Debunking TOS exceptionalism

[A beaker full of death]

Or the third season of The Man From UNCLE. THAT'S campy.

I posted a thread about a first season episode starring Nimoy and Shatner. While not outright campy, Shatner and Werner Klemperer have some hysterical lines. of course, a lot of it is the delivery. I didn't add the ending so as not to spoil, but it's hysterical:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSQ3UqBKJ0o[/yt]

 

[A beaker full of death]

The dated part is understandable and to be expected, even the 60s type bravado and fist fights and other nonsensical stuff, but I thought the acting lame as i said, and it nowhere near this masterpiece that so many raved about.

Had I watched it in the 70s as a kid growing up I might have different opinions due to nostalgia, memories and other such stuff but i dont..

I accept some people maybe even the majority of people will not agree with me but it wont change my opinion of the show and people telling me my opinion aint welcome cos they dont like it is ludicrous.

last I checked no one said your opinion is not welcome. You've stated and restated your opinion, in the most condescending of tones (after all, people could only like this crap out of nostalgia, right, not because the acting, scripts, music, sets, lighting, filing etc. are actually good?)
Got anything else, or are you going to repeat this yet again, with a few more personal comments thrown in?

So, the discussion does not seem to be about whether Star Trek has had substantial impact; the discussion does not seem to be about whether it has had the most impact; the discussion does not seem to be about whether Star Trek deserves the legacy it has achieved; the discussion does not seem to be about whether other shows in the franchise--or even altogether different shows--are deserving of some kind of legacy to some greater or lesser degree than Star Trek.

The discussion is intended to be about why Star Trek has the legacy (whatever that legacy actually is) that it has achieved--regardless of whether such a legacy is deserved or not, regardless of whether such a legacy is all that substantial or not.

(I think some people are going down the garden path of trying to opine whether Star Trek is deserving of its legacy or if other shows are actually more deserving--as if such a thing were objectively knowable. But if I'm reading correctly, the issue seems to actually be about why so many people seem to think Star Trek is so great--not whether they are justified to think that or not.)

I'm not looking to limit the discussion here, nor to parse the question so finely. I think debating the extent of show's cultural impact stays a bit afield as that's not really much of a question. You and some others have posited some interesting theories about why this particular amalgam of various successful elements that may have predated Trek itself was so successful as a whole. That's really the meat of what I'm curious about.

 

[Greg Cox]

But if I'm reading correctly, the issue seems to actually be about why so many people seem to think Star Trek is so great--not whether they are justified to think that or not.)

Actually, I thought the original topic was the tendency to sometimes overstate Trek's accomplishments--as if its actual and considerable virtues aren't enough.

Like claiming that it was the first and only sophisticated sci-fi show, and not just an outstanding one. (Or insisting that all later versions suffer in comparison.)

 

[GSchnitzer]

I dont see how call a show over rated, camp etc is being personal.As also pointed out earlier it was another member that tried to make it personal due to them being offended.

I think that calling a show overrated or campy isn't really explaining in any way why the show has achieved the legacy it clearly has achieved.

Stipulating for a moment that it's overrated and campy, what then is your opinion as to why is it nevertheless as popular as it is after 45+ years? That would be an interesting opinion to hear.

 

[GSchnitzer]

I dont see how call a show over rated, camp etc is being personal.As also pointed out earlier it was another member that tried to make it personal due to them being offended.

I think that calling a show overrated or campy isn't really explaining in any way why the show has achieved the legacy it clearly has achieved.

Stipulating for a moment that it's overrated and campy, what then is your opinion as to why is it nevertheless as popular as it is after 45+ years? That would be an interesting opinion to hear.

The show itself was good if not hugely spectacular for me, but something about the philosophy and morality struck a chord with people.The timing was a big issue, the late sixties was ideal timing I think for the show
Unlike nowdays tv had a far more powerful impact, no internet, less channels, etc so the graphics while outdated now were pretty decent for the time, and it became iconic like a lot of shows,,,,,,,,,,as to what exactly transpired to set this apart i cannot say for certain, doubt anyone can.

I do believe though that when something is popular and attracts the mass attention through whatever media was available at that time its no surprise that others would get involved and jump on the bandwagon, which leads to a snowball effect.

As I said earlier as someone who had watched all the other series before ever watching a single full episode of TOS, I was expecting a bit more and was a little disapppointed with TOS.

As to why exactly it has got the legacy it has is something I am unable to pinpoint.

Fair enough. Then it looks like your working theory about the source of Star Trek's long-term and enduring popularity is that the quality bar was set so low back then, and that Star Trek fandom is composed of sheeple.

 

[Warped9]

The perception of Star Trek's "exceptionalism" isn't surprising in a way. Many people can tend to exaggerate for good or ill.

