5 Things Star Trek Fans Must Admit About The Film Franchise

[Trekkin]

I can remember one of the B&W Gunsmoke eps introducing a Chinese(?) character, and then the rest of the episode was basically about how shittily everyone treated him. It wasn't subtle, but it hit a bit closer to home than 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.'

I mostly remember it because the guy was introduced speaking pigeon English with a heavy accent, only for him to speak clearly once he was away from the racist 'audience' of townspeople. It was genuinely a surprise because I'd been conditioned to accept that shows of that 'time' would play the 'Asian' caricature straight (hell, shows of later times continue to play it straight). It was the nice kind of surprise.

I haven't seen Gunsmoke in years. It's either on at midnight, or airs only on subscription television.

 

[Franklin]

Gunsmoke was probably a better reference for TOS than Wagon Train - GR referred to it a number of times with respect to the characters, setting and style. Trek started out borrowing nore from TV westerns than from any other genre or formula.

Hundreds have pointed it out over the years (it's so easy to make the comparison), but the Kirk, Spock, and McCoy dynamic was very similar (eerily so) to that of Dillon, Festus, and the Doc. Spock and McCoy actually got along a lot like Festus and Doc did (right down to the little insults), and both were fiercely loyal to and protective of Dillon, just as the other two were to Kirk.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Exactly so. Most episodes of Gunsmoke had morals for God's sake. No one puffs them up, though.

Gunsmoke dealt with a wider range of social issues and did so more openly than TOS did, for crying out loud.

As did a lot of other contemporary shows with STAR TREK.

Gunsmoke dealt with a wider range of social issues and did so more openly than TOS did, for crying out loud.

Examples, please!

This article has a nice summary of the morality plays explored by GUNSMOKE: http://www.avclub.com/article/television-grew-up-with-igunsmokei-102336

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Not sure how this became about Gunsmoke, since I never used it as a point of contrast against TOS any more than I did any of the movies. Did anyone see me say anything like "Star Trek had lofty ideas and messages, whereas Gunsmoke was just a dumb action show"? Really don't think I did. Yes, there were and are many shows with worthy ideas behind their stories other than ST, it was hardly unique in that quality. Yes, some of the Trek movies had them too. I don't see how that changes my point: that TOS was a show about those ideas, not action for action's sake. Don't think I'll be saying much more on the subject. Have fun in the new year, kiddies!

 

[Paradise City]

TOS is a Western blended with Horatio Hornblower all set in a space with the space race as a real life backdrop.
Kirk's intro is about the exploratory nature of his mission.

I suppose we are seeing 'human' values being tested against the great unknown. Indians with Westerns, aliens with Star Trek. With Star Trek the aliens are often depicted as having one over on our heroes. "Maybe in a squillion years and you've matured and gotten over your savage ways, us "Metrons" (or whoever) will establish relations with you...etc, etc"

 

[Phily B]

Cracked is a garbage clickbait website that hates its audience these days, used to be funny and interesting years ago.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Maybe people are pissed because nuTrek doesn't beat you about the face and neck with obvious social commentary about racism, hippies, or things that were relevant in the 60's.

That in particular-and the new movie talked about all the things going on now, including the inclusion of a 9/11-type event. That's more relevant than what was on the original series or TNG.

Depends on the fish...er fan. For example, there are fans who are gaga over Trek Tech. They eat, breath and sleep the stuff. They don't care about action or philosophy they just like gadgets.

Exactly!

I've (and many others) always said that Star Trek means many things to many different people.

Some folks like the drama, some the commentary, some the humor, some the action, some the tech stuff. Some folks embrace all aspects. Others embrace a custom package of certain aspects, while eschewing others. Others still may only focus on one aspect.

It couldn't have entertained for fifty years if it wasn't enjoyable on several dimensions. The arguments are most often over which dimensions were most important and which best define Trek.

To be honest, I've never thought of TOS as anything other than a high-quality TV show that was no different or any more special in intelligent stories, interesting characters, or tackling moral or social issues than any other high-quality prime time show if its day (or any other day, for that matter). Especially like Gunsmoke.

Exactly so. Most episodes of Gunsmoke had morals for God's sake. No one puffs them up, though.

Gunsmoke dealt with a wider range of social issues and did so more openly than TOS did, for crying out loud.

