Will TOS expand my enjoyment as a fan?
- Thread starter JesdenScott
- Start date
That just might be one of the best descriptions of TOS's strengths I've ever read.
Agreed, although to be fair, I'm just as bad as the kids who see the classics as dated. To me, the older a show is, the better. Of course, that's only because I passionately hate so much what's happened to TV in the last decade that I cling to the shows that were on in my younger days, and in the case of TOS, right before I was born.
I say try watching it again, and this time, ignore your pre-concieved notions and take it for what it is: a good show.
I grew up watching TOS reruns (born in 74) TMP was first film I saw on the big screen as a kid, so I feel lucky enough for my love of Star Trek going right back to the beginning, I find TOS very dated and cheesy to watch now, and only do so for nostalgia, not to scratch my Trek itch - this isn't a criticism of it, TOS is 100% a classic show and a pioneer of television and popular culture - praise doesn't get any higher really, but the bottom line is that it's a 50 year old sci-fi show and feels it, so I would recommend newcomers to it to watch the remastered versions, no question as they improve the look and feel of the show a lot without sacrificing anything at all IMO.
These days I mainly enjoy the movies or any of the 90's series and I like to see TOS as a 'rough sketch' of everything that followed, the movies, TNG, the lot, even JJTrek. The basic concept or template that was used to create the rest of it. This isn't to say there's not a lot to enjoy with TOS, the characters provide most of the entertainment, but if you grew up in the 90's or 2000's you need to be prepared for the equivalent of watching 'The Waltons' compared to it's modern day counterpart...
These days I mainly enjoy the movies or any of the 90's series and I like to see TOS as a 'rough sketch' of everything that followed, the movies, TNG, the lot, even JJTrek. The basic concept or template that was used to create the rest of it. This isn't to say there's not a lot to enjoy with TOS, the characters provide most of the entertainment, but if you grew up in the 90's or 2000's you need to be prepared for the equivalent of watching 'The Waltons' compared to it's modern day counterpart...
ST obviously did something right, it has withstood the test of time. How any of today's shows will still be around at in production in some way in 2064? Or to put it another way how many other shows from the 1960's are still in production in some form be it TV or film today?
I was a big fan of TOS during the reruns and then it went off TV for years.
I got every TOS book, magazine, toy, dodgy VHS I could get my hands on. But basically I didn't see it on TV again for a couple of decades.
I thought I would be disappointed as I was when I went to watch other favourites of my childhood such as Lost In Space, Gilligan's Island etc but I found that I wasn't.
Its still as special to me now as it was then.
The stories are still good, the acting and characters. Modern shows may have better special effects and younger/better looking cast of bad ass anti-heroes but I think ho hum. I can't usually get past gorgeous 20-year old brilliant scientist and tiny little girl 20 something with no muscles who defeats male hulks 4 times their weight.
That not to say their isn't some great science fiction shows out there like nuBSG or Firefly. But there's a whole lot of modern shows relying on looks, pretty special effects over substance.
Thank you! That shit always bothers me. It's like someone came up with the concept of Doogie Howser 20 years ago and now everyone wants to pretend that their cast are all a bunch of young geniuses.
It reminds me of, I THINK the first Transformers movie. I forget what bullshit justification they had, but none of the scientists or brilliant minds in our country or the world for that matter could help, but it just so happens that a gorgeous model-looking Australian college chick happens to have all the answers and easily solves the situation. Some sorta computer hacking thing.
That's a perfect example of horse shit Hollywood mentality.
I can't think of any except Doctor Who, still going strong at 50+ and Coronation Street (premiered in 1960).
TOS set the stage for everything that was to come later. Some of its best episodes are simply brilliant (my favorite is "City on the Edge of Forever"), others are silly at best ("Spock's Brain", whose only redeeming factor is being amazed at how long Nimoy can manage to avoid blinking) and some reflect the sexist attitudes of the time to the extent that they make this modern viewer cringe ("Turnabout Intruder", "Space Seed"). While I know that SS is widely regarded as one of the must-see episodes because it features Khan, I found the fawning female so annoying that she all but ruined Khan as a character for me. I enjoyed my admittedly reluctant rewatch of TWOK far more last time, when I gave SS a miss.
