Can we not mention the Forrest Whitaker version? It's too depressing... 
Debunking TOS exceptionalism
- Thread starter A beaker full of death
- Start date
Can we not mention the Forrest Whitaker version? It's too depressing...
Sadly, I have to agree. But the eighties version is underrated. They did a lot of good stuff.
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.
True enough. I guess with two revival series and the motion picture and even the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror Disneyworld attraction, we might need to get Dennis to clarify what he meant by his comment "...without a major Hollywood studio having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in them as a 'franchise' for half a century...."
Agreed. Again, I was just pointing out that TOS wasn't the only intelligent, influential, iconic genre show way back when.
We can love Trek without putting it on a pedestal above everything else.
Last edited:
Oh, I quite agree. Franchise-ability is a good indicator but not the only one.
Justin
Can we not mention the Forrest Whitaker version? It's too depressing...
But wasn't that the one that did the sequel to It's a Good Life?
And we can love other shows without tearing Trek down. But a lot of fans of various other shows delight in taking shots at the big kid on the block.
That one was great It's Still a Good Life. I also enjoyed the one with the Dolls, despite Jessica Simpson being in it.Can we not mention the Forrest Whitaker version? It's too depressing...
But wasn't that the one that did the sequel to It's a Good Life?
Yeah, I've never seen the point in pitting Star Trek vs. Star Wars, or Marvel vs. DC or whatever. It's not like they're sports teams or something.
Can we not mention the Forrest Whitaker version? It's too depressing...
But wasn't that the one that did the sequel to It's a Good Life?
One diamond in a pile of dung.
All this TOS and DS9 bashing got me thinking it seems like a lot of people are obsessed with one or two series they like best for whatever reason and will not accept the others, like their going to be a major loser if his favorite series isn't being recognized as number 1. Why do that? Is there a need to really declare a winner, or the best, or the greatest, or the most epic out of all the shows? Is the need to hate really that important? How about every series is a winner, every series is the best, every series is the greatest, every series is epic, in its own setting and story background, how about that?
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who can watch all the series and find them all to be good, in their own way.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who can watch all the series and find them all to be good, in their own way.
Bleeding Heart liberals want to strip away all comeptition and make everyone a winner
I quite agree with you, I just don't understand. I used to have little appreciation for Enterprise S1 and S2, but, didn't go out of my way to bash it. I just rewatched the whole Series for the first time since first run, and have an all new appreciation for S1 and S2. Voyager, I stopped watching about half way through, and am now rewatching it for the first time since first run (up to S2Ep7) and I'm enjoying it as well, it's like having all new Space Opera to appreciate.
And unfortunately, it's not just Trek. My two favorite shows of all time are B5 and DS9, and still, after all this time, there are DS9 fans still carrying a grudge against B5, and Vice versa. IMHO, the fact they were on at the same time, and possibly/probably borrowed from each other, made them both better shows. Watching DS9 and B5 back to back on Wednesday Nights was the best Primetime ever.
I know, I know! It drove me nuts that everybody kept assuming it was inspired by the game, and not the original story and episode by Richard Matheson, on which the movie was actually based!
While that wasn't me (and in fact I rate DS9 well above the rest of modern trek), stop the personal crap. How many people have to ask??? Your comment contributes nothing to the conversation here. Just cut the shit already. Your most substantive comments throughout this thread amount to "Star Trek was primitive and silly and its actors were terrible." If you have nothing more to say, why are you here?
Tribble Herder
Lieutenant Commander
I think it's the "campy" comment. Star Trek was not particularly campy.
You want campy? Watch Batman. Or the third season of The Man From UNCLE. THAT'S campy.
You want campy? Watch Batman. Or the third season of The Man From UNCLE. THAT'S campy.
A Bekaer Full of Death reiterated what this thread was asking about:
So, the discussion does not seem to be about whether Star Trek has had substantial impact; the discussion does not seem to be about whether it has had the most impact; the discussion does not seem to be about whether Star Trek deserves the legacy it has achieved; the discussion does not seem to be about whether other shows in the franchise--or even altogether different shows--are deserving of some kind of legacy to some greater or lesser degree than Star Trek.
The discussion is intended to be about why Star Trek has the legacy (whatever that legacy actually is) that it has achieved--regardless of whether such a legacy is deserved or not, regardless of whether such a legacy is all that substantial or not.
(I think some people are going down the garden path of trying to opine whether Star Trek is deserving of its legacy or if other shows are actually more deserving--as if such a thing were objectively knowable. But if I'm reading correctly, the issue seems to actually be about why so many people seem to think Star Trek is so great--not whether they are justified to think that or not.)
Part of what set Star Trek apart was it's approach. On The surface it resembles shows like Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea and Lost In Space---straight-up action/adventure which would usually appeal to a broad audience of varying ages. But the way Star Trek was often written and executed was much more like The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone. Indeed a year or so ago I watched the original The Outer Limits and it's striking in stories and style how Star Trek and The Outer Limits are quite similar. Yet it isn't that surprising since both shows share some of the same creative talent both behind the scenes and even sometimes onscreen.
Roddenberry did have the idea of doing anthology like stories yet with recurring characters. I think this is another strength of the show that viewers could get drawn into stories because of good characters that were always there. They didn't have to get used to a whole new setting and group of characters every episode.
I agree this discussion is really why has Star Trek garnered such a legacy and not whether it's deserving or not.
Roddenberry did have the idea of doing anthology like stories yet with recurring characters. I think this is another strength of the show that viewers could get drawn into stories because of good characters that were always there. They didn't have to get used to a whole new setting and group of characters every episode.
I agree this discussion is really why has Star Trek garnered such a legacy and not whether it's deserving or not.
