Fans, why do you like TOS?

[Steven Of Nine]

It was the first sci-fi show I saw regularly other than Dr. Who. As a sci-fi nerd, even at 5-6 years old, I loved watching it, every Friday night, on BBC1, in 1970.

Watched it in US syndication through the 70s. Loved the fights, effects, hot women, aliens... in fact, it wasn't until STII, after I'd been watching the show for 12 years, that I started to pay attention to story, and realised Kirk was a bad-ass. By then, I began enjoying the stories, the allegories and the lessons.

Still love TOS over all other incarnations.

And this is the best damned thread I've seen on this board in years.

 

[Warped9]

I'd say, one part Shakespeare, one part Buster Crabbe, one part western.

^One part Horatio Hornblower, too, but yeah, that's it.

There we go!

Two things come to mind. People often say it's characters that draw them to a show, and I don't doubt them. But what makes the characters interesting?

For me it's characters doing or involved in interesting things. One big reason I love TOS is similar to why I enjoy Law & Order. L&O uses criminal cases to explore interesting ideas just as Star Trek uses science fiction to explore interesting ideas.

For me the potential of these characters is realized in watching them deal with these ideas each in their own ways.

The cool stuff (the window dressing of science fiction) makes the ideas even more interesting. And in turn the real world ideas often make the cool stuff more credible and subsequently even more cool.

I'd say that's dead-on. I like L&O, too, for those same reasons.

Another element is in the aesthetic sense. In its time TOS made an effort to look far future, something that (I admit my bias) I think it still has a veneer of. This idea was built upon in TMP. But to a large extent I feel this has been abandoned with each successive Trek incarnation, with some exception in TNG. Each new version seems more like next week's tech rather than far future science in looks and overall feel. I also liked how TOS could be light and dark depending on what they wanted from a story. But in later Treks it was predominantly one way or the other with little variation.

While I don't fully concur that the latter-Treks felt "next week," I can still appreciate the perspective. It makes me think about what I read in TMoST about the studio being so annoyed that Roddenberry and company were spending so much time designing and researching for "The Cage," to which Roddenberry replied something like "if we don't spend a lot of time on it, then it won't be believable and the audience won't bit." It's possible that the bottom line later got in the way of such things.

After Star Wars was successful in '77 I think that its aesthetic sense of design began to be really emulated by others including Trek to some extent. That somewhat sterile industrial look became the norm, the accepted look of future tech. I don't mind that when it's appropriate, but I don't want to see it everywhere. And with each successive Trek incarnation I feel we saw more of that indistrial like influence.

In the '60s and '70s Star Trek looked way beyond what everyone else was doing. I still think TMP is a damned futuristic looking work even in light of what we've seen since. But Trek doesn't really have that anymore in my view.

 

[3D Master]

Good characters, and great chemistry between them.

Great drama.

Great Science Fiction - good stories that examine at the time relevant subjects.

The Secular Humanist message - we shall overcome and achieve; not because of "destiny"/"fate", not because a god came down and built paradise for us, no, because WE did it OURSELVES through hard work.

 

[Doomsday]

I was born in '59, so the turmoil of the 60's seemed rather remote to me also, I was mostly shielded from it, and it was still a time of relative innocence for me.

As such, ST hit TV when I was in the 6 - 10 year old range. So I watched it and liked it a lot, but to be honest(I know it's sacrelidge around here) but at that young age, I preferred Lost in Space. Mainly because I identified with Will Robinson. Not that I was anything like him, but because his character was living out my fantasy, exploring space and had his own "pet" robot.

Then in the early 70's, when I was in Junior High, a friend lent me two amazing books:

Stephen Whitfield's "The Making of Star Trek", and David Gerrolds "The World of Star Trek". This coincided with our local UHF station running the ST reruns every afternoon after school.

When I read those books, it created a new appreciation and fascination for ST. It was then that I realized that ST was more than the cool aliens and cool spaceships and the guy with the pointed ears that I remembered from childhood. GR had created a whole new universe and filled it with exciting adventurous people, and it was "about" something.

So I started watching the reruns religously, reading about episodes in the book and then watching them on TV. It was then that I became a "Trekkie".

Because I was mostly a dorky little geek in the 7th grade(and that was long before "geek" was cool) I felt that ST gave me something to feel a part of. I was very much like the kid in Galaxy Quest who pretended it was real, and fans were almost "undercover" Starfleet investigating the past. I know it was stupid but it was a way to handle all the harassment I used to get from the "cool" people and the jocks. My best friend was also a Trekkie, and when one of the bullies would make fun of us, he would hold up his Bowmar Brain calculator and scan it over the offender like it was a tricorder, and say, "No intelligent life forms present, Captain." Somehow that made it fun to be a Trekkie, to feel like we were a part of something special.

I've been a Trekker(the preferred term now) since then.

