Something missing?

[Wingsley]

TOS, remastered or not, cannot be compared to Ronald D. Moore's GALACTICA.

One is an optimistic view of explorers in Earth's not-so-distant future. The other is an apocalyptic serial drama, with the trappings of naval/air warfare and spaceships. Comparing TOS to nuBSG is like comparing TOS to the 1968 original PLANET OF THE APES movie. There's no point in it. They may be lumped together as "science fiction" (there are arguments that can be made that none of the franchises mentioned can be called genuine sci fi) but they each occupy a very different sub-genre, to say the very least. Comparing TOS to nuBSG is like comparing STAR WARS to COCOON. Does make sense.

 

[Ssosmcin]

The original series does show its age. And audience sophistication has increased in 40 years. But you know something Trek has that 99% of these current SF shows don't? Rerun value. At best, trek broke some barriers and raised the bar for SF television. Even at its worst, it was a fun show. That's what BSG and so many other shows don't seem to get. It doesn't have to be all doom, gloom, lesbian sex, rape and torture. It can be fun also. BSG is a show I never revisit after I watch an episode. The only 3 SF shows in recent times that have as much repeat value are Stargate SG-1, Farscape and Babylon 5. Why? Because, aside from the larger issues, none of them lost their sense of fun.

Very few shows today are fun. We're being American Idoled, CSIed and Law and Ordered to death.

 

[ToddPence]

A lot of us older original series fans first saw the original series when we were little kids. Being introduced to the show with fresh, young, unjaded minds caused us to marvel in awe at the series' wonders while being blind to its flaws. We never had anyone, for example, sitting over our shoulders during "Spock's Brain" or "The Way to Eden" pointing out to us that these were supposed to be bad episodes, so we accepted them as readily as we did "The City on the Edge of Forever" and "Amok Time". It is not until a show has had all it's episodes viewed many, many times, and one has grown to the perspective of adulthood, that such critical scrutiny begins.

 

[jimbo1973]

And wasn't the special effects of the original series quite good for it's time?? I remeber "V". It had very advanced special effects for a TV MiniSeries in 82.

 

[Sisu]

V had excellent effects!

 

[mredom]

It may be true that Star Trek shows it's age from time to time. It may be true that the effects, while groundbreaking at the time have not aged well. It may be true that some episodes are weaker than others, as is true with ALL television.

It's also true that for me, it's the only one I find myself watching over and over, it's the only ST series I own on DVD, and I will peobably buy the remastered series also. The truth is, the stories are more interesting than the later series generally, and the acting is significantly better. (I know I'll get crucified for that statement, but I'll also stand by it.) The actors in ST made those characters beleiveable, and real, even wearing technicolor uniforms in a plywood set on a ship suspended by wires against a matte photo. They made us believe that the Enterprisecould be real, and by virtue, the world which they showed us could be real too.

I estimate I've seen every episode at least 20 times, most far more. I think it's the first, and the best of all of the series.

My opinion, for what it's worth...

MRE

 

[Gary Mitchell]

ssosmcin said:
The original series does show its age. And audience sophistication has increased in 40 years. But you know something Trek has that 99% of these current SF shows don't? Rerun value. At best, trek broke some barriers and raised the bar for SF television. Even at its worst, it was a fun show. That's what BSG and so many other shows don't seem to get. It doesn't have to be all doom, gloom, lesbian sex, rape and torture. It can be fun also. BSG is a show I never revisit after I watch an episode. The only 3 SF shows in recent times that have as much repeat value are Stargate SG-1, Farscape and Babylon 5. Why? Because, aside from the larger issues, none of them lost their sense of fun.

Very few shows today are fun. We're being American Idoled, CSIed and Law and Ordered to death.

Well said. I agree with you about the new Battlestar Galactica. It may be more sophisticated, but it has no heart compared to Star Trek or original Battlestar Galactica.

 

[TrueQ]

Look, I believe everyone has a right to like or dislike some things in life. I do not dislike TOS, I just prefer Voyager over it.
Thanks people!

 

[Kryton]

Forbin said:
No.

And ten demerits for thinking V'ger is better. Than anything.

Deny this statement: Voyager is better...than Andromeda.

 

[M'Sharak]

Voyager (V'ger is that Nomad/space-amoeba ripoff in TMP) is better than a lot of things. Way better.

