Why Is It Fashionable to Insult TOS?
- Thread starter Kirk1980
- Start date
You know, I enjoy reading Starship Polaris's posts and I can't say I noticed he hated TOS. I thought he had affection for all ST. He wrote for TNG, but he also wrote Episode #2 for "Starship Exeter", a fanfilm series that deliberately glorifies everything that makes TOS, well... TOS!
Polaris's posts are a little odd.... they seem kinda split. I've seen him defend TOS and outright insult it. Almost....Polar! Hah!
But what I don't get is....if someone doesn't like JJ Abrams' storytelling, thinks the new props look bad and thinks the design of the ship is kinda ugly and then can back it up with reasons that don't relate to believing TOS was superior.... the defenders of XI attack with insults on TOS' props and effects and so on.
It's like...why bring it up out of nowhere?
But what I don't get is....if someone doesn't like JJ Abrams' storytelling, thinks the new props look bad and thinks the design of the ship is kinda ugly and then can back it up with reasons that don't relate to believing TOS was superior.... the defenders of XI attack with insults on TOS' props and effects and so on.
It's like...why bring it up out of nowhere?
It is true that TOS hasn't been on the air much the last 6 years or so. Now that the remastered episodes are starting to be shown some people are seeing the old Trek for the very first time. It is not hard to find episodes of NG, Voyager or Enterprise on at various times of the day and night, but it is often difficult to find TOS anymore. It has been waning in popularity for the last several times. The number of airings has decreased because the ratings have decreased. The 79 jewels weren't so sparkly anymore. It seems kind of silly to me that people would reject TOS because they didn't like the 40 year old special effects, but that seems to be the way it is. The remastering is to try and get new viewers past that. In any event, I guess I can kind of see why fans of the other series haven't seen much of TOS, it is because it hasn't been on much. Hopefully, people will be drawn to the remastered episodes and see that the acting was actually pretty good most of the time and that the writing was really outstanding.
Fans aren't banned from insulting the shows they love.
Why is it "insulting" to TOS to observe that it had some sets built on the cheap (i.e., bare concrete floors, hallways that even GR said looked cheap) or that it had "theatrical" acting?
TOS has good storytelling and characters and it has dated sets and acting styles. The latter does not negate the former.
Do you love your family? Yes. Are they perfect? No. Same goes for TOS.
Never did I say TOS was perfect.
My point has always been that when people insult the show and try to bring it down or give it as reasons why they don't like it and they point out the effects as reasons why they don't like it.... it makes my head hurt.
And gee, I never said Polaris should be banned. It just struck me as a little odd that sometimes he seems to be saying the old show sucked and then at others, defending it. That's all. I guess if you interpret 'a little odd' as meaning he should be banned, that's your prerogative but that certainly wasn't the intent.
My point has always been that when people insult the show and try to bring it down or give it as reasons why they don't like it and they point out the effects as reasons why they don't like it.... it makes my head hurt.
And gee, I never said Polaris should be banned. It just struck me as a little odd that sometimes he seems to be saying the old show sucked and then at others, defending it. That's all. I guess if you interpret 'a little odd' as meaning he should be banned, that's your prerogative but that certainly wasn't the intent.
Of course not. But you did ask how someone could watch the show and find the acting style distracting... which brings us to:
You need to learn that different people watch shows -- TOS, The Twilight Zone, American Idol, whatever -- for different reasons. There are absolutely people around here who mainly love the vessels and technology in Trek. There is a whole forum here devoted to it. Other people are 'shippers. Others just like a good morality play. Or something else. IDIC, man. Don't expect everyone to like something for the same reasons you do.
I thought it was fashionable to rag on the new shows, not the old? I know many more people who think Ds9 and beyond are 'not trek' than I do those who go the other way around.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
I've seen it all. Anti-TOS, anti-TNG, anti-DS9 (yes, it's true), anti-VOY, and anti-ENT.
