So very well said. And, as far as I'm concerned, many of the effects and much of the design hold up quite well.
Fans, why do you like TOS?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
So very well said. And, as far as I'm concerned, many of the effects and much of the design hold up quite well.
I suppose everybody has their own reasons... Mine seem awfully tied up in circumstance that I doubt anyone born after 1973 could possibly understand.
Starting before I was born, in the fifties, the United States cultural consciousness turned to the atom and the Space Age. It was a craze, something young pups can't really latch onto fully - you'd really have to have lived through it, or have something similar today to compare it to.
Human Beings were leaving the Earth. It was like.. new Columbus. Mercury. Gemini. Telstar. Sputnik. That first line in Star Trek - "The Final Fronteer" - really meant something back then. To put this in some kind of perspective, Wild Bill Hickock's "Wild West Shows" were only 18 years older at the time than TOS Star Trek is now: we went from Bows and Arrows to Spaceships in a little over fifty years.
And yes - you need to be at least fifty years old, or close to it, to appreciate how short a time that really is.
The earliest television broadcasts were filled with space adventures. "Space Patrol" ran from 1950-1954, with episodes six days a week and two radio shows, along with a series of comic books. "Tom Corbett, Space Cadet" ran from '50-'55, with television and radio shows, comic books, a regular book series, viewmaster reels... I could give you a whole run-down of the decade, but you'll have to wait for that - it's in the works elsewhere.
"Star Trek" was for the children of the kids who came up with that culture. We were the Apollo Age - we weren't only going up, we were actually going there - Man on the Moon, going "where no man had gone before." The entire country was as batty about space travel as the members of this board are with the "Star Trek" franchise.
We had few options; "Lost in Space" which, towards the end of its run in 1968 dealt with Buddy Hackett (an old-time famous comedian - think Jim Carrey) in a carrot suit rebelling against vegetables being eaten, Hells Angel bikers on space motorcycles, and Hippies that turned the cast into beaded, slang-talking, pony-dancing stereotypes.
And then there was "Star Trek."
At six-ten years old, with an Apollo rocket on the pad and the moon in our grasp, this was our future - what we could be. We were perhaps the last true innocent generation, pre-Watergate, pre-Vietnam backlash; America was the shining light, fighting for freedom, and Kirk's forays past the prime directive made sense to us - we're fixing you for your own good.
At the same time, it was not a perfect age. As Nichelle Nicholes is quick to point out, Uhura was the first black person some of us saw on TV. And, for those of us young enough, it made perfect sense. A lot of that stuff seen today as hokem shot into our brains like silver back then. When us kids watched Kirk lecture Bele and Lokai (the half-black/half-white guys) that they were essentially the same, and all their hate was doing was destroying each other, we didn't know who Martin Luther King was, why he died or what he did one year earlier... but we Knew kirk was right. And that carried forward with us.
As we got older, what the show held became richer for us - we grew into it, not out of it. Some shows we discarded, of course. But many became object lessons in a rapidly changing and disintegrating world. Nixon was thrown out of the highest office in the land, the police were shooting at protesters... but the brightness we had as kids, and the lessons we grew into from the show as we understood it with maturing minds made it more... special, more singular to our experience, and more precious when it was taken off the air.
Sometimes, what you get from something is its ful worth. Sometimes, its what you put into it. There was no replacement for "Star Trek." From 1969 until the late-seventies, there was nothing on TV for space-opera fans. So we made it ourselves. Thousands of fanzines cropped up with new Star Trek stories. Conventions sprung up around the country. It was the Internet, by pony express. If you haven't lived before the Internenet, you can't grasp the enormity of effort put forth by the fans to keep the show alive past its time. A little knot of fans in Ohio would type up their own stories, run off 100 copies, and mail them across the country. Another knot in Pennsylvania would whip up their own, crank 'em out on a mimeo machine, and send them out. A group of fans created a clearing house of fans, for fans, so you could find these fanzines and fan clubs. No corporate funding. No sponsorship. In the end, this net of steel, this bond of determmination and love got the United States first Space Shuttle named "Enterprise."
Why do I love Star Trek? Because it entertained me when I was young, taught me when I was older, and I and my thousands and thousands of unknown friends kept it alive when it was dead to everyone else. Until the rest of you caught up. We've been through death and life together.
The crew got older; we got older. And then they retired, in "The Undiscovered Country." and so did I.
