This pretty much sums it up. Fifty years later and we are still discussing it. Fifty years later and it's still bringing in new fans.
I like the spinoffs for the most part, but none of them have had the staying power of TOS. TNG comes closest.
Debunking TOS exceptionalism
- Thread starter A beaker full of death
- Start date
This pretty much sums it up. Fifty years later and we are still discussing it. Fifty years later and it's still bringing in new fans.
I like the spinoffs for the most part, but none of them have had the staying power of TOS. TNG comes closest.
You're proving my point. When was the last time you saw Man From UNCLE? Science Fiction Theater? Tales of Tomorrow? The Alcoa Hour? Goodyear Television Playhouse? And that's aside from the scores of radio shows so few have heard of.
Oh, I think TZ is still just as iconic as TOS is. Something weird happens, people hum the theme music. Just the other day, I was taking a cab to the airport and I happened to joke about seeing a monster on the wing of the plane. The driver, who was by no means a sci-fi geek, absolutely caught the reference.
TZ marathons still run regularly on Syfy. They run late-night every evening. There's talk of a new TZ movie. Rod Serling is arguably as celebrated as Roddenberry--and probably more recognizable to the average person on the street.
"Consider if you will: an overworked writer fooling around on a message board when he really should be finishing that project that's due next week . . . ."
I'm not talking Science Fiction Theater or Tales From Tomorrow here. I'm talking the freakin' Twilight Zone.
QFT... Just... every word here. My thanks for the articulate analysis.
Even if you're sniping with word-to-word quotes from an episode?
*hangs head in shame*
Magenta? On France Nuyen's eyes! Are you crazy? There's no magenta there:
So why all the inexplicable popularity of Star Trek? (Well, not inexplicaable; I bet it can be explained somehow.) My theory is that it might be something similar to why so many friggin' people shop at Wal-Mart. It's not really the high quality of the merchandise; there must be some other draw. In the case of Wal-Mart, I think it's a "one stop shop" that draws people. They want to go to just one place. Sure, you can get better food at Whole Foods, and better clothes at Banana Republic and nicer shoes at Florsheim, and better make-up at Max Factor, and better jewelry at Tiffany's, and better watches at Cartier's, and cooler appliances at The Sharper Image. But who really wants to run all over town? And when it comes time to decide "which store is the most popular," the fact that Wal-Mart probably wins actually isn't all that surprising.
In the case of Star Trek, I think it too is a matter of density of stuff to like and know--a one stop shop. Maybe for some people it's the cool (by 1960s standards) VFX. Maybe it's the cool matte paitings. Maybe it's the pretty cool music. Maybe it's the stories. Maybe it's the optimism. Maybe it's the exciting aliens--or the interesting make-up. Maybe it's the extraordinarily hot women--or even the reasonably hot guys. Maybe it's the acting--the extraordinary over-the-top Shakespearean and Shatnerian acting.
So now I'm thinking of gymnasts: they have to do a variety of events--floor ex, vault, uneven bars, parallel bars, balance beam, still rings, high bar, pommel horse. Any gymnast might be close to perfect at one event, but they probably won't be perfect in every event. Nevertheless, overall, someone is going to win the "all-around." Somene is going to have the best overall score even if they aren't necessarily the best in any one event (although they might indeed be the best at any one of the events, too, I suppose).
I think Star Trek is popular because it wins the all-around. Sure, Show A had better music, and Show B had better costumes, and Show C had better acting and Show D had better writring, and Show E had better VFX, and Show F had better cinematography, and Show G had better looking women, and Show H had better make-up, and Show I is the one that actually had the first interracial kiss. But I think Star Trek became as popular as it did because when you add up all the scores for all the elements, it wins the all-around. It gets a score of 9 on everything, but on all those Shows that got the score of 10, all their other elements were 2s. So unless you want to go ala carte and start rejoicing in the great matte paintings of "Lost In Space" but the music of "The Invaders," but the writing of "The Twilight Zone," but the costumes of "Space: 1999," but the aliens of "The Outer Limits," but the interracial kissing of "I Love Lucy," (which people do and which isn't all that bad an idea), you can just hail Star Trek as being pretty decent in all the categories and kill lots of birds with one Star Trek-ian stone.
Just to be clear: I'm not advocating that people should think in terms of an "all-around" winner instead of rejoicing in the winners of a myriad different production elements. That's just my explanation for why I think Star Trek has the popularity it enjoys: one stop shopping that wins the all-around.
If it weren't Star Trek that wins the all-around, what would it be? What is the show that people should actually be discussing 45 years later?
An interesting theory!
But you ducked the big question: which show had the hottest women?
That's just it, most people in the thread agree with that to some extent. Star Trek was not exactly the best thing to come out of that era ( or any era) yet it has endured in a way other show have not. Yet you seem to be stuck on what one (IIRC) person said who took the opposite opinion.