A more recent instance in the opposite direction. Spider-Man 3 often gets roundly panned as "crap." And yet it really isn't that bad. It's just that it isn't as good as the previous two Spidey films. But somehow "not as good" becomes "crap" and a lot of people just accept it as such. Titanic and Avatar make a lot of money and many people consider them "amazing," and yet both films really aren't that special in terms of story (for the record even as a SF fan I think Titanic is the better film). Still with all the buzz about the films the generally accepted view is that these films are something exceptional.

A lot of good stuff was done in the '60s, but few came out of the decade as well regarded and as well recognized as Star Trek. As has been mentioned upthread it isn't any one particular thing Star Trek did, but rather a number of things it did right (not necessarily better). It got more right than wrong and it came out at just the right time. Now given a tendency for some to exaggerate and you can get this perception of "exceptionalism."

In contrast you also get a group of people who cannot resist trying to tear down or deconstruct something widely well regarded by others.

One of the mistakes I see some make, even if they're not conscious of it, is being so convinced their current experience and perception is the only "right" one. When I was in my teens and twenties it was easy to dismiss work not of my time as dated, obsolete and hokey. But as the years passed and my perceptions grew I learned to see how much good work was done before I came along. I learned to not judge something solely by contemporary standards. When I did that I became aware of a lot of very good stuff that I had previously been blind to. It doesn't mean that suddenly everything old became good---no, there was still a lot of crap, just like today---but I learned how to recognize the good.

"Camp" is a matter of perception, and one's perception can change. Star Trek was never meant to be camp even if it used camp occasionally as a storytelling tool (i.e.: "I, Mudd" and "A Piece Of The Action"). But "camp" and "cheesy" are words that can too easily be thrown around when the terms don't really apply. It's like using four letter curse words to hide having a limited vocabulary. In like manner I could easily pan a lot of contemporary Trek (and admittedly I have), but if I want to get my criticism heard fairly then I'd better use more articulate ways of expressing it.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's all a matter of keeping things in perspective. I like to think there's a middle ground between "Ohmigod, TOS is the Best Thing Ever and nothing else compares" and "Meh, it's just another old TV show."

 

[Warped9]

It's all a matter of keeping things in perspective. I like to think there's a middle ground between "Ohmigod, TOS is the Best Thing Ever and nothing else compares" and "Meh, it's just another old TV show."

Yeah, but everyone is gonna draw that line differently. I know it gets tiresome to hear something praised highly that you might not think much of, but thats the way it is. You have to try tuning it out. I know it's not easy, believe me. There's a particular film I loathe and cringe whenever I hear it being praised, but what am I gonna do? Trying to tear it down and persuade others of its worthlessness doesn't get any traction. It only leads to frustration. I know.

while I might have been disappointed a little with TOS I am certainly glad it did gain its legacy and attract the following it did or otherwise the spin offs would have never come to fruition.

There is that. If there had been nothing special or even good about TOS then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[BK613]

Should be judged in the context of its time. In the States, that was 3 networks, PBS (after 1970), and some local content. Plus the nascent /syndication/rerun market. For science fiction, early TV was a dark country road and TZ, TOL, and ST were the few lit porch lights along the way.

OTOH, this will always be a trump card for ST.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Should be judged in the context of its time. In the States, that was 3 networks, PBS (after 1970), and some local content. Plus the nascent /syndication/rerun market. For science fiction, early TV was a dark country road and TZ, TOL, and ST were the few lit porch lights along the way.

Actually, my working theory here is just the opposite.

 

[Tribble Herder]

You might want to elaborate a tad.

 

[A beaker full of death]

^ My initial post. There was actually a lot more innovative, quality television (and radio) out there than modern Trek lore would have us believe.

 

[Ian Keldon]

A more recent instance in the opposite direction. Spider-Man 3 often gets roundly panned as "crap." And yet it really isn't that bad. It's just that it isn't as good as the previous two Spidey films. But somehow "not as good" becomes "crap" and a lot of people just accept it as such. Titanic and Avatar make a lot of money and many people consider them "amazing," and yet both films really aren't that special in terms of story (for the record even as a SF fan I think Titanic is the better film). Still with all the buzz about the films the generally accepted view is that these films are something exceptional.

Continuing this "sidebar" for a moment, I'd add the 2 commercially released Fantastic Four movies to that list of properties that were good (and made decent money) but have become saddled with the perception of "failure".

Moving on, I'd like to make a couple of unrelated observations:

I don't think Twilight Zone can be discussed in the same context as Trek because the two shows are so very different as others have already noted (pure anthology casting vs continuing characters, purely episodic vs linked/continuing narrative, etc).

