Char Aznable
Lieutenant Commander
It is just a TV show, but that doesn't mean it isn't an important one, nor does that mean it isn't a spectacular one then and now.
Just a television show...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Frankly I think the Boomers and consequent TV generations have developed a threshold for "important" that would not make much sense to, say, the guys fighting in Europe back in 1943. 
One thing that was both remarkable and commonplace for folks my age was that if you grew up anywhere in the United States, at least, you probably had many shared "experiences" via way of the three network TV system. This became apparent to me in college, when hanging out for the first time with guys who'd been raised in California, Rhode Island, Illinois...and we'd have drinking games based on coming up with a TV show of the 1960s so obscure - generally for having been cancelled quickly - that no one else could identify it.
Is anyone else here old enough to remember ClaraBell talking for the first time, on the final episode of Howdy Dowdy?
It's fairly rare now - I dunno, maybe nonexistant - given the fractionalization of the TV audience over dozens of channels and through the use of time-shifting and alternative viewing methods - for people in numbers like 30 million to witness the same thing at the same time on television (the Beatles on Ed Sullivan being a popular example). This weekend I gather we're having a national Lost moment - but how many people actually do watch that show, week in and week out?
One thing that was both remarkable and commonplace for folks my age was that if you grew up anywhere in the United States, at least, you probably had many shared "experiences" via way of the three network TV system. This became apparent to me in college, when hanging out for the first time with guys who'd been raised in California, Rhode Island, Illinois...and we'd have drinking games based on coming up with a TV show of the 1960s so obscure - generally for having been cancelled quickly - that no one else could identify it.
Is anyone else here old enough to remember ClaraBell talking for the first time, on the final episode of Howdy Dowdy?
It's fairly rare now - I dunno, maybe nonexistant - given the fractionalization of the TV audience over dozens of channels and through the use of time-shifting and alternative viewing methods - for people in numbers like 30 million to witness the same thing at the same time on television (the Beatles on Ed Sullivan being a popular example). This weekend I gather we're having a national Lost moment - but how many people actually do watch that show, week in and week out?
Simple reasoning, which you ought to appreciate:
If we cannot prove the existence of something, we cannot assert as a fact that it "exists."
We are never required to believe in something that we do not know for a fact exists.
When someone says "it's just a TV show" the connotation is that it's largely to utterly insignificant.
There were quite a few sci-fi shows going in the '60s and '70s, and many of them are remembered in some measure or other, but few of them other than Star Trek have been influential. I'd say The Twilight Zone, perhaps also The Outer Limits and maybe Dr. Who. I'd argue none of the Irwin Allen show's have had any significant influence even though at the time they were entertaining.
There were quite a few sci-fi shows going in the '60s and '70s, and many of them are remembered in some measure or other, but few of them other than Star Trek have been influential. I'd say The Twilight Zone, perhaps also The Outer Limits and maybe Dr. Who. I'd argue none of the Irwin Allen show's have had any significant influence even though at the time they were entertaining.
No one can prevent you from reading that into a statement, but that does not make it so.
Entertainment matters as much as it matters, which is entirely an individual affair - we probably both know people whose lives have been changed or given some special focus by a popular story or film. I would certainly have led a different life other than for Star Trek, but asking whether the quality of those alternative experiences would have been diminished relative to those I've actually had is a question that admits of no meaningful answer.
The assertion, as if it's a matter of fact, that some piece of popular culture is important in some grandly historical, consensus manner apart from the enthusiasm that its fans have for it really demands a much stronger standard of proof than can usually be produced. "Trek inspired cell phones," with the quality of evidence and reasoning that's usually marshalled to support it, is not persuasive other than to the persuaded.
The most direct and measurable way in which entertainment can be known to have an impact on some aspect of culture is almost always in the effects and influence it has on the realm of entertainment itself, and most measurably on the business of entertainment. Star Trek is an influential television series with regard to later television series, mainly (as someone pointed out uptopic) on other genre series and to some extent on merchandising, etc. To return to I Love Lucy for a moment, that series is far more influential on television history than Star Trek or just about any other entertainment program of that era - because of the innovative production and financing practices that Desi Arnaz introduced there, which are still relevant to the production of almost every television series in the United States today.
Something can also be significant without being tremendously influential. For example, Star Trek may be the most expansively successful example of a television series being revived as the basis for a theatrical feature or features - but the means and manner by which it was revived hasn't had much influence on how studios have approached the revival of other TV properties. Rather than copying ST:TMP, those almost always are based either on recasting and to some degree rethinking and retelling the material of the original property, or on largely discarding the original characters in favor of a sequel or parallel development - the approaches which Paramount only and finally took to Star Trek when the commercial potential of the original continuity was exhausted and the studio turned to J.J. Abrams to resurrect it.
Last edited:
Here we go. Nobody has said it's "totally meaningless". That's just wishful thinking on your part.
You claim it inspires people. Great. So does a handful of other shows. Lasted decades? So did others. Filled society with pop culture references? Nothing unusual. Produced a shitload of spin-offs? Made lots of money? Has conventions? Made 5 correct technological predictions out of 100?
All. Done. Before.
The nimrods waffling about Shakespear, Lennon and Mozart ought to go and watch Spock's Brain, The Way to Eden, Catspaw, and all the other piss-poor episodes that always conveniently get forgotten in these discussions. The show lasted 3 years, and produced a completely normal amount of shit in addition to the good ones. Again, an unremarkable achievement.
