Is Trek Still Trek W/O Cheese?

[Peacemaker]

From Trektoday:

According to Collins, "I tried to watch some of the old 'Star Treks,' and with all due respect, they were probably cool at the time, but I couldn't watch them. This is the real deal. It's just got a lot of reality. It's not corny at all."

Hmmm, I quite like my cheese.

I also like my sombreros!

So, is Trek still Trek w/o the cheese? Is cheese necessary for a good Trek outing? Or should Trek incorporate some cheese in the recipe? Thoughts?

 

[Mike Farley]

I have never heard of Clifton Collins but next time he's asked about TOS he should just refer them to Karl Urban.

 

[Gepard]

Cheese? I'll have to ask my boxes of Kraft(TM) Macaroni & Spock.

 

[Mordock]

If by "cheese", you mean consciously emulating stylistic elements of past Trek that would not normally be handled in the same way today, then there shouldn't be any cheese in the film, no. I'm sure that by the simple act of following their normal instincts, the Bad Robot team will unwittingly produce clichés all their own that we will be able to mock and grow comfortable with. "Oh look, a cheesy flashback sequence about the Romulan's past, that's typical Abrams Trek", we'll all say in ten years (if not sooner).

 

[Nardpuncher]

The new Trek movie needs some cheese...it can't really be about the original without it. Not too much, and the actors of course need to take everything seriously, but it has to be light of heart.

 

[ALF]

Star Trek is a recipe that I feel benefits from the inclusion of cheese.

 

[Dale]

The comment makes me nervous. As I said in another thread, what a more recent generation may consider cheese or corn, many of us who came up with TOS might consider charm and wit.

I suppose it depends exactly what he meant by cheese. One could almost believe such an ambiguous comment was planted as part of Abrams' most subtle viral marketing campaign yet... just another way to keep us talking about the new film.

 

[maryh]

For me Shatner summed it up when he said:


Even the series’ renowned cheesy production design, done on an increasingly tight budget through the show’s 1966-69 run, didn’t put him off.


“The actors were wonderful. And I didn’t care about the sets or anything like that or the cheesy spaceship,” Shatner says. “I think that’s what happens in ‘Star Trek.’ Your eye goes past all the faults because you’re concentrated on the actors and the plot.”



For me having cheese wouldn't put me off, and getting rid of cheese wouldn't put me off either. ST is about plot, story, characters, the future, science fiction etc. I overlook the cheese but some newcomers might not. But getting rid of it wouldn't hamper the ST fans who watched it through all the cheese because it had such good stories and characters.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sure, it's Trek without cheese. It better be.

 

[ancient]

Is Trek still Trek without embarassing comedy and recycled plotlines?

Is Trek still Trek without a child character to use as filler where nothing is happening in the plot?

Is Trek still Trek if they put an off-switch on the holodeck?

NAY!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Star Trek has been largely cheese-free for decades now. Even TOS was de-cheesified for the movies. Where are people getting this crap from? I can only assume the quotes are coming from folks who haven't remotely done their Star Trek homework, okay for them, but from TrekBBS habitues? For shame! Seeing at least a majority of episodes from all the series should be a requirement to register at this place. I suffered through VOY and so can you.

 

[ancient]

Well, since they are remaking TOS without the SHAT, I have to ask:

Is Trek Still Trek Without HAM and Cheese?

 

[M'Sharak]

Or should that be "Ham and Cheese on Wry"?

 

[Jon1701]

All old TV looks cheesy. All of it.

Add on ten or twenty years and any TV programme starts to age. In 1983, The A Team and Knight Rider were fucking awesome.

Now they are not.

 

[Franklin]

All old TV looks cheesy. All of it.

Add on ten or twenty years and any TV programme starts to age. In 1983, The A Team and Knight Rider were fucking awesome.

Now they are not.

True to a certain extent. I'd say very few TV shows stand the test of time unless the stories were good to begin with. Many TOS stories were. But it's especially hard for the look of science fiction to stand the test of time. 2001 looks very dated and unrealistic now on several levels, but no one calls it cheesy.

Before a person like Clifton Collins throws out a blanket "cheesy" or "unrealistic looking" onto TOS, he shouldn't forget it was pitched during Project Gemini and "Turnabout Intruder" aired over a month before Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon. He shouldn't discount that a large percentage of the stories are still pretty darn good. And he shouldn't forget that the characters are still thought highly enough of to again become the focal point of the franchise forty years after the series ended. And, lastly TOS still airs in syndication in many areas.

If cheesey means cheap and inferior, TOS wasn't. It had camp from time to time (who can take "A Piece of the Action" seriously?). It had some groan-worthy moments ("Spock's Brain"). But that doesn't make it any different from other shows that either have variance in story quality, or eventually jump the shark. And it doesn't make the entire series cheesy.

Simply looking dated or becoming dated does not mean something was or has become cheesy. TOS did not look cheesy in 1967. By contrast, Lost in Space looked cheesy from day one.

 

[T'Cal]

I like my hamburgers with cheese. I like my macaroni with cheese. I like my eggs with cheese. But Trek? No cheese, thank you. That's what made TNG so much better than TOS.

 

[stonester1]

Or should that be "Ham and Cheese on Wry"?

ZING!

 

[Classic Fan]

If its to do with classic trek, then cheese is a must.


Even one of Kirks dirty little half grins or full on fake laughs or even a grin at a female crewmember in a corridor, its gotta have cheese.


Not OTT obviously, but just a tad.

 

[Jon1701]

All old TV looks cheesy. All of it.

Add on ten or twenty years and any TV programme starts to age. In 1983, The A Team and Knight Rider were fucking awesome.

Now they are not.

True to a certain extent. I'd say very few TV shows stand the test of time unless the stories were good to begin with. Many TOS stories were. But it's especially hard for the look of science fiction to stand the test of time. 2001 looks very dated and unrealistic now on several levels, but no one calls it cheesy.

Before a person like Clifton Collins throws out a blanket "cheesy" or "unrealistic looking" onto TOS, he shouldn't forget it was pitched during Project Gemini and "Turnabout Intruder" aired over a month before Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon. He shouldn't discount that a large percentage of the stories are still pretty darn good. And he shouldn't forget that the characters are still thought highly enough of to again become the focal point of the franchise forty years after the series ended. And, lastly TOS still airs in syndication in many areas.

If cheesey means cheap and inferior, TOS wasn't. It had camp from time to time (who can take "A Piece of the Action" seriously?). It had some groan-worthy moments ("Spock's Brain"). But that doesn't make it any different from other shows that either have variance in story quality, or eventually jump the shark. And it doesn't make the entire series cheesy.

Simply looking dated or becoming dated does not mean something was or has become cheesy. TOS did not look cheesy in 1967. By contrast, Lost in Space looked cheesy from day one.

I think we are in agreement here.

Substitute "dated" for "cheese" and it means the same thing. I think it was a poor choice of words by Clifton Collins to be honest.

TOS was a child of its time, as are all TV shows.

Oh, and I like cheese