I think Serling is heads and shoulders above Roddenberry on most counts. He, like Hitchcock became a TV personality because he was part on the on screen presence of his show. But I'm not sure TZ has had quite the cultural impact that Star Trek has. The name means something in most creative circles/environments and there are certain lines and scenes that resonate with fans and "muggles" but not at the level of Star Trek.
Good to know that SyFy is still showing the Twilight Zone. I thought they were mostly reality shows these days. Horrible time slot though. ( I checked)
Still, not bad for a fifty-year-old, black-and-white TV show. And, like I said, Syfy runs day-long marathons now and then.
Honestly it's probably 50/50 as to whether Trek or TZ is the most iconic or durable. They're both enduring TV classics. It just struck me as odd that people kept forgetting TZ or, worse, dismissing it as some forgotten relic from the past.
It was like reading an article on classic Hollywood films that kept ignoring Casablanca.
The point is not that the Star Trek wasn't all that. It was. It's just that it was hardly the only game in town.
Last edited:
When I started watching Star Trek in 1970 it's like a light of sorts came on. It was so different from most everything else I was then familiar with. And it stayed that way for a very long time afterward. Since I've seen a lot of stuff come and go and every so often I look at Star Trek and see a little something I had somehow missed before or perhaps even forgotten and I'm still impressed.
I know it's not perfect and I can see some of the misses, but I still bristle when I find someone being unfairly critical or dismissive about the show. I might not respond as I might have when I was younger, but I still feel it.
It's hard to pin down exactly what it is, but I do feel Star Trek was something cut of a different cloth from most other television programming. Something different was coming through. And rarely have I seen that elusive something in other shows since.
Maybe, as has been said already upthread, it isn't any one thing about the show, but rather a combination, a culmination of varied elements that gave the show it's uniqueness.
Was it groundbreaking? Yes, I think so in ways thats challenging to define. Was it exceptional? Yes, but not in the way some people perceive it. It was exceptional because it became so prevalent and influential in so many direct and indirect ways. And it's exceptional in that it's so well remembered and passionately discussed while so much else stands in its shadow whether they too are remembered or not.
I know it's not perfect and I can see some of the misses, but I still bristle when I find someone being unfairly critical or dismissive about the show. I might not respond as I might have when I was younger, but I still feel it.
It's hard to pin down exactly what it is, but I do feel Star Trek was something cut of a different cloth from most other television programming. Something different was coming through. And rarely have I seen that elusive something in other shows since.
Maybe, as has been said already upthread, it isn't any one thing about the show, but rather a combination, a culmination of varied elements that gave the show it's uniqueness.
Was it groundbreaking? Yes, I think so in ways thats challenging to define. Was it exceptional? Yes, but not in the way some people perceive it. It was exceptional because it became so prevalent and influential in so many direct and indirect ways. And it's exceptional in that it's so well remembered and passionately discussed while so much else stands in its shadow whether they too are remembered or not.
Considering that Twilight Zone - and Serling himself - are still widely recognized by the public and in popular culture without a major Hollywood studio having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in them as a "franchise" for half a century I think TZ's doing pretty well. 
Considering that Twilight Zone - and Serling himself - are still widely recognized by the public and in popular culture without a major Hollywood studio having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in them as a "franchise" for half a century I think TZ's doing pretty well.
...although TZ is evidently not doing so well that a major Hollywood studio has been interested in investing hundreds of millions of dollars in it as a "franchise" for half a century.
To be fair, that could be a case of how complicated the rights are. Paramount flat out owned Star Trek once Roddenberry sold his interest, so they could do whatever they wanted with it. The same may not be true about TZ. That said, TZ also already had one major motion picture and a revival series, so it's hardly untouched.Considering that Twilight Zone - and Serling himself - are still widely recognized by the public and in popular culture without a major Hollywood studio having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in them as a "franchise" for half a century I think TZ's doing pretty well.
...although TZ is evidently not doing so well that a major Hollywood studio has been interested in investing hundreds of millions of dollars in it as a "franchise" for half a century.
Yes, there was a lot of good stuff. And quite a bit of it is remembered although more in terms of core devotees I'd say. I can think of very little, other than Twilight Zone, that is as well remembered, or perhaps better as well recognized as Star Trek.
I think many focus too much on the glitz of transporters and other technology, aliens, and effects. Those alone would make the show indistinguishable from Lost in Space which had comparable designs as far as that goes. Trek stands out from much other sci fi of the period due to the actors, as well as the stories being about the cast facing the crises, especially in the first season. Moreover, the production crew kept to a high degree of quality in their work which made the show's world come to life. Twilight Zone and Outer Limits share much of those same qualities which allows the shows an extensive after life that many other shows of the period do not share on such a scale as Trek.
Actually, there were two revival series. One back in the late eighties and another more recently . . . .
