Is TOS the best sci-fi TV American series until 1985?

[RandyS]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

To each their own, I guess, but I confess that my mind boggles at the idea that the old BSG is the "best" anything.

Never saw the appeal, even back in the eighties.

Maybe this is a generational thing?

It probably is. Speaking for myself, as a member of the original audience of BSG:TOS (okay, I was only eight in 1978, but still...), I can honestly say I don't see what the younger folks see in Ron Moore's overrated, pompus remake.

[Greg Cox]

RandyS wrote:

---

It probably is. Speaking for myself, as a member of the original audience of BSG:TOS (okay, I was only eight in 1978, but still...), I can honestly say I don't see what the younger folks see in Ron Moore's overrated, pompus remake.

Hah! That's not the generation gap I was thinking of! I was in college when the old BSG debuted and thought it suffered in comparison to the shows I grew up on, like TOS. Maybe you need to be exposed to old BSG at the right age. By the time it debuted in 1978, I was already too old for it. To my oh-so-sophisticated freshman self, BSG was kid's stuff.

But, for the record, it's not just "the younger folks" who prefer the new BSG. I'm an old coot who found the reboot much more dramatic and engrossing than the seventies version . . . .

[Harvey]

I admit a nostalgic fondness from the original Battlestar Galactica -- I first saw the original pilot and an episode or two (on video and in re-runs) when I was perhaps nine or ten. But nostalgia doesn't get in the way of my critical evaluation of the series; Ron Moore's version of Battlestar Galactica is far superior to my eyes.

[CorporalCaptain]

Harvey wrote:

---

I admit a nostalgic fondness from the original Battlestar Galactica -- I first saw the original pilot and an episode or two (on video and in re-runs) when I was perhaps nine or ten. But nostalgia doesn't get in the way of my critical evaluation of the series; Ron Moore's version of Battlestar Galactica is far superior to my eyes.

Mine too.

But to reiterate, for me, I have zero nostalgia for the original series, despite being 12 y.o. during first run. Heck, I even saw the theatrical film release in Sensurround, and "everyone" from my school was there. Still, no nostalgia for original BSG. Although, I gotta admit that was kinda fun, but any nostalgia that I have is for that movie theater which no longer exists and for my friends. It was fun once, but I didn't get in line to see it again, like I did Star Wars.

[Greg Cox]

Conscious Circuits wrote:

---

Mine too.

But to reiterate, for me, I have zero nostalgia for the original series, despite being 12 y.o. during first run. Heck, I even saw the theatrical film release in Sensurround, and "everyone" from my school was there. Still, no nostalgia for original BSG. Although, I gotta admit that was kinda fun, but any nostalgia that I have is for that movie theater which no longer exists and for my friends. It was fun once, but I didn't get in line to see it again, like I did Star Wars.

I remember seeing the pilot for BUCK ROGERS in the theater around the same time. That was fun, too, although even though I had no illusions that it compared to STAR TREK or STAR WARS.

[CorporalCaptain]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

I remember seeing the pilot for BUCK ROGERS in the theater around the same time. That was fun, too, although even though I had no illusions that it compared to STAR TREK or STAR WARS.

Yep, I saw that too. A friend of mine said it was great; I thought it was awful.

Maybe there is something generational at work here, but it's far from universal.

[Ian Keldon]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Trek TOS has stories like "The City On The Edge Of Forever," Twilight Zone has stories like "It's A Good Life" - and they only have to ring that bell a couple of times before all of modern Trek, Straczynski, etc. are out of competition notwithstanding the fact that I might know that in week 5 of season three of B5 I was going to get pretty much the same thing I got in week 4.

Horsecrap! Modern Trek has plenty of "bell ringers", and B5 is practically a carillon.

[Greg Cox]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Horsecrap! Modern Trek has plenty of "bell ringers", and B5 is practically a carillon.

Gotta agree there. I bow to no one in my affection for TOS and TZ, but let's not fall into the nostalgic trap of assuming that everything was always better back in the good old days.

There's been plenty of classic episodes produced over the last few decades--on TNG, FARSCAPE, X-FILES, FIREFLY, nuBSG, LOST, THE WALKING DEAD, BUFFY, XENA, etc.

[DWF]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Hah! That's not the generation gap I was thinking of! I was in college when the old BSG debuted and thought it suffered in comparison to the shows I grew up on, like TOS. Maybe you need to be exposed to old BSG at the right age. By the time it debuted in 1978, I was already too old for it. To my oh-so-sophisticated freshman self, BSG was kid's stuff.

But, for the record, it's not just "the younger folks" who prefer the new BSG. I'm an old coot who found the reboot much more dramatic and engrossing than the seventies version . . . .

It's nigh impossible to compare a nework series from the late '70s shown at 8PM on a Sunday night to a recent cable series that lastest for four seasons. But without some support from fans and very quality of what they put out you wouldn't have had the new series.

[Gary7]

When BSG aired, I thought it was so awesome... finally a sci-fi TV show with Star Wars quality SFX. Yet it failed to deliver good stories. So much potential. I really thought I'd find TOS "stale" after getting hooked on BSG. But as the show meandered across a number of directions, and showed so much repetitive SFX, I realized that it could never hold a candle to TOS. I enjoyed UFO and Space:1999 (to a degree), but their production values and episode plots seriously paled in comparison to Star Trek. Space:1999 had a lot of potential, what with Brian Johnston and Derek Meddings working their SFX and model magic. But Anderson once again stumbled with the premise, at first trying too hard to appeal to the intellectuals, then swinging too far in the other direction of appealing to the youth craving easy to digest entertainment (partly due to Fred Freiberger).

