    - aninhumer 9y ago
      >Almost every show - old and new - has them. They tend to be a lot shorter in newer shows though. Older shows' credit sequence would typically last over a minute, whereas IME they tend to be 30 seconds or less on newer shows, some even less, and some only have a title card sting.
      - laumars 9y ago
        Sometimes that's the case but it varies from show to show. IIRC the House of Cards intro goes on for more than 2 minutes. Game of Thrones isn't exactly quick either. Where as some older shows, eg UK sitcom from the 90s, "Spaced", only lasted a couple of seconds (literally). If there is any correlation I've observed, it's more to do with the genre of show and it's running time.
        fjsolwmv 9y ago
        GoT intro is actually an establishing shot, showing you which regions are featured in the episode. It varies per episode. It is a bit long, but not compared to the previous generation, and it has a lot of fast moving detail that takes many viewings to see it all. Six Feet Under (2001-2006), also by HBO, intro is over 90seconds and the same every episode, and it's very slow and low-detail.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > GoT intro is actually an establishing shot, showing you which regions are featured in the episode. Not just that, but the images in each region are subtly altered to reflect the events in the storyline in that region.
leephillips 9y ago
"The uncut version is still super boring" I find every minute of it to be thrilling (in case you were interested in another datapoint).
- valuearb 9y ago
  i find it 10% slow, and 90% thrilling, which is basically as close to perfection as a film can get. Ask wrote separately, Stephen Soderbergh recut 2001 to remove dead space and “unimportant” scenes, and it’s no where near as good as the original.

laumars 9y ago

The reruns of TNG you're watching and likely the HD remastered copies which had the CGI redone for Blu-ray. So it isn't really 90s effects you're watching. Furthermore I don't think those scenes you've described are there purely for the sake of impressing the audience. I think they are there to help explain the narrative. Like how in other - eg non sci-fi - shows you'll often get scenes of a car pulling up to a building to help explain that person has just arrived. Or scenes from outside a building to help explain to audiences where the following inside scene is based.

rainbowmverse 9y ago
You're talking about establishing shots. I'm talking about the intros where the ship passes by planets and things with an orchestra booming from the cosmos for what seems like several minutes. It's the exact same thing in every episode and comes after the establishing scenes in the first 1-3 minutes. This is true of every single Star Trek series post-TOS, aside from Enterprise with its cheesy theme and clips from aviation history. (I haven't seen Discovery)
- ambrosite 9y ago
  You mean, the opening credits/music? Well yeah, those are the same in every episode, but I assume almost everyone skips those after they've seen it the first few times. Even the Battlestar Galactica reboot had an opening credits sequence which I usually skipped.
  - bitwize 9y ago
    You know you're old when you have to explain opening credit sequences to people because everyone younger than you is just used to TV shows jumping right in (often in medias res)
    - ambrosite 9y ago
      The thing is, I get why opening credit sequences have fallen out of fashion. They were a holdover from the broadcast television era where they served a legitimate purpose, but they are completely unnecessary in an online, on-demand viewing environment. It actually annoys me now to have to sit through a title sequence of any kind, whether it be in a television show or a video game (I am one of those people who will edit a game's config files to get rid of them).
      - laumars 9y ago
        Opening sequences weren't required for the old broadcaster either as the had a special pre-show clock that would count down on the tape before the start. I'm fact You sometimes saw this on TV. Moreover, some older shows didn't have opening credits and a great many that did, often only did so after an acted prelude
      - bitwize 9y ago
        Yeah, just like I totally get why today's computer and video displays are all LCDs. I still get wistful and sad when I hear someone dimly recall "those TVs with the big things on the back".
    - brownbat 9y ago
      Lost was the first big show I can remember that just had a one to two beat opening theme. It's weird that it took so long. Early films, the Jazz Singer if you go way back, had a fifteen minute overture, reminiscent of the orchestral opening to stage plays while people found their seats. Movies eventually realized that, artistic merit notwithstanding, that was boring. They first shortened those intros to a card of the main players. Sometime later the guilds required credits include all craftsman, but just stars. A fair and egalitarian move with the unintended consequences of reexpanding credits, making them... Less fun. Studios just moved the credits to the end and began with some establishing scene instead, as a compromise between the contributors and audience. I guess anyone who mostly watched things after Lost wouldn't expect long tv intros. But then, most streaming services let you skip them, so it shouldn't be a big deal
- laumars 9y ago
  Oh the opening credits? Almost every show - old and new - has them. It's not even something that is specific to Sci-Fi. So I don't really get why you're comparing that to 2001. Anyhow I do agree they're often boring. The most annoying one is for House of Cards - it goes on forever. Thankfully you can usually fast forward the intros. Which I what I reckon most people do - at least for the longer ones anyway.
  - aninhumer 9y ago
    >Almost every show - old and new - has them. They tend to be a lot shorter in newer shows though. Older shows' credit sequence would typically last over a minute, whereas IME they tend to be 30 seconds or less on newer shows, some even less, and some only have a title card sting.
    - laumars 9y ago
      Sometimes that's the case but it varies from show to show. IIRC the House of Cards intro goes on for more than 2 minutes. Game of Thrones isn't exactly quick either. Where as some older shows, eg UK sitcom from the 90s, "Spaced", only lasted a couple of seconds (literally). If there is any correlation I've observed, it's more to do with the genre of show and it's running time.
      - fjsolwmv 9y ago
        GoT intro is actually an establishing shot, showing you which regions are featured in the episode. It varies per episode. It is a bit long, but not compared to the previous generation, and it has a lot of fast moving detail that takes many viewings to see it all. Six Feet Under (2001-2006), also by HBO, intro is over 90seconds and the same every episode, and it's very slow and low-detail.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > GoT intro is actually an establishing shot, showing you which regions are featured in the episode. Not just that, but the images in each region are subtly altered to reflect the events in the storyline in that region.

leephillips 9y ago

"The uncut version is still super boring" I find every minute of it to be thrilling (in case you were interested in another datapoint).

valuearb 9y ago
i find it 10% slow, and 90% thrilling, which is basically as close to perfection as a film can get. Ask wrote separately, Stephen Soderbergh recut 2001 to remove dead space and “unimportant” scenes, and it’s no where near as good as the original.