TOS: A Perspective

[Withers]

I love Star Trek. When I love a thing I have to know all about it. It's just how my brain works. My love of Star Trek came from my mom (who'll be 60 this year) who introduced me to Star Trek The Next Generation. (At the time the episodes of TOS weren't available to us or she probably would've shown me that instead.) TNG was on the air though so that's where it started.

I remember just being enthralled by it. Time went on and I fell in love with Deep Space Nine, enjoyed the TNG movies, was a little let down but ultimate watched and appreciated (to varying degrees) Voyager and Enterprise. It was after Nemesis that I decided I needed to see TOS to be a "true" fan. I needed to understand where it came from.

Of course I'd read the Memory Alpha pages about TOS by that point and I'd seen the movies (Star Trek VI is still my favorite movie out of all 11.) Well, waiting so long might have been a mistake.

I'm 24. I grew up through the 90's and became...accustom to a certain level of visual engagement from sci-fi (of any kind.) So when I sat down to watch TOS... I just couldn't get past what it looked like and the "camp" factor that was appropriate for the era when it came out but seemed almost silly to me based on the sci-fi experience I was used to at that point.

Now, before you go to red alert, let me say that I love the characters from TOS. Outside of DS9 I think they're my favorite cast. They just...work somehow. I liked the movies a lot (even the less popular ones with the only real exception being V.) I even like a lot of the episodes I've read on Memory Alpha. They sound cool. But... I just can't get past the way they look, the music, or the acting (which, again, I know was wholly appropriate 40 some odd years ago).

I don't think that makes me less of a Trekkie than anyone else. I fly that freak flag high, ya know? It's seriously a generational thing.

I wanted to put that out there because I'm willing to bet I'm not alone in that feeling.

-Withers-​

 

[A beaker full of death]

It's ok, kid. It is a generational thing. I can't get past the wallpaper music, boring talking head shots, droning delivery, dull lighting, unrealistic interactions and decorum and lack of verisimilitude of most modern Trek. To me, the people of TOS act normally - the way I act - as do the better actors of DS9. The people of modern Trek act like they've been lobotomized.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Which episodes have you seen?

 

[scotpens]

I can't get past the wallpaper music, boring talking head shots, droning delivery, dull lighting, unrealistic interactions and decorum and lack of verisimilitude of most modern Trek. To me, the people of TOS act normally - the way I act - as do the better actors of DS9. The people of modern Trek act like they've been lobotomized.

Hear, hear!

From the 1930s through the ’70s, actors in movies, and later in television, ACTED. Now it seems they mostly just talk. Screenwriters used to know how to write dialogue. Modern viewers will often dismiss the writing in old movies and TV shows by saying, "Nobody really talks like that." Well, anyone can write the way people really talk. What takes talent is to write the way we WISH we could talk, and to make it seem natural for the characters to talk that way. (I hope I'm making sense.)

Being 30 years older than the OP and having seen Trek TOS when it was new, I regard the original show (and movies 1 through 6) as the REAL Star Trek. The sets and effects may look cheesy today, but they were state-of-the-art for a weekly television series back then. Oh, and the music? TOS had some of the best music ever written for a TV series, IMHO. In fact, in the third season, sometimes the music was better than the scripts or the acting.

So yes, I suppose it's a generational thing.

 

[A beaker full of death]

^ Indeed; the literary quality of the original vs. the later stuff is astonishing. TOS was written by people who had actually read literature and had studied the craft of writing. How can one write a speech (let alone a plot) when one doesn't know the fundamentals of dramatic structure?
And then, of course, there are the literary allusions and references. I once wrote a whole damn essay on the title Who Mourns for Adonais?

You know, it's funny, and a little embarrassing to admit: as a trial lawyer, when I have to deliver an opening or a closing, I envision Captain Kirk making an impassioned speech. So far, it seems to sway the judges and juries!

 

[Withers]

Which episodes have you seen?

I've seen through the first half of the second season and all the episodes regarded as "classics."

