why is star trek original series disliked

[Warped9]

Star Wars revolutionized sf movies. Every movie that came after had to have a certain set of characteristics in order to even be recognizable as a space movie. That is common knowledge, of course.

You'll have to explain that rather that just state it flatly and expect it to just be accepted.

SW simply established a popular formula for sci-fi, but it still doesn't define what a science fiction film has to be. SW was a straight-up adventure story with a measure of action and pacing. It was essentially a tip-of-the-hat to old sci-fi serials and pulp stories. And there was little depth to it either. Ironically the core of SW can be traced right back to E.E. Doc Smith and Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter stories. The irony, of course, is that John Carter eventually made it to film long after SW and JC seemed (to some) derivative when it's actually the other way around.

There was a spate of SF oriented films coming out in the '70s and '80s and they shared some elements and also could be distinct from each other in other ways. SW wasn't the only successful one, but it's one that doesn't have a lot of meat-and-potatoes to it. If anything SW (along with Jaws) began the formula for the block-buster feature rather than defining the formula for successful sci-fi---make it slick and not necessarily deep. Abrams' Trek followed the SW formula exactly.

Make it slick and flashy and dumb it way down. But that doesn't mean a sci-fi or science fiction film has to be done like that.

 

[Kemaiku]

You'll have to explain that rather that just state it flatly and expect it to just be accepted.

The irony, it burns...

 

[Warped9]

You'll have to explain that rather that just state it flatly and expect it to just be accepted.

The irony, it burns...

I could tell you what you can do with your remark, but I'd be wasting my breathe.

 

[BillJ]

You'll have to explain that rather that just state it flatly and expect it to just be accepted.

The irony, it burns...

 

[Richard Baker]

TOS Trek has a special charm for me- I watched it on the first airing (along with VttBotS and LiS, etc...) and it was always a world I wanted to be a part of. Out of all the different series and despite all the budgets the TOS Bridge is still my favorite- it looked clean, practical and capable of controlling the entire ship as a nerve center. It did not upstage the characters but supported them.
The shows and acting was sometimes hit of miss, but the dynamics of the cast were wonderful. You could tell they had a history together and enjoyed what they were doing.
I am probably one of the few that prefer the remastered shows- the shows are still the same but the SFX and planetary vistas are more realistic. I do like model shots, even obvious ones like in the Gerry Anderson shows, but when you see the ship pass by and can see interiors through the windows the ship becomes more than just a thing on a filming stand.
Other shows may benefit from modern techniques and bigger budgets, but what happened in the sixties has not repeated yet.

 

[Noname Given]

Star Wars revolutionized sf movies. Every movie that came after had to have a certain set of characteristics in order to even be recognizable as a space movie. That is common knowledge, of course.

I think you really need to catch up on film history as the original 'Star Wars' harkened back more to the Saturday Matinee serials of the 1930ies, 1940ies, and early 1950ies.

It DID strike a chord with movie goers in 1977 (and yes, with me too when I was 14 years old.) It didn't really 'revolutionize' science fiction movies - but it did stimulate interest in visual effects, and make science fiction a popular film (and TV) genre again back in those days.

 

[DCR]

For what it's worth, TOS is my 11-year-old daughter's favorite (and she doesn't like Abrams at all).

I personally think it's all about judging the series on its own merits, not against the others. I also think TOS benefited from some truly stellar writers.

 

[gomtuu20]

I don't really see himas the "heart" of the group. And being emotional isn't always positive.

Sorry missed these quotes but I want to respond. No being emotional is definitely not always positive, but either is being logical. That is the point of Spock and Bones. Neither logic or emotion by themselves is enough you need both.

As for being the "heart" of the trio well I will stick with that.

Kirk is the man of action, the one who ultimately makes the decisions, or the body and soul of the group.

Spock is the mind. He helps Kirk with his decisions by giving him the logical, rational, and intelligent advice. McCoy is the heart by giving Kirk the humanistic and emotional advice. But again Kirk needed both sides.

