Honestly let's not continue. I'm over it
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
Honestly let's not continue. I'm over it
Why argue.
It was the pinnacle of Trek, it started the whole thing.
The rest just followed along using TOS as their basis for story telling.
They were good shows but they were mere copies of what TOS started.
None of them on their own would have continued without TOS.
I don't think it was the pinnacle of Trek.
Yep.
It was and is. Take away the first season of TOS and you've eliminated half the best stories of the entire franchise. Stories that defined what Star Trek is, and that the sequel series would mimic and ring changes on for decades to come.
Last edited:
Agreed, it's sort of like saying that the Hobbit was the pinnacle of fantasy literature because it came out first, even though LOTR far outshines it.
Well you are certainly welcome to believe that, but without TOS none of the other shows would even exist.
Agreed. But I don't want to make this place all about my thoughts on TOS. I'll move on
Nope.
TOS is compared to and placed alongside the original Twilight Zone for good reasons. When it was at its best TOS was some of the best weekly science fiction ever aired on American television.
You're right. SNW has done a lot more with Uhura and she's been great. Same with Chapel. Jess Bush is outstanding and helped create a much better character than the one Majel was saddled with. But it's not a fair comparison.
In the original series, Uhura and Chapel were supporting characters. Nichelle was a day player, Majel was simply recurring. It wasn't a series about them. It was about Kirk, then Kirk and Spock and then finally Kirk, Spock and McCoy. It was a lead-driven series with plot-driven stories as per the standards of the day. There was minimal character development because that's how TV worked then. SNW is an ensemble series which will be plot or character based, depending on the script and the characters will grow and develop over time. As per modern standards.
That doesn't make the original series any less great, just a product of its time. Whichever you like better is a matter of taste, but history has already made its judgment.
No follow up Trek series has entertained me as much, as well and so consistently. No new Star Trek series will every top it for me. But everyone has a favorite. You don't like arguing with fans? Then don't. You won't change an opinion of a fan who has been devoted to a TV series for decades.
It sounds more like you're trying to change my opinion. Take your own advice
You are trying to compare Apples to Oranges.
Yet, The Hobbit in 1937 was acclaimed as a great work of literature right from the get go and received several awards.
While The Lord of the Rings didn't start to become a popular work till many years after its publication.
(and received no literary awards first along, it actually had many detractors)
So your analogy doesn't exactly work the way you thought it would.
Nope. If you actually read my post, you'll see I didn't say anyone's opinion was wrong. Just the opposite, it's all in what you like more.
But when someone says SNW does a better job at developing minor TOS characters and uses that as a reasoning why one show is "better" than another, that invites rebuttal and a reason why TOS didn't bother with developing minor characters. Again, because they were minor characters in episodic lead-driven television.
I should hope so, given Uhura is part of SNW's main cast but was not a part of TOS's.
People seem to forget that where one's name is in the opening and closing credits has always been the determining factor as to their actual camera time and lines.
....it kinda is. TMP IS the most "Star Trek like" film. WoK is a great film......just not a great Trek film. Same for pretty much every other film, as great as some may be.Without TMP, WOK wouldn't exist, therefore TMP is the pinnacle. Yeah makes sense
TMP is the pinnacle.Without TMP, WOK wouldn't exist, therefore TMP is the pinnacle. Yeah makes sense
Like whatever you like most, but the 'None of this other stuff would even exist without it therefore it's *the pinnacle*' argument is and always will be ridiculous.
A New Hope is not the pinnacle of Star Wars.
Iron Man is not the pinnacle of the MCU.
The Cage is not the pinnacle of TOS.
TNG is not the pinnacle of BermanTrek.
DSC is not the pinnacle of KurtzmanTrek.
Batman Begins is not the pinnacle of the Nolan trilogy.
Terminator 1 is not the pinnacle of the Terminator franchise.
The Jazz Singer is not the pinnacle of talkies.
Being first doesn't make you best. The number of blatantly obvious counter-examples to that idea is borderline endless.
A New Hope is not the pinnacle of Star Wars.
Iron Man is not the pinnacle of the MCU.
The Cage is not the pinnacle of TOS.
TNG is not the pinnacle of BermanTrek.
DSC is not the pinnacle of KurtzmanTrek.
Batman Begins is not the pinnacle of the Nolan trilogy.
Terminator 1 is not the pinnacle of the Terminator franchise.
The Jazz Singer is not the pinnacle of talkies.
Being first doesn't make you best. The number of blatantly obvious counter-examples to that idea is borderline endless.
Yes it is.
No later film would more purely embody or successfully invoke the essence of what makes SW so successful and appealing. No other SW film would so transform the film industry.
That's true, and it doesn't matter whether you like some other version better.
BTW, the title's just "Star Wars."
Same as "Star Trek" - you know, TOS.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