Gunsmoke also had tragic downer endings (the radio show did, at least.) Star Trek: TOS never really had that, except for the one about the fight between the Romulan ship and the Enterprise that escapes me.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Gunsmoke also had tragic downer endings (the radio show did, at least.) Star Trek: TOS never really had that, except for the one about the fight between the Romulan ship and the Enterprise that escapes me.

'Balance of Terror?'

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Gunsmoke also had tragic downer endings (the radio show did, at least.) Star Trek: TOS never really had that, except for the one about the fight between the Romulan ship and the Enterprise that escapes me.

TOS has a few downer episodes in the first season, especially in the first half which was tonally different from the rest of the series.

To name a few: "Where No Man Has Gone Before"; "Charlie X"; "Balance of Terror"(which you mention); "The Man Trap"; "Dagger of the Mind"; "What Are Little Girls Made Of"; "The Conscience of the King"; and, of course, "The City on the Edge of Forever."

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Gunsmoke also had tragic downer endings (the radio show did, at least.) Star Trek: TOS never really had that, except for the one about the fight between the Romulan ship and the Enterprise that escapes me.

'Balance of Terror?'

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Devon]

I'd go even further and say that shows like "All In The Family" were more groundbreaking on social issues than "Star Trek" was.

 

[Franklin]

I'd go even further and say that shows like "All In The Family" were more groundbreaking on social issues than "Star Trek" was.

Most definitely. TOS was just before the era of shows that really started to have an explicit social conscience. For example, "All In the Family" was 1971, and "M*A*S*H" was 1972.

If TOS had stayed on the air into the early 1970s, it would've been interesting to see how its stories would've evolved in that era. Then again, by the mid-1980s, when almost anything could go on TV, TNG still tended to play it pretty safe throughout its run.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I'd go even further and say that shows like "All In The Family" were more groundbreaking on social issues than "Star Trek" was.

I'd go even further and say that shows like "All In The Family" were more groundbreaking on social issues than "Star Trek" was.

Most definitely. TOS was just before the era of shows that really started to have an explicit social conscience. For example, "All In the Family" was 1971, and "M*A*S*H" was 1972.

If TOS had stayed on the air into the early 1970's, it would've been interesting to see how its stories would've evolved in that era. Then again, by the mid-1980's, when almost anything could go on TV, TNG still tended to play it pretty safe throughout its run.

Agree with you two on both points, except for one thing: the first show of the '60's to do this was East Side/West Side, and its episodes hit social problems hard. Here they are: East Side/West Side

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think he means "The Next Generation" rather than the original, which was an action-adventure show in space.

Star Trek was an action franchise from the second pilot episode onward. To suggest (and believe) otherwise is to completely ignore what Roddenberry said in his prospectus for the show back in 1964/'65.

No. It was a show about human psychology and contemporary social issues disguised as an action-adventure show in space.

Not unlike Star Trek Into Darkness.

Not sure how this became about Gunsmoke, since I never used it as a point of contrast against TOS any more than I did any of the movies. Did anyone see me say anything like "Star Trek had lofty ideas and messages, whereas Gunsmoke was just a dumb action show"? Really don't think I did.

When you attempt to imply that the main appeal of Star Trek was its being "more cerebral" than other TV shows at the time, the inevitable question is "compared to WHAT?" Comparing it to other Scifi of the 1960s is indeed an extremely low bar, and as science fiction has evolved over the years it is a comparison that is no longer meaningful.

But compared to other TV shows in a less experimental genre -- cop shows, daytime dramas, westerns, etc -- it's actually fairly unremarkable. And this is somewhat confirmed by the fact that the original run of TOS wasn't actually that popular and gained most of its viewership in syndication.

So it stands to reason the "issues-based social commentary" angle wasn't the show's appeal to begin with, as much as we have all learned to appreciate it over the years. On the contrary, Star Trek's main appeal has always been its character-driven narratives and personal chemistry of the actors in camera, their exploits, advntures, misadventures and fist fights (TOS had more fist fights than every other Star Trek series combined).

I don't see how that changes my point: that TOS was a show about those ideas, not action for action's sake.

Because it wasn't. It was a show about THESE CHARACTERS, and it told their stories with a dose of action, romance, humor and social commentary. All FOUR of those things were present to greater or lesser degree in various episodes. The moral message of the show wasn't the most or least important, it was just one element of many.

