What is it about TOS?

[Commishsleer]

When all of his senior officers can call him Jim and not sound forced or contrived, that shows that there's really something here.

That really can't be emphasized enough. There was actually zero times in any later Trek show where any of the other main characters had to get personal and call the captain by their first name,

One. Dax could get away with calling Sisko "Benjamin", and it worked. Definitely can't see Picard or Archer going for it, and Chakotay might try it at his own risk, but that's about it.

I can remember Beverley calling Picard by his first name and Chakotay sometimes referring to Janeway as Katherine.

Kirk also had other Captains, Admirals, exes also calling him by his first name.

 

[johnnybear]

In the end, and for whatever reason, it's because we care(d) more about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy than we ever did about any of the other characters that have come since.

I'm sure that nostalgia plays a part of it for me, but you're right. They are also the most interesting set of characters that the franchise produced.

Oh, you're probably right, nostalgia probably plays a part in it. Isn't it funny, though, that with only 79 episodes and half a dozen movies we keep turning back to them time and time again. I never tire of them.

It's not only us that keeps turning back to them either!
JB

 

[2takesfrakes]

STAR TREK is so much PLAY! The bombardment with primary colours, like a comic book, the jammies, the carnival face paint on most of the aliens, the hokeyness of many of the stories, the moth-eaten gorilla suits and rubber monsters, the horrible acting (especially) ... all of that stuff. This show knows its shortcomings and then has the audacity to ask us to play along, anyway, just by taking itself so seriously. The show's just weird enough to demand attention but not so weird as to be offputting. And at its heart, it's abundantly clear that this show WANTS to be fun to watch! It CARES about entertaining you.

 

[johnnybear]

In the end, and for whatever reason, it's because we care(d) more about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy than we ever did about any of the other characters that have come since.

And Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, Nurse Chappel, Lt. Kyle and Yeoman Rand! Especially Yeoman Rand!
JB

 

[BillJ]

And at its heart, it's abundantly clear that this show WANTS to be fun to watch! It CARES about entertaining you.

Which is why it is the best series by a rather large margin. Its never boring.

 

[bbailey861]

In the end, and for whatever reason, it's because we care(d) more about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy than we ever did about any of the other characters that have come since.

And Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, Nurse Chappel, Lt. Kyle and Yeoman Rand! Especially Yeoman Rand!
JB

Yes, the whole lot of them. I am very grateful that we have the TOS books to go to as well. It's kept the adventure alive.

 

[Ssosmcin]

STAR TREK is so much PLAY! The bombardment with primary colours, like a comic book, the jammies, the carnival face paint on most of the aliens, the hokeyness of many of the stories, the moth-eaten gorilla suits and rubber monsters, the horrible acting (especially) ... all of that stuff. This show knows its shortcomings and then has the audacity to ask us to play along, anyway, just by taking itself so seriously. The show's just weird enough to demand attention but not so weird as to be offputting. And at its heart, it's abundantly clear that this show WANTS to be fun to watch! It CARES about entertaining you.

I really don't think everyone making the show was sitting around saying "hey the acting SUCKS on this show, our stories are hokey and our costumes are laughable! Thank god, because that makes Star Trek FUN!"

However, I'm sure they were saying something like that about Lost in Space. Except for the "fun" part.

However, I do absolutely agree that Trek was a LOT of fun. But not for those reasons.

 

[Nerys Myk]

STAR TREK is so much PLAY! The bombardment with primary colours, like a comic book, the jammies, the carnival face paint on most of the aliens, the hokeyness of many of the stories, the moth-eaten gorilla suits and rubber monsters, the horrible acting (especially) ... all of that stuff. This show knows its shortcomings and then has the audacity to ask us to play along, anyway, just by taking itself so seriously. The show's just weird enough to demand attention but not so weird as to be offputting. And at its heart, it's abundantly clear that this show WANTS to be fun to watch! It CARES about entertaining you.

