why is star trek original series disliked

[Mr_Homn]

But I think it's weird that you have to register your dislike every single time the movies are mentioned.

It's equally weird that every time he or anyone else states their opinion on JJtrek that 3 or 4 people have to get on his or their case for it like clockwork. It's the internet. If someone says something that someone else disagrees with, it's not an obligation to start an argument about it. But it happens every time anyway. Like I said, it's the internet.

 

[Warped9]

But I think it's weird that you have to register your dislike every single time the movies are mentioned.

It's equally weird that every time he states his opinion on JJtrek that 3 or 4 people have to get on his case for it like clockwork. It's the internet. If someone says something that someone else disagrees with, it's not an obligation to start an argument about it. But it happens every time anyway. Like I said, it's the internet.

It's also a matter of exaggeration. I hold my tongue a lot on this issue, but that doesn't stop some from going ape over any smallest word of dissent on something they like. If I had a dime for every instance of someone pissing on TOS I'd be super rich. And, yeah, over the years a lot of people have pissed on TOS.

JJtrek is the darling of the moment and its fans and advocates will not tolerate one smidgen of expressed discontent over it. They might have something of a case if I actually went into the nuTrek forum (or even the General forum) and attacked anything and everything in there. But the fact is I don't, but they trot JJtrek here into the TOS forum and expect unbridled luv for it here as well. I'm in here to talk about TOS and as much as they resent my dislike of Abrams' stuff I resent them trotting it in here.

 

[trevanian]

And I honestly cannot see how you don't when millions of Trek fans have, and continue to, and it has enriched their enjoyment of the franchise as a whole.

It is not "divorced", it is not "lacking", is it not "against" anything, you keep saying this, have been saying it for over 4 years and conveniently cannot actually specify how, why or what exactly it is that you cannot "find" in it.

And you've had more than long enough to make even one proper attempt to do so. All I have even seen is angry, hateful, vitriolic posts condemning not only the films but attacking everyone who enjoyed it simply because you don't.

It is not fair to call thousands of people the things you have just because they enjoyed a film, yet you keep doing it and not substantiating any of it.

Frankly, I'm more sick of you and your nonsense than you are of these films, because at the end of the day, the things you rant against aren't even real, you're a very real annoyance we have to put up with daily over a form of entertaintment.

The people of this forum have the right to like all forms of Trek and not be called names and suffer your constant insinuations of them being uneducated, mentally deficient, morally corrupt or whatever other idiotic bullshit you've come out with because you can't stand something changed in 50 years.

It happens, and will continue to. TOS we be rebooted again after Abrams, you can accept it and calm down, or keep ranting and keep receiving this responce, your choice.

If he keeps receiving this response from you, you'll be guilty of trolling instead of just being annoying and abusive.

Folks who have issues with AbramsTrek are usually quite articulate at length about their problems with it (it is pretty easy, since just about every decision they've made seems an odd one that requires an eye roll plus a 'what were they thinking?') If you don't think that is the case, why don't you look in most threads in the Abramsforum and see that there are occasional, usually long and well-written posts against ID that pop up in between the stream of gushes. Why would you be looking for some detailed critique of it here, or complaining when somebody doesn't supply it?

The whole issue of bringing new fans in that Abramsfolk seem to always glom onto is utterly irrelevant too. New fans don't change the content of the original programming (unless they contribute to the awfulness that is TOS-R), and THAT original programming is what this subforum is about.

 

[trevanian]

I'll never understand how anyone can see TOS in Abrams' work. It's so divorced from the source material. I will never, ever get it.

Whatever...

It's weird, but I can't understand why you can't see it, Warped9! Beyond the "feel", the sets, the uniforms, the ships are all clearly polished and shiny versions of TOS.

Would you make the same claim about the SW prequels? That it is just a polished shiny version of the OT?


What I see with the Abrams films is a painful-on-the-eyes and schizophrenic design non-sensibility, with the plain floors of the brewery visible like you'd expect in a zero budget flick, and then the incomprehensible lighting in working environments, where you can't even look at a display without getting practicals shining right in your eyes. Very useful for easy reading in combat conditions, I'm sure.

To me GALAXY QUEST is far closer to TOS in spirit and style than Abrams (and tons better as well.)

And yeah, I'm doing what I said above doesn't need doing, posting a defense in this forum, but since your view is so specific, it really begs for a response in kind.

 

[Warped9]

I can't see what isn't there.

 

[Noname Given]

For me, STID is truly a return to TOS in an extremely tangible way - albeit with a shiny, modern gloss.

This is how I feel as well. Actually, the Abrams movies have really dulled how I feel about Modern Trek.

I know what you mean, Bill. I'll always adore all of Trek, but Abrams' films have entered my personal Trek pantheon joining TOS as part of the same thing, e.g., the highest quality Trek - exciting, colourful action adventure, with those wonderful, iconic characters. Honestly, I never even hoped we'd get classic Trek of this type again.

Some of the post TOS televised Trek can seem a little sterile in comparison.