The amazing thing is how well that show holds up against all the modern shows. Unlike many shows, it's not dated. It's entertaining, exciting, sometimes funny, usually powerful in its statements(without being preachy like TNG could be), and just plain fun to watch. I never get tired of it.

Great thread, and great posts!

 

[T'Bonz]

I was born in '59, so the turmoil of the 60's seemed rather remote to me also, I was mostly shielded from it, and it was still a time of relative innocence for me.

I'm a year older, but had an older sister (6 years older.) Due to that, I knew all about the turmoil of the 60s. But I also was aware of all the great music earlier than I would have been.

As such, ST hit TV when I was in the 6 - 10 year old range. So I watched it and liked it a lot, but to be honest(I know it's sacrelidge around here) but at that young age, I preferred Lost in Space

Raises hand.

My parents didn't like Star Trek, so it was rarely on in our house. However, they must have at least tolerated Lost in Space. And as a kid, I liked it. I identified with "Penny" even though she was obviously older than I was at the time. Yeah, some stories even I recognized back then were cheesy, but who could not love the deliciously nasty Dr. Smith?

The same thing happened to me in junior high. I was lent a few Star Trek books. Once I found out the show was actually still on TV (5 to 6 PM), the rest was history.

 

[Praetor]

After Star Wars was successful in '77 I think that its aesthetic sense of design began to be really emulated by others including Trek to some extent. That somewhat sterile industrial look became the norm, the accepted look of future tech. I don't mind that when it's appropriate, but I don't want to see it everywhere. And with each successive Trek incarnation I feel we saw more of that indistrial like influence.

In the '60s and '70s Star Trek looked way beyond what everyone else was doing. I still think TMP is a damned futuristic looking work even in light of what we've seen since. But Trek doesn't really have that anymore in my view.

When you put it that way, I can definitely understand what you're saying. The "plausible simplicity" of TOS, lacking the industrialism and overdetail of other sci-fi franchises, does in many ways seem more futuristic. In many ways, the inside of the original Enterprise looked more like the inside of a "real" navy ship, yet advanced, more than the latter ones.

Less technobabble probably helped too.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

Less technobabble probably helped too.

There's a great deal of technobabble in TOS, it just doesn't have the modern complexity of lingo that modern science gave newer writers.

 

[Praetor]

Less technobabble probably helped too.

There's a great deal of technobabble in TOS, it just doesn't have the modern complexity of lingo that modern science gave newer writers.

It doesn't reach the technobabble level for me without the modern lingo.

OT, if I may for a moment, I was watching VGR's "Scorpion" the other day and Paris said something like "There's too much quantum distortion, we're being pulled in!" and I rolled my eyes and wondered why he couldn't just say "We're being pulled in, I can't break free!" Does the babble really help?

Myself, I think a lack of lingo makes the situation more clear, and TOS was very, very good at that most of the time.

 

[Braindeer]

I have a big fat soft spot in my heart for TOS

I love it because, as a child of the MTV generation (born in 1985) it was like nothing else on TV at that time. It wasn't anything my parents were particularly into, although they both watched it when it first aired. It wasn't something my older siblings were into. It wasn't something the kids at school were into. It was something that was completely my own thing - probably the first thing I ever got really engrossed in that wasn't influenced by other people. I felt like I had discovered it...I liked that feeling.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Salon answers the question.

 

[Warped9]

After Star Wars was successful in '77 I think that its aesthetic sense of design began to be really emulated by others including Trek to some extent. That somewhat sterile industrial look became the norm, the accepted look of future tech. I don't mind that when it's appropriate, but I don't want to see it everywhere. And with each successive Trek incarnation I feel we saw more of that indistrial like influence.

In the '60s and '70s Star Trek looked way beyond what everyone else was doing. I still think TMP is a damned futuristic looking work even in light of what we've seen since. But Trek doesn't really have that anymore in my view.

When you put it that way, I can definitely understand what you're saying. The "plausible simplicity" of TOS, lacking the industrialism and overdetail of other sci-fi franchises, does in many ways seem more futuristic. In many ways, the inside of the original Enterprise looked more like the inside of a "real" navy ship, yet advanced, more than the latter ones.

Less technobabble probably helped too.

Not to get too off subject, but when the engine room of a modern naval vessel or civilian cruise liner looks more sophisticated than the engine room in Trek XI then you know something is off.

TOS is aesthetically dated to an extent--I get that. But it gave more than a nod to reaching for a sense of credibility--that feeling that maybe it isn't true, but it looks like it could be.

In fairness later Treks were still more streamlined than most other stuff and Star Wars, but it didn't look as convincingly projected far forward as it once did.