But then... I had a son. And he is ten. And He now plays with a phaser instead of a lightsaber. And he wants to be Captain Kirk. And he thinks the whole hokey action thing is the best thing since sliced bread. I don't know if this new Trek will teach him like the old one taught me - I hope so. But gallivanting around the galaxy is a game for the young, and I'm glad he's got his chance to sign on with the best, most storied, hardest fought-for crew in the history of Science Fiction.
Starting before I was born, in the fifties, the United States cultural consciousness turned to the atom and the Space Age. It was a craze, something young pups can't really latch onto fully - you'd really have to have lived through it, or have something similar today to compare it to.
Human Beings were leaving the Earth. It was like.. new Columbus. Mercury. Gemini. Telstar. Sputnik. That first line in Star Trek - "The Final Fronteer" - really meant something back then. To put this in some kind of perspective, Wild Bill Hickock's "Wild West Shows" were only 18 years older at the time than TOS Star Trek is now: we went from Bows and Arrows to Spaceships in a little over fifty years.
And yes - you need to be at least fifty years old, or close to it, to appreciate how short a time that really is.
The earliest television broadcasts were filled with space adventures. "Space Patrol" ran from 1950-1954, with episodes six days a week and two radio shows, along with a series of comic books. "Tom Corbett, Space Cadet" ran from '50-'55, with television and radio shows, comic books, a regular book series, viewmaster reels... I could give you a whole run-down of the decade, but you'll have to wait for that - it's in the works elsewhere.
"Star Trek" was for the children of the kids who came up with that culture. We were the Apollo Age - we weren't only going up, we were actually going there - Man on the Moon, going "where no man had gone before." The entire country was as batty about space travel as the members of this board are with the "Star Trek" franchise.
We had few options; "Lost in Space" which, towards the end of its run in 1968 dealt with Buddy Hackett (an old-time famous comedian - think Jim Carrey) in a carrot suit rebelling against vegetables being eaten, Hells Angel bikers on space motorcycles, and Hippies that turned the cast into beaded, slang-talking, pony-dancing stereotypes.
And then there was "Star Trek."
At six-ten years old, with an Apollo rocket on the pad and the moon in our grasp, this was our future - what we could be. We were perhaps the last true innocent generation, pre-Watergate, pre-Vietnam backlash; America was the shining light, fighting for freedom, and Kirk's forays past the prime directive made sense to us - we're fixing you for your own good.
At the same time, it was not a perfect age. As Nichelle Nicholes is quick to point out, Uhura was the first black person some of us saw on TV. And, for those of us young enough, it made perfect sense. A lot of that stuff seen today as hokem shot into our brains like silver back then. When us kids watched Kirk lecture Bele and Lokai (the half-black/half-white guys) that they were essentially the same, and all their hate was doing was destroying each other, we didn't know who Martin Luther King was, why he died or what he did one year earlier... but we Knew kirk was right. And that carried forward with us.
As we got older, what the show held became richer for us - we grew into it, not out of it. Some shows we discarded, of course. But many became object lessons in a rapidly changing and disintegrating world. Nixon was thrown out of the highest office in the land, the police were shooting at protesters... but the brightness we had as kids, and the lessons we grew into from the show as we understood it with maturing minds made it more... special, more singular to our experience, and more precious when it was taken off the air.
Sometimes, what you get from something is its ful worth. Sometimes, its what you put into it. There was no replacement for "Star Trek." From 1969 until the late-seventies, there was nothing on TV for space-opera fans. So we made it ourselves. Thousands of fanzines cropped up with new Star Trek stories. Conventions sprung up around the country. It was the Internet, by pony express. If you haven't lived before the Internenet, you can't grasp the enormity of effort put forth by the fans to keep the show alive past its time. A little knot of fans in Ohio would type up their own stories, run off 100 copies, and mail them across the country. Another knot in Pennsylvania would whip up their own, crank 'em out on a mimeo machine, and send them out. A group of fans created a clearing house of fans, for fans, so you could find these fanzines and fan clubs. No corporate funding. No sponsorship. In the end, this net of steel, this bond of determmination and love got the United States first Space Shuttle named "Enterprise."
Why do I love Star Trek? Because it entertained me when I was young, taught me when I was older, and I and my thousands and thousands of unknown friends kept it alive when it was dead to everyone else. Until the rest of you caught up. We've been through death and life together.
The crew got older; we got older. And then they retired, in "The Undiscovered Country." and so did I.
