Withers covered the issue of the response to your generational commentary pretty well, so I will leave that alone since I wouldn't be able to add anything significant to it.
Someone pointed out it was unnecessary to bring up the generational thing. I strongly disagree; this is the crux of the whole issue. One cannot remove the characterization, both as written and as played from its time - not because acting has changed so much (though it has), but because our conception of a dramatic hero, and, indeed, of storytelling through this particular medium, has changed drastically between the generations.
Ok, so these conceptions have changed. How does that play into this? I mean... surely we don't want a descent into:
Trek fan A: You just like Picard better because you're younger! The show was made with your generation in mind!
Trek fan B: You just like Kirk better because you're older! The show was made with your generation in mind!
I'm not even saying that these generational gaps and changes to the perception of what "good TV" is, or "a good hero" is, etc. are
totally irrelevant. Hell, I'll admit it: I know that's true for me, to some degree, when it comes to TOS. Some of my larger issues with the show
do stem from things that are linked to the era in which the show was made. But don't think it's the "crux of the entire issue", when it comes to Kirk and Picard (assuming that's what you meant).
And besides, acknowledging that something I don't like is only there because of when the show was made doesn't change the fact that the thing is
still in the show. It can provide an explanation for why something is there, but that's all it is. I know that the ridiculous level of sexism displayed in TOS is partly - heck, largely - there because of when the show was made. That doesn't change the fact that said sexism drives me absolutely crazy whenever I watch the show.
And as for the idea that we all have our preferences and all are equal, horsehockey.
I don't mean that ANYONE who walks up and says they have an opinion on Trek should be taken on the same level as everyone else. There is such a thing as an uninformed opinion.
There are also certain
aspects that can be compared objectively. For example: consoles explode a lot and kill people in modern Trek. They didn't do that much in TOS. That is clearly an invention of modern Trek. Now, personally, I think that's stupid (one area in which TOS
was better, I suppose
). And a case can be made for it being stupid, since it doesn't make any kind of logical sense for a control panel to have that much power running through it.
You can't really argue with the fact that this happens in modern Trek, and generally didn't happen much (at all?) in TOS. It's also really hard to argue with the idea that it makes no sense that consoles could explode and kill people like that. But that doesn't mean you can turn around and say that one episode of one show is - overall - objectively superior to another.
There are quantifiable qualitative distinctions. An easy one: music. I think the majority will agree that most of the music of TNG was crap (and, sadly, deliberately so).
I wouldn't agree with that statement at all. Much of the music was not that great, but "crap" is too strong (no, it's not semantics: "just okay" as opposed to "HORRID" is what I'm going for here). Mainly, when TNGs music was not good, it was just dull (as you say, there was this fascination with "wallpaper music," and I
do agree that that is unfortunate). But TNG still had some great music, as well. And frankly, I personally think the vast majority of the background music from TOS IS crap. Not "dull", but
bad music. It's certainly more noticeable, more lively than a lot of TNGs music, but that doesn't make it good.
I think most will agree that certain TOS episodes are crap.
Most, perhaps. But for every single ep that is traditionally thought of as bad by "most people", I have seen at least one person on this very board saying they really liked that ep. Since when does the majority liking or disliking something make it objectively good or bad, anyway?
That's because there are artistic elements that we can discuss (with varying degrees of sophistication). But this we're-all-equally-right-and-we-all-get-a-medal-just-for-showing-up crap defeats the whole purpose of dialogue.
Putting aside how far you overstated your case with that medal nonsense... Yes, there are artistic elements that we can
discuss. But to what end? It's not like we can arrive at some sort of objective (I know, I'm using that word a lot, but it's the basis of my entire argument, so bear with me) truth about A being better than B.
Here: "Balance of Terror" and "In the Pale Moonlight." Ok... which one is
better? Which one has better writing? Better music? Which one is more intense? Which one makes you think more? Which one has better acting?
Now, you can answer if you want, but you won't be "right" or "wrong." Neither will I, if I answer. It's completely subjective, in the end. THAT'S my point.
The point being, all the shows used a variety of title types. Some fancy and some plain. Who Mourns for Adonais is a mediocre episode with a fancy title. No amount of poetry can change that.
It illustrates some of the generational differences we have been discussing. I remember the same issue discussed when Clinton was president. Some were complaining that basic needed to be more PC and that drill instructors were too mean, etc. Now they are realizing they need to toughen recruits up more.
