What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[trevanian]

I rank TOS as a close second in my table of favourite series so I'm not exactly die hard, but take away the critical yet appreciative input of the non diehard but fan nonetheless and you're left with a pretty shallow and repetitive discussion. I didn't realise that the thread was merely intended as a list of status sanctioned opinions.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but that opinion is, and always should be, open to challenge. But thankyou for dismissing me politely. I'm usually just ignored.

I also contributed to this thread even though I wondered (and noted this in my post) if I qualify as "diehard," since although I love TOS, I don't generally consider it my favorite Trek (it varies somewhat, depending on my mood). Just how many qualifications does a person have to have to contribute to a thread anyway?

Besides, who says you can't love something and still notice its flaws? True love is loving something or someone in spite of or even because of those flaws. Love really shouldn't be blind, IMO.

That's for damned sure. When you see really flawed TOS, it makes you appreciate the good ones that much more (while remembering to cross those turkeys off the rewatch list ... like anybody needs to be reminded that AND THE CHILDREN SHALL LEAD is awful, right?) And you can still be amazed at all they got right first time out of the gate, without a 'three year pass' to get things worked out, like TNG and ModernTrek shows got due to syndication and ratings.

Plus, the REAL strength of TOS for me personally, is that I can enjoy so many of the mediocre shows because the chemistry of the cast is sufficiently compelling to overcome the lesser elements ... skating on the 'charm' effect, I guess. Plus I think it was often well-shot and edited and had some kickass scores, all of which can plus-up a middle-of-road ep.

 

[JustKate]

^ I mostly agree, Trevanian, except that I can't feel any enthusiasm for the mediocre episodes. The great episodes are still great...and many (though not all) of the the really bad ones have a certain cheesy charm, but the mediocre ones...not so much. But that's just me.

 

[Neopeius]

I raised this point in the Trek XI forum. The movie was just *dumb* and it is no better exemplified than in the scene which explains the origins of the "Bones" nickname.

It took me a while to think of a good analogy to illustrate how retarded that scene truly was, but I think I've got it:

Picture an Admiral and his staff at a meeting surveying the completion of Starfleet's newest starship:

Admiral: "Ahh, there she is. The pride of the fleet, our flagship. But NCC-1701 needs a real name. Hmmm... so, is there an enterprising soul in this room who can help me think of a na... a-ha!!!"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't know that I've ever much criticized Jefferies' finished design work, which I admire greatly (I don't like that globe ship that people call the "Daedalus" very much, but you know what - Jefferies evidently wasn't satisfied either...he moved on). I'm dubious that a direct updating of a lot of it would have worked very well for this movie. One thing they were explicitly looking to bring to Star Trek was a sense of scale that it's never delivered in the theater (and that includes ST:TMP, grand as it was in some respects).

My remarks concerning "Balance Of Terror" didn't have anything to do with the visual design of the show. In fact, one of the things I took some delight in pointing out to my young friend was how much Jefferies got out of so little iwith regard to the Romulan bridge set. The "instrumentation" on that set consists of a couple of hooded lights.

How well or badly TOS is aging at this point doesn't have all that much to do with the sets or the costumes, and that's not what I was talking about.

I'd have been personally happy, for emotional reasons, to see visual design a great deal more like TOS than they used in this film, but it doesn't follow that I'm unhappy or disappointed that they did something different...as someone noted around here a few weeks ago, neither Abrams nor any other human being would make a Star Trek movie exactly the way I want it to be; that's not a world we live in. I try not to react to entertainment based on the extent to which the creators deliver on my specific prior expectations.

The things that I actively dislike, visually, about the movie are relatively few and they're no more rationally arrived at than the things that I do like.

 

[Praetor]

I liked "And the Children Shall Lead."

 

[trevanian]

I liked "And the Children Shall Lead."

Statistically, I suppose somebody had to.

In that case, feel free to substitute ALTERNATIVE FACTOR or some episode that fails to deliver character moments or requisite level of drama for you.

 

[Warped9]

One can argue about the zeniths and the nadirs of TOS, but the simple fact that it's still being debated after more than forty years later is still a pretty good testament to the totality of the series. It's definitely not just more run-of-the-mill sci-fi or else it would have faded into near obscurity with all the other stuff of the '60s and '70s and '80s.

No other science fiction oriented television work has been with us constantly and been assimilated into the collective consciosness since its inception unto today as TOS has.

 

[trevanian]

No other science fiction oriented television work has been with us constantly and been assimilated into the collective consciosness since its inception unto today as TOS has.

