Where TOS stumbled....

[Warped9]

A lot of folks think many TOS fans, particularly the so-called "purists" will excuse anything and refuse to accept TOS ever faltered.

Well no one can be as critical as a real fan, and so I invite other TOS fans to share what you think TOS got wrong.

Note: lets keep this in context. Saying TOS is inconsistent with what later series and film claim or establish can't fairly be considered a fault. I'm talking about something you feel was off within the series itself or a particular story.

Have fun. Anyone?

 

[number6]

I thought you were "done" with Star Trek.

 

[T'Bonz]

Don't go there. Stop NOW.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Do you mean where they stumbled from an artistic standpoint or from a continuity standpoint, Warped9? Or something else?

 

[Warped9]

Do you mean where they stumbled from an artistic standpoint or from a continuity standpoint, Warped9? Or something else?

It could be an inconsistency of continuity within the series. It could be an episode you think they should never have done. Or it could be something within an episode. Or it could be an idea or concept within the series you think they shouldn't have done or missed an opportunity to do. It could be how a story ended.

Take "Spock's Brain" for example. Should they have aborted the whole thing altogether or is there something within the episode they should or shouldn't have done that could have helped salvage it?

Or it could be something that's never occurred to me.

 

[Gary7]

I would decline to comment on whether TOS stumbled or not...

You have to remember the context of when, where, and how it was made. Although they pushed the budget envelope, the intentions were still not thoroughly met. People had to conjure very clever improvisations to achieve goals. There were very long filming sessions and little time for correction. TOS made mistakes, sure...

But if considering "what went wrong" with TOS, it would be the 3rd season. It would be Roddenberry's egomania. The clash of the NBC executives. They really had a great show but a number of things collided together for the recipe that would close the show. It was so unfortunate... and yet, I think in some ways it was probably best. The yearning for Star Trek kept mounting, to the point of influencing a movie and another series. Had TOS gone a full traditional run of 5-6 seasons, I'd venture to guess that there might have been a slew of other issues... that last couple of seasons may have been no better than Season 3. And with a long stretch of "inferior Trek", it probably would have delayed the revival. This is of course my own speculation... it's interesting to think about, for a few moments.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Whoo-boy! That's a big question, all right. But here's what pops into my mind offhand:

-The sometimes hazily-defined timeline. Is TOS 200, 300 or 900 years into our future?

-In a similar vein, references to "Vulcanian" and "Space Central" before they settled on "Vulcan" and "Starfleet" are a bit jarring.

-The ending of Tomorrow is Yesterday. How do they beam Captain Christopher back into himself and why does that erase his memory?

-The Alternative Factor doesn't make a lick of sense.

-The Menagerie probably should've used a different number for its Starbase, since Court Martial used Starbase 11 just before it.

-The campiness of Spock's Brain could have been eliminated with a few rewrites and left us with a decent, suspenseful episode.

-Most of the third season in general.

-The biggest stumble to my mind -- Not hanging on to Gene Coon.

I'm sure I'll come up with some more later on.

 

[Greg Cox]

TOS is my favorite TREK series, but I'll concede that they could have fleshed out Scotty, Sulu, Chekov, and Uhura more. The later shows had more of an ensemble feel.

Of course, that's partly a result of the show's shorter run. I like to think that TOS would have gotten around to a Sulu- or Uhura-centric episode eventually--if it had run seven seasons like most of the later series.

 

[number6]

They had optimistically hoped for five.

TOS didn't stumble in so much as it failed to reach a broader audience and was expensive to produce. It didn't help that GR was unprofessional and constantly fought the "suits" about content and ideology. While one could argue that it made Star Trek a much better show, the prevailing trends at the time precluded Star Trek being a priority for the network. The only thing keeping it on the air for a second season was that is was a color show at a time when color TV was a pretty new thing.

 

[Joker]

The retard admiral syndrome.

Every officer of a rank higher than Kirk appeared to be lobotomised when a shoddy plot demanded it.

 

[scotpens]

. . . -The sometimes hazily-defined timeline. Is TOS 200, 300 or 900 years into our future? In a similar vein, references to “Vulcanian” and “Space Central” before they settled on “Vulcan” and “Starfleet” are a bit jarring.

