TOS- Overrated?

[Anwar]

Still, the point is that with TOS they only had 3 characters who were written as archetypes (well acted archetypes, but still archetypes) that function as a single unit. It's easier to write single episodes with that set-up compared to shows with larger casts that don't function as one unit.

 

[BillJ]

Look, for all the "TOS didn't need B-Plots!" "The pacing was better!" folks:

It's fairly easy to do singular plots that can encompass entire 45-50 minute episodes with decent pacing for all characters involved when there are only 3 characters and those characters happen to be basic freud archetypes (Id, Ego, Superego) that clearly operate as a single storytelling unit.

It seems like hen it would be even easier to do a single plot with seven characters, provided the writing is strong enough to give all the characters something to do that is connected to the plot.

 

[Anwar]

Not really, no.

 

[Agenda]

tos sux. tng wouldve been better without its influence

 

[Mark 2000]

I think there is a reason why the new films are based on TOS. Those three characters are timeless. People still get them. The intellectual adventurer. The stoic philosopher and scientist, and the emotional, humanist poet. They have good chemistry and people enjoy seeing what they are going through each week, even if it's silly.

I love the shit out of TNG, but those characters aren't timeless. They're trying to be what humans should be instead of what they are, and the milquetoast way they go about it is very much grounded in the 90's.

As for DS9, I don't know why there's such a vocal following of a show that's basically a static TNG that had to change it's formula three times and even added a TNG star to the cast just to stay on the air. In general Zeitgeist there are, and will only ever be two Star Trek series: Kirk and the bald guy. That description alone should tell you something.

 

[MANT!]

 

[AdmiralScreed]

I love the shit out of TNG, but those characters aren't timeless. They're trying to be what humans should be instead of what they are, and the milquetoast way they go about it is very much grounded in the 90's.

Are you also saying that you think Kirk is more timeless than Picard? Because if you are, I couldn't disagree more. Stewart is by far the superior actor, and his character is just so much better written. I don't agree with the argument some TOS fans make that the TNG characters are too perfect. If you analyze Picard, he was shown to have his flaws. As a cadet he was arrogant and impulsive, and even years later when he had matured he still had some issues. He had a very difficult time coming to terms with what the Borg did to him. He almost committed mass genocide just out of spite. The point I am getting at is that Picard is a very human character; he makes mistakes and he has his flaws, but nevertheless he has a conscience and stands by his principles, and in my eyes those are some of the main characteristics that make him such an endearing character. Kirk is nowhere near as complex of a character, in part because of the way he was written, and also because of Shatner's overacting.
Moving on, if you ignore Kirk and Picard and analyze the rest of the cast, TNG wins by a long shot. Don't get me wrong, I like Spock quite a bit, and the interplay between him and Bones can be pretty funny, but compared to the likes of Data and Worf they aren't nearly as interesting. Besides, most of the TOS cast just sat around in the background and hardly did anything. They had their moments, yes, but in general they didn't get very much attention and they didn't develop at all. Data, Worf, and Riker and Crusher to a lesser extent, developed a lot during TNG's seven seasons. (Worf would develop even more in DS9).
Frankly, the only reason I believe the TOS cast is so iconic in the eyes of the general public is because they were the first ST cast, but that doesn't mean that they were the best cast to ever be featured on a Trek series.

 

[horatio83]

Look, for all the "TOS didn't need B-Plots!" "The pacing was better!" folks:

It's fairly easy to do singular plots that can encompass entire 45-50 minute episodes with decent pacing for all characters involved when there are only 3 characters and those characters happen to be basic freud archetypes (Id, Ego, Superego) that clearly operate as a single storytelling unit.

I don't think the characters correspond to Freudian archetypes.


McCoy wasn't a raging id, he was the conscience of the three, the heart.

it's more about logic vs emotion vs balance than id, ego, superego

The superego has little to do with the conscience. Psycho is a neat example for a pretty nasty maternal superego.

