Defining the Series

[RyuRoots]

Those dismissing TOS as "cheesy" should be aware that this is very much from a 2010 perspective, NOT from when the show was new, and you should try not judging stuff from a "generationally chauvinistic" perspective.

No one here said they dismissed TOS. The topic was made for describing each show in a few words, which is what everyone so far has done. That aside, the time perspective isn't really relevant to the thread. I'd also like to add that the insinuation of someone generally liking newer shows MUST simply be heavily biased to things of their generation...just because they're from their generation is insulting at best.

Maybe you should go back and read some of the earlier posts:


"a cheesy OLD adventure show"
"crusty and POORLY-AGED"


their words, not mine, bringing in the time element-I can only assume they were referring to the effects, and "look" of the show, as well as some '60s attitudes that creep in. So, basically LIKE I WROTE, that's judging the show from the standards of today, not from the time when it was on, when it was a ground-breaking, daring, quality sci-fi show.

There's a lot of quality early television and film sci-fi that's going to get dismissed with attitudes like the ones expressed above .

First, the bolded point: No. I am not. I am referring to the writing, the stories, and the generally cheesy, outdated feel that permeates even the good episodes of the show. You can disagree, and that's fine. And...like I wrote, time is irrelevant. It's about how you feel about the show, so frankly I don't need to look at it from a 60's perspective in this context.

I have this opinion on TOS because I watched it. So...I'm going to dismiss shows after...I give them a chance?

 

[RegFan]

Those dismissing TOS as "cheesy" should be aware that this is very much from a 2010 perspective, NOT from when the show was new, and you should try not judging stuff from a "generationally chauvinistic" perspective.

No one here said they dismissed TOS. The topic was made for describing each show in a few words, which is what everyone so far has done. That aside, the time perspective isn't really relevant to the thread. I'd also like to add that the insinuation of someone generally liking newer shows MUST simply be heavily biased to things of their generation...just because they're from their generation is insulting at best.

Maybe you should go back and read some of the earlier posts:


"a cheesy OLD adventure show"
"crusty and POORLY-AGED"


their words, not mine, bringing in the time element-I can only assume they were referring to the effects, and "look" of the show, as well as some '60s attitudes that creep in. So, basically LIKE I WROTE, that's judging the show from the standards of today, not from the time when it was on, when it was a ground-breaking, daring, quality sci-fi show.

There's a lot of quality early television and film sci-fi that's going to get dismissed with attitudes like the ones expressed above .

I understand that TOS was made in the '60s, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is outdated and chauvinistic. Why exactly should I judge TOS by '60s standards? That was fifty years ago. I understand why many people love TOS, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it myself. I generally prefer the newer style of TV: serialized, dark, serious, realistic, mature and complex. So the bad special effects, the overall look of the show and the '60s values are not the only reasons I dislike TOS. Old TV shows can be good, but I generally prefer the newer ones. "A cheesy old adventure show" perfectly describes how I feel about TOS.

 

[sonak]

If you want to compare forty or fifty year old movies or shows to present-day shows or movies, and not expect to inevitably find the disconnect in social attitudes, style, special effects, etc. to color your perceptions then go ahead, I'm not going to convince you, I'm just some random poster on an internet message board.

But I would suggest that attitude is fundamentally unfair to what you're judging, since you can't expect works like TOS to be anything OTHER than products of their time. Expecting someone from 1966 to see how their show would compare to T.V. from 2010 is a ridiculous expectation. I love TOS for what it is-a serious sci-fi program that was groundbreaking for its time, when there wasn't much serious sci-fi on T.V.

 

[Anwar]

That's nonsense, if it all depended on present day values then lots of Shakespeare's works wouldn't be relevant anymore. Good stuff can be timeless.

 

[Char Aznable]

TOS: Groundbreaking, Fun mixed with danger.
TNG: Optimism, smug comfort in their place in the galaxy.
DS9: Previous show's optimistic view put to the test and exposed.
VOY: TNG if the show was severely beaten by a baseball bat and left braindamaged and ugly. Also tits.
ENT: Humans who don't know what the fuck they're doing until around the third or fourth year. Also tits.

 

[sonak]

That's nonsense, if it all depended on present day values then lots of Shakespeare's works wouldn't be relevant anymore. Good stuff can be timeless.

Right, but imagine if people reading Shakespeare today said "I just can't get into it, I mean no one talks like that, I can barely understand what it means. Why couldn't he have written his plays to sound like the way folks from California in 2010 would sound?"


I'm oversimplifying of course, but that's somewhat what the criticism of TOS sounds like to me.

 

[Hofner]

TOS: Steak and potatoes
TNG: Caviar
DS9: Shrimp gumbo
VOY: Old, slightly spoiled caviar
ENT: Big Mac

Or alternatively,

TOS: Cheddar
TNG: Swiss
DS9: Monterey Jack
VOY: Mozzarella
ENT: Cheeze-Whip


Robert

 

[Anwar]

I'm oversimplifying of course, but that's somewhat what the criticism of TOS sounds like to me.

Then you're not listening.

 

[sonak]

Right, because anyone who disagrees with you is just not understanding you correctly in the first place.