Is TOS the best sci-fi TV American series until 1985?

[Harvey]

1994 was not some ancient period of your so-called "myths" about ST, otherwise, the same book's chapter about other possible Enterprise captains (Jack Lord and Lloyd Bridges among them) should be disregarded as myth in the present day...despite the fact they were documented considerations still accepted as fact.

CBS and Paramount continue to propagate myths about the series in promotional materials. Just take a look at a book like Star Trek 365 (2010). It's a nicely illustrated book, with some good material in it, but that doesn't stop it from simply quoting Roddenberry's debunked accounts of certain things (i.e. Number One's elimination from the first pilot).

I don't get your second point. Because the book has things in it that aren't true (like the demographic story) it can't have things in it that are true (like Jack Lord and Lloyd Bridges being considered for the role of Robert April/Christopher Pike)? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

1994 was not some ancient period of your so-called "myths" about ST, otherwise, the same book's chapter about other possible Enterprise captains (Jack Lord and Lloyd Bridges among them) should be disregarded as myth in the present day...despite the fact they were documented considerations still accepted as fact.

CBS and Paramount continue to propagate myths about the series in promotional materials. Just take a look at a book like Star Trek 365 (2010). It's a nicely illustrated book, with some good material in it, but that doesn't stop it from simply quoting Roddenberry's debunked accounts of certain things (i.e. Number One's elimination from the first pilot).

I don't get your second point. Because the book has things in it that aren't true (like the demographic story) it can't have things in it that are true (like Jack Lord and Lloyd Bridges being considered for the role of Robert April/Christopher Pike)? That doesn't make any sense.

What I mean is if Zombie Cheerleader elects to make what I understood to be a blanket rejection of older published material, then such a viewpoint would prevent one from accepting things from the same source that were proven true by outside sources and remain confirmed to this day. One cannot simply write off everything published in the past, as the passage of time also carries the "poison" of revisionist history (the 365 book you referred to which is loaded with revision) for present day ST property handlers trying to reshape the franchise in their own image.

In other words, it is a myth that all older publications are filled with false stories, since my other example (the NBC/Filmation matter) was in the 1994 book, and the man behind Filmation confirms it in his 2012 bio, with no countering information to debunk either passage.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

You can re-imagine a series and stay within continuity.

History--and evidence--proves you wrong, and i'm still waiting for official acknowledgement about TMP being a "reimagining" of TOS.

Enterprise is a prequel. It contains a few retcons, but what Trek series doesn't.

ENT had in volume.

Assuming that just because one piece of information in a book is true makes everything in that book true is incredibly naive, foolish and shortsighted. That Lord and Bridges were considered for the part of the Captain is a matter of records and aren't a Trek myth. The Trek myths are things like the Network didn't want a female XO or they were resistant to casting nonwhites.

As posted previously, you were making a blanket rejection of older published material, as though it is all a pack of myths and lies:

The older the book the more likely it was just regurgitating the "myths".

...which you stated without offering so much as a single word of countering, proven fact. It should be easy to see why your argument cannot be taken seriously.

The the opinions of a reviewer is not the same as NBC's. Show me a memo from NBC about how they'd love to have TAS in primetime or a new live action show, then you'll have something worth believing.

You were also rejecting NBC's basic interest in both a return of TOS and TAS, which I quickly debunked with two published references about the TAS' journey to the NBC schedule. I notice you avoid commenting on that.

Hmm....

...and this from a person who--without a bit of evidence--argues that TMP was a "reimagining....

Hmm...

 

[plynch]

I'm gonna regret this, but, yeah, TMP was a reimagining. Post-2001 cinema ("motion picture," not "movie." Desire to go more late-GR-ish, cerebral sci-fi vs. NBC space action. My two cents.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You can re-imagine a series and stay within continuity.

History--and evidence--proves you wrong, and i'm still waiting for official acknowledgement about TMP being a "reimagining" of TOS.

Space: 1999 year two and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century year two [as pointed out by ZC himself] are just two examples that support the Zombie Cheerleader's position here.

 

[Harvey]

In other words, it is a myth that all older publications are filled with false stories

No one has been saying that.

Let me say this. The Making of Star Trek, for example, is filled with wonderful details about the production. It reprints important memos, a de Forest Research report, budgets, concept art, and other material of which the veracity is not in question. (I've seen many of the originals or mimeos of the originals at UCLA; they weren't touched up for the book.)