Well, there are a lot of TWILIGHT ZONE eps that remain hovering on the fringe of the collective consciousness ... I can throw out references at work to 'to serve man' or the demented-looking teddy bear on the wing of the plane and nearly everybody 'gets' it ... and FAMILY GUY has quoted it once or twice as well, like the Burgess Meredith nukes&books ep.

Having said that ... I still haven't even seen every original TZ ep all the way through myself (or even all the original OUTER LIMITS for that matter.) I've been trying to find season 1 of the 1985 TZ revival for a decent price, because despite the usually awful fx work, I think those stories really work ... but even so, there's no resonance like what you mention, no 'echo down through history' effect like the older shows.

Maybe if they'd gotten to shoot NACKLES that would be different ...

 

[Warped9]

^^ I agree about Twilight Zone, but it's more the aura or general sense of it rather than specific elements that resonates with people I'd say.

Look how huge and pervasive The X-Files was a decade or so ago. Now no one talks about it. But the sense or idea of the show (government conspiracies and spooky stuff) is what still resonates today rather than specific elements of the show.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I liked "And the Children Shall Lead."

I will pray for you.

 

[Butters]

One can argue about the zeniths and the nadirs of TOS, but the simple fact that it's still being debated after more than forty years later is still a pretty good testament to the totality of the series. It's definitely not just more run-of-the-mill sci-fi or else it would have faded into near obscurity with all the other stuff of the '60s and '70s and '80s.

No other science fiction oriented television work has been with us constantly and been assimilated into the collective consciosness since its inception unto today as TOS has.

Except Dr Who of course.

 

[Pindar]

I liked "And the Children Shall Lead."

I will pray for you.

I liked it too.

"Hail, hail, fire and snow. Call the angel, we will go. Far away, for to see, friendly Angel come to me. Hail, hail, fire and snow. Call the angel, we will go. Far away, for to see, friendly Angel come to me."

It was one of the few episodes that showed us a different part of the Enterprise.

 

[Zeppster]

One can argue about the zeniths and the nadirs of TOS, but the simple fact that it's still being debated after more than forty years later is still a pretty good testament to the totality of the series. It's definitely not just more run-of-the-mill sci-fi or else it would have faded into near obscurity with all the other stuff of the '60s and '70s and '80s.

No other science fiction oriented television work has been with us constantly and been assimilated into the collective consciosness since its inception unto today as TOS has.

Except Dr Who of course.

Dr. What? Never heard of it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Except Dr Who of course.

Awh, that's brilliant!

 

[Warped9]

Except Dr Who of course.

Awh, that's brilliant!

Yes, Dr. Who has been around in some form or other, off and on, since '63, but I'd still argue it isn't as pervasive and as recognized as TOS.

 

[BillJ]

I raised this point in the Trek XI forum. The movie was just *dumb* and it is no better exemplified than in the scene which explains the origins of the "Bones" nickname.

It took me a while to think of a good analogy to illustrate how retarded that scene truly was, but I think I've got it:

Picture an Admiral and his staff at a meeting surveying the completion of Starfleet's newest starship:

Admiral: "Ahh, there she is. The pride of the fleet, our flagship. But NCC-1701 needs a real name. Hmmm... so, is there an enterprising soul in this room who can help me think of a na... a-ha!!!"

Maybe you should think it through a bit more. The only person we see call McCoy "Bones" in TOS is Kirk (except for Spock once in "The Tholian Web"). To me that implies the nickname means something between the two men and is not a generic moniker. How many Starfleet physicians carry the name "Bones" in your universe?

The origin of the nickname works fine in the context of TOS.

 

[Pindar]

How many Starfleet physicians carry the name "Bones" in your universe?

Every one with a bone saw.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I'm gonna post this in several spots because it bears repeating: I've been sorta kinda damning this movie w/ faint praise (or is it praising it with faint damnation?) for a while now but I have anecdotal proof that it is doing the one thing many of us--cheerleader, naysayer and reluctant admirer alike--hoped it would. A former student of mine, now a high school junior and a fan of Star Wars, is watching TOS for the first time and loving it, though she never expected she would. She's particularly fond of "The Menagerie."

So there's that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I was thinking that I should watch "The Menagerie" with my friend because I think she'd get a real kick out of seeing the original backstory on Pike and how he came to occupy his particular niche in Trek mythology.

Greenwood says that he hopes (possibly believes) that by movie three many elements of this storyline may be led to dovetail with the original continuity and I'd think that what he has in mind has something to do with Pike's putative arc.

