Although, not really relevant to the topic, I'd argue that the "big three" of Star Trek is not so much Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, as it is TOS, TNG, and DS9.
At least for me.
Well said.
What is odd is everyone is critical of TNG and DS9 cast members not having the acting chops of Shatner-Nimoy-Kelley. I don't deny they are a HUGE reason TOS endured and they are great actors that have better synergy than most shows.
But The thing that made TNG work was its synergy as well. Maybe the only truly great actor of that cast is Stewart, but I think as an ensemble, the TNG ensemble cast synergy was what made it work for me. Also, one thing that TNG did that was a little different was because it had a larger cast that was focused on (I say that because Uhura,Chekov, Sulu, and sometimes Scotty were not much more than semi-regulars with a fraction of screen time in the series), certain cast members could be paired up for good synergy: IE Data/Geordi , Riker/Picard, Riker/Troi, Picard/pretty much everybody, Riker/Worf are examples where actors could create some good scenes. DS9 could do that, but to a lesser degree, and many of their actors that could do that were actually the semi regulars like Garek, Dukat, Ki Winn, not to mention Brooks can be and is an intense actor in his own right. That is something TOS can't claim because the TOS WAS Kirk-Spock-McCoy, and sometimes Scotty, but as for the rest, they didn't have the acting chops or synergy the big 3 had.
Finally, even though I agree TOS is and probably always will be the dominant brand of Trek by virtue of the fact it was the first (and for some I can see it being the best...for me the TOS movies are decidedly better than the TNG movies, for example), but the odd accusation I keep seeing is TNG-ENT are mere reshuffles of TOS, yet no one says the same of Abrams Trek.
Geesh! That is the biggest reshuffle of all! The two movies may have made a lot of money, I don't deny that, but everything the TNG-ENT era is accused of (Actors not having the chops of TOS actors, being a rehash of what came before, etc) can be said of the Abrams Trek era.
I think time will tell if Abrams Trek will hold up. I have serious doubts that Abrams Trek will age well...I believe STID is already failing to hold up, and by the time ST2009 is 20 years old, I think it will be largely forgotten or at least thought of just another summer movie from years back. Or, Abrams trek will fall into similar disfavor that the one-time widely loved TNG era has, but time will tell. For me at least, I think Pine-Quinto-Saldana (the new big 3, I guess since McCoy is so DE-emphasized), don't hold a candle to Shatner-Nimoy-Kelley. Saldana may be a better Uhura, if not just a more modern interpretation, but she still is a typical actress. Not a great actress. Quinto does a great job as Spock, but he is doing an impression of Nimoy no matter how you slice it. And as for Pine, he's a fine actor, but for me at least, as Kirk, he doesn't have nearly the charisma of Shatner.
There was a time circa 1992-1994 where TNG definitely had major pop-cultural significance, and I would say from my memory of events it was widely accepted to be at least as equally 'dominant' as TOS. Maybe even more so.
It remains Star Trek at it's more pure and undiluted, whereas all the later incarnations are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as having 'baggage'.