And, on the topic of "why" Trek resonates/resonated with the audience, sometimes it just happens. It isn't always logical or even explicable. Star Trek (all series) is equaled or outperformed in at least one area or another by any number of sci-fi properties.

Some have great writing (B5). Some have great casting and cast chemistry (SG-1, B5). Some have good SFX either in concept or execution (numerous).

But something about the total package that is Trek just "clicked" with audiences beyond genre fans.

It "reached", for want of a better term...

 

[Greg Cox]

It "reached", for want of a better term...

You are not Herbert!

 

[Warped9]

One simple reason of TOS' perceived exceptionalism is that little of the good stuff to come out of the '60s is barely remembered beyond a handful of people.

Mention The Outer Limits to someone today and you're likely to get a reference to the hit-and-miss '90s version. Mention The Avengers and more likely you'll hear praise about a certain movie currently playing. Mention The Twilight Zone and chances are some can whistle the theme music but tell you little beyond that. Mention Mission: Impossible and most will be thinking Tom Cruise. Mention The Prisoner and you'll get a lot of blank stares (this one I experienced very recently).

Mention M*A*S*H or All In The Family (coming a few years later) and you might get some recognition, but most likely little familiarity.

Star Trek happened to hit a lot of the right buttons...and then it took off in syndication. Other shows were also being rerun, but they weren't getting the same traction. But Star Trek's recipe was proving to have broad appeal and was vindicating the ideas of the show's creative team behind it. They might have been flying by the seat-of-their-pants a lot, but they managed to find just the right groove most of the time.

It could also be that while other shows could be quite good they could have been perceived as more dated, more of their era while Star Trek somehow managed to sidestep that for a good long time. Indeed when I first started watching Star Trek in 1970 I initially had no idea I was watching reruns of a cancelled show. It held up damn well until the late '70s and films like Star Wars, Alien and ST-TMP came along with a much more polished look. But even then the writing was still strong and held up to anything else being done in SF onscreen. The Trek films of the '80s as well as ST-TNG served to bring more attention to the original Star Trek. It wasn't hard to look at TNG and say, "Yeah, already been there and done that."

Setting Roddenberry's self-aggrandizing bullshit aside it's not hard to see a sort of mystique was associated with the show because it seemed to have such staying power when so many of its '60's contemporaries were barely remembered.

So if you weren't there when Star Trek was new and/or you have little to no knowledge of what else was going on back then then it's not hard to see why some perceive Star Trek being almost magically different than most everything else.

 

[plynch]

I'm skipping, like, three pages of what looks to be arguing; apologies if this is a repeat. But - many pioneers are really synthesizers at the right time and place. Roddenberry said he wanted a vehicle within which to tell stories. Recall he was a navy tales fan (Hornblower series) and had written for other shows and genres. He wasn't a sci-fi writer. He took a lot of influences and channelled them all, along with the contributions of many talented people.

Henry Ford really invented nothing new, right? Interchangeable parts, a moving assembly line, and at least a desire for a car for the masses all preceded him. He synthesized it all. Sometimes that is a huge deal, huger than being the first tv episode to actually mention the word "antimatter."

Be well.

 

[Maurice]

I feel like there's an awful lot of conflating of popular with exceptional here. There's little doubt that Star Trek did a lot of popularize some concepts and—thanks to endlessly repeated tall tales—has taken on the mantle of being a trailblazer. But I think it's demonstrable that Star Trek was not exceptional is its parts, but, as Plynch rightly points out, it's a an exceptionally well made synthesis. I'm totally fine with that, as it seems true. What I'm not comfortable with—to paraphrase Walter Koening—is giving the show approbation for work it didn't do, i.e. much of its supposed trailblazing.

 

[Warped9]

Speaking strictly for myself...I couldn't care less about deserving or not. Sure, Star Trek didn't invent many of the ideas it used, but it did use them in such a dynamic way as I've never seen before and really haven't seen in quite the same way since.

For me it did more right than wrong, by far, and it remains my all-time favourite series.

It can be interesting to try understanding why it's perceived as it is, but at the heart of it I don't really care. For me it works in a way I've never seen anywhere else.

And I doubt if any the films or the any of the subsequent spin-off series had actually been the first version of Trek that we'd be here discussing this now.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

Speaking as a Mod, we probably let the personal confrontations get out of hand here and I take some of the blame for that.

As a fan, IMO it isn't the individual threads that are exceptional but the ultimate tapestry woven from them. A convergence of ideas, some original and many borrowed, coupled with the same primary characters over a 3 year span is kind of special. The bond with a set of ardent fans made the light shining on it brighter than other series of its era and the subsequent series kept that light shining. Even though TOS (yes, it is OK to call it that) isn't my favorite of the 5 series, it certainly paved the way.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

TOS (yes, it is OK to call it that)

I never agreed to that!