After all the retcons… were they still great?

[F. King Daniel]

Taken on it’s own terms, as originally intended, TOS is great. And as a television show, it still is. But seen in the light of Trek’s ever-changing, retcon-happy “big picture”, were the adventures of Kirk and Spock’s Enterprise that amazing? Or were they just another ship and crew among many?

Everything fans long-assumed were “firsts” in TOS and the old movies were pre-empted by Captain Archer’s Enterprise, 100 years previously. Time travel, saving the world, meeting new species, having a Vulcan science officer, escaping Rura Penthe… all old hat by Kirk’s time.

Recent "evidence" suggests the Enterprise in TOS was a smaller, Voyager -style ship next to larger (and unseen until Star Trek (2009)) Kelvin and Kelvin kitbash-type starships. It’s possible those ships, in service in alternate-2258, were retired by 2265-Prime, but unlikely.


So, we’re left with adventures that followed in the footsteps of the NX-01 crew, a USS Enterprise that wasn’t Starfleet’s biggest (although it could have still been the most advanced) and a Captain Kirk in the shadow of the Enterprise-captaining, Federation-founding Jonathan Archer.

In light of all that, are they still great?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't consider Star Trek 2009 evidence of anything about TOS or the Trek continuity that existed before the movie. Hardcore fans can either resent the film or embrace it and shoehorn it into old continuity, but neither approach interests me. It is its own thing.

Trek movies - starting with ST:TMP - and later Trek shows differ from TOS in terms of sensibility. It's nice that the creators made efforts to fit it all together, but wherever there are contradictions the contradictions exist (and TOS contradicts itself as well). Making excuses for them is a waste of life.

TOS is what it is. If I'd seen it for the first time at forty I wouldn't feel the same way I did seeing it at thirteen years old in 1966. C'est la guerre.

 

[jayrath]

If Jonathan Archer is such a great captain, how come his series ran only 98 episodes and inspired no movies?

 

[Robert D. Robot]

^ ALL of the other Trek series (including "Enterprise") ran for more episodes than TOS, so that number is not so relevant a factor, IMO.

 

[xortex]

TOS made a conscious effort to seperate what was alien from what was Human which is something the rest of the series including Enterprise failed to do which made them unbelievable in my opinion and cartoony. The Vulcans were too dominant in ENT as if they were part of Starfleet itself.

 

[BillJ]

Of course they were still great!

They fought space amoebas, doomsday machines, petulant children from advance races, lizard people, Apollo, Jack the Ripper and the list just goes on and on and on...

I think one of the things that hurts Modern Trek is the fact that space seemed much more normal the longer it went on.

 

[cblmc1296]

I haven't seen very much of ENT but, in light of the way the OP framed his original question, I would say that Kirk and Spock's adventures were still just as great. Even if Archer, his crew, and his ship canonically established many of the same things we would see again in the TOS era, greatness doesn't necessarily need to be measured by whether something has been done before.

Kirk and company saved the galaxy as we know it on more than one occasion. They took the first tentative steps toward peace with the Klingons (unless there's something similar in ENT that I am unaware of). I could go on but, instead, let me just point out that their missions were considered significant enough that, a century later, Starfleet officers like Picard, Riker, Sisko, et al still looked upon them with childlike awe.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Even as a kid I think I realized that space is HUGE and that all strange new worlds, all new life and all new civilizations could not be encountered by a single ship on a five year mission. The fact that there were other good captains in Star Fleet such as Ron Tracy and Matt Decker (before his breakdown) still did not (for me) take away from the significance adventures of the Enterprise 1701.

This opinion may not be as fun for some as making TOS characters the only heroes out there, but I think to believe otherwise is a bit like the Yankees fan who believes that that nothing has ever gone on in baseball apart from what happened during Yankees ball games.

 

[cblmc1296]

...but I think to believe otherwise is a bit like the Yankees fan who believes that that nothing has ever gone on in baseball apart from what happened during Yankees ball games.

What are you trying to say? He he...sorry, I couldn't resist. I am, as it happens, a (rather smug) Yankees fan.

 

[T'Girl]

Even as a kid I think I realized that space is HUGE ...

One of the things that I believe TOS captured, that the other failed to, was that the Enterprise was out there in the darkness.

Few or no allies, often no backup, on their own. Even if they called for help, it wasn't coming anytime soon.

Voyager came close, but didn't really come across with it.

 

[horatio83]

TOS made a conscious effort to seperate what was alien from what was Human which is something the rest of the series including Enterprise failed to do which made them unbelievable in my opinion and cartoony. The Vulcans were too dominant in ENT as if they were part of Starfleet itself.

Debunked via five letters: Phlox.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I don't consider Star Trek 2009 evidence of anything about TOS or the Trek continuity that existed before the movie. Hardcore fans can either resent the film or embrace it and shoehorn it into old continuity, but neither approach interests me. It is its own thing.

Okay, who are you and what have you done with Dennis?

 

[number6]

If I read my Dennises correctly, that's always been his take on the new movie.

 

[Kirk1980]

Er, what is the point of this question? Surely, whether the Classic crew is still great or not is a matter best left up to personal taste?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Er, what is the point of this question? Surely, whether the Classic crew is still great or not is a matter best left up to personal taste?

It's about whether you think all the retroactive additions to the Trek universe have diminished The Original Series.

 

[MrJ]

TOS was in no way diminished by Enterprise. TOS will still be remember for decades. Whereas Enterprise is already mostly forgotten, and will be long gone in a few more years, only remembered as the shit sow it was.

 

[Skywalker]

The adventures of Kirk's Enterprise weren't treated as anything extraordinarily significant or unique until the movies came along. All that the retcons introduced in ENT and the other post-TOS shows 'diminish' are the movies, not TOS itself. When watching TOS, I never got the sense that the Enterprise was doing something historic and never before seen; I always felt that they were just one crew out of many that accomplished great things. Why is that such a distasteful idea?

 

[F. King Daniel]

TOS was in no way diminished by Enterprise. TOS will still be remember for decades. Whereas Enterprise is already mostly forgotten, and will be long gone in a few more years, only remembered as the shit sow it was.

Enterprise won't be forgotten any time soon. They just released a new DVD box set. As long as there's Star Trek, there'll be fans championing every incarnation, from Enterprise to the animated series.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Why is that such a distasteful idea?

Because it isn't what the groupthink has established for decades. Now go away, you son of a silly person. Before I release flatus at you!

 

[KeepOnTrekking]

Since Enterprise was cancelled after season 4 without resolving the Temporal Cold War and revealing FutureGuy's true identity, maybe the events of Enterprise were erased during the war in an unproduced episode and never actually occurred in the TrekPrime universe with TOS. TOS would still be the cutting edge on time travel and Vulcan/human hybrids boldly going where no man has gone before.