 Previous Thread |
|
Next Thread 
|
|
 Re: Discussing the pre-Shooter Legion
|
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 188
Substitute
|
OP
Substitute
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 188 |
Blame me. I've been largely absent from the boards for two years. Are you kidding me? Nobody should ever apologize for talking about the Legion :-) and I've really enjoyed your comments on various threads.
|
|
|
Re: Discussing the pre-Shooter Legion
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,141
Not much between despair and ecstacy
|
|
Not much between despair and ecstacy
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,141 |
|
|
|
Re: Discussing the pre-Shooter Legion
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 220
Reservist
|
|
Reservist
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 220 |
I finally managed to end 2020 reaching the end of the Hamilton era with my Legion retrospective.
It was... well certainly a fun ride, but with a couple of exceptions (the trial of Star Boy gets better every time I read it, and the first part of the Computo story holds very well) there were A LOT of stories that really don't stand the test of time.
The most disappointing part were the Legionnaires themselves. While the series as a whole is still superior to the other DC titles at the time, I found the Legionnaires very underwhelming.
Thoughts? Your analysis of the Legionnaires is spot on. They were pretty much interchangeable in the early days. It was typical for them to show up for a few panels, do their bit, and then disappear into the background. Before the Legion took over the lead spot in Adventure, and then the entire book, the stories featured smaller teams of Legionnaires. Once they became the lead feature, I imagine it became a challenge to feature as many Legionnaires as possible in stories, so you would get odd cameos and stories like Adv. 310, in which the entire team is killed off--sometimes en masse (as when a spaceship carrying several Legionnaires runs into an asteroid). It's an odd way of including everybody without having them do much of anything. It reminds me of the writing on Star Trek: The Next Generation in the 1980s, when all of the lead characters were featured in almost every episode but each had to be given something to do, and it often wasn't very convincing. . That was not unique to TNG but was typical of most all US television shows from the late 70's up until the last ten years or so. Standard actor contracts had changed from the golden age of TV to where all lead actors were required to be in almost every episode of a series. For example, this was not the situation for Star Trek original series as the contracts were different. There were many episodes without Uhura, Sulu, Chekov or Chapel but no explanation was given in story. It really annoyed me - especially in those episodes were the ship was in danger or what have you and you get a one-off character appearing instead of one of the regulars. Having all of the regulars appear (even if briefly) in each episode of TNG was something I especially welcomed. However I do you remember Majel Barrett Roddenberry being very vocal with TNG at the time in her dislike of the contractual requirements - for much the same reasons you mention with these early Legion stories. But with these early legion stories, I took it as a way for readers to get to see their favorite Legionnaires - if only briefly. As course Levitz would take this formula and run with it to huge success in his early 80's run.
|
|
|
Re: Discussing the pre-Shooter Legion
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,141
Not much between despair and ecstacy
|
|
Not much between despair and ecstacy
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,141 |
That was not unique to TNG but was typical of most all US television shows from the late 70's up until the last ten years or so. Standard actor contracts had changed from the golden age of TV to where all lead actors were required to be in almost every episode of a series. Thanks for providing a broader perspective on this. For example, this was not the situation for Star Trek original series as the contracts were different. There were many episodes without Uhura, Sulu, Chekov or Chapel but no explanation was given in story. Personally, I thought that was more realistic. There would be many instances when the main crew members were on vacation, lecturing at the academy, or doing something else. The presence of other crew member created a sense of verisimilitude. It really annoyed me - especially in those episodes were the ship was in danger or what have you and you get a one-off character appearing instead of one of the regulars. Having all of the regulars appear (even if briefly) in each episode of TNG was something I especially welcomed. However I do you remember Majel Barrett Roddenberry being very vocal with TNG at the time in her dislike of the contractual requirements - for much the same reasons you mention with these early Legion stories. But with these early legion stories, I took it as a way for readers to get to see their favorite Legionnaires - if only briefly. As course Levitz would take this formula and run with it to huge success in his early 80's run. I totally get it. As a fan, I loved it when any of my favorite characters put in so much as a one-panel cameo. Since then, I've come to appreciate it when characters are only there when the story requires them to be there. Babylon 5 was masterful at this. Sometimes characters would appear briefly or not at all--but it all served the needs or the story instead of the story serving the characters. But to each his or her own. This is the first I've heard about Majel's complaints. Was this in reference to her role as Lwaxana or as the computer voice?
