RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,318
Posts: 5,352,436
Members: 24,622
Currently online: 682
Newest member: groucho900

TrekToday headlines

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 7 2013, 07:38 PM   #106
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

I started watching Star Trek on NBC when I was twelve years old. During the three years that it ran, I knew two adults who watched it and dozens of adolescents.

Roddenberry could claim that it was aimed at whoever he liked, but the core audience in the 60s and 70s was always youngsters. It certainly never has contained anything that can't be fully appreciated by a fifteen year-old.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 09:27 PM   #107
AtoZ
Commander
 
AtoZ's Avatar
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
I started watching Star Trek on NBC when I was twelve years old. During the three years that it ran, I knew two adults who watched it and dozens of adolescents.

Roddenberry could claim that it was aimed at whoever he liked, but the core audience in the 60s and 70s was always youngsters. It certainly never has contained anything that can't be fully appreciated by a fifteen year-old.
Good point. I caught on to Trek at age 5. No question the show went way above my ability to comprehend at that point, however there was something very much fun about it. It wasn't perfect but it was colorful, sensible, imaginative and fantastic. Perhaps what drew me to it at that point wasn't all that far removed from what drew me to comics books of the period. To its credit, it translated even better as I reached adulthood. And the flaws that so many like to point out or make fun of.....to me shades it as fine art in a sense.
AtoZ is offline  
Old June 8 2013, 01:38 PM   #108
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

I'm quite sure that the fifteen year olds who hadn't seen any U-boat movies didn't fully appreciate (for better or for worse!) Balance of Terror.

Equally any fifteen year olds who didn't follow the critiques of Robert MacNamara didn't fully appreciate A Taste of Armageddon.

And most of all, fifteen year olds didn't fully appreciate Spock's role as a fantasy figure who mastered sexual feelings.

Some of the themes in Star Trek may have become uncongenial due to the increasing conservatism of age, but working on a fifteen year old level doesn't mean it doesn't work on other levels either.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline  
Old June 8 2013, 01:52 PM   #109
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

One of the strengths of TOS was that it worked on multiple levels. In "The Enemy Within" the evil Kirk's attempted rape of Janice Rand is a pretty powerful scene and definitely adult level fare.

As a kid I enjoyed Looney Toons for all the silliness, but as an adult I now got all the jokes that (mostly) went over my head as a kid.

As an eleven year old and into my early teens I loved the cool spaceships and weird aliens and adventure of TOS, but as the years slipped by I started to really get all the subtleties and nuances and deeper meanings. The dramatic scenes resonated ever more with growing awareness and perception.

As a kid you might not see much difference between Star Trek and the Irwin Allen sci-fi productions, but as an adult the differences become quite stark.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old June 8 2013, 08:50 PM   #110
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Roddenberry could claim that it was aimed at whoever he liked, but the core audience in the 60s and 70s was always youngsters. It certainly never has contained anything that can't be fully appreciated by a fifteen year-old.
As others pointed out, Bugs Bunny cartoons had appeal to both children and adults. But while Star Trek had appeal to youngsters, there was far more mature material within it. Whereas with Bugs Bunny had mostly childish themes with the occasional adult joke tucked within, Star Trek had mostly adult themes with some characteristics making the show appealing to children as well.


I personally remember watching Star Trek as a child and being captivated by the personalities and the hardware. Most of the time I didn't know what the overall plot of the episode was or the key concepts being delivered through the dialog. It was usually just "Kirk and crew in danger from aliens" and "Kirk and crew manage to escape the danger." As an adult, I see so much more than I did when I was a young viewer.
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.
Gary7 is offline  
Old June 9 2013, 12:50 AM   #111
trekkie52
Cadet
 
Location: United States
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

CrazyMatgined" or "re-imt wrote: View Post
Am I the only one who feels this way? Am I just too closed minded?
No, you are not the only one who feels this way. Yes, you are too close minded.

This is a re-imagining of the series for a new generation of fans. JJ Abrams made a new Star Trek that can keep the attention of younger fans, while still adding things from the original Star Trek.
trekkie52 is offline  
Old June 9 2013, 02:14 AM   #112
DCR
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Wentworth Hall, Tellus of Sol
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

I'm almost 50 and TOS is my drug of choice in the great cornucopia of Star Trek.

I haven't seen STID yet, but I bought ST09, and have seen it a few times. I don't normally have a problem with reboots; I usually find they do some things well, others not so well. For me, the casting was for the most part good, but not perfect. I liked Karl Urban the most, and Simon Pegg the least. I wouldn't call it good science fiction, it had holes you could fly a Doomsday Machine through, but it was a decent action flick.

Where it fell down for me, was in the execution more than the concept. I disliked that Sulu's blade was essentially a samurai sword, as I thought his self-image of a swashbuckler with a rapier from TOS was both more interesting and less of a cliche than giving the Asian guy a katana. I didn't like the ship much, either. It just doesn't look balanced in my eyes.

As a TOS fan, while I will follow the new Trek movies as long as they keep making them, I'll still put the TOS-era fan films first, because for me they feel closer to the series I love than the new movies.