Or you can just say they are Ethos, Pathos and Logos

Hey, that's what I was going to say!

 

[YARN]

There is egocentrism, ethnocentrism, and there is chronocentrism, which involves (1) the tendency to judge past events by modern standards, (2) reflects the naive progressive belief that we moderns "get it" and that people in the past were not merely different but inferior, (3) a failure to attempt what Gadamer describes as a fusion of horizons (basically the good faith attempt to view the past on its own terms).

It's funny, because part of how we judge old Trek to be regressive is a result of the forward thinking successes of the old show - it pushed boundaries and set standards for science fiction - and now when we see what set the standard it seems all too safe and even predictable.

 

[Runetouch]

TOS isn't a disliked show. While some do criticise it, at the same time, it is probably most people's second favourite Trek show.

 

[BillJ]

TOS isn't a disliked show. While some do criticise it, at the same time, it is probably most people's second favourite Trek show.

I think generally, outside of fandom, it's most folks favorite version of Star Trek.

 

[Irishman]

One could make a case for "The Trouble With Tribbles," "A Peice Of The Action" and "I, Mudd" deliberately veering into camp, particularly the latter two episodes. But two or three episodes deliberately humourous episodes out of seventy-nine does not make the series predominantly camp as a whole.

People seem to use the word "camp" a lot and I'm not sure I understand how they mean it.

Basically, anything that isn't "dark", with characters wallowing in constant "angst" and "Daddy issues" is dismissed as "camp". "Fun", an characters who act like actual people is not allowed.

This view is incorrect. These stories have their place, and I can enjoy them on occassion, but now pretty much EVERYTHING has become that. And it has become tedious.

I dunno. If you're right, how do you explain Jar Jar Binks?

 

[RandyS]

People seem to use the word "camp" a lot and I'm not sure I understand how they mean it.

Basically, anything that isn't "dark", with characters wallowing in constant "angst" and "Daddy issues" is dismissed as "camp". "Fun", an characters who act like actual people is not allowed.

This view is incorrect. These stories have their place, and I can enjoy them on occassion, but now pretty much EVERYTHING has become that. And it has become tedious.

I dunno. If you're right, how do you explain Jar Jar Binks?

Well, you could make the argument that there are exceptions to every rule.

But also remember that Jar Jar was created roughly four or five years before the whole "dark" thing told hold, so that probably plays into it too.

 

[Vandervecken]

I was swept up by TNG when it came out, and enjoyed DS9 and Voy (yes, I liked Voy), but over the years it's TOS I always revisit to watch again and again.

Funny how Best of Both Worlds doesn't really hold up for me for terror and grand scope, but The Doomsday Machine does (unremastered; I did a side-by-side comparison of the DMs in both and the original DM [the device itself] is far superior. The new one is too dark, doesn't have the same realistic "dirty" look, and most importantly its maw is just a static sun-furnace, instead of the cool and terrifying kaleidoscope of exotic energies we see in the original).

 

[FreedPhotons]

Personally I wonder why it's so well liked, not disliked...

But to answer the question of why don't people like it":

I've seen the 5 series, and I found TOS the worst by far. I have respect for it in that without it there wouldn't have been any of the other four series. But most of the stories are grotesquely obvious, the morals are shaky at best (and very different from later ST, since the "Prime Directive" doesn't really seem to exist, the sexism is vomit-inducing, etc...). I find Cpt Kirk to be especially detestable, thick headed and narrow-minded. I also dislike the complete lack of any kind of story arc, etc.

As to MY question of why people like it, I figure that...
It was the one that started it all. It was a good first try, a good blueprint that was much improved upon later on. It has all the elements that allowed later series to be successful. However it's the one that most people have seen FIRST - and there's a well known cognitive bias which pushes people to prefer that which they've experienced (seen, tasted, heard...) first. So I get it and I don't judge (btw, TOS is the last series I've seen, so the cognitive bias works the other way with me).