^^^
Agee with all the above. I'm 50 and was one of the folks kind of wondering just what TNG would be when it debuted (and was VERY disappointed with the premiere "Encounter At Farpoint", and that the second TNG episode they aired out of the gate was a remake) -- and as TNG Season one continued felt GR had gone senile as TNG wasn't anything like TOS overall.

In my market they started sandwichiong new TNG episodes between TOS episodes (IE they'd air a TOS episode before and after a TNG episode -- sop yeah, if any die hard TNG fans think TNG was a 'smash hit' out of the gate, you couldn't be more wrong.)

IMO - the JJ Abrams reboot does bring back the sense of adventure and fun that TOS had (and again sorry, but TOS wasn't only about making a big 'social comment' -- yes it did do episodes like that from time to time -- but it wasn't every single episode. Some were just good old fashioned adventure, and I never had an issue with that then, or now.

 

[BillJ]

Well, TNG was a huge hit right off the bat. It was renewed for a second season only six weeks after it premiered. Actually, the first two seasons and the fourth season of Enterprise are the only seasons of Modern Trek that I have any real affection for.

 

[Dale Sams]

People want to dislike TOS...ok, whatever. People bag on Shatner??? They aren't allowed to have opinions. I'm taking their opinion privileges away. Early career Shatner is awesome.

 

[Kelso]

Some don't like Star Trek.

Others don't like sex or joy.

Some people are weird.

 

[T'Bonz]

It's really interesting, to a certain degree, I've seen this "generational" thing almost come full circle within Trek fandom itself. Being 44, I'm old enough to recall the reported outrage from certain TOS fans when TNG was in development back in the day - "how could they - the very idea" etc.

At the time, although I'd have much rather had more TOS rather than TNG, I gave it a fair chance. More than fair, if one considers how lousy S1 of TNG was. Stewart did a damned good job taking the "WTF, the captain is a grandpa type!" out of my mind.

Abrams Trek is nice, but different. I call it "edgy" Trek. It's more alt-Trek to me.

The problem with it is that while it makes for good, entertaining popcorn movies, I don't really see it bringing n00bs into the Star Trek fandom fold who will stay. Seems to me it's a case of watch it, then forget it and move on to the next movie.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I'll never understand how anyone can see TOS in Abrams' work. It's so divorced from the source material. I will never, ever get it.

Whatever...

It's weird, but I can't understand why you can't see it, Warped9! Beyond the "feel", the sets, the uniforms, the ships are all clearly polished and shiny versions of TOS.

Would you make the same claim about the SW prequels? That it is just a polished shiny version of the OT?

What I see with the Abrams films is a painful-on-the-eyes and schizophrenic design non-sensibility, with the plain floors of the brewery visible like you'd expect in a zero budget flick, and then the incomprehensible lighting in working environments, where you can't even look at a display without getting practicals shining right in your eyes. Very useful for easy reading in combat conditions, I'm sure.

To me GALAXY QUEST is far closer to TOS in spirit and style than Abrams (and tons better as well.)

And yeah, I'm doing what I said above doesn't need doing, posting a defense in this forum, but since your view is so specific, it really begs for a response in kind.

No need to justify or be in anyway defensive reference your response to my view, specific or not, trevanian. I don't agree, but I truly don't have any problem with it.

This is an internet forum, and it is all about opinion. I'm not necessarily referring to any poster in this thread, but IMHO, there have been occasions when highly disparaging commentary on JJ Trek has been passed for the most tenuous reasons.

 

[Maurice]

Honestly, what some of the people who don't like the last two movies can't see is that it's possible that their opinions are just that.

 

[Dale Sams]

I have no real problem with the nu-Trek. I enjoyed the first, haven't seen the second, but I'm sure I'll enjoy it. No, my REAL problem is now people are wanting EVERYTHING rebooted. I saw just the other day something on 'fans demand X-Files reboot!'

Good God people! Duchovney and Anderson still look great! They're not Grandpa and Grandma Moses. Besides,....Abrams is a fairly smart guy.

The odds of an X-Files reboot looking like the last POS Night Stalker show are much greater than being remotely as good as the Trek reboot. Besides,....is Duchovney going to go back in time and confront himself (As played by Jesse Eisenberg) at the FBI Academy? Gag.

 

[BennieGamali]

I love TOS because of the characters. I know why some people hate Bones, but he's awesome IMO. I don't really see himas the "heart" of the group. And being emotional isn't always positive. One reason I love Bones is that he is a bit of a grumpy ass, but he's a good guy in the end. Besides. I always found him and Spock fighting funny. The trio would be lame without Dr.Grumpy and Mr. Logical fighting.

 

[Warped9]

I have no real problem with the nu-Trek. I enjoyed the first, haven't seen the second, but I'm sure I'll enjoy it. No, my REAL problem is now people are wanting EVERYTHING rebooted. I saw just the other day something on 'fans demand X-Files reboot!'

Good God people! Duchovney and Anderson still look great! They're not Grandpa and Grandma Moses. Besides,....Abrams is a fairly smart guy.