We most not have watched the same version of TOS.

The primary colors were there to sell color TVs, but were not "comic book" colors like on Batman.

Jammies? The TOS uniforms aren't very jammy like.

They had one Gorilla suit and it was in pretty good shape.

Rubber monster? Again, not something often used. The Gorn was pretty good for 60s TV. The Horta was pretty amazing. Janos Proska was the Andy Serkis of his day.

Hokey stories? The stories were on par ( and occasionally above) for the style and execution of drama on 60s TV.

Carnival make up? Most of the aliens didn't even have any appliances or odd colored make up on. The majority of TOS aliens were very human looking. From Beta 3 to Sarpiedon.

Horrible acting? The acting was for the most part well done. Again on par for 60s TV and even modern TV. Yes on occasion you might have someone cast for looks rather than skill. But Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley were quite good and most of the guest stars were as well.

 

[johnnybear]

STAR TREK is so much PLAY! The bombardment with primary colours, like a comic book, the jammies, the carnival face paint on most of the aliens, the hokeyness of many of the stories, the moth-eaten gorilla suits and rubber monsters, the horrible acting (especially) ... all of that stuff. This show knows its shortcomings and then has the audacity to ask us to play along, anyway, just by taking itself so seriously. The show's just weird enough to demand attention but not so weird as to be offputting. And at its heart, it's abundantly clear that this show WANTS to be fun to watch! It CARES about entertaining you.

We most not have watched the same version of TOS.

The primary colors were there to sell color TVs, but were not "comic book" colors like on Batman.

Jammies? The TOS uniforms aren't very jammy like.

They had one Gorilla suit and it was in pretty good shape.

(Rubber monster? Again, not something often used. The Gorn was pretty good for 60s TV. The Horta was pretty amazing. Janos Proska was the Andy Serkis of his day.)

The Gorn was awesome and the stories were first class!

Hokey stories? The stories were on par ( and occasionally above) for the style and execution of drama on 60s TV.

(Carnival make up? Most of the aliens didn't even have any appliances or odd colored make up on. The majority of TOS aliens were very human looking. From Beta 3 to Sarpiedon)

Weird how all the aliens from the later Treks had a lump, a ridge or an spot on their heads just to differentiate them from humans yet in TOS it explains that there are several groups of humanoids in the galaxy!
JB

 

[Maurice]

One can't fairly critique TOS by modern standards in a vacuum. What some might perceive as hokey acting and cheesy this-n-that is revealed to be not so if you watch the show's contemporaries from the late 60s. A lot of it was the state of the art.

 

[bbailey861]

One can't fairly critique TOS by modern standards in a vacuum. What some might perceive as hokey acting and cheesy this-n-that is revealed to be not so if you watch the show's contemporaries from the late 60s. A lot of it was the state of the art.

Very true, and despite 50 years, the stories are just as relevant today as they were then.

 

[Gassy Man]

One can't fairly critique TOS by modern standards in a vacuum. What some might perceive as hokey acting and cheesy this-n-that is revealed to be not so if you watch the show's contemporaries from the late 60s. A lot of it was the state of the art.

I'm not even sure I would call the acting hokey by today's standards. Actors then were certainly expected to be broader and more stage-like today, but the craft is often impeccable. Voice and diction, mannerisms and body language, emotive eyes, and the like -- the easiest way to see if talent today is as good is to ask them to do the same style of acting and see if they can muster the talent. Most can't, which is why parodies of the time period often fall flat. On the other hand, it isn't all that hard for actors of that time period to just flatten their style to something more "realistic," which has allowed the dubious quality of such "talents" as Leonaro DiCaprio and Shia LaBouef to pass themselves off as bonafide actors.