That said, in truth actors seem to forever imagine that the offhanded back-and-forth they have with directors, producers and so forth signifies a great deal more than it does - with rare exception, actors are the last to know what's actually going on and are the folks who are least likely to be privy to how and why decisions are actually made on projects. This is part of why there's so much fun (read: silly and apocryphal) mythology within fandom about various parts of Trek history (for example, the much-brutted "Captain Sulu" series)...because the "insiders" most often standing up in front of fan groups and answering questions in memorable and entertaining ways are actors.

BTW, guys, I appreciate the kind words - I just have nothing to add in my defense because I find it awkward and probably unseemly to participate in a discussion of me. I'd rather discuss the significance of avocado gold in 1960s fashion and home furnishings.

 

[Cakes488]

Short answer: No, I do not agree with that statement.

Long answer: No, I do not agree with that statement but I see where he is coming from and he defended his position well.

Relevant answer to this discussion: No, I do not agree with that statement but I'm really glad Dennis took the time and effort to explain and support it rather than, as he often does, tossing it into the discussion like a stink bomb and going off to post un-supported one-liners elsewhere. It's seldom the opinion of the poster that I find offensive but the manner in which that opinion is stated. I find nothing offensive in how Dennis presented this particular opinion.

As far as Nutrek is concerned, Dennis is being seemingly uncritical but that's only because he is countering fans of TOS who are super-critical of it. Since he need not establish his TOS bona fides here, he can afford to yank our chains by pointing out the many flaws in TOS we'd just as soon over-look.

I don't want to say I'm offended, because that is truly too strong of a word/emotion....But I so strongly disagreed with that line of TOS not holding up (for whatever reason that may be) that I was compelled to respond. I do find the "body of work" of said poster to be mostly belittling....but that's just my opinion. He is free to critique in any way that he sees, but I'm also free to respond...sadly, (lol) I'm not worthy of any discussion with the great one because I'm ....and I quote "uninformed" as well as quite a few other adjectives that have been applied to me. No matter...I shan't be deterred when I want to say something....you can believe that!

About nuTrek...I don't think nuTrek really needs said poster to defend it or play devils advocate. Have you seen the nuTrek forum??? It's littered with defenders who see no problems at all with the movie...and any issue that's brought up is quickly explained away by many many people. There are way more supporters then there are detractors...waaaaaaay more.

Of course TOS has flaws...mama didn't raise no fool, but this is not fantasy island or love boat here...after I rewatched TOS after not seeing it for a few years...I still loved it...I'm not just going to like a show like this purely for sentimental value alone. If after I rewatched it and concluded it was crap, I would of said Jesus, I can't believe I liked this shit -- which I've done with plenty of shows that I used to love.....So I don't consider myself "blind with love"...but I'm able to appreciate something in every episode...and if you want to say Trek is "slow" or "slower paced"....I mean LOL that's not exactly a news flash now is it?

So if he's being honest and he's not deluding himself that actually TOS is kinda ridiculous... are you deluding yourself about the quality of TOS? Then you too agree with this statement:

Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully

Absolutely not. As I've argued on this board for years. As an artist, I believe Matt Jefferies designs are timeless, and only need to be rendered with materials that make them look "substantive" enough for modern methods of presentation. They need to be slightly tweaked in places to reveal abilities that make them as magical to us now as they were to us in 1966. None of this would have been difficult. Toning down the colors of the set to the "Cage" or "TMP" palette would have lifted the designs from any tinge of dated kitschiness more readily than adopting an Apple store motif that is already eight years old. All of this was possible, and more, without dumping the Matt Jefferies-design aesthetic. To think that all of that amazing work was simply discarded, while keeping Bill Theiss' costumes almost wholly intact, leaves me confused. Theiss' work was also stunning, but IMO it was much more a product of its time. The bright colors and cowl necks and miniskirts. The Beatle boots with Cuban heels. C'mon. From a designer's perspective, this wasn't updating. It was a selective overhaul that retained the general forms, while substituting an unspecific, cobbled-together mix of white room-moderne and brewery industrial for a look inspired by the likes of Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier and Eero Saarinen. The only way such a joke sells is by virtue of the frenetic pace of the movie, where nothing is seen long enough to be able to tell what video game inspired it.

Nosiree. I think TOS has weathered the test of time just fine. But as you'll note, I've focused on design, where much of the criticism of TOS is often leveled by critics that know not of what they speak. Dennis knowingly criticizes other elements of those episodes that have much more to do with the pacing, editing, and direction. He criticizes the way the episodes were put together sells to contemporary audiences, and I have to admit that is something I haven't considered very much until now. Because, like he says, we are fans and we just accept the way these episodes were put together because we are familiar with them.