The odds of an X-Files reboot looking like the last POS Night Stalker show are much greater than being remotely as good as the Trek reboot. Besides,....is Duchovney going to go back in time and confront himself (As played by Jesse Eisenberg) at the FBI Academy? Gag.

I'm in the midst of an X-Files rewatch (I'm just starting Season 7) and up to this point the series is awesome. The characters of Mulder and Scully are fantastic and the chemistry between is cool. That chemistry is part of why the series was so good and it would be very hard to recreate with new casting.

I love their monster-of-the-week type stories and in many ways they do stuff I'd love to see in a space adventure series.

 

[Kinokima]

I love TOS because of the characters. I know why some people hate Bones, but he's awesome IMO. I don't really see himas the "heart" of the group. And being emotional isn't always positive. One reason I love Bones is that he is a bit of a grumpy ass, but he's a good guy in the end. Besides. I always found him and Spock fighting funny. The trio would be lame without Dr.Grumpy and Mr. Logical fighting.

I think more people like Bones than dislike him. In character polls he tends be in the top 10 of all Trek characters (even top 5). Perhaps not on the same level of Spock love, but Bones is definitely a well liked character. Not hurt by the fact that De Kelley is considered one of the nicest actors of the original cast.

But there are definitely a group of people who just do not understand his character at all or are obsessed with Spock to the point that they see Spock as a perfect saint and Bones is just getting on his case because he is an evil racist.

Funny thing is these same people don't understand Spock either. I have read quotes from Nimoy, Kelley, and even Roddenberry claiming Spock and Bones were friends despite their differences.

In fact Nimoy compared Spock/Bones to Burns and Allen (you know an old married couple) & Abbott and Costello. He said he saw Spock/Bones banter as very similar to the "Who's On First" comedy routine.

Okay rant over

 

[Warped9]

^^ Very true. In real life two friends can get away with saying some of the nastiest stuff to each other that they'd never think of saying to a stranger, or tolerate edgy banter that they'd never accept from anyone else.

Another example: check out the banter between Clint Eastwood and the barber in Gran Torino.

 

[marksound]

I love TOS because of the characters. I know why some people hate Bones, but he's awesome IMO. I don't really see himas the "heart" of the group. And being emotional isn't always positive. One reason I love Bones is that he is a bit of a grumpy ass, but he's a good guy in the end. Besides. I always found him and Spock fighting funny. The trio would be lame without Dr.Grumpy and Mr. Logical fighting.

I think more people like Bones than dislike him. In character polls he tends be in the top 10 of all Trek characters (even top 5). Perhaps not on the same level of Spock love, but Bones is definitely a well liked character. Not hurt by the fact that De Kelley is considered one of the nicest actors of the original cast.

But there are definitely a group of people who just do not understand his character at all or are obsessed with Spock to the point that they see Spock as a perfect saint and Bones is just getting on his case because he is an evil racist.

Funny thing is these same people don't understand Spock either. I have read quotes from Nimoy, Kelley, and even Roddenberry claiming Spock and Bones were friends despite their differences.

In fact Nimoy compared Spock/Bones to Burns and Allen (you know an old married couple) & Abbott and Costello. He said he saw Spock/Bones banter as very similar to the "Who's On First" comedy routine.

Okay rant over

^^ Very true. In real life two friends can get away with saying some of the nastiest stuff to each other that they'd never think of saying to a stranger, or tolerate edgy banter that they'd never accept from anyone else.

Another example: check out the banter between Clint Eastwood and the barber in Gran Torino.

The three of them are such close friends, they spend all their free time together, as pointed out by McCoy in TFF.

And then there's this:

Kirk: Come on. Spock... Why didn't you jump in?
Spock: I was trying to comprehend the meaning of the words.
McCoy: It's a song, you green-blooded... Vulcan. You sing it. The words aren't important. What's important is that you have a good time singing it.
Spock: Oh, I am sorry Doctor. Were we having a good time?
McCoy: God I liked him better before he died.

 

[Shat Happens]

Star Wars revolutionized sf movies. Every movie that came after had to have a certain set of characteristics in order to even be recognizable as a space movie. That is common knowledge, of course.

TOS came before, so it does not follow all the tropes SW made, that's it's problem. Not really a problem, but a reason. I love TOS.

 

[Kinokima]

I don't really see himas the "heart" of the group. And being emotional isn't always positive.

Sorry missed these quotes but I want to respond. No being emotional is definitely not always positive, but either is being logical. That is the point of Spock and Bones. Neither logic or emotion by themselves is enough you need both.

As for being the "heart" of the trio well I will stick with that.

Kirk is the man of action, the one who ultimately makes the decisions, or the body and soul of the group.

Spock is the mind. He helps Kirk with his decisions by giving him the logical, rational, and intelligent advice. McCoy is the heart by giving Kirk the humanistic and emotional advice. But again Kirk needed both sides.

Or you can just say they are Ethos, Pathos and Logos