Why is TOS still #1?

[maryh]

I have recently gotten into STTOS again since they put the episodes on the internet. My kids, for years, have been exposed to the various spin offs and never have shown any interest in them. They did like Star Wars though. After years of them being uninterested in watching any of the spin off episodes, they are starting to look up from their computer games and watch STTOS episodes over my shoulder as I rewatch them on the computer. For some reason TOS catches their eye where the others fail. From what I can tell it seems to be the same as it was 40 years ago - the character Spock catches their eye. "Mom, why does he look like that? Does he have feelings? He's cool" are all comments that I have heard. TNG, DS9, ST Voy and ST Enterprise just didn't interest my adolescent kids but the 40 year old TOS did. Just something about it.

Could it be that we want characters we can relate to? These new shows have crap like 3 sexes. Just how are we supposed to empathize with that? Adolescent kids relate to Spockian personality flaws, lonliness and inability to fit in. They can relate to Kirk's eye for girls and bravery. They laugh at McCoys cynical comments. I think latter incarnations of ST, in their desire to make us tolerant and open minded, totally lost us - we can't relate.

 

[Ronald Held]

Well said, Warped9.

 

[egonbeeblebrox]

I ramble around the point a bit, but here are my thoughts.

It's Number One for me because it never gets too bogged down with itself. All the later shows seemed to take themselves, and the universe they take place in, too seriously. TOS was always fun, and the characters reflected that. It never got stuck on techno-babble, and the characters seemed like real people.

I enjoy TNG, mainly because I grew up with it, remember seeing "All Good Things" when I was eight and being floored by how awesome an ending TNG had, and always watched re-runs on TNN/Spike. That said, I can't really watch about half the episodes anymore for one reason or another. Mainly because it's so sterile and lacking in 'Adventure' so often.

DS9 was cool, but not my cup of tea. I'll buy the DVD sets sometime and see if I like it better now. The characters are more realistic again.

Voyager is terrible, and aside from maybe five episodes, I hate everything about it.

I do enjoy Enterprise, but more as a lark than an actual show. Half the reason I keep up with re-runs on Sci-Fi is to see what sort of references to the later shows they throw in. Plus, my aunt just randomly bought me season four, and I really enjoy the mirror universe episodes, mainly because I dig seeing the old sets and uniforms re-done. I don't really LIKE Enterprise, but it's not too bad.

 

[Jeri]

So why is TOS number one...

While working through the HD set recently, something dawned on me: the main characters make a balanced and easily identifiable equilateral triangle; with Spock and McCoy at the solid base -- complementing each other -- and the dynamic character at the top, Kirk.

Some people say the most pleasing geometric figure is the triangle, which is both stable and dynamic. I think the characters form the most easily identifiable and graspable symbol for the public.

 

[Michael]

^ I like trapezoids, too.

 

[Gov Kodos]

For myself, the show was about the people and the adventure. The show had a great balance of people, all having a purpose to the show, each one a specialist and more than competant in the field of each. Outside of those fields they were quite human and all on a par with one another in foibles and quirks.

None of the later series had that feel for me. In all the subsequent series everyone was competent not only in their field but might speak several languages, be conversant in art, music, food and who knows what else, not only of Earth but of any number of other worlds as well. Later series let the ships psychiatrist take an equivalency test (Troi) for Command or the navigator take over for the ships doctor in a pinch (Paris).

I can't see any of the other Captains being as annoyed as Kirk because of his chicken sandwich and coffee being ruined. And that mundane fact is what brings him up to the mess his ship is in, a mess he hasn't seen because even a great captain can be run ragged by petty bureaucrats, drunken shore leave crew problems and enemy warships pushing envelopes to see how far they can push the bounds of diplomacy. More over that simple quirk also leads to finding the greater danger to Sherman's planet.