And no one is required to like anything they don't feel inclined to like; I'd be in a shitload of trouble, otherwise.

Besides, you can always change your mind later. There's plenty of time.

 

[DontFeedPhil]

Wingsley said:
Lest we forget, if TOS were somehow lesser in quality, worthiness of being remembered, or just plain not as entertaining/satisfying...

... it would not be on the air today.

... it would not be remastered. (CBS/Paramount made a decision to invest in that.)

... it would not be for sale on HD-DVD.

... we would not be talking about it.

Yes but 1 thing I have noticed while watching the Remastered trek. The TOS I have been watching on cable for the last 20 years is only the "Best Of". I have seen episodes on Remastered that I never new existed. And I see why. there were quite a few stinkers.
So if your talking about the "Best Of" TOS then yeah its pretty dang good. Maybe enough to make 1 full season of great shows from the 3 we got.
So yes alot of people see trek differently than how it was/is. They were only watching the "Best Of"

 

[The Old Mixer]

I don't know how they've been airing it lately, but they used to show each and every episode in syndication in the '70s and '80s. The idea that it's only popular because they've only been showing the highlights doesn't hold water. It's popular because it was the original, and stood on its own for 20 years before anyone made a spin-off series. If you were into "Trek" between 1966 and 1986, that meant you were into this series...a series that was greater than the sum of its episodes. It created a compelling universe and left viewers who only had 79 episodes to watch over and over again wanting more...hence the movies and the eventual spin-off series.

To really appreciate original Trek, you have to remember or envision a time when this series WAS "Star Trek". No bloody subtitles.

 

[MANT!]

/\ Damn Straight!!

 

[shatastrophic]

The Old Mixer said:
I don't know how they've been airing it lately, but they used to show each and every episode in syndication in the '70s and '80s. The idea that it's only popular because they've only been showing the highlights doesn't hold water. It's popular because it was the original, and stood on its own for 20 years before anyone made a spin-off series. If you were into "Trek" between 1966 and 1986, that meant you were into this series...a series that was greater than the sum of its episodes. It created a compelling universe and left viewers who only had 79 episodes to watch over and over again wanting more...hence the movies and the eventual spin-off series.

To really appreciate original Trek, you have to remember or envision a time when this series WAS "Star Trek". No bloody subtitles.

Agreed!

 

[STIntergalactic]

Mallory said:

KDoug said:
Also, they brought him back in the books.

Yeah, but all those are set in the timeframe before TATV.

I haven't read the novels so I can't be sure, but I believe that there are indeed novels set after TATV that say that Trip's death was nothing more than an elaborate ruse.

I've really been meaning to read "The Good That Men Do".

 

[Mallory]

You could very well be correct. I haven't read them all so it's entirely possible that some occur after TATV.

 

[DontFeedPhil]

well in the last 20 years I have NEVER caught "the alternative factor" "catspaw" or a couple other of those stinkers that even most people around here would rather blow their brains out than watch. So YES they have been selectivly airing only "the Best of". At least here in the USA. So it does hold water. Quite a bit of water and is in fact water tight.

 

[Kegek]

^
I like those episodes. Not the best ever, but not bad. However, I have seen both those and episodes I really do despise (like "The Way of Eden") showing on the UK Sci-Fi Channel. They have the rights to all of TOS, and damn will they remind us of that.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

DontFeedPhil said:
well in the last 20 years I have NEVER caught "the alternative factor" "catspaw" or a couple other of those stinkers that even most people around here would rather blow their brains out than watch. So YES they have been selectivly airing only "the Best of". At least here in the USA. So it does hold water. Quite a bit of water and is in fact water tight.

I disagree. G4 runs them all. Every Monday they run 6 or 7 episodes. Awful ones too. "And The Chldren Shall Lead"? Please...noooo more.

I actually saw Charlie X when I was in Sao Paulo, Brazil last January. It was cool and they ran it in prime time. I think they just got Star Trek down there.

 

[Mallory]

DontFeedPhil said:
well in the last 20 years I have NEVER caught "the alternative factor" "catspaw" or a couple other of those stinkers that even most people around here would rather blow their brains out than watch. So YES they have been selectivly airing only "the Best of". At least here in the USA.

I'm surprised. I've never had that kind of selective airing done anywhere I've lived in the States, but I guess anything is possible.