I think part of the reason why such a strong fan base built up around Star Trek was the very lack of alternative sci-fi TV programs that could match it.

[UnknownSample]

If original BSG is some shining example of great science fiction, then anything and everything is. BSG was light insubstantial space adventure for kids. If our standards are such that an intelligent show like Sp:99 year one is actually criticized for it ("intellectual" was just used as a criticism), then I guess mediocre is what we're supposed to be shooting for.

what do Buffy and Xena have to do with science fiction?!

[CorporalCaptain]

Gary7 wrote:

---

I enjoyed UFO and Space:1999 (to a degree), but their production values and episode plots seriously paled in comparison to Star Trek. Space:1999 had a lot of potential, what with Brian Johnston and Derek Meddings working their SFX and model magic. But Anderson once again stumbled with the premise, at first trying too hard to appeal to the intellectuals, then swinging too far in the other direction of appealing to the youth craving easy to digest entertainment (partly due to Fred Freiberger).

Both UFO and Space: 1999 had lots of potential. I was an Anderson fan before kindergarten, being turned on by Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet.

1999 is an especially sad case, since its second season provided an opportunity for improvements, but the writing was (for the most part) so much worse than it was in the first season, that the show had nowhere to go but off the air.

I think part of the reason why such a strong fan base built up around Star Trek was the very lack of alternative sci-fi TV programs that could match it.

I agree. With respect to Anderson, the Supermarionation shows were pigeonholed, at least in the US market, as children's shows, but neither UFO nor 1999 could compete with Star Trek.

[UnknownSample]

CorporalCaptain

Like the M*A*S*H reference.

It's true that since original Trek was the only real example of a well-done science-fictionish (non-anthology with regular characters) show back then, that satisfied the requirements of escapist space adventure as well of those of more adult SF drama, it became the focus of a huge fandom. In more recent years, these different kinds of fans might have latched onto different shows.

I don't think this makes original Trek any less great a program, though. I think it helps to show how great it was, to draw in so many different types of viewers.

[Admiral2]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Hah! That's not the generation gap I was thinking of! I was in college when the old BSG debuted and thought it suffered in comparison to the shows I grew up on, like TOS. Maybe you need to be exposed to old BSG at the right age. By the time it debuted in 1978, I was already too old for it. To my oh-so-sophisticated freshman self, BSG was kid's stuff.

But, for the record, it's not just "the younger folks" who prefer the new BSG. I'm an old coot who found the reboot much more dramatic and engrossing than the seventies version . . . .

Okay, I'll lay out my reasoning. It's not a generational thing at all.

First, while Twilight Zone was not always strictly sci-fi in its original run, during that run it presented some of the most incredible science fiction stories I've ever seen. "Where Is Everybody?," "The Invaders," "The Lateness Of The Hour," "Two," "The Odyssey Of Flight 33"...I wasn't old enough to see them in first runs but the first time I saw them in reruns as kid I was enthralled, literally enthralled, by those little amazing half hour dramas, in a way that I haven't been enthralled by any sci-fi show since.

By contrast, I saw my first Trek TOS episode when I was about six, and I found it dull. I've grown to appreciate it as I've gotten older, but nowhere near in the way I latched on to the TZ:TOS and never let go. Star Trek is good, but let's be honest: All it really is is Gene Roddenberry trying to redo "Forbidden Planet" over and over again every friggin' week. And Forbidden Planet is one of my favorite movies. And Trek has never been as good as that either.

Now with BSG:TOS, my reasoning is actually simpler and less high-falutin'. No, it's not great science fiction. In fact, it suffers from trying to be both Star Wars and Star Trek at the same time, which I always had a problem with, and one of the reasons why I liked nuBSG was that it bled all that trekkie/warsie nonsense out of the story. Haters can hate it all they like, but new Galactica was more "Galactica" than the original.

And yet, I still take it over Trek for these simple reasons: I like big-ass aircraft carriers. I like big-ass spaceships. Galactica is the first big-ass carrier spaceship I'd ever seen on the small or big screen. In my mind, everything else gets owned by that, and I tuned in RELIGIOUSLY to watch that big gorgeous beauty spit out vipers and blow Cylon raiders to smithereens. What? The plot was stupid? It wasn't about the characters? What's your point?

I'm Admiral2 and I approved this message.

[CorporalCaptain]

UnknownSample wrote:

---

Like the M*A*S*H reference.

Thanks.

It's true that since original Trek was the only real example of a well-done science-fictionish (non-anthology with regular characters) show back then, that satisfied the requirements of escapist space adventure as well of those of more adult SF drama, it became the focus of a huge fandom. In more recent years, these different kinds of fans might have latched onto different shows.

I don't think this makes original Trek any less great a program, though. I think it helps to show how great it was, to draw in so many different types of viewers.

Yes. This is all true too.

Star Trek also proved that a non-anthology series with serious pretensions could succeed. If Star Trek had never existed, I have to wonder how long it would have been before sci-fi TV got out from under the shadow of the likes of Irwin Allen.