Although I respect the "without it, there would be no Trek" arguement, and some of TOS's episodes are amongst my all time favourites of any series, I don't think that it my personal favourite. Maybe it would get the nostalgia vote if I'd have been alive during it's first run, but some of it is just downright cheesy and at it's worst, boring.
<ducks>
<ducks>
TOS is the hands down best overall series for me.
It had a spirit and an atmosphere that really captured my imagination as a child and still does to this day. Even the silliest episodes (Spock's Brain, and the litle children shall lead and Way to Eden) still spark that moment that I remember as a kid.
The 'Hornblower' feel of a Naval vessel out on a mission of exploration into the unkown was captured quite nicely as well as the bond between the stars and featured crew. They played off one another nicely...not perfectly but as human nature shows we are not perfect.
TOS has remained my favorite for its wild and adventurous spirit that still stands up today in most of the stories it told. It was that feel that allowed me to connect and love DS9 much later on, it comes a close second to me but TOS is still the best.
Vons
It had a spirit and an atmosphere that really captured my imagination as a child and still does to this day. Even the silliest episodes (Spock's Brain, and the litle children shall lead and Way to Eden) still spark that moment that I remember as a kid.
The 'Hornblower' feel of a Naval vessel out on a mission of exploration into the unkown was captured quite nicely as well as the bond between the stars and featured crew. They played off one another nicely...not perfectly but as human nature shows we are not perfect.
TOS has remained my favorite for its wild and adventurous spirit that still stands up today in most of the stories it told. It was that feel that allowed me to connect and love DS9 much later on, it comes a close second to me but TOS is still the best.
Vons
Nope. DS9 is the best. TOS is a decent second. Everything else is crap.
I agree with this, though I'd say TOS is a lot better than decent. TOS is as great of a show as it could possibly be given its constraints, barring the bad, unwatchable episodes like the hippy episode.
Unfortunately, TOS is hamstrung by its antiquated, storytelling-killing episodic formula which prevents any character or story development from happening in TOS. Without that handicap, then TOS very probably would have been the best.
Since DS9 has almost all of TOS' good qualities (adventure, humor, conflict, interesting characters, immaculate actors, compelling stories etc.) in addition to story and character development that TOS does not have, that makes DS9 the best. TOS is certainly the only Trek show that comes close to DS9's quality, though.
That is true for the non-DS9 shows. DS9 could pull off humor as well as TOS. Check out In the Cards - probably Trek's very best comedy episode, it's a masterpiece.
Last edited:
TOS is true Trek; everything else is imitation Trek.
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
Yes TOS is the best I love it
While I have recently decided it's maybe not such a good idea to use objective terms like "best" when referring to artistic works, I will emphatically agree that TOS is my favorite Trek series. I enjoy all of them to varying degrees, but TOS will always be far and away the standout for me. It might be only because that's the show I got to watch as a kid, but I don't know, it just really grabs me. Captain Kirk is absolutely my favorite character in Trek, and the original Enterprise (the TV version) is my favorite ship design, by far. And I'll be quite surprised if that ever changes.
Interesting thought. I, personally, don't think that TOS needed character arcs and long-term development. Spock is certainly a great example of a character whose development was shown just from how his characterizations interacted with each plot, and that worked quite well. In some ways, I kinda think that character arcs are overrated. I can see the value in them, but even if you have the ability to do arcs, you still need to make the character interesting within the confines of that particular episode. And if you can do that, then you really don't need arcs, do you?
Think about Firefly, which in my opinion, had some of the most amazingly well-drawn, fully-realized three-dimensional characters that I've ever seen. The only one who really had an ongoing character arc in that show was River (and by extension, Simon). And yet, each of the nine characters on that show feels deep and real and interesting each time they appear (in my opinion, of course). I'll grant you that TOS mainly just developed the big 3, but they may have still chosen to focus on them even if they could do character arcs. I just don't think that extended storylines or overarcing character development automatically makes a show better.
It is an interesting thought, though.
I agree wholeheartedly.
When I was a kid, there was a Star Trek marathon on one of the networks. We didn't have cable, so this was practically our only chance to see Star Trek. We were able to record three episodes, and TCM was the first. (The other two were "The Doomsday Machine," also a favorite, and "The Deadly Years.") I watched those episodes over and over again, and I think later on in life, when I was finally able to see the rest of the series, I was subconsciously a bit disappointed because my expectations had been set so high.