For what it's worth, I didn't like the new BSG, though I was a big fan of the original when it first came out. I thought the execution of the new BSG was better, but many of the ideas didn't interest me, especially the new take on the Cylons. It felt like it made the BSG Universe smaller, and that didn't work for me.
DCR is offline  
Old June 9 2013, 03:51 AM   #113
ralfy
Lieutenant
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
That's nice and smug of you. And Parachuting Spock was aimed at which, please? Certainly the thinking man's TOS would never lower itself to target such unwashed masses. We're an elite community, don't you know.

E plub nista!
I am not being "smug," just reasonable. Why do you think glowing reviews of the film by professional writers refer to the special effects and exciting action scenes?

It has nothing to do with "unwashed masses" but to the fact that by default people are generally attracted to special effects and action scenes. But if you take more effort, then you can see beyond them and evaluate what you see based on what I mentioned.
ralfy is offline  
Old June 9 2013, 03:58 AM   #114
ralfy
Lieutenant
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
I wouldn't call it a family show, but there were elements that as a kid I liked. ( fights, spaceships, aliens) GR intent was to do a SF spin on Adult Westerns ( Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Have Gun Will Travel) and "free" the genre from the kiddieland ghetto.
I'd like to add that the writers did want to add social commentary and things that were innovative that time, such as a multinational crew (including a Russian character) and an interracial kiss (although probably not the first on TV).

Certainly, similar attempts were made for the others shows, but because of political correctness, they ended up looking bland compared to TOS.

For the new movies, there are attempts to create a darker version of ST but special effects and actions scenes are overwhelming them. Also, I miss the "technobabble" and possibilities by which protagonists can use guile to defeat opponents.
ralfy is offline  
Old June 9 2013, 10:54 AM   #115
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

ralfy wrote: View Post
I am not being "smug," just reasonable. Why do you think glowing reviews of the film by professional writers refer to the special effects and exciting action scenes?
Yet you'll find few fans talking about the FX - have a read through the XI+ forum. I've read hundreds of comments about the crew, their interactions and the drone weapon allegory.
It has nothing to do with "unwashed masses" but to the fact that by default people are generally attracted to special effects and action scenes. But if you take more effort, then you can see beyond them and evaluate what you see based on what I mentioned.
You never answered me in the Future of Trek thread - do you similarly dislike Wrath of Khan? It has very similar nitpicky complaints and plot holes your articles point out in Into Darkness, like the Reliant somehow confusing Ceti Alpha VI for V (when V exploded, leaving the system without a sixth planet), Khan remembering Chekov who hadn't yet joined the crew, Kirk's overwhelming incompetence (if he'd raised the shields when he should have, Khan's entire scheme would have failed), victory hinging on Khan failing to understand the worst code of all time ("Hours will seem like days"), and Khan somehow not realizing that space is a three-dimensional battleground (which is frankly impossible to believe for a layman, let alone a character with a supposed superior intellect). Not to mention the Genesis Device which briefly elevated Federation science to the level of Q and somehow turned a nebula into a planet, completely unlike it's earlier stated programming.

If you somehow forgive WoK's flaws but not those of ID, then it's simply a case of you liking one more than the other, not because of some article which showed you the truth.
Also, I miss the "technobabble" and possibilities by which protagonists can use guile to defeat opponents.
This is how TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT Star Trek writers came up with their technobabble:
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by King Daniel Into Darkness; June 9 2013 at 12:16 PM.
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old June 9 2013, 11:46 AM   #116
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

^Ugh. Technobabble is the last thing new Trek needs.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old June 9 2013, 11:49 AM   #117
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
^Ugh. Technobabble is the last thing new Trek needs.
Seconded.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old June 9 2013, 03:59 PM   #118
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
^Ugh. Technobabble is the last thing new Trek needs.
Seconded.
Thirded.

Think of Trek as ice cream. A huge variety of flavours but no one is forced to like chocolate (my favourite) AND pistachio (which I loathe). However, I don't care that others like pistachio ice cream nor would I ever resort to the argument that pistachio ice cream isn't real ice cream just because I don't like it. Same with all iterations of Trek. One is free to like or dislike whatever one wants. But I am getting fed up with the "Abrams' movies are not real Trek". That's simply absurd.
Ovation is offline  
Old June 9 2013, 04:06 PM   #119
Avon
Fleet Captain
 
Avon's Avatar
 
Location: Space Wales
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

i ignore everything that was made after 'the cage', due to it not being true to roddenberry's original vision.

i just can't accept anyone other than jeffrey hunter playing the captain.
__________________

Hello to Jason Isaacs!
Avon is offline  
Old June 9 2013, 04:12 PM   #120
ATimson
Rear Admiral
 
ATimson's Avatar
 
Location: Andrew Timson
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

DCR wrote: View Post
For me, the casting was for the most part good, but not perfect. I liked Karl Urban the most, and Simon Pegg the least.
I used to agree with you; however, the more I thought about it, the more I think my problems with Scotty lay with the script and not with Simon Pegg. Into Darkness only furthered that theory, since I liked his role there.
__________________
Andrew Timson
===============
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others." - Brendan Moody

"...don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido
ATimson is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.