Honestly, if the show were made more recently, I think I could watch it. The plots seem every bit as good as any other trek I've liked. As to the acting though... I've never seen any other show from that time period and thought much of it either. I mean... I guess I kinda like Bewitched? And... when did The Wonder Years come out? You see what I mean though? It's so far before my time (it was older than I am now when I was born) I just can't connect to it.


I don't think terms like "real trek" are very fair. I don't bash TOS like I do Voyager because it's almost an entirely different animal and it deserves my respect if nothing else for allowing everything else that was to come from it. Still, I don't think my "era" of Star Trek is an less than the TOS era.


-Withers-​

 

[Maurice]

Do you have the same issue with stage plays? Do you have the same issues with cartoons?

I spent my teen years in the 70s and yet I have no problem with film from 40-50 years before that. I love silent movies, for instance. You have to just accept the style of the time and go with it, and love it for what it is, not what it isn't.

 

[Withers]

I'm not bashing TOS. Let me be clear about that. I have nothing but respect for it. Its what made everything I do like, possible. And there are major elements of TOS I do, in fact, like. I just can't watch it.

Do you have the same issue with stage plays? Do you have the same issues with cartoons?

Well... no, because I don't travel back to the 60's to watch either of those things. And I'm sorry but the difference between TOS era sci-fi and the era of sci-fi I grew up with is about a billion miles apart whereas the difference between the 70's and the... wait a minute, you liked movies from the 1920's when you were... never mind. I'd delete that but it might help you with my thought process.

Some people can appreciate and watch in spite of not having any frame of reference by which to enjoy it. I am just not one of those guys... I wish I were because I'm all about "the more there is you love... the more there is you love."


-Withers-​

 

[plynch]

The writers/producers of TOS were coming from the golden age of TV which was very theater-based. The words mattered. GR considered himself a writer creating a format in which to tell stories.

I don't read modern fiction because the prose is so prosaic.

Thanks, earlier posters for articulating the dif. between TOS and later, though Picard and Sisko have their moments.

 

[Maurice]

Do you have the same issue with stage plays? Do you have the same issues with cartoons?​

Well... no, because I don't travel back to the 60's to watch either of those things. And I'm sorry but the difference between TOS era sci-fi and the era of sci-fi I grew up with is about a billion miles apart whereas the difference between the 70's and the... wait a minute, you liked movies from the 1920's when you were...
​

My point was that what you grew up with doesn't necessarily equal having a bearing on what you like. Stage plays are all kinds of artificial and stylized, and the style varies from play to play, for instance. Acting and production styles change in film and TV, and to me TNG looks as dated as TOS, just in a different way. I wasn't attacking you with my question, I was simply trying to get a frame of reference.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm 24. I grew up through the 90's and became...accustom to a certain level of visual engagement from sci-fi (of any kind.) So when I sat down to watch TOS... I just couldn't get past what it looked like and the "camp" factor that was appropriate for the era when it came out but seemed almost silly to me based on the sci-fi experience I was used to at that point.

Now, before you go to red alert, let me say that I love the characters from TOS. Outside of DS9 I think they're my favorite cast. They just...work somehow.

Well, if you love the TOS characters but not the old '60s budget-constrained look check out Abrams's Star Trek. It solves that problem really nicely.

 

[Michael]

It's seriously a generational thing.

Personally, I don't think it is, no. I'm only two years older than you and the original Star Trek is my favorite Trek series (along with Deep Space Nine, which I love just as much). I love the way TOS looks! I love the wonderful music and the great acting.

Maybe it's just a different sensibility in terms of what I accept as good entertainment. To me, the story is the most important aspect of a television series. As much as I love the superficial details of Star Trek, at its core it's always about the stories. Somehow I can't help but feel sorry for you, because you can't enjoy all those wonderful stories.

 

[Withers]

and to me TNG looks as dated as TOS, just in a different way.

I agree with you. Even Deep Space Nine during the earlier seasons looks kind of dated. It makes those episodes harder for me to watch. Were they a play I'd have an easier time of it I think based on the fact that I wouldn't expect much in the way of graphics if I were sitting in an audience in a theater. I'd also have the added benefit of watching the actors act in person rather than on a television screen.