Unlike many people (I think?), I'm not a big fan of planet-based shows, so for me, TCM has pretty much everything that I look for in a Star Trek episode. Kirk here is dynamic, brilliant, forceful. Spock and McCoy get their moments, too, but Kirk is truly the star, and that's just the way I like it. I could go on for days about all the things I like about this episode, so I'd better cut myself off before I get carried away...
If I were on a desert island, and I could only bring one episode of Star Trek (any series), it would unquestionably be the Corbomite Maneuver, without hesitation or doubt. Sure, there would be other episodes I'd miss, but this one is by far my favorite.
Interesting thought. I, personally, don't think that TOS needed character arcs and long-term development. Spock is certainly a great example of a character whose development was shown just from how his characterizations interacted with each plot, and that worked quite well. In some ways, I kinda think that character arcs are overrated. I can see the value in them, but even if you have the ability to do arcs, you still need to make the character interesting within the confines of that particular episode. And if you can do that, then you really don't need arcs, do you?
Think about Firefly, which in my opinion, had some of the most amazingly well-drawn, fully-realized three-dimensional characters that I've ever seen. The only one who really had an ongoing character arc in that show was River (and by extension, Simon). And yet, each of the nine characters on that show feels deep and real and interesting each time they appear (in my opinion, of course). I'll grant you that TOS mainly just developed the big 3, but they may have still chosen to focus on them even if they could do character arcs. I just don't think that extended storylines or overarcing character development automatically makes a show better.
It is an interesting thought, though.
I agree wholeheartedly.
When I was a kid, there was a Star Trek marathon on one of the networks. We didn't have cable, so this was practically our only chance to see Star Trek. We were able to record three episodes, and TCM was the first. (The other two were "The Doomsday Machine," also a favorite, and "The Deadly Years.") I watched those episodes over and over again, and I think later on in life, when I was finally able to see the rest of the series, I was subconsciously a bit disappointed because my expectations had been set so high.
Unlike many people (I think?), I'm not a big fan of planet-based shows, so for me, TCM has pretty much everything that I look for in a Star Trek episode. Kirk here is dynamic, brilliant, forceful. Spock and McCoy get their moments, too, but Kirk is truly the star, and that's just the way I like it. I could go on for days about all the things I like about this episode, so I'd better cut myself off before I get carried away...
If I were on a desert island, and I could only bring one episode of Star Trek (any series), it would unquestionably be the Corbomite Maneuver, without hesitation or doubt. Sure, there would be other episodes I'd miss, but this one is by far my favorite.
I get annoyed by how in one episode Spock says he never drinks, yet in another episode he takes a drink like it's nothing. Things like that would have worked much better if the writers had made some effort for continuity between episodes, rather than pretending that the content of earlier episodes is irrelevant to the current episode, or just not bothering to care/check that they are contradicting the canon of earlier episodes. Either way, serialization would have went a long way towards eliminating glaring characterization problems like this.
I don't think that's a concept that came with modern serialization, I think it's probably just a detail that somebody missed. I'd say that kind of thing happens pretty often in most modern shows, too.
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
and without Star Trek TOS there wouldn't have been Trek XI isn't that right
If I were a Sci Fi writer, a REAL sci-fi writer, not a fantasy, drama or romance writer, and I had to chose one of the Treks in which I could relate my ideas, while telling a dramatic, thought provoking story, it would be TOS - hands down.
There are reasons that TOS lended itself to Sci-Fi stories better than the other Treks. One of them is the episodic nature of it. Pushing the reset button each week produced the least limitations on the ideas differing Sci-Fi writers were trying to present week to week. In continuous sagas you have to consider what was occurring before and what was to happen after your story/ideas were presented.
Then there is the lack of character change which also lends itself to Sci-Fi ideas better. In Kirk/Spock/McCoy, they were actually 3 differing and timeless perspectives in which we can view things. The effect that Sci-Fi ideas will have on people creates the drama and story-line. The reason the characters didn't change is because there was a balanced trio of perspectives from which things could be viewed. The 3 perspective were "fair and balanced" with neither being shown to be superior to the other. They were opposing yet complimentary (they had the same goals) and equally valuable perspectives. If one of these character's perspectives had changed, the balance tilted and the stories would have become too boring (scientific), or too dramatic (emotional), or too action oriented. There was a good balance in the TOS format of action, drama and rational scientific, thought provoking ideas.