It also demonizes NBC, making false claims about the rejection of the Number One character (see the Solow & Justman book). It makes false claims about the show's international sales representatives (the book claims that they advised Roddenberry to make the show less diverse; Desilu memos indicate the exact opposite). It's positively skewed in Roddenberry's direction (witness the way it tells of the practical joke Gene played on John D.F. Black, and the way Black tells it in the Solow & Justman book).

This is not to say that the Solow & Justman book is beyond reproach, either. It gives an account of a deal made with a toy company that is likely incorrect. It makes claims about Grace Lee Whitney that the actress has disputed. It certainly tells a skewed version of Harlan Ellison's experience on the show.

Enterprise is a prequel. It contains a few retcons, but what Trek series doesn't.

ENT had in volume.

This is nonsense. Enterprise was a problematic series with a few highs and too many lows, but it was no more incompatible with past episodes of the franchise than...well, any other installment of the franchise. Hell, the original was often all over the place in terms of continuity.

...and this from a person who--without a bit of evidence--argues that TMP was a "reimagining....

I'm not sure what the purpose of this debate is. "Re-imagine" was a marketing buzzword coined by Fox's publicity department in 2001 to avoid calling Tim Burton's version of Planet of the Apes a remake.

The point about Star Trek--The Motion Picture is that it threw out much of the original series (especially, but not limited to, its visual aesthetic) in favor of trying out something new. That it was still in continuity with the original series isn't something I see being objected to.

 

[mb22]

It is interesting how Making of Star Trek (published in 1968) "demonizes" NBC , while that same network was still airing the show.

 

[Harvey]

Roddenberry was never shy about airing grievances about the Network in public, even when the program was still on the air. Once the show was off the air, of course, he became even more vocal about NBC's shortcomings -- as he perceived them.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

This is not to say that the Solow & Justman book is beyond reproach, either. It gives an account of a deal made with a toy company that is likely incorrect. It makes claims about Grace Lee Whitney that the actress has disputed. It certainly tells a skewed version of Harlan Ellison's experience on the show.

Now you are getting it: unlike Zombie, you seem to understand that books--no matter the age--can be disputed, while at the same time, contain information that has been confirmed as true.

This is nonsense. Enterprise was a problematic series with a few highs and too many lows, but it was no more incompatible with past episodes of the franchise than...well, any other installment of the franchise. Hell, the original was often all over the place in terms of continuity.

Talk about nonsense. One of the biggest criticisms of ENT (other than being an abysmal concept), was the constant tossing of continuity or retconning anything whenever it suited the hair-thin "writing."

This link just scratches the surface of that thankfully cancelled nightmare:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/enterprise_continuity.htm

The point about Star Trek--The Motion Picture is that it threw out much of the original series (especially, but not limited to, its visual aesthetic) in favor of trying out something new. That it was still in continuity with the original series isn't something I see being objected to.

What you seem to miss is Zombie's hardline stand that TMP is not the same continuity as TOS--including the characters. Such a thought is woefully ignorant of the how and why a writer is tasked to create a beliveable explanation for the passage of time between series and movie. That member seems to think its another animal altogether if the characters as presented in 1979 do not behave in the same way as 1969. That is not writing, but some sort of garbled misunderstading of the necessity of charcater growth.

If a return to a storyline/production--after ten years--means attempting to play characters as they were last seen, then there is no growth, and that applies to the art direction as well. However, this is not the pointless "reimagining" claim, but addressing what is expected: character evolution, otherwise (as noted several posts ago), TMP would have been a "let's get that EXACT old feeling again" exercise in rehash seen in TV reuinion movies such as Rescue from Gilligan's Island, where you have older actors/characters trying to play things in 1978 as though it was the exact same situation as that series' last episodes from 1967.

There is a clear difference, but some are hell-bent on making claims that cannot be justified and run away from offering anything even remotely standing on the side of fact.

 

[BillJ]

Talk about nonsense. One of the biggest criticisms of ENT (other than being an abysmal concept), was the constant tossing of continuity or retconning anything whenever it suited the hair-thin "writing."

Can't get your link to load from my iPad.

Star Trek was all over the place as far as internal consistency was concerned. From James R. Kirk to UESPA, Space Central and Starfleet, to the show being set anywhere from the 22nd to the 29th century to lithium vs. dilithium to anti-matter powers the ship to it destroying the universe. Sure you can come up with explanations for the inconsistencies, but don't try to bash other shows for being inconsistent.

To bash other shows for not being consistent with TOS, when TOS wasn't consistent with itself is foolish.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Enterprises' problems were mostly with fanon rather than canon or continuity. Things like Spock being the first or only Vulcan in Starfleet. (disproved by the existence of a starship manned by Vulcans in "Immunity Syndrome" Or the NCC-1701 being the the first ship called Enterprise. (disproved by the ringship in TMP).