You could say it was the element that was most important TO YOU, but that's not the same thing as saying it was the element most important to everyone, and certainly not saying it was the element most important to the writers.

 

[Trekkin]

TOS is also a fairly unique looking show. You can see some similarities to other films and shows of that era, but it aesthetic is still very memorable and all its own. Anyone can see any few seconds of a TOS episode, and they'll know what show it is.

That probably helped it pull a few more viewers (especially younger ones) who were flicking channels during its syndication run. It's certainly part of how it managed to lodge so firmly in pop culture.

Unless the episode was set on an Earth-like-culture planet. Then it becomes a game of 'Where have I seen this set before?'

 

[stardream]

That probably helped it pull a few more viewers (especially younger ones) who were flicking channels during its syndication run. It's certainly part of how it managed to lodge so firmly in pop culture.

Yes. I was one of the 'younger viewers' who watched it during syndication. You can thank me later.

Seriously the reason we watched? We were a bunch of young teen-age girls and we thought Kirk and Chekov were cute (and we all loved Spock). Yes we were shallow.

As far as the messages behind the episodes...speaking for me personally at that time we were on the other end of the Civil Rights era. To see a black woman on the bridge wasn't anything groundbreaking. Why not? We were all going to school together now and had been since I was in the second grade. I had African American teachers. A Taste of Armageddon left much more of a lasting impression which is what happens when your brother is in Vietnam at the time. So the morals behind the story were pretty much hit and miss for me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why I watched the show changed as I grew up. As a kid in the late Sixties it was the aliens and action. Space ships and ray guns. As a teen in the 70s it was the "message". (and women in skimpy clothes) As an adult it was the characters and writing. And an older adult all those elements can come into play.

 

[T'Girl]

Not unlike Star Trek Into Darkness.

Darkness was a summer action movie disguised as a a summer action movie.

the inevitable question is "compared to WHAT?" Comparing it to other Scifi of the 1960s is indeed an extremely low bar

Don't think so, both Outer Limits and (more so) The Twilight Zone occasional had something to say beyond simple entertainment. Just like Star Trek.

 

[Franklin]

Why I watched the show changed as I grew up. As a kid in the late Sixties it was the aliens and action. Space ships and ray guns. As a teen in the 70s it was the "message". (and women in skimpy clothes) As an adult it was the characters and writing. And an older adult all those elements can come into play.

And I think that's the point with anything that can maintain a person's interest for decades. There are different layers of interest that can maintain an appeal to the product. My experience with TOS is pretty much the same. I think many fans go through some period where they give perhaps too much importance to the "message" part of the show. I know I did. And, I think a lot of tweens and teenage boys in the late 1960s and early 1970s appreciated the work of William Theiss. However, for me, the constant through the years was Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. They rank up there with the best characters ever created for TV. It's also always been a fun show to watch. Nice escapism into another world for an hour.

Hela has it right above, too. It had a unique look. It wasn't our fathers' westerns, even if it was one in spirit. That certainly was an attraction.

 

[Trekkin]

Not unlike Star Trek Into Darkness.

Darkness was a summer action movie disguised as a a summer action movie.

the inevitable question is "compared to WHAT?" Comparing it to other Scifi of the 1960s is indeed an extremely low bar

Don't think so, both Outer Limits and (more so) The Twilight Zone occasional had something to say beyond simple entertainment. Just like Star Trek.

Outer Limits (the original series) wasn't really what I'd call consistently great. IMO had some really good episodes that could beat Trek even at its best, but on average... I actually thought the 80's series was a bit better in that respect.

Twilight Zone nearly always had a moral of some kind, but it also spent a lot of its time not being science fiction. Maybe a dozen episodes out of 5 seasons, and a chunk of those were more speculative fiction (for eg. Time Enough at Last) than the space opera of Trek. Of the 'astronaut and aliens' variety, a lot of the most famous episodes didn't contain social commentary at all (To Serve Man, And The Sky Was Opened, The Invaders etc,) whilst well-done 'message' episodes like 'The Monsters Are Due...' are remembered because they were exceptional.

That's not a slight against TZ though. It was an anthology show after all. And those non-message episodes are good stories, they just weren't trying to change the world.