New Scientist review

[davejames]

For me it's always been more important that Trek have compelling, well-written characters than "big ideas" or deep social relevance.

I actually thought it was the other way around....characters are important but not as much as the others...TOS's weren't as remotely developed as the other ST series..

RAMA

No they weren't quite as developed, but they still came across as dynamic, compelling and real characters (with interesting, well-written dialogue).

Granted, that may have only been Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but that's more than we got in VOY and ENT.

At least that's the main draw for me, and the reason I rewatch those series more than any other-- for those great little character moments.

 

[mswood]

^

I absolutely agree with Dynamic and compelling, completely disagree with real.

Enterprise had far better developed characters (even their 2nd characters and often were more real. But they weren't dynamic or very compelling. Real rarely equals dynamic and compelling. Real is for the most part ordinary and boring.

But I still loved them to death.

And no we didn't often get well written dialogue. I mean as much as we make fun of Voyager and Enterprise (A series I rather liked), remember TOS is the series where we would have some terrible moral/social trouble and end with the crew laughing and joking. Talk about dialogue that kills your characters.

ANd it sounds like I hated the show. Which is far from the truth. I fell in love with the show (warts and all) 40 years ago and I am still in love with the show. But I don't have any problems with its numerous faults.