Then we have you whining that I'm "demeaning" the show by refusing to idolise it as you and others do. More crap, in other words. Some other genius asserts that by arguing this point, I'm a troll, and demanding that I justify my presence in this forum. Whoever said Star Trek attracts a clever audience should visit here more often.
When we strip away all this shit, what are we left with? A super-duper TV show that went where no other had gone before? A list of achievements that justifies the reputation being cultivated here? No. A good show that, like every other good show, has a handful of obsessives that insist it's the first show that was ever "this good!". They're wrong, and you are too.
We're entering the nebulous world of being merely "really good!" here, again, as opposed to magical and divine. Top Gun made a bunch of guys join the air force. Star Wars made a bunch of... ahem... fans... form a religion, and all sorts of other weird shit. Xena made people dress up in armour and shit. Dungeons & Dragons? James Bond? Let's not even go there.
Every product that isn't completely shit impresses some group of people, somewhere. The number of low budget movies that have cast cinrmatic influence and become hits is astronomical. They're still just movies.
I'm bowing out of this discussion now, because all that's left is the sort of vague and nebulous fanwanking that's been threatening to rear its ugly head for pages now...the anniversary documentary shit that paints Roddenberry as a demigod and Star Trek as a cultural revolution. "Star Trek changed everything", "Star Trek broke the race barriers", "Star Trek united people", "Star Trek gives us hope".
It flies in conventions full of people who want to hear it... not so well in the real world.
Ciao.
Can anyone prove their father or mother loved them just because they think they did? That's from Contact BTW. and just because you don't like classical music and can't prove Beethoven was a great composer doesn't mean he wasn't great and influential too. Was Jesus just a great man or the son of God?
Right. So now we're speculating about the nature of the Trinity in a thread about a 60s TV show? If this was a TOS episode, this is about the time that Kirk would come in and talk a computer to death.
It's a really good form of genre entertainment that's stood the test of time reasonably well. It's iconic. Personally, I've gotten a tremendous amount of enjoyment out of it over the years. If it's something more to you, that fine, but that's enough for me.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
I'm done. If we're going into religion and faith, which I also saw up-thread, then we're off the rails. I want nothing to do with this.
What this really comes down to is perspective. If you don't see anything significant in TOS then of course it's not there (to you) and it won't mean anything. But that doesn't discount or negate other people seeing something of significance in the show and being influenced by. It's still a TV show, but one that has managed to influence people in some regard or other.
And even then, they tried to half-heartedly tether it to the original continuity via the presence of Spock Prime.
Anyway, that is a brilliant analysis of Trek '09's relationship to the rest of TOS as a Hollywood property rather than as a fictive reality. You should post it in Warped9's "Where Did Spock Go?" thread since it seems particularly relevant to that question, too. He went where Paramount wanted him to.
"It's just a TV show!"
What does that mean?
It means that if you have the choice between getting laid and attending a convention... go get laid. It simply says that real life is more important.
What does that mean?
It means that if you have the choice between getting laid and attending a convention... go get laid. It simply says that real life is more important.
I've never passed up getting laid for an episode of Star Trek no matter how much I love the series.
Clearly you dudes have never been to the right cons where the best of both worlds is possible!I've never passed up getting laid for an episode of Star Trek no matter how much I love the series.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
I sometimes believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast...
I-Am-Zim
Captain
To me, TOS is quite a bit more than "just a TV show". It's my favorite TV show
. I would argue that to most TOS fans, it is more than just a TV show. Now, to somebody who isn't into sci-fi, then TOS would probably be just another TV show to them. And that's fine. "Just a TV show" is a purely subjective description. To me, "24" is just another TV show. "Lost" is just another TV show. "American Idol" is just another TV show. I've never watched any of them and I'm not interested in doing so. They are all wildly popular, but not to me. That's the difference. A TV show will always be "more" than just plain ol' TV to its fans. TOS did inspire five spinoff series' and 10 movies. It also was the catalyst to an enduring franchise that has lasted 44 years. If I'm not mistaken, the only other television franchise in history that has lasted that long is Doctor Who (another of my favorites). So, yeah, to me TOS is substantially more than just plain ol' TV.
. I would argue that to most TOS fans, it is more than just a TV show. Now, to somebody who isn't into sci-fi, then TOS would probably be just another TV show to them. And that's fine. "Just a TV show" is a purely subjective description. To me, "24" is just another TV show. "Lost" is just another TV show. "American Idol" is just another TV show. I've never watched any of them and I'm not interested in doing so. They are all wildly popular, but not to me. That's the difference. A TV show will always be "more" than just plain ol' TV to its fans. TOS did inspire five spinoff series' and 10 movies. It also was the catalyst to an enduring franchise that has lasted 44 years. If I'm not mistaken, the only other television franchise in history that has lasted that long is Doctor Who (another of my favorites). So, yeah, to me TOS is substantially more than just plain ol' TV.
"Three's Company" was just a tv show. The mere fact of this behemouth that's grown out of the fanbase is proof enough that Star Trek is not just a tv show. There's something else at work here.
Except for Dennis. Nothing impresses Dennis. Except Dennis.
Except for Dennis. Nothing impresses Dennis. Except Dennis.
Other than happenstance and some OCD, not a lot.
As David Gerrold once said, the real reason that Star Trek is so popular is that people like it a lot.
As David Gerrold once said, the real reason that Star Trek is so popular is that people like it a lot.
Similar threads
