Why The Huge Gap Between TMP & WOK?

[DeepSpaceYorks]

I am a TNG fan, but I wouldn't consider Picard to be an everyman / audience identity figure at all. He's too aloof and authoritarian for that. I'd consider characters like Geordi or O'Brien to be everymen / audience identity figures.

I can see that and agree with Geordi and O'Brien. Perhaps it's more apposite to say that Picard, despite what you say, is still more of an identity figure than Kirk ever could be. Picard's aloofness and authoritarianism is still easier to understand than the outright 'hero' character of Kirk. Plus, you definitely get the sense of a career served with Picard, can sense the years and even the struggle. These are all things that ordinary people have experience of in a long career. Much more relatable than any of Kirk's actions.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I dunno...Picard definitely sets a pretty lofty standard of achievement and education/culture, even among his "best of the best" crew.

 

[Christopher]

Picard's aloofness and authoritarianism is still easier to understand than the outright 'hero' character of Kirk.

I don't understand that view of Kirk. TOS portrayed Kirk as a very human, fallible, vulnerable character, often doubting and questioning himself (as in "Balance of Terror" or "The Immunity Syndrome") or making impulsive decisions that led him astray (as in "Errand of Mercy" or TMP) or lamenting the loneliness of his life (as in "The Naked Time" or Generations). All this "larger-than-life superhero" business is just the mythic construct that fandom has created around him in the decades since. It's not what's actually in the text.

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

I don't understand that view of Kirk. TOS portrayed Kirk as a very human, fallible, vulnerable character, often doubting and questioning himself (as in "Balance of Terror" or "The Immunity Syndrome") or making impulsive decisions that led him astray (as in "Errand of Mercy" or TMP) or lamenting the loneliness of his life (as in "The Naked Time" or Generations). All this "larger-than-life superhero" business is just the mythic construct that fandom has created around him in the decades since. It's not what's actually in the text.

They're very much exceptions rather than the norm, you can't paint Kirk as a self doubting, flawed character. He's still in the matinee hero mould: the overachieving young buck who gets command and gets the girl. Granted things are different from TMP onwards and much the better for it. It's not like Kirk is comparable to Peter Parker in flawed hero stakes.

 

[Christopher]

They're very much exceptions rather than the norm, you can't paint Kirk as a self doubting, flawed character. He's still in the matinee hero mould: the overachieving young buck who gets command and gets the girl.

That's not the Kirk I grew up watching since I was 5 years old. Yes, he did tend somewhat in that direction in seasons 2 & 3 as he was pushed more into the standard mold for '60s TV heroes, but he was always deeper, more substantial, and more human than that, certainly in comparison to more superficially rendered contemporaries like The Wild, Wild West's Jim West, because of the more human foundation that had been laid for his characterization in season 1.

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

I have no doubt that he's a more interesting character than in a lot of other U.S. TV 'heroes' of the 60's but compared to British TV protagonists of the same vintage he's as one dimensional as they come. Compared to someone like Frank Marker from Public Eye or David Callan from Callan or even No 6 from The Prisoner Kirk is like an open book.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I think that Kirk and Picard are both larger than life, each in his own way...Kirk as more of a classic hero type of TOS's real-world era, Picard as a sort of lofty ideal of Roddenberry's TNG-era vision of humanity. Both can be relatable, but neither is an "everyman".

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

The very idea of an 'everyman' character commanding a starship is actually a bit of a non starter it would seem.

 

[Christopher]

I never said I was talking exclusively about Kirk anyway. The point is that Roddenberry wanted the characters on the whole to feel like realistic human beings leading believable lives that just happened to be in the future. His whole purpose in creating ST was to get away from the tendency of SFTV at the time to be juvenile and fanciful (like Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea) and to approach science fiction as an adult drama, with the same kind of character naturalism as contemporary shows like Naked City and Gunsmoke. Hence the early episodes' greater emphasis on the ensemble cast and their off-duty activities and bonding. This was lost somewhat in seasons 2 & 3 as the show became more focused on the three leads and more plot-driven.

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

It's a real shame then that Roddenberry, to all intents and purposes, failed in his vision with TOS. That would have been something to see.

 

[Christopher]

It's a real shame then that Roddenberry, to all intents and purposes, failed in his vision with TOS. That would have been something to see.

Who says he failed? On the contrary, even at its weakest, TOS was much more of an adult, sophisticated show than any other SFTV series since The Twilight Zone and anything we'd see afterward until at least The Incredible Hulk, or even until the late '80s. TOS may seem relatively simple compared to modern TV drama, but by the standards of 1960s TV drama it held up quite well. And SFTV in the US wouldn't approach the same level again for a long time -- really, not until Star Trek returned.

