Are you a purist?

[Warped9]

Simple question. Are you a purist when it comes to Star Trek?

There really isn't a right or wrong answer. Indeed, you might still be considered a purist if you think TNG is the be-all-and-end-all of Trek.

My signature basically illustrates my perspective although there have been things in TNG and DS9 that I've liked in terms of ideas and individual episodes.

Anyone?

 

[Shatmandu]

Simple question. Are you a purist when it comes to Star Trek?

Nope.

I take the good, I take the bad, I take them both, and there I have: Star Trek.

Joe, tooting

 

[Nerys Myk]

What means "purist"? Star Trek was/is always evolving. Even in TOS, The Cage is different than WNMHGB and both are different than the series. Each TOS producer had a different take.The characters changed too as the actors and writers "experimented". I guess in its "purist" form Star Trek is the Cage. So no, I'm not a purist.

 

[Doomsday]

I know you want a simple answer, but I guess my answer sort of depends on how you define "purist".

I've often referred to myself as a purist, because classic Trek has always been my favorite Trek, since I became a fan during the original run of the show.

However, I have greatly enjoyed most of TNG and DS9, and disliked most of VOY and ENT.

So since I do accept and appreciate at least two of the later series, many fans may consider that I'm not a purist, if by that you mean someone who ONLY accepts TOS.

Having said that, most of what I like about TNG and DS9 tends to be the eps that most remind me of the flavor of TOS, and they lose me when they try to be the Un-TOS.

How's that for a simple answer?

 

[Cakes488]

Honey child I haven't been pure about anything since AT LEAST the early 80's....

But seriously, I understand where you're coming from....and I am a bit of a purist because when I think of Star Trek there is only one incarnation that readily comes to mind, I was shocked to learn that is not the case for everybody.....call me silly (and a slew of other names) but I was surprised that people liked DS9 on it's own (etc...) and that they'd never even seen TOS...SHOCKED I TELL YOU...as you see it ain't too hard to shock me.

So on one hand I am and then on the other I'm not since I do want Trek to survive in some way, some form....because if it survives then we at least have a chance that the next gen will view TOS which in my opinion will always be the best show that was ever produced for TV.

I also feel they could of left off right where TOS stopped...I didn't see a need to go back to the beginning...but for some reason they didn't consult me and here we have the finished product...

I will say one thing Warped to help quell your fears...I read a shitload of reviews last night on the subway and most of them were positive and there will be a lot of "inside jokes/references" in there for us. NO DOUBT there's gonna be things we don't like -- but after reading these reviews I really feel a lot lot better about what they are doing (manipulating) to my....TO OUR ....beloved Star Trek.

 

[Ronald Held]

How do you define purist? For all of Trek or TOS?

 

[Kelso]

I'm a half-hearted purist.

I think Star Trek went to shit after The Menagerie and very rarely regained its previous brilliance.

I'm perfectly willing to watch and enjoy post-Menagerie Trek, however... up to and including the new movie.

 

[Shatmandu]

I want to amend my answer.

I'm a realist. Things change.

Plus, what's "pure" Trek?

If you mean "perfect" Trek, then there are around two dozen episodes out of the several hundred Trek hours out there that I think would constitute "perfect" Trek. And you can bet your ass not all of them are TOS.

Joe, really

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

Star Trek, for me, is the Trek I watched in the 70s and early 80s. TOS, TAS, and the movies up to TWOK. Once Nimoy took over the movies they went downhill for me.

TNG was fun for a while, but it, and Captain By-The-Book Picard, got old fast. But even with the preachiness it still had some fine moments, The Offspring and The Inner Light come to mind.

DS9 never caught on with me when it aired. Felt too much like a B5 rip-off. Probably not fair to call it that, but that's the way I felt at the time. I've since developed a greater appreciation for the show.

VOY was something I sampled briefly, and soon found it to be vomit inducing. The less said about it the better.

ENT was the show I had such high hopes for, only to have them destroyed week after week. Good premise that was so poorly executed it was heart-breaking.

I have the same response to Abrams Abomination. This could have been wonderful, instead Abrams decided to shit all over my childhood.

So I guess you could say that when it comes to TOS, yes, I am a purist. I'm willing to give other Star Trek interpretations a try, but when it comes to TOS: Do it right, or don't do it all!

 

[T'Bonz]

Sometimes I miss the days when it was just original Star Trek.

On the other hand, I've seen fantastic eps of other Trek. And I can't be sorry for that.

So I guess I'm not really a purist. Besides, as I told my Mom, time marches on. You either adapt accordingly or get left behind.

I have my fingers crossed that the new movie is good. If it isn't, well, it'll go into the mental dustbin along with "The Cloud Minders," "The Way To Eden," "Plato's Stepchildren," and other Trek duds like most of the first season of TNG, several bad DS9 eps, "Threshold" (We turn into LIZARDS when evolving while all others turn into powerful spirit-light beings?) "Endgame," and far too many Enterprise episodes, like "A Night in Sickbay," and the finale of the series.