Initially, that vagueness about the chronology was deliberate. G.R. didn't want to tie the show down to X number of years in the future, hence the “Stardates.” And the changes in terminology and backstory I could accept because, in a very real sense, they were making it up as they went along. An entire fictional universe doesn't just spring up overnight.

. . .The only thing keeping it on the air for a second season was that is was a color show at a time when color TV was a pretty new thing.

NBC's entire prime-time schedule went all-color in 1966, the year Trek debuted. CBS and ABC went all-color a year later. So the color-vs.-black-and-white factor was irrelevant.

The retard admiral syndrome.

Or the Douchebag Federation Official syndrome.

 

[Shatnertage]

I won't comment on any of the behind-the-scenes stuff since I wasn't there and the only way I know about it is by reading accounts of others, which are usually self-serving on some level.

On screen, there were definitely episodes like "The Alternative Factor" where things just didn't come together, and others like "The Empath" and "That Which Survives" that were just boring. And, as people have pointed out, the lame characterization of every authority figure.

It's hard for me to really critique the show, since I've got a very incomplete sense of its original context. (I was born during TAS's original run, and watched TOS in syndication as a wee lad.) I really couldn't say what shortcomings it had as opposed to the shows that were opposite on it on the other networks at the time (which I can't even name). So, aside from where I feel the show deviates from my expectations, I can't really say where it stumbled.

 

[Kelso]

Season three stumbled over a cliff.

 

[Harvey]

Having re-watched much of STAR TREK recently, the issue of when the series takes place definitely stands out. The title card at the beginning of STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN ("In the 23rd Century...") doesn't line-up with every episode of the series, but that's because it was constantly waffling as to what century it was set in.

Of course, I was born the year STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION debuted, so, like shatnertage, my sense of the context of the 1960s in which the show aired can only be second hand.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Hanging on to Gene Coon wasn't an option at the time; too much personal crap coming to a head at the wrong time.

Bringing in Fred Freiberger, however, was a definite mistake. Regardless of his resume, he just did not understand a show like Star Trek. Why Roddenberry didn't just promote Bob Justman to be the line producer will be one of the great mysteries of the universe, because that one act, while it might not have saved the show for a fourth season, at least would've provided some respectability for the third (for instance, "The Way To Eden" most likely would've kept the Joanna McCoy character, and "Spock's Brain" might've never even been written, never mind filmed).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm not inclined to nitpick. I don't care about when the show supposedly took place or really whether they worked for Space Fleet Command or Star Fleet Command (or, Starfleet Command).

I think the show moved away from pursuing a range of imaginative stories from a lot of outside sources toward depending upon the personalities of the main characters to carry increasingly generic TV melodrama. If they'd stuck with what they did well in the first year, the show would have been better.

 

[plynch]

The tone changes halfway through S1 with the arrival of Gene Coon. Earlier Trek is scarier, moodier, Kirk is sterner, there is more pausing in the dialog, more naturalism in general (more extras seen at work, drinking coffee, etc). It became chucklier/cuter. Fewer crewmembers and more focus on Sulu/Uhura/Chekov, to make it more of a "family." Alas, Riley, I knew him well.

S3 really isn't that bad, though its clunkers are louder. It is a continuation of S2 which had more going-through-the-motions eps than 1 or 3.

So, the major stumble was the change in tone halfway through S1. Good thread.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

It would have been interesting if they had been able to keep the Number One character from The Cage. With time it would have made the show seem even more progressive.

 

[CaptainStoner]

It would have been interesting if they had been able to keep the Number One character from The Cage. With time it would have made the show seem even more progressive.

Since losing Number One gave us the Spock we know, I'm ok with the mashing together of those characters. But one spot where TOS really stumbles is where is goes sexist.
One could say that is a modern interpretation, and say it's a product of its times, etc. Which is true, but the existence of Number One in the pilot shows that equality was in the minds of some and it would have made TOS a better show.
I'd rather have seen Chapel rewritten in a different department, like an engineer assistant, and have cast the head nurse as a man.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ True, Spock is awesome, I wouldn't want to lose Spock for Number One.