But then... I had a son. And he is ten. And He now plays with a phaser instead of a lightsaber. And he wants to be Captain Kirk. And he thinks the whole hokey action thing is the best thing since sliced bread. I don't know if this new Trek will teach him like the old one taught me - I hope so. But gallivanting around the galaxy is a game for the young, and I'm glad he's got his chance to sign on with the best, most storied, hardest fought-for crew in the history of Science Fiction.
That whole post was a great read.
I was born in 1974, but I understand at least enough of what you are saying, even though I didn't live through the pre-Nam era.
Great post.
Bri
Because it's imaginative, smart, meaningful, funny, witty, timeless, has wonderful characters you could always relate to, combined with a perfect bunch of actors, and the ship's a real beauty; because it created a world from scratch with saltshakers and a lot of fancy and without banking on a million dollar budget, because I fell in love with the guys when I was a kid and because they've accompanied me ever since...
It's just...the real thing.
It's just...the real thing.
Well said, Basil!
Hey perigee: Awesome post! I'm 39 so I of ageneration's remove from what you describe but I remember how, when I was working at Borders and facing my 25th birthday, I bought a ton of TOS episodes on VHS that had been remaindered at dirt-cheap prices. As I walked out of the store with my huge bag o' adventure, I realized why Trek was still special: When I was a kid, it made me feel grown-up; when I was supposedly "grown-up," it made me feel like a kid. That's magic.
Someone upthread meantioned something I can relate to. I was born in '59 and also grew up in the "space age." As a child a lot of the social issues happening at the time were something like a murmuring undercurrent while I was growing up. I discovered TOS in 1970 at the age of 11. Initially it was the cool spaceships, the costumes, the aliens and the adventure that got me. But I had an inquiring mind and something else was drawing me to Star Trek and away from more simplistic sci-fi.
Star Trek proved to be multilayered because as I grew up I learned to appreciate so many other aspects of it that had largely eluded me before. And the cool stuff I'd fallen in love with came to mean so much more because of all the other substantive things that surrounded them.
Star Trek proved to be multilayered because as I grew up I learned to appreciate so many other aspects of it that had largely eluded me before. And the cool stuff I'd fallen in love with came to mean so much more because of all the other substantive things that surrounded them.
Outside of the fact that I was raised on Star Trek (my father was a big Trek fan), as a child I enjoyed the bright colors and at the time the cool looking special effects. It was visually unlike anything else on tv at the time. As I grew older I began to enjoy the camaraderie between the characters, and to experience the feeling of exploring the unknown that the show provided. I also began to appreciate the moral and social issues that many episodes presented. As a young adult I would watched the show and enjoy the not so subtle stunt doubles, sometimes cheap sets and cheesy effects. Now as a middle-aged man I enjoy the show for all the above reasons. It's a multi-faceted entertainment experience. No matter how many times I have seen these shows I can still sit down and enjoy them.
Finally a post that completely answers my particular like for the show as it was..and as the movie has made it..
Now my Step daughter is a casual fan, my 20 year old son is now a casual fan..my 16 year old son is a major fan..and my youngest son (13) is a rabid Trekkie..
Does JJ's universe appeal to me like TOS did in 1966?..not so much..but it has rich characters with the potental of huge epic storylines..after all this is the set-up for a re-boot of the franchise..I certainly hope that it can be as rewarding to my children as TOS was to me..
A teenager at the high school where I work came to me gushing about how much she's enjoying TOS thanks to this new movie. She said she never imagined she'd dig the old show. So there' that and that's a lot.
As with a number of posters, I encountered Trek as a child - I was interested in astronomy and space travel and loved the show. At the time it was the believability of it all - the Enterprise really seemed like a working space ship. As I grew older, I realised that it wouldn't actually be like that, but that hasn't diminished my enjoyment of it.
I also really liked the Enterprise design. The is something very attractive (to me anyway) in Matt Jefferies Enterprise. I always looked forward to episodes where the Enterprise encountered its sister ships, regardless of the rest of the story.
The characters are interesting, particularly when Spock and McCoy snipe at each other - they are allowed to argue, something you don't see much in the later Treks.
Particularly in the first half of the first season, you get a feeling of the community of people aboard the Enterprise - the bits with Riley spring to mind and show this well.
Finally, there are a number of good SF story episodes, a number of fun ones and some good "issue" stories.
I also really liked the Enterprise design. The is something very attractive (to me anyway) in Matt Jefferies Enterprise. I always looked forward to episodes where the Enterprise encountered its sister ships, regardless of the rest of the story.