 

[ChristopherPike]

I've always taken purist to mean TOS only. No films or TNG onwards. I seem to recall a British comedian denying the existence of even the 3 (at that time) films. Choosing to swear by just 79 episodes instead.

Me? Not really. Hell, I loved ENT from day one and still watch it now, back-to-back with TOS Remastered.

When your opinion differs from whatever's currently popular, it's amazing how many labels you'll collect.

 

[Gary7]

I'm a realist. Things change.

Plus, what's "pure" Trek?

If you mean "perfect" Trek, then there are around two dozen episodes out of the several hundred Trek hours out there that I think would constitute "perfect" Trek. And you can bet your ass not all of them are TOS.

Agreed. "Purist" is too vague. It's all a matter of perspective. Some people would say TOS is "pure" Star Trek and everything else is an imitation. Others may even go so far as to pick apart TOS on the basis of writers, directors, and producers for what would be considered the "pure" form. Or even go so far as to say it's anything that keeps within Gene's "vision".

I'm with Joe. A realist. I prefer episodes to be accurate and consistent. But the whole premise of Star Trek is free to evolve. That's the whole point!

Now, if you're asking about purity on account of the impending movie... that's a whole other can o' worms.

 

[Gary7]

I have the same response to Abrams Abomination. This could have been wonderful, instead Abrams decided to shit all over my childhood.

Duncan, have you seen it? If not... then it's a bit premature to say something like this. Remember--this is a variation, an "alternate timeline". It's not going to be some serious upheaval to the Star Trek world. There's a very good chance no series will be made on the Abrams version. And although there will very likely be a sequel, who knows if it'll end there? Abrams can't catch up to the universe of Star Trek already established. At best, all he can be is a "Star Trek Impressionist."

 

[Hober Mallow]

I like some of the spinoffs, but to me those are Rick Berman/Michael Piller/Brannon Braga productions. They aren't Star Trek. There is only one Star Trek.

That said, I want to see Star Trek revised, and I hope the Abrams movie is good and does just that. I hope with this movie they've brought real Star Trek back and made it relevent again.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

I don't think it should be a great sacrilege to say that TNG surpassed the original show. TOS had a lot of constraints budget wise and editorial wise that I think Roddenberry was able to overcome when he started up the new show. With a network behind it TNG was able to build something really special the kind of thing that the makers of TOS had always wanted to do. And when Roddenberry proved to be getting a little too out of touch with the modern world good people(well mostly) were put in place to carry on his vision, but update it. I remember not watching TNG when it first came out because I didn't like the idea of a new show calling itself Star Trek. One of the things I think TNG did well, even if unwittingly, was to put the original show in a kind of historical context. TOS came to be seen as more of the frontier era of space exploration for Earth. Besides Star Trek is almost unique in its position as a media empire. It has spun into something much, much larger than the original show and I don't think that is a bad thing.

 

[True Trek Fan]

I don't know if I am a Purist but I do have a problem when some TOS episodes referencing Imperial measurements rather than the Metric System. I mean come on, this show is based in the future after all, in a united earth vessel, who the hell uses Imperial measures 200 years from now? You would have thought the original script writes would have been told by Gene only use Metric!

 

[lawman]

...I've often referred to myself as a purist, because classic Trek has always been my favorite Trek, since I became a fan during the original run of the show.

However, I have greatly enjoyed most of TNG and DS9, and disliked most of VOY and ENT.

So since I do accept and appreciate at least two of the later series, many fans may consider that I'm not a purist, if by that you mean someone who ONLY accepts TOS.

Having said that, most of what I like about TNG and DS9 tends to be the eps that most remind me of the flavor of TOS, and they lose me when they try to be the Un-TOS.

How's that for a simple answer?

Damn near perfect, IMHO. At least, it echoes what I would say myself. (Except that I'm not quite old enough to have watched the original run of TOS... but I did start with syndication pre-TMP.)

TOS established the template by which all later Trek is judged. Some of it measures up; much of it doesn't. Simple as that.

 

[Iowagirl]

I think I'm a TOS purist, 'cos I never got into the spin-offs; never could relate to them. For me, only Kirk/Spock/McCoy and the rest of the glorious bunch matter. But I've also come to like the films - I-VI, that is...

 

[Valin]

Am I a Star Trek purist? The only Trek series that I think of as "Star Trek" is the original one.

That being said, there were many episodes of TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT that I've enjoyed. To me, however, they aren't "Star Trek." They don't have that ST "feel" to them.

I am looking forward to the movie. I'll give it a chance.

 

[number6]

I'm a purist in the sense that each incarnation of Star Trek has to uphold certain principles of what it is to be Star Trek. The fun in watching each incarnation is to see how the writers and producers do this and what they bring to the table in doing so, to help the Trek universe evolve.

And for Star Trek to continue to exist and entertain it too must evolve and grow with its audience, while still retaining its core: The exploration of the Human Condition.

As long as the writers and producers retain this basic message as part of the formula, Star Trek will continue to flourish and I will continue to enjoy watching it.