During the first four years of TrekBBS (1999-2003) there were DS9/VOY wars that had continued even after both series ended. During the first two years of the board, there were several posters who didn't like either series and were calling for a return to TOS and TNG. Most if not all of those posters are no longer around and I wonder what they think of ENT or ST XI.
There's no other opening for this so I might as well post it here. Over the last 10 years I've noticed a progression in regards to whatever the current production has been:
1. Con-VOY fans were generally more aggressive than pro-VOY fans.
2. Pro-ENT fans and con-ENT fans were generally as aggressive as each other.
3. Pro-XI fans are more generally more aggressive than con-XI fans.
The "pro" people and the "con" people aren't all the same in the three cases but it seems to be a combination of the "pro" group getting tired of constant criticism and the "con" group having gotten a lot of it out of their systems. The XI forum isn't as bad as the ENT forum was and I'm told the VOY forum was even worse. That would fit in with this.
During the first four years of TrekBBS (1999-2003) there were DS9/VOY wars that had continued even after both series ended. During the first two years of the board, there were several posters who didn't like either series and were calling for a return to TOS and TNG. Most if not all of those posters are no longer around and I wonder what they think of ENT or ST XI.
There's no other opening for this so I might as well post it here. Over the last 10 years I've noticed a progression in regards to whatever the current production has been:
1. Con-VOY fans were generally more aggressive than pro-VOY fans.
2. Pro-ENT fans and con-ENT fans were generally as aggressive as each other.
3. Pro-XI fans are more generally more aggressive than con-XI fans.
The "pro" people and the "con" people aren't all the same in the three cases but it seems to be a combination of the "pro" group getting tired of constant criticism and the "con" group having gotten a lot of it out of their systems. The XI forum isn't as bad as the ENT forum was and I'm told the VOY forum was even worse. That would fit in with this.
Divisions among the fans has existed for a long long time. I still love TOS but some can't get beyond the limits of a show produced in the 60's.
)I lurk in both this forum and the Trek XI one quite a lot, and, I'm sorry to say, that most of the criticism of TOS from the Trek XI forum comes from frustration with a few posters who are TOS fans (nothing wrong with that) who only discuss what the film probably will have wrong with it. There's also nothing wrong with not being interested in Trek XI, for any reason you choose, but constantly posting bashing threads or posts on a film no-one has seen yet gets really old, and it pisses people off.
Unfortunately those same posters never accept the reasoned arguments people make about why designs and styles have to change to make that era relevant in a modern theatrical release and interpret them as bashing. Its not, its just common sense. Saying "You couldn't release something that looks like TOS today" is not the same as saying "TOS was and is shit".
Unfortunately those same posters never accept the reasoned arguments people make about why designs and styles have to change to make that era relevant in a modern theatrical release and interpret them as bashing. Its not, its just common sense. Saying "You couldn't release something that looks like TOS today" is not the same as saying "TOS was and is shit".
Do you really care what he says? He doesn't represent a bloc or anything.
I have seen what Kirk1980 is referring to. Not necessarily here, since I don't come here as much as I used to, but in the general media. Whenever someone talks about a new version of Trek, someone mentions the acting, the sets, the effects, blah blah blah.
I have always appreciated the style and imagination which went into the series and how they still got some effects and sets done under impossible odds. In fact, many of these "primitive" effects shots still have more style and energy than a lot of the TOS-R redos. Sometimes, realism is not as good as urgency.
Here's the key: you have to watch Star Trek (or any movie or TV show from a bygone era) IN CONTEXT. Get a 14 year old to watch the 1933 King Kong and you'll get a kid ragging on it. Yet I look at it and think it's amazing they did all that in 33, because I'm watching it with 1933 eyes.
If one is to appreciate a piece of film from a bygone era, then one must understand the origins and limitations of: effects technology, acting styles and the expense of color film. Star Trek did not have bed special effects. Many of them were, frankly, groundbreaking for the time. If someone made a show today that looked like TOS, then yes, those are sucky effects. Like the Bran Ferren stuff in Trek 5: we know the technology was there for much better, so those stunk. But the choices and technigues in 1966 were much more limited. In that context, Trek looked and sounded wonderful. And still does.
Take two groups of Trek fans. One group is made up of people born in 1970 or prior and grew up watching it. The other group are post-TNG fans. Ask them their opinion of the effects, sets and acting of the series. Group 1 will probably defend the show, the second group would most likely denegrate it.
Context. Most people can't be bothered and want the same technological level they are accustomed to today. Anything less is "campy" or "cheesy" and "lame."
EDIT: Yes, that is a generalization, there are always exceptions.
I have always appreciated the style and imagination which went into the series and how they still got some effects and sets done under impossible odds. In fact, many of these "primitive" effects shots still have more style and energy than a lot of the TOS-R redos. Sometimes, realism is not as good as urgency.
Here's the key: you have to watch Star Trek (or any movie or TV show from a bygone era) IN CONTEXT. Get a 14 year old to watch the 1933 King Kong and you'll get a kid ragging on it. Yet I look at it and think it's amazing they did all that in 33, because I'm watching it with 1933 eyes.
If one is to appreciate a piece of film from a bygone era, then one must understand the origins and limitations of: effects technology, acting styles and the expense of color film. Star Trek did not have bed special effects. Many of them were, frankly, groundbreaking for the time. If someone made a show today that looked like TOS, then yes, those are sucky effects. Like the Bran Ferren stuff in Trek 5: we know the technology was there for much better, so those stunk. But the choices and technigues in 1966 were much more limited. In that context, Trek looked and sounded wonderful. And still does.
Take two groups of Trek fans. One group is made up of people born in 1970 or prior and grew up watching it. The other group are post-TNG fans. Ask them their opinion of the effects, sets and acting of the series. Group 1 will probably defend the show, the second group would most likely denegrate it.
Context. Most people can't be bothered and want the same technological level they are accustomed to today. Anything less is "campy" or "cheesy" and "lame."
EDIT: Yes, that is a generalization, there are always exceptions.
Oh you're definitely right in some ways. Bashing TOS for technical limitations without appreciating the writing and drama on display is supreme ignorance, and you do see it in the general media. I do think I'm right though, that a lot of the perceived bashing of those elements on this particular board is due to changes that HAD to be made for the new movie.
I dunno, I found the sparse and so called cheap look of the Enterprise to be just fine and in line with how such a ship of the future from that time would look.
I liked the naval/battleship gray feel of it and the props looked fine to me (Except the microphone heart muter from Court Martial)
I grew up watching this show and it felt like it was utilitarian and functional, hardly cheap and belief stretching. The acting was hardly over the top (take a gander at the old Lost in Soace for such acting....though it was entertaining enough there)
TOS Trek was and still is topical and well written with a lot (not all) fantastic story lines.
I never figured out why it is taking a beating from a few, and personally I can't see why the new Trek film is taking a pounding from some of us Die Harders. I have my concerns but I have not seen it yet.
I have high hopes for it, they might make it work and well, then we stand a chance of new stories being brought to us that maybe...just maybe will follow in the footsteps of the old TOS.
Who knows, who can say, we will see soon enough.
I liked the naval/battleship gray feel of it and the props looked fine to me (Except the microphone heart muter from Court Martial)
I grew up watching this show and it felt like it was utilitarian and functional, hardly cheap and belief stretching. The acting was hardly over the top (take a gander at the old Lost in Soace for such acting....though it was entertaining enough there)
TOS Trek was and still is topical and well written with a lot (not all) fantastic story lines.
I never figured out why it is taking a beating from a few, and personally I can't see why the new Trek film is taking a pounding from some of us Die Harders. I have my concerns but I have not seen it yet.
I have high hopes for it, they might make it work and well, then we stand a chance of new stories being brought to us that maybe...just maybe will follow in the footsteps of the old TOS.
Who knows, who can say, we will see soon enough.