 

[locutus101]

Who says he failed? On the contrary, even at its weakest, TOS was much more of an adult, sophisticated show than any other SFTV series since The Twilight Zone and anything we'd see afterward until at least The Incredible Hulk, or even until the late '80s. TOS may seem relatively simple compared to modern TV drama, but by the standards of 1960s TV drama it held up quite well. And SFTV in the US wouldn't approach the same level again for a long time -- really, not until Star Trek returned.

I like the Outer Limits from that same period though (1963 to be precise).

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

Who says he failed? On the contrary, even at its weakest, TOS was much more of an adult, sophisticated show than any other SFTV series since The Twilight Zone and anything we'd see afterward until at least The Incredible Hulk, or even until the late '80s. TOS may seem relatively simple compared to modern TV drama, but by the standards of 1960s TV drama it held up quite well. And SFTV in the US wouldn't approach the same level again for a long time -- really, not until Star Trek returned.

I would have thought that by his own high standards it would have to be classed a failure. How did he feel about season 3? It's not as though US TV actually provided much competition in sc fi tv terms. It's arguable that shows like UFO or, especially, season 1 of Space 1999 could give it a run for its money.

 

[locutus101]

I would have thought that by his own high standards it would have to be classed a failure. How did he feel about season 3? It's not as though US TV actually provided much competition in sc fi tv terms. It's arguable that shows like UFO or, especially, season 1 of Space 1999 could give it a run for its money.

I think Space 1999 is very good.

 

[Christopher]

I would have thought that by his own high standards it would have to be classed a failure. How did he feel about season 3? It's not as though US TV actually provided much competition in sc fi tv terms. It's arguable that shows like UFO or, especially, season 1 of Space 1999 could give it a run for its money.

That is the entire point that I'm making. Roddenberry wanted Star Trek to be something better than the rest of SFTV at the time, and he obviously succeeded. The only reason we ever got movies and sequel series in the first place is because the original Star Trek was something special, something unlike anything else in American SFTV for decades to come. It was something that inspired generations of fans while other SFTV remained mostly unimpressive and short-lived. Right now, the franchise is less than two weeks away from celebrating its 50th anniversary, and there's a new movie in theaters and a new TV series in production and, oh, by the way, we're posting on a website that's actually named after the show. If it had been a failure, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[FormerLurker]

It amuses me in a sad way that the non-fans of Star Trek make it out to be so superficial and "pew-pew" and silly. Really, the only reason they don't like it is because of the science fiction angle, and that more than anything else is the reason so many of them have actually NEVER SEEN IT. If they were to watch any other show tell the exact same story without what they see as the "Three Bs hoo-ha"*, they'd love it, but because it's been couched in science fiction, they don't see past the space ships and the 'laser' guns to the characters and the stories.

*"The Boy, The Babe and the BEM", for those that don't know the reference.

 

[WebLurker]

It amuses me in a sad way that the non-fans of Star Trek make it out to be so superficial and "pew-pew" and silly...

That would be a pretty accurate description of Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness.

 

[Ovation]

Not to me. YMMV

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

That is the entire point that I'm making. Roddenberry wanted Star Trek to be something better than the rest of SFTV at the time, and he obviously succeeded. The only reason we ever got movies and sequel series in the first place is because the original Star Trek was something special, something unlike anything else in American SFTV for decades to come. It was something that inspired generations of fans while other SFTV remained mostly unimpressive and short-lived. Right now, the franchise is less than two weeks away from celebrating its 50th anniversary, and there's a new movie in theaters and a new TV series in production and, oh, by the way, we're posting on a website that's actually named after the show. If it had been a failure, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You misunderstand. Clearly, on the macro level, the show is a massive success. However, we were talking specifically about characterisation and the 'everyman' in space idea. By your own admission seasons 2 and 3 abandon the approach you put forward as Roddenberry's original concept so in that respect the show can be considered a failure on a micro level. Plot driven drama won out over character driven drama in TOS.

 

[Christopher]

By your own admission seasons 2 and 3 abandon the approach you put forward as Roddenberry's original concept so in that respect the show can be considered a failure on a micro level.

That's a contradictory sentence. How can the entire show be declared a failure if just one specific aspect of it didn't work out as planned?

Yes, Roddenberry was probably dissatisfied with how it turned out in that respect, but it's overly melodramatic and defeatist to put the word "failure" on that. A professional writer or producer doesn't call that "failure," they call it "incentive to do better next time." It's a given in television that anything you try to create will have to be compromised in some ways just to get it produced. Failure is if you don't get to make it at all. If you get it out there in some form, if you manage to put even an imperfect version of your ideas in front of the audience, that's a success. If you manage to do it for three whole years, that's a greater success than most TV shows manage. And it's a foundation to build on as you try to improve on your results next time and achieve an even greater success.