I agree with you that the troika is not necessarily Freudian (there is of course nothing wrong with such a reading) but I also agree with Anwar, they are archetypal characters and thus easy to write for as opposed to e.g. twenty or more complex characters in DS9.

Frankly, the only reason I believe the TOS cast is so iconic in the eyes of the general public is because they were the first ST cast, but that doesn't mean that they were the best cast to ever be featured on a Trek series.

I wouldn't go as far as you but some fans are sometimes pretty hypocritical, complaining about one character not getting enough spotlight in TNG or post-TNG while totally ignoring that Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov have always ranged between being minor characters and pseudo-extras that get two lines per episode.
Take e.g. Sulu, when did he become interesting? In the very ending, TUC, when he was actually treated as a real character instead of just the guy who sits at the helm and says "aye, warp 2, sir".

In other words, the brilliance of the troika has always been at the expense of the other characters.

 

[sonak]

I love the shit out of TNG, but those characters aren't timeless. They're trying to be what humans should be instead of what they are, and the milquetoast way they go about it is very much grounded in the 90's.

Are you also saying that you think Kirk is more timeless than Picard? Because if you are, I couldn't disagree more. Stewart is by far the superior actor, and his character is just so much better written. I don't agree with the argument some TOS fans make that the TNG characters are too perfect. If you analyze Picard, he was shown to have his flaws. As a cadet he was arrogant and impulsive, and even years later when he had matured he still had some issues. He had a very difficult time coming to terms with what the Borg did to him. He almost committed mass genocide just out of spite. The point I am getting at is that Picard is a very human character; he makes mistakes and he has his flaws, but nevertheless he has a conscience and stands by his principles, and in my eyes those are some of the main characteristics that make him such an endearing character. Kirk is nowhere near as complex of a character, in part because of the way he was written, and also because of Shatner's overacting.
Moving on, if you ignore Kirk and Picard and analyze the rest of the cast, TNG wins by a long shot. Don't get me wrong, I like Spock quite a bit, and the interplay between him and Bones can be pretty funny, but compared to the likes of Data and Worf they aren't nearly as interesting. Besides, most of the TOS cast just sat around in the background and hardly did anything. They had their moments, yes, but in general they didn't get very much attention and they didn't develop at all. Data, Worf, and Riker and Crusher to a lesser extent, developed a lot during TNG's seven seasons. (Worf would develop even more in DS9).
Frankly, the only reason I believe the TOS cast is so iconic in the eyes of the general public is because they were the first ST cast, but that doesn't mean that they were the best cast to ever be featured on a Trek series.

I'll agree that Picard is the DEEPER and more complex character than Kirk, but he's less fun to watch, and Kirk's the better hero and captain.

Totally disagree on Data being more interesting than Spock-Data was a one-note character, Spock had the whole mixed heritage, inner conflict thing going on.

McCoy is great as well.

the big three stack up well against the TNG cast, and it's unfair to compare the rest because TOS wasn't an ensemble.

 

[horatio83]

Depends on whether you consider" rushing in where angels fear to tread" or fighting with every second Admiral for the sake of Starfleet principles as your benchmark for heroism. I admire the latter far more than the former.

 

[sonak]

Depends on whether you consider" rushing in where angels fear to tread" or fighting with every second Admiral for the sake of Starfleet principles as your benchmark for heroism. I admire the latter far more than the former.

sounds like you're buying a little more into the stereotype image of Kirk instead of the way he really was.

he wasn't exactly the "go off, guns blazing, shoot first, ask questions later" guy he's sometimes remembered for being.

 

[horatio83]

Unlike the writers of SXI I have a relatively nuanced image of Kirk with his Hamlet-like lines from Balance of Terror, Mitchell's words about him being "[a] stack of books with legs" during his Academy days from Where No Man has Gone Before and some thoughts about how having witnessed the horrors on Tarsus IV might have impacted a young boy in mind.
I nonetheless consider Picard, to pick your very words, to be the "better hero" because he dared to confront superior officers and risk his career in order to fight for the often endangered principles of Starfleet.

 

[Gov Kodos]

No, it's not overrated.

 

[CaptainStoner]

The TOS and TNG characters all have iconic qualities. Each is a variation on a theme by the same composer.

 

[xortex]

And Kirk never confronted superior officers? Only difference was Kirk took an action where Picard ultimately gave in. Quite hypocritically so. He was a good loser and runner. Kirk was also not a loose canon. Hr was very thoughtful and conflicted but he didn't suffer desk bound paper pushers easily and dressed down more than one Admiral. Words are cheap. Kirk walked the walk.

 

[Lord Garth]

I used to think TOS was under-rated and spent a lot of time defending it. These days, with things slanting more pro-TOS, thanks to J.J. Abrams, I no longer feel it's under-rated and don't feel any burning need to rush to its defense.

TOS didn't have a perfect track record but when it was good it was good, it had a point to make, and the chemistry between the actors and characters goes a long way toward carrying episodes that would've fallen flat otherwise.

 

[horatio83]

And Kirk never confronted superior officers? Only difference was Kirk took an action where Picard ultimately gave in. Quite hypocritically so. He was a good loser and runner. Kirk was also not a loose canon. Hr was very thoughtful and conflicted but he didn't suffer desk bound paper pushers easily and dressed down more than one Admiral. Words are cheap. Kirk walked the walk.

Picard being a "loser and runner" who "gives in" is utterly preposterous BS. Satie, Dougherty, Nechayev, all stories that are about "principles before orders". In Redemption we learn that even the android has learned this lesson from Picard.

I don't recall that Kirk has ever disobeyed an order except in TSFS. But as you claim that Kirk dressed down more than one Admiral I am sure you can enlighten me and point out the actual instances in which this has happened.

 

[Maurice]

In fact, Bob Justman said that when Roddenberry described the good Captain to him, "The character was an amalgam of Hamlet and Captain Horatio C. Hornblower...this is an imperfect hero. The Captain has fears and doubts about his capability, yet he's faced with the responsibility of protecting the lives of everyone on board." You see that a lot in early episodes. Later they made the show more action adventure and left some of that behind. Still, that's who the character is, as we're reminded of in TWOK when he blows it.

What's Picard's character?

 

[sonak]

And Kirk never confronted superior officers? Only difference was Kirk took an action where Picard ultimately gave in. Quite hypocritically so. He was a good loser and runner. Kirk was also not a loose canon. Hr was very thoughtful and conflicted but he didn't suffer desk bound paper pushers easily and dressed down more than one Admiral. Words are cheap. Kirk walked the walk.

Picard being a "loser and runner" who "gives in" is utterly preposterous BS. Satie, Dougherty, Nechayev, all stories that are about "principles before orders". In Redemption we learn that even the android has learned this lesson from Picard.

I don't recall that Kirk has ever disobeyed an order except in TSFS. But as you claim that Kirk dressed down more than one Admiral I am sure you can enlighten me and point out the actual instances in which this has happened.

the idea that Kirk never "stood up to starfleet" for his principles is kind of silly. You even bring up TSFS, in which that was like the whole theme of the movie!


What about TMP, where he stands up to Nogura to get the Enterprise back?

What about "Amok Time" where he defied orders to help Spock?

I can't think of a LESS accurate description of Kirk than that he was a guy who just followed orders and didn't stand up to those above him.


by the way, "Insurrection" was one of Picard's WORST moments, not his best, but that's for another thread.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

by the way, "Insurrection" was one of Picard's WORST moments, not his best, but that's for another thread.

Whether or not you agree with what Picard did is beside the point because he at least had the courage to follow his principles and stand up for what he believed in. I'll confess that had I been in Picard's position, I may have reluctantly followed orders and removed the Baku because billions of people could have been helped with the healing properties of the Baku homeworld. The rights of billions trumps the rights of 600 in my book, especially considering that the Baku were not going to be killed, just relocated to a different planet. Nevertheless, I admire Picard for doing what he believed was right by standing up for the rights of the minority. That takes a lot of courage.