Best answer!Short answer: yes. Mythology.
Dated? Yes (and strangely, no)
Kitsch? Undoubtedly. But you either love it or hate it.
Bottom line? Some terrible episodes. But the best ones are as good as any in all of Trek.
There's something magical in the cheese somehow. Maybe it's the colorful lighting, maybe it's the fable-like quality of the stories, maybe it's the haunting music... I can't put my finger on it.
(Space 1999's first season had 'it' as well, but Star Trek has superior writing, that's for sure.)
To make a long story short; YES, TOS will expand your enjoyment as a fan.
A Star Trek fan who hasn't seen 'Star Trek'? Blasphemy!
It's required viewing.
I think you are confusing the term "origin" with "first appearance." Two different things entirely. Origin implies we see where they came from. We don't see that in their first appearances.How can those episodes not be their origins, if those are the first time the characters are seen? After all, it's not like they were ever mentioned previously.
For someone who grew up on 24th century Trek, there are things about TOS that can be a bit jarring even without talking about the VFX.
The thing to remember is that much of what we've come to take for granted about modern Trek was not nearly set in stone particularly during the first season of TOS.
During the early episodes, the Enterprise is specifically referred to as an Earth ship working for United Earth. The UFP did not yet exist as a concept at that point.
We think of TOS as taking place in the mid 23rd century. That was not nearly as cut and dry during its run. For some reason they decided not to lock it to any particular time period.
There are times when production issues become a problem for plot. For instance, in the Enemy Within, are core plot point of the episode is that the transporter was non operational and that there were crew members stranded on a hostile planet. The obvious question is why didn't they use a shuttle? The answer is that the production had not built the sets or models for that yet.
The thing to remember is that much of what we've come to take for granted about modern Trek was not nearly set in stone particularly during the first season of TOS.
During the early episodes, the Enterprise is specifically referred to as an Earth ship working for United Earth. The UFP did not yet exist as a concept at that point.
We think of TOS as taking place in the mid 23rd century. That was not nearly as cut and dry during its run. For some reason they decided not to lock it to any particular time period.
There are times when production issues become a problem for plot. For instance, in the Enemy Within, are core plot point of the episode is that the transporter was non operational and that there were crew members stranded on a hostile planet. The obvious question is why didn't they use a shuttle? The answer is that the production had not built the sets or models for that yet.
Serious question: Do Star Wars fans who perhaps saw "Star Wars" (I refuse to call it part 4) last feel it's 'dated' and ask why the tech looks worse than seen in the prequels? Or ask how any officer could be insane enough to scoff at Vader right to his face?
I think the PT in SW was deliberately crafted to feel like the OT in so many ways that it hangs together and doesn't feel like the new stuff vs the old stuff at all. Little things like the use of wipes across the 6 films adds to this.
Well I think the original version of Star Wars held up a lot better than the SE! The CGI dated itself really fast! By the 2005(?) DVD release, they had to redo CGI Jaba from ANH.
My correction was about your assertion that the time travel method in "Naked" set up what was used in TVH, which is not what happened on air.
Which I acknowledged, no?
Like me, the OP probably couldn't care less about your "correction," as it isn't very useful. The OP was asking for examples where TOS could possibly enhance his viewing experience with later series. I cited actual examples of episodes. You cited nit-picks about minor plot points. But whatever makes you feel good about yourself, is fine with me.
Like me, the OP probably couldn't care less about your "correction," as it isn't very useful. The OP was asking for examples where TOS could possibly enhance his viewing experience with later series. I cited actual examples of episodes. You cited nit-picks about minor plot points. But whatever makes you feel good about yourself, is fine with me.
I recommend TOS to anybody who wishes to start watching Star Trek. Not only will you appreciate the movies more if you identify and like the characters, you will also see some of the most revolutionary television ever. TNG was better story-wise and in many other areas as well, but TOS was the most revolutionary of all Star Trek shows.
It's really interesting how we all view things so differently. For me, there's a HUGE disconnect between the two trilogies. Sure, there's some cursory nods of the head and trappings like the wipes you mention, but that's about as far as it goes.
The SW prequels remain one my all time biggest cinematic disappointments.
Last edited:
Similar threads
