If people didn't continue to watch it and syndication the channel that purchased the syndication package wouldn't have continued to show it for the next two decades.
Spoilers Does it feel to anyone else that SNW is cynically mining Trek's past glories?
- Thread starter zzz
- Start date
If people didn't continue to watch it and syndication the channel that purchased the syndication package wouldn't have continued to show it for the next two decades.
The main cast are the only characters a show is obligated to flesh out. That goes doubly so in the 1960s where fleshing out the supporting cast was rare to non-existent.
According to whom? Supporting characters can and should be fleshed out too
And even then, later series like DS9 by choosing to have more main characters and building them up across the series. I'm not sure how in any way what you're saying makes TOS better. I mean, how is being like all other 60s shows a plus?
The 1960s.
The 1960s.
60s television wasn't that great then
I'm still not sure how following outdated rules makes a show better.
No, not all of it. Just like todays.
Who's saying they should?
Sorry, I can't get past "more realistic/fleshed out aliens."
Yes, the later shows are more sophisticated and some of their values are more current. They had more money to spend. That doesn't make them better. They were more pretentious, less imaginative, conservative, overly formal and too often dull. They took themselves far too seriously for what they really accomplished.
Basic rules of television. The main cast are the ones the show is about, therefore they're the ones who should be getting the lion's share of the work.
They can, yes, but there's no requirement for them to be.
Likewise, I don't see how you saying TOS didn't fully utilize its supporting cast makes it bad.
It's not a plus or a negative, it's simply a fact. Contrary to popular belief, TOS's goal was not to reinvent the wheel. Roddenberry and the other writers and producers wanted to produce a show and hope that show found an audience who would come back week after week. They stuck to the formulas which worked at the time and a proven success rate.
Context. TOS was made in the 60s, it makes more sense to judge it by 60s standards rather than modern standards.
The people acting like TOS is peak trek from what I can gather
Sorry, I can't get past "more realistic/fleshed out aliens."
Yes, the later shows are more sophisticated and some of their values are more current. They had more money to spend. That doesn't make them better. They were more pretentious, less imaginative, conservative, overly formal and too often dull. They took themselves far too seriously for what they were really were.
None of that is true. Idk what you can't get past but DS9 actually made it's aliens more than just a planet of hat's (TNG is guilt of that too).
Honestly Idk what you're even tryng to say anymore. None of the other series were pretentious or lacked imagination. The Borg and the Changelings and even the Kelpiens are as imaginative as any TOS race
And how is TOS less conservative? DS9 and TNG and DSC all had characters from diverse backgrounds who were more than just tokense
I don't fully agree. Characters who show up enough should get fleshed out or else they're not much in the way of characters.
And this makes TOS better how?
I still don't get this can't criticize the past attitude. Things can improve. A lot of shows back then weren't great and I don't see why saying that is somehow bad to people here. I watch modern shows and I believe t.v. generally improved since then so I think judging TOS by modern standards is fair. That's how we improve
Thinking it's "peak Trek" doesn't mean returning to the 60s.
TNG is probably one of the more conservative Trek shows around. Hell, it might even by one of the more conservative TV shows in general. And it really didn't have much diversity in its cast. The only non-white human was Geordi, who isn't really a very well developed character. Indeed, most people either know him as "the guy with no eyes" or "the guy from Reading Rainbow."
Yeah it played it safe, even by 80's standards.
TNG was fun and thoughtful Trek (well, to a large extent) for its time but man, some of those '80s aspects of the series have aged even worse than some of the distinctive '60s traits exhibited by TOS. If TOS was the '60s boiled down into a Trek series then TNG was the Reagan '80s condensed into thick, rich morality plays and preachy action that today sometimes falls flat due to how stiff, septic and downright grating Picard could get.
I don't think anyone is saying that you can't be critical, but it is important to remember what time the show was produced in and to judge it in comparison to its contemporaries. This is similar to when sports fans try and compare athletes of today to athletes of the past. For example, Jim Thorpe wouldn't be fast nor quick enough for the NFL by today's standards. But in the era he played, he was one of the best. TOS has certainly dated by today's standards. But the show was WAY ahead of it's time compared to the westerns or spy shows that dominated that era. Speaking as someone who just recently did a re-watch of all three seasons, I think the majority of episodes still hold up well. I'd put City on the Edge of Forever or Balance of Terror up against anything that's on T.V today.
The question you should really ask yourself is what would TOS be like if Rodenberry and those writers was making it in today's time with all the advantages they never had: a large budget, cool effects, today's production values and a studio giving them free reign to tell whatever story they want? I think it would be one of the best shows on T.V. hands down.
On whether or not T.V as a whole has improved, I'd say production values have improved, but the rest leaves a lot to be desired.
Last edited:
TNG Season One is really hard to watch for me now. The constant "holier than thou" attitude of the characters is off putting and making Picard almost hate children is not a good look for the lead character of a show. Marina Sirtis's acting in that pilot is REALLY bad and the only thing interesting to me is the Q stuff, which was only added after the network demanded it to be turned into a two hour pilot. Without Q that pilot would have had no redeeming qualities to it. For me, it's easily the worse pilot of all the Trek shows.
When your sympathies are with Ralph Offenhouse and not Picard that tells you a lot.
People call TNG preachy, as if TOS didn't also have Kirk make speeches every other episode.
TOS was better and more effective at the preachiness. Call it the time during which it was made but message episodes and lectures from Captain Kirk on the morality of the issue of the week were executed more skillfully and with more joie de vivre and passion than Picard and his TNG shipmates were usually capable of. Both shows could be in-your-face and preachy as all get out but one just did it with more entertainment value and less smugness.
Kirk and Pike don't talk down to and patronize people of other cultures as frequently or to the degree that Picard routinely did. Kirk was able to see his own errors and shortcomings more clearly than Picard can (so does Pike).