So we can disagree on the specific points and I can reserve judgement on his broader point. I certainly can't claim to know a tenth as much as him about film making, so if he says the way the episodes are put together is dated, I'll bow to his expertise. But I'll still assert as strongly as my keyboard will permit that all the talk from fans and non-fans alike about the "look" being dated is ill-informed and just plain wrong.

I've never ever considered TOS to be cheesy as so many others do. The words that I thought of when I think of TOS sets are "bare" and "sparse"...and I always knew this show was made in the 60's (as a kid) so I figured that this is the way things were done. When I got older and found out how much they did with so little I was truly impressed and I still can't understand how you can call it cheesy after being armed with that information.

Noted about the pacing, editing and direction...and I can agree that sometimes that is true... I'd say less rather then more often though.....but not BOT, I'm going to have to rewatch that ep with a critical eye to this but I can't recall ever thinking this is so slow ...I can't watch it anymore!!! The only time I readily remember them doing way too much "flashback" scenes, I'm not sure what to call it.... is in Alt factor....how many times they showed Lazarus fighting with himself is uncalled for! I clearly remember the length of time that they showed that was unbearable...!

I value my own opinion first, but of course enjoy bantering with others or I wouldn't be on this message board...but I cannot subsribe to what you said:
"so if he says the way the episodes are put together is dated, I'll bow to his expertise". So just because he said so.... you yield to that? What do you think yourself....each to our own...I want to know what you think!


On the whole do you think the directing/editing/pacing is becoming more grueling to bear over time?

Please don't get offended...but both Brutal and you sound like your ass kissing this said poster!

So I ask you this...do you agree with this statement Mallory:
Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully.

To a large extent I do. I watched TOS during its original run in the 60s, I watched the butchered syndicated reruns in the 70s, I watched the Sci-Fi broadcasts in the 90s and I enjoyed the remastered episodes this decade. But it always has been, and always will be, a product of the 1960s with all the baggage that entails. Some of the elements are timeless, such as aridas pointed out, as well as the themes of a great number of episodes.

The series has held up far better than virtually any other of its time period, but the more the years pass the more the shortcomings become apparent. I love TOS and I probably always will, but I'm also a realist. Times and styles have moved on.

Yes times and styles have moved on...no doubt about that...but yet a lot of things are still the same. The multi-cultural bridge crew...we've come a long way in race relations but we still have so far to go. We were engaged in an upopular war at the time this was made and this is happening again today. The themes for the show still hold up and are still relevant... Any shortcomings TOS has I've realized and bedded long ago -- In my opinion the postives far far far outweigh the negatives. My nephews don't notice anything "wrong" with the TOS they know it was made in the 60's and they don't think it's "boring". Will it ever be as popular as it once was? No I don't think it will...but I KNOW as a personal fact that it can be embraced by the next generation if we the "adults" foster this.

Trek has aged and it shows its age--it looks very much to be a product of its time but it does so, for the most part, in a way that adds rather than detracts from the experience. Nobody is ever gonna think Citizen Kane or Forbidden Planet were made in 2009 but it takes nothing away from them. (Never cared at all for Casablanca. I was gonna add a "sorry" to that statement but no, I'm not sorry at all.)

Casablanca isn't bad...but I never thought it was that great. I'd give it 3 stars...but not 4, I believe that it is a tad bit overrated....IMO. For example I liked "advise and consent" better....talk about dated...that movie must of been an absolute all out scandal when it was released.....even I was shocked with what happened with and to the senator from Utah....

Plus, the REAL strength of TOS for me personally, is that I can enjoy so many of the mediocre shows because the chemistry of the cast is sufficiently compelling to overcome the lesser elements ... skating on the 'charm' effect, I guess. Plus I think it was often well-shot and edited and had some kickass scores, all of which can plus-up a middle-of-road ep.

Exactly...I find something to like in every episode....well almost every ep...we all know the ep we pretty much collectivelly hate

Having said that ... I still haven't even seen every original TZ ep all the way through myself (or even all the original OUTER LIMITS for that matter.) I've been trying to find season 1 of the 1985 TZ revival for a decent price, because despite the usually awful fx work, I think those stories really work ... but even so, there's no resonance like what you mention, no 'echo down through history' effect like the older shows.

Maybe if they'd gotten to shoot NACKLES that would be different ...

I've seen them all! I got a great deal at deepdiscountdvd.com ...the complete series was about $100.00 bucks at the time...there are something like 159 episodes -- and there are def. plenty of ep's you haven't seen. With the older ep's some of the quality is pretty poor...but most of these twilight zones hold up very very well...the kids loved the twilight zone too...they were begging for more.