lavahot
07-15-2009, 08:51 AM
So I got to thinking today, why do we accept premises from older shows and enjoy them, but expect something different and plausible from new shows. For example, there are quite a few Twilight Zone episodes that take place on other planets that not only support life, but are reachable with spacecraft from Earth, as if it's just a short trip. If we saw this premise in a new show today it would be entirely laughable, but it was acceptable back then and it still works today.
I remember that book by Ray Bradbury, "The Martian Chronicles," which is completely brilliant but the simple premise of easily existing and colonizing Mars is ridiculous, which he later admits. His response is extremely insightful though: he says that even though it would be now unlikely for an audience to accept that premise, it sets up a framework for genuine storytelling and conflict to occur.
This is what makes old shows like the Twilight Zone and Star Trek great; we are more willing to forgive their shortcomings in plausibility because they provide extremely provoking stories and interesting deep characters.
I remember that book by Ray Bradbury, "The Martian Chronicles," which is completely brilliant but the simple premise of easily existing and colonizing Mars is ridiculous, which he later admits. His response is extremely insightful though: he says that even though it would be now unlikely for an audience to accept that premise, it sets up a framework for genuine storytelling and conflict to occur.
This is what makes old shows like the Twilight Zone and Star Trek great; we are more willing to forgive their shortcomings in plausibility because they provide extremely provoking stories and interesting deep characters.