What is it about TOS?

[TREK_GOD_1]

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.

Sharp observation. Even as TNG hit its stride somewhere in season 3, there was a tepid air about it--a lack of a living heart. Few stories felt organic/dramatic, but read like a script meeting: just saying words surrounded by Trek-ian sets/costumes.

TOS was aimed at a general audience whereas TNG seemed conceived for the splinter audience of Trek fans.

I would say that is half true, in that TOS was trying to appeal to a general audience (there was no established sci-fi demographic for studios to target as a formula, as would be the case in the 1970s - forward), but TNG used TOS' breakout as a pop culture event to zero in on Trekkers--trying to win that audience first, then appeal to a more sci-fi conditioned culture as it existed in 1987.

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.

I have encountered that observation since the early TNG days, as there was a strong view that the TNG reality was not as brutal or consequential as that seen in TOS.

To be clear, it was not the long-abused "Kirk vs Picard" nerd war, or the "Roddenberry waned TNG to be a utopia" dialogue, either. It was a direct judgement about the post 60s / yuppie-esque sociopolitical feeling that would run through TNG, and (eventually) various plots of the sequel series.

Granted, TNG was not a series born during the Cold War, or shaped by people who lived through the Depression and/or participated in WWII. However, the lack of that sort of hyper real life experience should not prevent anyone (in the decades that followed) from creating stronger tales, especially when TOS existed as a template for the fictional universe.

Lastly, TOS episodes, even the bad ones, are memorable. TNG feels for the most part disposable.

I cannot disagree. It makes me think back to TNG, when it turned 20 in 2007; there was hardly a media nod. When TOS reached 20 in 1986, there were official celebrations and a wealth of media (news) coverage / analysis. One was viewed as special...culturally relevant. The other is just "that other Star Trek show."

 

[velour]

Alcohol vs synthehol. That sums it up for me.

I think there's something in this.

Of the original Trek shows, only TOS presented us with human characters who were close enough to the audience to be relatable, but still far enough away to be plausibly futuristic.

(ENT came next closest, but maybe they made their humans too "modern" and "fallible", and not evolved enough..... which was kind of the whole point of the show, I know.)

The TNG crew were far too 'perfect' in that regard. They were futuristic space people, full of their own morals and the ways they had evolved from the past, especially in Season 1. They generally lacked relatable human foibles. Some of them faltered at times, some of them suffered real problems. But there was always a sense of the false about them. They were, in essence, more 'fictional' than their TOS forebears.

(DS9 and VOY both made attempts to show flawed humans, but they were constricted in many other ways that TOS was not. I'll allow that DS9 probably presented us with 24th century Trek's most realistic characters, human flaws and all.)

I agree. As I read your comment, I couldn't help but think of a line Kirk spoke in ST2. It was at the ceremony for Spock in the torpedo bay.

"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most, human."

That is how I feel about TOS. TOS was the most human, when compared to the other Trek series as well as when compared to other scifi space shows that I have seen.

It was the human drama that was the core of the show, not the scifi technology.

In spite of all the advantages that TNG had with much better special effects, costume and makeup etc., it still paled in comparison to TOS. TNG was technocratic, stiff, and a bit snobbish and overly intellectual.

For a show set in space, TOS was very down to earth. The actors/characters had a lot of charisma, and they were appealing, as were the stories. The stories were relevant, compelling and inspirational. A lot of the stories were metaphors for real life situations. Looking back at the series, I would say that the stories were not only timely but timeless as well.

 

[suarezguy]

Lastly, TOS episodes, even the bad ones, are memorable. TNG feels for the most part disposable.

I cannot disagree. It makes me think back to TNG, when it turned 20 in 2007; there was hardly a media nod. When TOS reached 20 in 1986, there were official celebrations and a wealth of media (news) coverage / analysis. One was viewed as special...culturally relevant. The other is just "that other Star Trek show."

Well it's rare for any sequel or spin-off, let alone one that also led to its own long-lasting spin-offs, to be widely remembered and celebrated independently of the original. Even The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back are generally considered to be continuations and thus discussed as part of the whole series-with discussions nonetheless centered around the original.

 

[erastus25]

Lastly, TOS episodes, even the bad ones, are memorable. TNG feels for the most part disposable.

I cannot disagree. It makes me think back to TNG, when it turned 20 in 2007; there was hardly a media nod. When TOS reached 20 in 1986, there were official celebrations and a wealth of media (news) coverage / analysis. One was viewed as special...culturally relevant. The other is just "that other Star Trek show."

Well it's rare for any sequel or spin-off, let alone one that also led to its own long-lasting spin-offs, to be widely remembered and celebrated independently of the original. Even The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back are generally considered to be continuations and thus discussed as part of the whole series-with discussions nonetheless centered around the original.

I think for the sequel to really gain any sort of independent traction it has to break away significantly from the original in story, style, and tone. For instance, Alien and Aliens can be discussed completely separately from each other since they're basically separate genres. You can't tell the stories of Godfather II and ESB without the originals though.

 

[Amaris]

It was my first taste of Star Trek. I love TNG, DS9, and I like VOY and ENT, but when given the choice, I'll often pick a TOS episode. Maybe it's the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate, or maybe I just like pretty colors. Regardless, it's still one of my all-time favorite series.

 

[Lance]

On some level, TOS will always "be" something that other Treks are not.

Regardless of nostalgic affection (and I confess candidly that I came to Trek via TNG myself ), there is only one series which is the 'essence' of Star Trek in it's most pure, undiluted form. And that's TOS.

To take Gov Karnstein's alcohol analogy from earlier in the thread one step further: TOS provided the original recipe, and other Trek shows tried to distil that into different combinations. TNG had a more distinguished but often frothier palate; DS9 had a malty after-taste; and VOY was more like the cheap alternative sold for 99c a bottle at the local supermarket. But while all of them still had the 'essence' of Star Trek, none of them encompassed the true purity of TOS. If you will.

As Gov Karnstein said, it's Alcohol vs Synthehol.
Or maybe more accurately, it's New Coke vs Coke Classic.

As much as the follow-up shows have their own fandoms and affections, as much as many of us might nostalgically lean towards TNG or recognize the brilliance of DS9's long-form storytelling or appreciate the cut of Chakotay's jib, whenever anyone comes back to Star Trek stripped bare, it will always be TOS.

I truly don't think anybody could ever really do a "Battlestar Galactica" on it, and by that I mean create a series which completely supplants the original in the public consciousness. TOS will always exist as the template that the other shows/movies follow. It will never be toppled from that pedestal.

 

[Marsden]

I agree. As I read your comment, I couldn't help but think of a line Kirk spoke in ST2. It was at the ceremony for Spock in the torpedo bay.

"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most, human."

That is how I feel about TOS. TOS was the most human, when compared to the other Trek series as well as when compared to other scifi space shows that I have seen.

It was the human drama that was the core of the show, not the scifi technology.

In spite of all the advantages that TNG had with much better special effects, costume and makeup etc., it still paled in comparison to TOS. TNG was technocratic, stiff, and a bit snobbish and overly intellectual.

For a show set in space, TOS was very down to earth. The actors/characters had a lot of charisma, and they were appealing, as were the stories. The stories were relevant, compelling and inspirational. A lot of the stories were metaphors for real life situations. Looking back at the series, I would say that the stories were not only timely but timeless as well.

Well said, great post.



I was going to post only Harumph Harumph but I didn't know if everyone would know what I meant.

 

[erastus25]

I was going topost only Harumph Harumph but I didn't know if everyone would know what I meant.

Your username and avatar are great!

 

[Memory Alpha]

I mean, I almost think that if you're of a certain age and you like Trek, then TOS is kind of the undiluted original. It's like going back and finding an original document or something. "How did they do it then? What changed since then?" Etc.

I like the characters and the stories, of course, but the retro charm of it is undeniable in the sets, the social commentary (religion, computer-run-amok, technology issues, social progress - all interesting), the camaraderie of the main cast. It's all great.

I grew up with TNG and found TOS through the movies, then later got hooked on the series. So for me it was like finding a document, then an earlier document, then an earlier document. Now it's just the retro charm of TOS that appeals to me.

 

[StarCruiser]

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.

Sharp observation. Even as TNG hit its stride somewhere in season 3, there was a tepid air about it--a lack of a living heart. Few stories felt organic/dramatic, but read like a script meeting: just saying words surrounded by Trek-ian sets/costumes.

TOS was aimed at a general audience whereas TNG seemed conceived for the splinter audience of Trek fans.

I would say that is half true, in that TOS was trying to appeal to a general audience (there was no established sci-fi demographic for studios to target as a formula, as would be the case in the 1970s - forward), but TNG used TOS' breakout as a pop culture event to zero in on Trekkers--trying to win that audience first, then appeal to a more sci-fi conditioned culture as it existed in 1987.

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.

I have encountered that observation since the early TNG days, as there was a strong view that the TNG reality was not as brutal or consequential as that seen in TOS.

To be clear, it was not the long-abused "Kirk vs Picard" nerd war, or the "Roddenberry waned TNG to be a utopia" dialogue, either. It was a direct judgement about the post 60s / yuppie-esque sociopolitical feeling that would run through TNG, and (eventually) various plots of the sequel series.

Granted, TNG was not a series born during the Cold War, or shaped by people who lived through the Depression and/or participated in WWII. However, the lack of that sort of hyper real life experience should not prevent anyone (in the decades that followed) from creating stronger tales, especially when TOS existed as a template for the fictional universe.

Lastly, TOS episodes, even the bad ones, are memorable. TNG feels for the most part disposable.

I cannot disagree. It makes me think back to TNG, when it turned 20 in 2007; there was hardly a media nod. When TOS reached 20 in 1986, there were official celebrations and a wealth of media (news) coverage / analysis. One was viewed as special...culturally relevant. The other is just "that other Star Trek show."

All of this is true - and sadly - I feel the same way. I can't really sit down and watch a rerun of TNG. I find it kind of ... empty now. TOS, I can watch pretty much any of them (even the bad ones - though I still shy away from "And the Children Shall Lead" or "Alternative Factor" - both horrid).

The original show has a somewhat more visceral feel about it, even with the 'cardboard sets' and 'rubber rocks' and supposedly cheesy special effects.

Most early episodes really do feel like short movies - I'm surprised I had never made that connection before.

 

[Kirk1980]

Something I posted recently on Facebook after watching The Captains and Get a Life:

Watched William Shatner's Captains special and Get a Life back to back on the Yankee Beeb. As it's something on Star Trek, of course I have thoughts. 1) You could tell Shatner was most comfortable with Stewart. 2) Sometimes I have no idea what world actors inhabit because their language can be strange and mysterious sometimes but most importantly, 3) The thoughts and ideas being expressed there needed more than the 80 minutes the Yank Beeb gave.
Also, criticisms of Shatner in this seemed a bit misplaced. He does get talked about a lot, but at least it seemed to me it was because of the way the conversations went and well, Stewart's his friend and Bakula came across as a big fanboy (which is awesome). For instance, Shatner could have pointed out to Mulgrew that he went through a lot of personal loss during the show, too when she said the guys had it easier. But he demurred largely to the other captains in the conversations.
So many of the conversations they were having were begging for time to develop and mature. I would start getting fascinated and then, whoosh, commercial or new subject.
Shatner's Get a Life short film was fun to watch. And also reminded me once again of what I love about Star Trek. It is still one of the only shows which says mankind can work together to make a beautiful future for itself. And that's important that people, young and old, are still drawn to that desire.
I'm not ashamed to say Captain Kirk is one of my heroes. Even if the actor behind him has taken a long time to appreciate what he did or the impact the three year job he did back in the 60s would have on so many over so many years.
What Star Trek is is shown by those fans. Captain Dave who kept going despite his failing body, who never lost sight that there is hope in the future. The woman, who lost her husband to a car wreck and found strength to go on in Star Trek and its positive message of hope and kindness. The professionals who found their calling because Star Trek inspired them to boldly go.
Would I be me without Star Trek? Partly, I think. But it helped me figure out who I was and wanted to be.
Man, get me going on Star Trek and I can talk....

 

[eyeresist]

^ Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Kirk1980. I have three DVDs in my wishlist that have been there for a while: Mind Meld, The Captains, and The Captains: Close Up. Apart from the very obvious option of just getting all three which would people say is most worth watching?

 

[Spock's Barber]

The late Robert Justman, in his budget battles with studio and network executives, repeatedly said that ST was a television show that had never been tried before, AKA serious science fiction. It was unique in stories and characters. To paraphrase Mr. Spock, "It was fascinating!"