 

[suarezguy]

While I don't think the original series is necessarily, let alone easily, the best series, certain aspects of it are best. Mainly that Shatner and Nimoy really brought a lot of passion, and the latter also a lot of depth, to playing their characters and the writers were really interested in making the episodes exciting and creative (as others said, not afraid to go out-there); I think Shatner enjoying playing a somewhat archetypal hero and the main cast being smaller (with Nimoy and Kelley often mainly foils to him) does often contribute to being more exciting. The style may have grown less effective if the show had gone on longer.
Edit: Much as I love how Nimoy played and the writers wrote Spock, I think both were putting in less effort during season 3.

 

[Warped9]

Time has a way of blurring the past. Viewers today, especially those starting to watch TOS during the past couple of decades, can forget or might not even be aware of how Star Trek stood out from what else was being aired at the time. The bar has been raised in terms of what the audience will expect from television SF. But back in the day TOS wasn't just a little better than what else was being done. It was a lot better overall.

I think the fact that it still draws new viewers and still inspires fans young and old alike is a testament to how much they got right.

 

[Commishsleer]

One can't fairly critique TOS by modern standards in a vacuum. What some might perceive as hokey acting and cheesy this-n-that is revealed to be not so if you watch the show's contemporaries from the late 60s. A lot of it was the state of the art.

If you compare the acting in TOS with that in TNG (with the exception of Patrick Stewart) or any of the other Treks or modern sci-fi series I think that TOS comes out on top. Regardless of being in the 60s style or not. I'd take deForest Kelley on a bad day over Gates McFadden at her best.

People criticise the 'dramatic' acting in a movie like Casablanca and all the cliches in it. Next someone is going to praise the 'brilliant acting' in the Avengers movie.

 

[fireproof78]

TOS will always have a bit of nostalgia for me, because it was the first Star Trek I encountered, both on TV and through books. Try as I might, I could not get in to early TNG and it wasn't until "The First Duty" that the show interested me.

However, TOS always captured my imagination. There was a sense of wonder to it, that things were an adventure, and excitement and that the characters were just as excited to be doing it as I was to watch them. For me, this was my "Hobbit" experience of "I'm going on an adventure." Even though I didn't write fan fiction at the time, or know what it was, I created the Security Chief who would survive the adventures (I was ignorant of tropes too ).

I think TOS had characters that really kept me interested and seemed like they had a good relationship with each.

 

[Push The Button]

When all of his senior officers can call him Jim and not sound forced or contrived, that shows that there's really something here.

That really can't be emphasized enough. There was actually zero times in any later Trek show where any of the other main characters had to get personal and call the captain by their first name, where it does anything but flop disingenuously out of their face, but when Bones says Jim it rings like a warm nugget of truth about their relationship, & when Spock says it, it's like an Earth shatteringly emotional moment.

There's just no two ways around that fact. Hell, sometimes now when I hear anyone say Jean-Luc, I cringe a little.

Scotty called him "Jim" only one time, in Mirror Mirror, and it was one of the most heartfelt moments in all of TOS precisely because it was something that Scotty just didn't do.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

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.

All true. What's interesting, though, is that--despite feling like a show made for Trekkies--TNG attracted a sizable but temporary audience of people who didn't care much for TOS. TNG was a bit of a fad, for a year or two.

Looking back, the show TNG most resembled was L.A. Law--they even traded a great many actors back and forth. Both were slick, bland successors to shows that were much more cimematic and groundbreaking--Hill Street Blues in the case of the latter.

 

[BillJ]

All true. What's interesting, though, is that--despite feling like a show made for Trekkies--TNG attracted a sizable but temporary audience of people who didn't care much for TOS. TNG was a bit of a fad, for a year or two.

I agree it had a temporary audience that drifted away almost immediately after it went off the air. But I'd say it was a solid seven year fad.

 

[Marsden]

Scotty called him "Jim" only one time, in Mirror Mirror, and it was one of the most heartfelt moments in all of TOS precisely because it was something that Scotty just didn't do.

That was quite a moment, one little word, a name, between them that conveyed so much meaning and emotion.

Those don't seem to happen in the later shows, which was my point.