|
|
|
Re: Discussing the pre-Shooter Legion
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,455
Leader
|
|
Leader
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,455 |
"For example, this was not the situation for Star Trek original series as the contracts were different. There were many episodes without Uhura, Sulu, Chekov or Chapel but no explanation was given in story."
I'm current watching the 1st season of "VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA", which I have not seen since the late 1960s. (After that, the entire B&W season-- the one with the best writing-- was YANKED out of circulation, because IDIOT programmers thought audiences didn't want to watch B&W TV shows.)
Thsi week's episode (I'm watching one per week, just like when it was first run), I was surprised when both Kowalksi & Patterson were nowhere to be found! And those 2 guys are practically in every story.
Last edited by profh0011; 03/10/21 10:39 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Discussing the pre-Shooter Legion
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 220
Reservist
|
|
Reservist
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 220 |
That was not unique to TNG but was typical of most all US television shows from the late 70's up until the last ten years or so. Standard actor contracts had changed from the golden age of TV to where all lead actors were required to be in almost every episode of a series. Thanks for providing a broader perspective on this. For example, this was not the situation for Star Trek original series as the contracts were different. There were many episodes without Uhura, Sulu, Chekov or Chapel but no explanation was given in story. Personally, I thought that was more realistic. There would be many instances when the main crew members were on vacation, lecturing at the academy, or doing something else. The presence of other crew member created a sense of verisimilitude. It really annoyed me - especially in those episodes were the ship was in danger or what have you and you get a one-off character appearing instead of one of the regulars. Having all of the regulars appear (even if briefly) in each episode of TNG was something I especially welcomed. However I do you remember Majel Barrett Roddenberry being very vocal with TNG at the time in her dislike of the contractual requirements - for much the same reasons you mention with these early Legion stories. But with these early legion stories, I took it as a way for readers to get to see their favorite Legionnaires - if only briefly. As course Levitz would take this formula and run with it to huge success in his early 80's run. I totally get it. As a fan, I loved it when any of my favorite characters put in so much as a one-panel cameo. Since then, I've come to appreciate it when characters are only there when the story requires them to be there. Babylon 5 was masterful at this. Sometimes characters would appear briefly or not at all--but it all served the needs or the story instead of the story serving the characters. But to each his or her own. This is the first I've heard about Majel's complaints. Was this in reference to her role as Lwaxana or as the computer voice? I wouldn't call it Majel complaining as that's a whole other topic - this was more her sharing her opinion. And this was not in regards to her acting as Lwaxana or the computer voice, but in her role as being wife to the creator and head producer of TNG. It's been years (decades?) so my memory is likely not accurate, but I believe she was responding to a fan question at a Q&A and explained that Gene would receive the scripts in varying degrees of completion to review (I think this was after his stroke and starting to wind down his day-to-day involvement but maybe not). Majel and Gene would read them to together (shades of today's table reads) and Majel would give her feedback to Gene. And she made a point here of noting how often the story (plotting, pace, etc) would suffer due to the machinations to get all of the actors on-screen (if only briefly) to meet contract requirements. You mention instances where some main crew members would not be in a episode for various reasons. But on the original series, those reasons rarely made it on screen and more fans filling in the blanks over the years. Now TNG (and forward) was very good about explaining on screen why someone else was barely in an episode or what have you without taking up a lot of screen time to do it.
|
|
|
|
Forums14
Topics21,021
Posts1,045,155
Legionnaires1,729
| |
Most Online53,886
Jan 7th, 2024
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
Posts: 196
Joined: October 2003
|
|
|
|
