After many years of not being able to see this program, but only being able to hear the scathing opinions of others about it, in particular those of the series' originator, noted SF writer Harlan Ellison, I was anxious to actually see it for myself.
And when I finally did...? Well, I actually enjoyed the 10 or so episodes I could see. Yes, the production values were very small, but shows like 'Land of the Lost' or 'Doctor Who' (which Ellison has said he actually likes) have made very enjoyable, watchable programs on similar budgets. Frankly, an interesting story is the first requirement, and trivia like sets and special effects are, at best, secondary. Castigating the show for a low budget is easy. But the shows I saw were primarily enjoyable, and I liked watching them even with particular flaws here or there or a less enjoyable episode now and again.
How much of this reputation for the show is of people simply jumping on Ellison's bandwagon? He has famously trashed the series, and has every right to whatever feelings he has on the subject. But his opinion is formed on the basis of what he originally wanted, and the experiences he had while working on the project (which, as much as they are known, are simply HIS versions of events). What effect could that whole experience have had on his opinion of the show? And why should his opinion have any effect on mine, formed simply on the basis of the program itself? I wonder how many people have formed their perspective of the series based on Ellison's recounting of events and his own view of the series. How much of Ellison's opinion has built those of others? Does it have its flaws? Most certainly, sizable ones. And it is certainly a low-budget production with poor episodes. But is it the worst show of all time, as many people seem to see it? I don't think so. It is, in many ways, enjoyable.
And when I finally did...? Well, I actually enjoyed the 10 or so episodes I could see. Yes, the production values were very small, but shows like 'Land of the Lost' or 'Doctor Who' (which Ellison has said he actually likes) have made very enjoyable, watchable programs on similar budgets. Frankly, an interesting story is the first requirement, and trivia like sets and special effects are, at best, secondary. Castigating the show for a low budget is easy. But the shows I saw were primarily enjoyable, and I liked watching them even with particular flaws here or there or a less enjoyable episode now and again.
How much of this reputation for the show is of people simply jumping on Ellison's bandwagon? He has famously trashed the series, and has every right to whatever feelings he has on the subject. But his opinion is formed on the basis of what he originally wanted, and the experiences he had while working on the project (which, as much as they are known, are simply HIS versions of events). What effect could that whole experience have had on his opinion of the show? And why should his opinion have any effect on mine, formed simply on the basis of the program itself? I wonder how many people have formed their perspective of the series based on Ellison's recounting of events and his own view of the series. How much of Ellison's opinion has built those of others? Does it have its flaws? Most certainly, sizable ones. And it is certainly a low-budget production with poor episodes. But is it the worst show of all time, as many people seem to see it? I don't think so. It is, in many ways, enjoyable.