The characters are interesting, particularly when Spock and McCoy snipe at each other - they are allowed to argue, something you don't see much in the later Treks.
Particularly in the first half of the first season, you get a feeling of the community of people aboard the Enterprise - the bits with Riley spring to mind and show this well.
Finally, there are a number of good SF story episodes, a number of fun ones and some good "issue" stories.
I love the original Enterprise because it manages to be space art without looking as if it is trying to be space art. The refit is too pretty, with its art deco flourishes and glowing main deflector (don't get me wrong, I adore the refit; I've long said that the original Enterprise is the sexy librarian before she lets down her hair and whips off her glasses while the refit is the sexy librarian after--thing is, I always liked the librarian better with her hair up and galsses on).
I think the strength of the stories and general quality put into it are what sell it for me, which still shine through the oft-mentioned limitations of a forty-year-old show. I mean, really, it's a classic. Sure, it's sometimes a bit cheesy, but myself I still like cheese. But when it's not, it's epic.
It really is the Shakespeare of sci-fi.
It really is the Shakespeare of sci-fi.
One part Shakespeare, two parts Buster Crabbe, I always say.
I to be pedantic... but that was Stanley Adams in the carrot suit. Great post, though.
I'd say, one part Shakespeare, one part Buster Crabbe, one part western.
^One part Horatio Hornblower, too, but yeah, that's it.
I am always attracted to shows/movies/books that have interesting characters that are very likable. I find that TOS has some of the best characters ever and pretty much all of them are likable. I like the humour, the intelligence, the originality.
Two things come to mind. People often say it's characters that draw them to a show, and I don't doubt them. But what makes the characters interesting?
For me it's characters doing or involved in interesting things. One big reason I love TOS is similar to why I enjoy Law & Order. L&O uses criminal cases to explore interesting ideas just as Star Trek uses science fiction to explore interesting ideas.
For me the potential of these characters is realized in watching them deal with these ideas each in their own ways.
The cool stuff (the window dressing of science fiction) makes the ideas even more interesting. And in turn the real world ideas often make the cool stuff more credible and subsequently even more cool.
Another element is in the aesthetic sense. In its time TOS made an effort to look far future, something that (I admit my bias) I think it still has a veneer of. This idea was built upon in TMP. But to a large extent I feel this has been abandoned with each successive Trek incarnation, with some exception in TNG. Each new version seems more like next week's tech rather than far future science in looks and overall feel. I also liked how TOS could be light and dark depending on what they wanted from a story. But in later Treks it was predominantly one way or the other with little variation.
For me it's characters doing or involved in interesting things. One big reason I love TOS is similar to why I enjoy Law & Order. L&O uses criminal cases to explore interesting ideas just as Star Trek uses science fiction to explore interesting ideas.
For me the potential of these characters is realized in watching them deal with these ideas each in their own ways.
The cool stuff (the window dressing of science fiction) makes the ideas even more interesting. And in turn the real world ideas often make the cool stuff more credible and subsequently even more cool.
Another element is in the aesthetic sense. In its time TOS made an effort to look far future, something that (I admit my bias) I think it still has a veneer of. This idea was built upon in TMP. But to a large extent I feel this has been abandoned with each successive Trek incarnation, with some exception in TNG. Each new version seems more like next week's tech rather than far future science in looks and overall feel. I also liked how TOS could be light and dark depending on what they wanted from a story. But in later Treks it was predominantly one way or the other with little variation.
Last edited:
Born in '67 and feel some of what Perigee posted. My first serious crush was Mr. Spock! What I loved about the show was that the assumptions they began with were often not what was expected - and the outcomes equally surprising. I loved seeing faces that were not white (sorry) like mine. And I loved the friendship and comeraderie between the big three. I still love the idea that in spite of ourselves humanity can someday be someone others look to for inspiration and with a desire to emulate. I finally love that Trek was about our better natures getting the better of us!
There we go!
I'd say that's dead-on. I like L&O, too, for those same reasons.
While I don't fully concur that the latter-Treks felt "next week," I can still appreciate the perspective. It makes me think about what I read in TMoST about the studio being so annoyed that Roddenberry and company were spending so much time designing and researching for "The Cage," to which Roddenberry replied something like "if we don't spend a lot of time on it, then it won't be believable and the audience won't bit." It's possible that the bottom line later got in the way of such things.
Similar threads
