Should old SciFi be judged by today's standards?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Is all we're talking about special effects though?

I hope not because we'd be cutting out significant parts of the movies.

And TV shows, like Star Trek The Original Series!

[Zargon]

I find the ''look" or the ''special effects" of a movie/TV show to be a very trivial thing. Do I like ''good looks" and "good special effects" ....sure, but I don't ''have" to have them.

Though I guess some people are like ''if it's not super CGI 21st century spam, it's crap!". Guess this person loved movies like Batman vs Superman where the last thirty minutes of the movie is just a five year old scribbling cgi spam all over the screen.

Alien is just fine as a sci fi horror movie...without a billion dollars of cgi spam.

[Mecha82]

I have met similar people in anime community that think that visuals are most important over everything else like story and characters. People like that miss lot of good movies, TV series and anime just because those aren't visually good looking and shiny.

[Yukaphile]

This is relevant. When it comes to TOS for example, I just avoid the... VERY misogynistic episodes, like "Wolf in the Fold." Something like "Space Seed," which is cringe-inducing, fares a lot better, and I can still watch that, even if it's not one of my favorites. So it really depends on to what degree those social values are... disproportionate to today's social values. Remember that even back then, there was a lot of people who disagreed with the white religious conservative patriarchy's values, and what they tried to shove down our throats to make us think like them.

When it comes to effects, I won't lie, sitting through early Doctor Who, it's really a chore. The story is great, but... the effects really drag it down in some cases. It still feels like it's "Growing the Beard." Like it's now Season 2 TNG rather than Season 3 TNG. The first serial I REALLY loved was "Power of the Daleks." The animation makes everything better.

[CmdrKing]

The advantage of Space Seed is that in isolation, the more misogynist elements are focused on Khan himself and mark him as, well, a man out of time (which he is).
Obviously if you watch the rest of the show while that's still true it's not as big a gap as you'd think if Space Seed was your first ever TOS experience.
----
Honestly I think people don't really know how to talk about effects, graphics, and other technical specs in a very interesting way. I mean, new technology tends to actually be worse than tried and true methods when they debut, or get overused to hell in ways that both are done well and ways that aren't (hello Phantom Menace), which means that something newer can be really impressive to a fresh audience and age like milk within five years.

It's more interesting to delve into *how* effects are done and appreciate what they do well rather than trying to assess if something is """"Objectively"""" better looking than newer stuff. Or hell, not even effects, but just how the tools available were used. As dated as the 30s-era studio sets look compared to almost all modern blockbusters being on location somewhere, Wizard of Oz's deliberate contrast of black and white Kansas with full color Oz still communicates a lot to the viewer even if the technical razzle dazzle of Oz has faded over the years.

[Yukaphile]

Yes, that's why I'm able to watch it. "Wolf in the Fold" and "Turnabout Intruder" are inexcusable because of how they treat this so-called "evolved far future" society as being more sexist than we are in the present. Which is hilarious.

Well, I think TOS had better effects than early Doctor Who. You can clearly tell some budget went into those, while Who felt... very... fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants and... like they assembled the sets that very same day a lot of the time.

[clearspira]

I thought Khan's interaction with Mcgivers was very well done as it shows everything we need to know about him: he is a man used to getting what he wants through force and charisma; a man used to being at the top until he was deposed. A man who passionately believes might is right and has no respect for those he considers weaker than himself - note how he backs down when McCoy shows he has balls with a knife to his throat or when he begrudgingly recognises that Kirk is a badass. Khan respects strength even if he considers it less than his own, and that is why he treats Mcgivers like a doormat... because lets be honest she is one.

For him to act any other way would not be Khan.

[clearspira]

Yes, that's why I'm able to watch it. "Wolf in the Fold" and "Turnabout Intruder" are inexcusable because of how they treat this so-called "evolved far future" society as being more sexist than we are in the present. Which is hilarious.

Well, I think TOS had better effects than early Doctor Who. You can clearly tell some budget went into those, while Who felt... very... fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants and... like they assembled the sets that very same day a lot of the time.

Yeah, I know what Roddenberry wanted, but in-universe the fact remains: Janice Lester is insane. We can trust nothing she says.

[Yukaphile]

There is always that nice little comfy headcanon.

[Formless One]

I think I tend to disagree with the majority here when I say that yes, absolutely you can judge older works by modern standards and in fact will go so far as to say that even people who say that they suspend judgement are almost certainly going to judge anyway subconsciously. Though on the special effects question, there are many who say that they actually prefer older practical effects, and I won't say that they are lying-- certainly modern filmmakers tend to use CG just because they can rather than thinking about other alternatives, up to and including omitting a special effects shot simply because it adds nothing but spectacle.

Now, to justify my stance, I will let Mr. Spock explain:

Spock: There is a certain scientific logic about it.

Anan 7: I'm glad you approve.

Spock: I do not approve; I understand.

In other words, the argument that we should seek to understand why older works are the way they are does not preclude us from judging them. If a work looks too cheesy for a modern audience, just knowing why it looks that way doesn't change the fact that it looks cheesy. Or if the science is outdated (as is often the case with the oldest works of science fiction), nothing can change that fact even if we can forgive the writers for their ignorance. The science is what the science is, and if the story pivoted on a High Concept scientific idea that proved inaccurate after it was published, then the story has to hold up on its other merits; and unfortunately, many High Concept stories are lacking those merits if that central pillar is removed.

How stories come to age poorly is an intellectually interesting subject, but some people are just going to want to read or watch a good story that doesn't come with the baggage of another era (especially offensive baggage, where applicable). And I can't say there is anything wrong with that. Not everyone is a literary academic, nor should they need to be.