The other Treks never achieved this balance. TNG had the episodic format and presented some great sci-fi ideas, but it lacked the conflict that the 3 differing perspectives gave to TOS and which drove the action and drama. TNG's way (values, morals, ideals) was already assumed to be the right way and they all agreed with it. This took away from the action, drama that TOS could provide through presenting opposing views on the ideas that were being presented each week.
TOS, in addition to having conflict between the 3 main characters/perspectives had conflict and contrast in its 3 main characters. Kirk was base human drives vs high idealism. Spock was emotion vs logic. McCoy was passion vs cynicism. Within an episode the characters could move between their inner conflict, but neither side was shown to be better all the time. It was more thought provoking this way and added drama that the tame TNG could not.
DS9 was great, but it really was a human drama set in a futuristic, fantasy world. There were few Sci-Fi thought provoking ideas presented. It was more emotional, dramatic and action packed than it was thought provoking. It used character development and needed story arcs and continuity to do this. Nothing wrong with this but it was more of a drama than Sci-Fi show.
There is a reason why TOS will outlast the other Treks. It is because it had a great balance of drama, ideas and action.
There are reasons that TOS lended itself to Sci-Fi stories better than the other Treks. One of them is the episodic nature of it. Pushing the reset button each week produced the least limitations on the ideas differing Sci-Fi writers were trying to present week to week. In continuous sagas you have to consider what was occurring before and what was to happen after your story/ideas were presented.
Then there is the lack of character change which also lends itself to Sci-Fi ideas better. In Kirk/Spock/McCoy, they were actually 3 differing and timeless perspectives in which we can view things. The effect that Sci-Fi ideas will have on people creates the drama and story-line. The reason the characters didn't change is because there was a balanced trio of perspectives from which things could be viewed. The 3 perspective were "fair and balanced" with neither being shown to be superior to the other. They were opposing yet complimentary (they had the same goals) and equally valuable perspectives. If one of these character's perspectives had changed, the balance tilted and the stories would have become too boring (scientific), or too dramatic (emotional), or too action oriented. There was a good balance in the TOS format of action, drama and rational scientific, thought provoking ideas.
The other Treks never achieved this balance. TNG had the episodic format and presented some great sci-fi ideas, but it lacked the conflict that the 3 differing perspectives gave to TOS and which drove the action and drama. TNG's way (values, morals, ideals) was already assumed to be the right way and they all agreed with it. This took away from the action, drama that TOS could provide through presenting opposing views on the ideas that were being presented each week.
TOS, in addition to having conflict between the 3 main characters/perspectives had conflict and contrast in its 3 main characters. Kirk was base human drives vs high idealism. Spock was emotion vs logic. McCoy was passion vs cynicism. Within an episode the characters could move between their inner conflict, but neither side was shown to be better all the time. It was more thought provoking this way and added drama that the tame TNG could not.
DS9 was great, but it really was a human drama set in a futuristic, fantasy world. There were few Sci-Fi thought provoking ideas presented. It was more emotional, dramatic and action packed than it was thought provoking. It used character development and needed story arcs and continuity to do this. Nothing wrong with this but it was more of a drama than Sci-Fi show.
There is a reason why TOS will outlast the other Treks. It is because it had a great balance of drama, ideas and action.
I grew up with TOS. The first episode I saw (first run on NBC) was Elan of Troyius. I was 6 and have loved the series ever since.
Sure I do, but that is not surprising to anyone here for a long while.
As I recall, the only episode where Spock took a drink was in Requiem For Methuselah and it surprised everyone - McCoy comments on it. Mind you, that was an episode that featured a lot of out of character moments!
I quite agree with you.
Yes, it is the best. So much so that when I see "Star Trek" on my onscreen channel guide, eagerly flip to that channel, and find out it's actually TNG and not TOS, I experience a profound sense of disappointment. And I like TNG. 
Similar threads
- Locked