Thinking beyond one's familiar frames of reference isn't easy whether it's in terms of science or various aspects of society. Look back at every work of SF in the past and you see an image of future coloured by any given era's perspective. But to try to look beyond the immediately familiar is fascinating and rewarding for the creator as well as the audience or readership.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Several factors involved in my love for Star Trek and why it is my favourite. Firstly, whichever version of a long running film or TV series you discover at an impressional age, that tends to be the one that will stay with you. That applies to James Bond, Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, even Battlestar Galactica in my case. Doesn't really matter how badly they date because of changing styles or improved film-making techniques. It's what excited your imagination back then and how it got acted out among your mates in the playground the next day. That's really a bond which can't ever be broken and it sets a standard by which you will always compare succeeding remakes and reinterpretations.

Now bearing in mind, nothing can ever compete with anybody's first time... (sorry here, DS9... ENT... TNG... you're great in my eyes but I can't put you on that high pedestal or seat your crews at the top table) The Original Series has the greatest characters because they're the ones who most felt like a real family on the screen, from the instant you met them. All this goes along way to explain the fascination we all have with the tales of in-fighting among the cast down the years. The public genuinely bought into that chemistry between the characters and took their acting so much for granted. We were that convinced and they felt so right in relation to each other. On paper and in the scripts, those outside the big three of Kirk-Spock-McCoy were pretty stereotypical representations of diverse nationalities and cultures... but such was the convinction to portray something postive, that even with little depth to play with, the supporting actors devised their own backstory with Gene & the other writers, and you can see that filtering down through each performance... even when they're only given the odd line of dialogue. They make the most of every moment. Speaking of which, it's the genuine warmth of those three leads, which ultimately ensured Star Trek's enormous future success. The triumvirate as Harve Bennett called it when he took over the features, was the main thrust of almost every show. Kirk (the leader) having to decide the right thing to do, out of the arguments between his close friend McCoy (representing emotionalism and the heart) and Spock (airing on the side of caution, logic and common sense).

The ultimate secret for me however, is an intrinsic element exploited perhaps to its fullist potential in the later spin-offs, that of basing the crew structure on the reality of the Navy. Easily understandable concepts to everybody... something which Sci Fi was largely considered to be unrealistic with. So we have a command structure - Captains, Lieutenants, Ensigns, Admirals, seafaring terminology such as port and starboard, court martials and decks as the many layers of a ship. Star Trek walked a fine line between that realism and a jolly, colourful and humourous outlook which became a winning formula for audiences. Occasionally brilliant, sometimes hokey but never less than entertaining.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Someone upthread meantioned something I can relate to. I was born in '59 and also grew up in the "space age." As a child a lot of the social issues happening at the time were something like a murmuring undercurrent while I was growing up. I discovered TOS in 1970 at the age of 11. Initially it was the cool spaceships, the costumes, the aliens and the adventure that got me. But I had an inquiring mind and something else was drawing me to Star Trek and away from more simplistic sci-fi.

Star Trek proved to be multilayered because as I grew up I learned to appreciate so many other aspects of it that had largely eluded me before. And the cool stuff I'd fallen in love with came to mean so much more because of all the other substantive things that surrounded them.

I was born in '59 too and your thoughts and reasons mirror my own. I think one of us might be from the Mirror Universe.

 

[Praetor]

But how do we know which one?

Koon-ut-kal-if-fee!!!

 

[cbp44189]

Love the 60's vision of the future, ship design, uniforms, you name it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But how do we know which one?

Koon-ut-kal-if-fee!!!

I'll get my lirpa.

 

[Warped9]

The ahn-woon.

50 years old and I ain't never gonna grow up.

 

[Praetor]

And it is for that reason I love you all.

 

[Newski]

First off, there is a chunk of episodes that are absolutely brilliant and groundbreaking.


Then, there is a chunk of episodes that are preposterous and silly beyond all reason.

Finally, Green Skinned women.

 

[Cakes488]

Several factors involved in my love for Star Trek and why it is my favourite. Firstly, whichever version of a long running film or TV series you discover at an impressional age, that tends to be the one that will stay with you. That applies to James Bond, Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, even Battlestar Galactica in my case. Doesn't really matter how badly they date because of changing styles or improved film-making techniques. It's what excited your imagination back then and how it got acted out among your mates in the playground the next day. That's really a bond which can't ever be broken and it sets a standard by which you will always compare succeeding remakes and reinterpretations.
.

I agree that some TV series tend to be endeared because they were discovered at an impressional age. For example Star Wars....I was 6 when it came out and we all loved it to death...didn't see it for over 20years...I bought the VHS trilogy and I have to be honest...I really didn't think it was as good as I remembered it. I was really surprised...but watching it as an adult I would say that is was "alright"....but not 4 stars which I gave it as a kid. I've felt that way about quite a few shows that I've revisited as an adult...sometimes they are best left in the past...but not Trek....Trek is aging very very well, like a fine wine....and the proof is the next generation who is readily taking to it....