View Single Post
Old June 13 2013, 08:49 PM   #82
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

mos6507 wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
TOS was always known for strong characters, not strong storylines.
First off, citing Garth is cherry-picking. Whom Gods Destroy is a so-so 3rd season episode at a time when things were teetering on camp.
When was Star Trek ever NOT teetering on Camp?


"Shore Leave" and "This Side of Paradise" were both FIRST season episodes.

Also, anyone who looks back on the history of SF cites TOS as intelligent, certainly more intelligent than Irwin Allen's stuff or what came before like Rocky Jones Space Ranger.
Which is setting the bar stupendously low as it is, and a context that hasn't existed since Trek went off the air.

Put that another way: if ST09 was competing in theatres with, say, Lost in Space and Thunderbirds it would have blown both of them out of the water and would have been lauded as more thoughtful and more intelligent with far better characterization and story development. Unfortunately, it's now in a genre that includes movies like District 9, Total Recall, Avatar, The Avengers, Iron Man and War of the Worlds and is playing to an audience that grew up with Star Wars and the Matrix Trilogy on DVD.

Basically, Star Trek was never as smart as its original adopters 40 years ago thought it was, and those of us who didn't see it in the 60s never thought it was that clever to begin with. But again, even between the original fans and those who came later, the real appear of Star Trek is Kirk, Spock, McCoy...


and to an increasing extent, Uhura.

That it doesn't measure up to the gravitas of, let's say, the BSG reboot, takes nothing away from what TOS successfully accomplished...
That's kind of my point. TOS' notable accomplishment was being the first sci-fi show to take itself (relatively) seriously. That's not exactly an accomplishment today; EVERYONE does that.

It's the same dilemma faced by child actors. You can't really build a career that depends on you being cute and adorable; by the time you grow up, you need to be able to make it as an actor. Star Trek is the same way: TOS was "clever" at a time when nobody else was. Fortunately it was also pretty well characterized, and THAT'S something you can keep going for decades.

It's the same way the Beatles could be seen as mindless bubblegum pop by looking at part of their catalog, or psychadelic trailblazers with another.
You say that as if the surviving Beatles aren't still making music.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote