• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What is it about TOS?

EnriqueH

Commodore
Commodore
I'm watching Season 1 of TNG, and I'm loving it.

Great show, great characters.

But what is it about TOS?

As good as TNG is, I still find my mind wandering over to TOS: its characters, boldness, colors, music, stories.

The TOS mystique is a powerful thing.

I'll be sitting there, enjoying the way Picard and Riker are becoming friends, or the way Worf helps LaForge make a command decision, or the seamless way the transporter seems to work, or the comfortable ambiance of the Enterprise-D.

And I'll be completely immersed in the TNG plot of a particular episode, and BAM!

Spock in his blue science uniform or Bones McCoy's bravery or Kirk's bravado will creep up into my thoughts.

Out of the blue.

Does anyone else have this?

I'm NOT a spinoff hater.

But man...

I just LOVE the original show.
 
I know what you mean, Enrique. Though I have access to all of the Trek series on Netflix, rarely will I ever watch TNG episodes, and even then it will be one of the "classics" like The Best of Both Worlds or Yesterday's Enterprise. The last DS9 episode that I watched was Trials and Tribbleations, which should tell you something, as I'm not a DS9 fan, at all.
 
I think a lot of it has to do with which series you watched first. I became a fan of TOS so I always gravitate back to it.

Also, I'd say it has far stronger characterizations than TNG. The spinoff was too wrapped up in making humans look perfect and following GR to the letter, whereas the TOS characters came off as more human. Thus, TNG characters seem like bland archetypes, whereas it's easy to relate to TOS characters.

Note: I'm speaking in broad strokes, of course, and this is DEFINITELY not true for all characters and all episodes.
 
Shatner often put more energy into a performance than anyone else has since. It took nearly 15 years for me to realize how good he was on the show. As a teenager during first run, I didn't like him that much, though Kirk was always my favorite character as contradictory as that sounds.
 
Lots of reasons, in my opinion. It was conceived in the waning days of the Golden Age of Television. Early episodes were therefore like little films. They were often moody and atmospheric, whereas many TNG episodes felt like they were filmed in an 80s hotel or shopping mall. TOS actors were more appealing and the characters more interesting. The plots didn't get bogged down under their own sense of self-importance, and the dialogue wasn't crammed with technobabble. TOS was aimed at a general audience whereas TNG seemed conceived for the splinter audience of Trek fans. TOS was helmed mostly by people in the WWII generation, many of whom actually had served in the military. TNG was made mostly by their kids, college-educated Baby Boomers raised on TV shows. Lastly, TOS episodes, even the bad ones, are memorable. TNG feels for the most part disposable.
 
There's another factor too, I think. With TOS, it was usually a single plot line through the entire running time of the episode. Later series kept doing 2 or even 3 plot lines in an episode, though they had about 10 minutes less running time due to the increase in commercials between the 60s and 80s and beyond.
 
I understand completely. TOS has a lot of heart. It's more than just a show, to be sure! It's got a really special sort of "magic" to it, if you will. TOS is about family and adventure and breaking ground. It's inspirational. You can actually learn a thing or two from watching. Like don't give up, don't back down, friends are forever, the sky is the limit. You can go where you want to go and do what you want to do! (Mamas and Papas, haha.) But in all seriousness, there's quite a special and charm about TOS that's hard to put words to. The feeling is just--there. Like that around-Christmastime feeling. You can't really describe it, but there it is!
 
I understand completely. TOS has a lot of heart. It's more than just a show, to be sure! It's got a really special sort of "magic" to it, if you will. TOS is about family and adventure and breaking ground. It's inspirational. You can actually learn a thing or two from watching. Like don't give up, don't back down, friends are forever, the sky is the limit. You can go where you want to go and do what you want to do! (Mamas and Papas, haha.) But in all seriousness, there's quite a special and charm about TOS that's hard to put words to. The feeling is just--there. Like that around-Christmastime feeling. You can't really describe it, but there it is!
 
^(Um, I hate to interrupt the thread, but does anyone know how to delete an extra post? Mozilla Firefox is acting really crappy right now.)
 
^(Um, I hate to interrupt the thread, but does anyone know how to delete an extra post? Mozilla Firefox is acting really crappy right now.)
There is a Delete function available in Edit mode, but I only use it if I'm the last post in a thread. Anywhere else, it might mess up the file indexing keys and create problems in the database. Usually people just replace the unwanted comment with "sorry, double post".
 
Part of it, IMHO, is that Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley were not just great actors, but they were a great ensemble cast and played off each other really well, and it was limited to 3 main characters.

TNG, for example, didn't hit its stride until season3 and had a larger cast, as far as main characters. And even then, only certain combinations worked. For example, you couldn't set Worf, Geordi, and Troi togetehr and have a good synergy. Riker worked well when pairded with Picard, or Troi, or Worf, but add a third element, and Riker kind of falls in the background. Geordi worked best paired with Data. Really, the only character that could work well with any of the other characters was Picard, IMHO.

DS9 and VOY also had similar issues. ENT tried to get back to the big three formula, but IMHO, Archer, Trip, and TPol didn't have a good synergy. They first tried a romantic angle with Archer (after he threatened to knock her on her ass, BTW), but it was very awkward. The Trip/Tpol romantic angle worked better, but I really think they should have left them all platonic.
 
Shatner often put more energy into a performance than anyone else has since. It took nearly 15 years for me to realize how good he was on the show. As a teenager during first run, I didn't like him that much, though Kirk was always my favorite character as contradictory as that sounds.

That's why it bugs me when Shatner is derided as a ham; he had his moments of "over the top," but for the most part he was quite good. And a lot of the over the top can be excused as fitting the norm of '60s television writing and directing. Beyond that there were just so many great performances on TOS - guest stars and regulars alike.

There's another factor too, I think. With TOS, it was usually a single plot line through the entire running time of the episode. Later series kept doing 2 or even 3 plot lines in an episode, though they had about 10 minutes less running time due to the increase in commercials between the 60s and 80s and beyond.

That's only somewhat true. It was quite common for there to be an A-plot on a planet and a B-plot onboard the E. Even more subtle were the subplots that occurred within the A-plot (e.g. Bailey in Corbomite, Stiles in BoT). The difference here is that the plots all ran together and contributed directly to the main story, whereas 24th Century Trek subplots were often more or less stand-alone until a tenuous connection in the last five minutes was manufactured, similar to Seinfeld drawing all the plots together for a joke in the final scene.

Worse yet, a handful of episodes had no connection, thematic or plot, between the A and B story. The transition between them could often be jarring and somewhat non-sensical leading to pacing and atmosphere problems (Life Support being the worst example, probably).
 
^ Good points. Another example of mismatched plots is TNG: The Outrageous Okona. We have a lovable rogue character who didn't seem lovable to me, coupled with a B story about Data trying to learn about humor. Even Joe Piscopo isn't used to good advantage, his strength was impersonations. It's one of the dullest, least funny episodes of the early seasons. Star Trek was often heavy handed trying to do comedy.
 
Alcohol vs synthehol. That sums it up for me. TNG is about as colorful as a crew of Puppeteers. I can't imagine Picard's crew in a bar fight over the Enterprise D being called a garbage scow. Kirk's crew, that's just a good shore leave.
 
The characters. Even when the story was shit, the characters were still interesting to watch. With the spinoffs, the characters weren't strong enough to hold my attention if the story was shit.
 
The TOS threads seem to always have the most members viewing and is really the only place I visit here. I have seen every episode of all the other incarnations but I can/have/do watch TOS episodes over and over again.

It doesn't even seem that dated to me. Nostalgia I'm sure plays a part but good stories, cast, characters, directing, etc. as others have mentioned.
 
There are elements and episodes of TNG I like, but when I think Star Trek then TOS is definitive. Yes, it was the one I grew up with, but then I grew up with a lot of shows and most of them fell by the wayside as I matured. It's definitely a show that works on multiple levels.

I like TOS' unapologetic style and dynamic in so many things even when it stumbles. Even when it was disappointing it was never boring.

Also the passage of time has really underlined the differences between TOS and the rest of the franchise. There is a sameness to so much of what came later that it's all like so much pablum to me. TOS is unique in its identity and no one has managed to revive that again except for a few fan film productions.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top