Re: is TOS the only 'true' Star Trek?
Nerys Myk wrote:
You're the poster who started the thread, right? How are you defining "true"?
Yeh, that's me. At the time I was thinking how, in the real world, the producers always have to get the ratings to go up, so they tweak the production in order to (like the introduction of Troi's decotte costume in TNG or 7/9 in Voy).
So they called DeForestKelley and James Doohan for TNG, Shatner for the movie, The Enterprise and the Tribbles for DS9, Takey for VOY, the Defiant for ENT. It's always TOS they run to for help with pleasing the fans (ratings). Now since the 2009 roboot, Star Trek is 23rd century again.
By 'true' I meant classic, or timeless, highly creative (of course since it had no previous generation to succed. But I think I'm circling), things the other shows dont look to be so much. Maybe I should have used the word 'classic'. I did put the word 'true' between quotes.
But since the various posters talked about canon issues I feel the thread went that way. It's alright, too. Fun read.
TOS was the first Trek. I don't think that makes it any "truer" than any other. Though I do like it more that the others.
Kelley was used as a bridge from TOS to TNG, just as Stewart was used to bridge TNG and DS9. And they also used DS9 as launching point for Voyager. Takei and Tribbles were part of the anniversary, which had to acknowledge TOS.
TNG has been used to "boost" the other shows. Worf coming to
DS9 when it needed a "boost". Barclay appeared on Voyager several times. The Borg even showed up on Enterprise.
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.