Well, if you love the TOS characters but not the old '60s budget-constrained look check out Abrams's Star Trek. It solves that problem really nicely.

I shouldn't even dignify that with a response... but I will anyway. I loved the new movie but those actors pale in comparison to the original cast in the TOS movies. I'm sorry but the chemistry just is not there yet (it might be in the future.)

To me, the story is the most important aspect of a television series. As much as I love the superficial details of Star Trek, at its core it's always about the stories. Somehow I can't help but feel sorry for you, because you can't enjoy all those wonderful stories.

I'm not saying 'it's good graphics or nothing' but for science fiction to be entertaining, for me, I need some sort of visual appeal along with the story. Were that not the case I'd have liked Voyager a lot more than I did purely based on it being the most modern looking. I'm not an empty husk who can only appreciate eye candy and large explosions but once you've had the experience of truly mesmerizing special effects its hard to look backward 40 plus years and get much out of it if part of your expectation in sci-fi is the visual aspect.

You should feel sorry for me because I really want to be able to sit down and enjoy those classic episodes and I've given it an honest shot. I just can't. I don't know how else to phrase it but its just a visual medium and style of acting I don't appreciate. I like reading the episode recaps on Memory Alpha and I loved the movies but the episodes are just too much of a leap for me. And it's a shame if for no other reason than there's less of the Trek Universe I like than there would be if I could enjoy it.


-Withers-​

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, if you love the TOS characters but not the old '60s budget-constrained look check out Abrams's Star Trek. It solves that problem really nicely.

I shouldn't even dignify that with a response... but I will anyway. I loved the new movie but those actors pale in comparison to the original cast in the TOS movies. I'm sorry but the chemistry just is not there yet (it might be in the future.)

Nah...Nimoy is probably better than Quinto. Shatner is arguably better than Pine, but that's a matter of personal preference...Kelley/Urban are pretty much on par. Everyone else in Abrams's version are better than the original actors.

 

[Withers]

Nah...Nimoy is probably better than Quinto. Shatner is arguably better than Pine, but that's a matter of personal preference...Kelley/Urban are pretty much on par. Everyone else in Abrams's version are better than the original actors.

I like... all of the TOS cast better than I liked the new cast. Or maybe I just liked those characters older and more wise. (My favorite movie is The Undiscovered Country). Either way I just didn't find that the group in the JJ film was as... tight. But there again I guess they aren't supposed to be at that stage in their careers.


-Withers-​

 

[Nerys Myk]

From the outtakes they seemed pretty tight.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

See, I can't stand "The Undiscovered Country" - it's barely a movie. ST:TMP and ST:TWOK and maybe ST:TVH are the TOS-based movies that I'd take the time to watch again.

 

[Withers]

From the outtakes they seemed pretty tight.

...yes, in real life, I'm sure they're the best of friends- yuckin' it up left and right. That's not exactly what I meant when I said they don't seem 'tight.'

See, I can't stand "The Undiscovered Country" - it's barely a movie. ST:TMP and ST:TWOK and maybe ST:TVH are the TOS-based movies that I'd take the time to watch again.

Well, I think that just speaks to our different tastes in the TOS movies really. I can't stand the Motion Picture unless I'm in a very, very, very heavy Star Trek mood (and that usually involves alcohol of some sort) but I'd watch Undiscovered Country on tv if ever played there and I so happened to notice.



-Withers-

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I can't stand the Motion Picture unless I'm in a very, very, very heavy Star Trek mood ...

I don't love it - it's got a lot of problems. But it's watchable.

 

[Warped9]

I never get it when some people make references to TOS a campy. I just shake my head. Abrams' movie is way more campy than TOS except in occasional episodes. It seems Abrams took things like "The Trouble With Tribbles," "I, Mudd," A Piece Of The Action," "Whom Gods Destroy" and "And The Children Shall Lead" as the template of what TOS is.