I like the ex-astris site, but mostly for its facts rather than its "editorials". They had a vested interest in their fanon version of the 22nd Century and the Romulan Wars, so I'm not surprised they would find fault with Enterprise. Must suck to have all your work rendered moot.

 

[T'Girl]

James R. Kirk

Thing there is, Kirk himself never claimed that "R" was his middle initial, and neither did Kirk's official record from Court Martial.

So how is Mitchell placing a R on James T. Kirk's tombstone in the tiniest way a lack of "internal consistency?"

 

[Nerys Myk]

James R. Kirk

Thing there is, Kirk himself never claimed that "R" was his middle initial, and neither did Kirk's official record from Court Martial.

So how is Mitchell placing a R on James T. Kirk's tombstone in the tiniest way a lack of "internal consistency?"

Because when Court Martial was written they ( writers/producers/continuity checkers) should have remembered it had been established that Kirk's middle initial is "R".

 

[BillJ]

James R. Kirk

Thing there is, Kirk himself never claimed that "R" was his middle initial, and neither did Kirk's official record from Court Martial.

So how is Mitchell placing a R on James T. Kirk's tombstone in the tiniest way a lack of "internal consistency?"

Because when Court Martial was written they ( writers/producers/continuity checkers) should have remembered it had been established that Kirks middle initial is "R".

Correctamundo.

Mitchell is Kirk's best friend. It's unlikely he wouldn't know his middle initial.

 

[Harvey]

Talk about nonsense. One of the biggest criticisms of ENT (other than being an abysmal concept), was the constant tossing of continuity or retconning anything whenever it suited the hair-thin "writing."

The page you link to is nothing but nit-picking. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- Phil Farrand's Nitpicker Guide books are some of the most read books on my shelf -- but there's nothing on that list that persuasively argues that Enterprise was any worse at sticking to continuity than any other series in the franchise.

If I had to pick a series that was bad at that, it would be Star Trek: Voyager or the original series itself, not Enterprise.

What you seem to miss is Zombie's hardline stand that TMP is not the same continuity as TOS--including the characters.

That position doesn't reflect the posts that I've been reading in this thread.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I've never stated that TMP is in a different continuity than TOS, just that the argument could be made that TMP reimagined TOS. Nothing "hardline" about it. As I also said, one can reimagine within continuity.

 

[Gary7]

There's another nuance that should be noted.

As a series ages, there are changes to culture and a generation of people comes and goes. The series stands as a landmark to a certain point in time, a social way point if you will. When looking at TOS, it captures so many elements of the late 1960's, as well as their version of the future. Clearly the later Star Trek series have elements from their respective times, including a revised future that deviates a bit from TOS.

When I watch TOS, I can't measure it against the productions of today. They DO NOT APPLY. Not only was it a different era, with vastly inferior SFX tools, but also a lesser budget and more restrictive set of broadcasting company policies. What we ultimately have before us is a time capsule. A work of art. Something completely unique on its own. Whether or not you enjoy the stories, acting, or production values, you should appreciate it for what it is, not to mention the fact that without it all of the other Star Trek series (TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) wouldn't have existed. As such, I find that anyone who bashes TOS to be sorely ignorant and if unable to convince from a single posting, not even worth my time debating with.

 

[BillJ]

I don't think anyone here is bad-mouthing TOS.

I love the show, but I don't think it would've gotten the same traction in the 500-channel universe that it did in the 3/4-channel universe. So I don't think it's fair to bash TNG and the later spin-offs for existing in that universe.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

the fact that without it all of the other Star Trek series (TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) wouldn't have existed. As such, I find that anyone who bashes TOS to be sorely ignorant and if unable to convince from a single posting, not even worth my time debating with.

Well said.

 

[Greg Cox]

Thing there is, Kirk himself never claimed that "R" was his middle initial, and neither did Kirk's official record from Court Martial.

So how is Mitchell placing a R on James T. Kirk's tombstone in the tiniest way a lack of "internal consistency?"

Because when Court Martial was written they ( writers/producers/continuity checkers) should have remembered it had been established that Kirks middle initial is "R".

Correctamundo.

Mitchell is Kirk's best friend. It's unlikely he wouldn't know his middle initial.

I don't know. Even today, people don't use their middle names much. I suppose, if pressed, I could come up with the middle names of some of my oldest friends, but I can think of plenty of long-time friends and colleagues whose middle names I never had cause to know. Hell, I couldn't tell you my agent's middle name and he's been representing me for nearly fifteen years . . . .