A simple and human foilble connected to an everyday human food and experience is used to lead to the resolution rather than an arcane knowledge of some alien culture that has no resonance to a real life TV audience. Later series took the cool of alien to the point of alienation from human experience. Riker's understanding the difference in table ettiquette for the eating of Gakh among Klingon's has no where near the relatability of Kirk's chicken sandwhich messed up in the middle of a bad work day.

Star Trek was the best of the series because it gave us what the other series did not, multifaceted, relatable people. Multifaceted not only in skills, but also in quirks and flaws. Flaws that the other characters knew and tolerated (like Rand dealing with Sulu and his plants, or Kirk discovering Sulu's love of fire arms yet dispite that everyone knew the man could fly a starship like no one else.) They all cared for everyone in spite of and despite their failings and wouldn't hesitate to crack on each other because of their failings and inadequicies (like Scotty's description of the causes of the barfight to Kirk in "Tribbles") None of the other series felt that human.

If Star Trek's Federation was a better place than today it was because they understood what Kirk said in "A Taste of Armageddon" 'I won't kill today" It was a goal that Kirk's world strove for, he and his crew were people not unlike us who were trying to be better. Later series wanted us to believe that they and the Federation had evolved into something better and that we of today would be little more than savages. I don't relate to or enjoy condescension like the later series put out all too often.

That for me is the crux of the matter, Star Trek was about entertainment. Real people striving to be something better in a world of adventure, excitement, danger and wonder. The later series came across all too often as propoganda for a world of that I could have no feeling for as it shared nothing with what I would call human experience.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I think the later characters were far less interesting. TOS had realistic people. They argued, they had vices, they screwed up, in short they weren't the holier than thou cardboard cutouts that came later.

There was also the issue (at least in TNG and somewhat DS9) of preachiness. OK you're better than us, we get it. We should all want to be happy little Federation drones. But all I want is to get sucked away into a good story. Don't tell me what to think, show me the consequences of the story. In some cases it seems like the writers thought I was somewhat retarded and needed to be told what to think.

Then there's the unending streams of technospeak. I'll be honest, I don't think it has a thing to do with "scientific theories" or anything like that. It's just a cheap way to pad out a scene. Nobody really fixes things like that. "I'm gonna need to re-initialize windows," nope, he just reboots the computer. Technobabble is unrealistic, and it's a waste of screen time where something even more interesting could be going on.

 

[TransporterBeam]

TOS set the stage. The other shows came and went. is none cooler than the Original series, stories,Costumes, Male egos,sexism, super Cool Captain and realistic cast and dialogue.
Captain Kirk was THE Captain, the ship was basic, the doctor fatherly and humanistic and the Chief Engineer was sort of like a ship's engineer in outer space.The First Officer was cold,aloof, and Mysterious They were all perfectly cast. The Original series is Television History and part Americana and World History. Hearing the music in the trailer from the 1960s causes a rush of adrenaline. The Super Cushy Galaxy Class ship onscreen with a soft crew are gone for now but the nostalgic and heroic characters from yesterday are coming back which started it all. Not loving the Original Ship from the 1960s is like not missing your first fishing boat. We have all taken party boats and newer, faster and larger boats out onto the water but who would not jump at the chance to go back in the years and get a ride once more on the first boat that ever took you out on the water ?

 

[SpockWeed]

It's the Babe Ruth of TV SciFi. It created a Genre. No show of it's kind, Trek or otherwise has even come close. I would hate to think of SciFi on TV without it.

In my case as a 70's kid, there are so many reasons. The uniforms, Mego Action Figures, WPIX reruns, the aliens, the stories, international crew,.... on and on. There was nothing like it.

Can't wait for TOS on Blu-ray.

 

[Trekwatcher]

For me, it is just seminal science fiction. Certainly, Star Trek had it's influences, but what they did in those 79 episodes has been borrowed, homaged, copied, and stolen so much it can only be considered the sincerest form of flattery. This past weekend I watched "Assignment: Earth" for, oh, the 1000th time or so, and I STILL can't believe how well TOS has held up in terms of it's ability to hold my interest, be be clever, original, and exciting science fiction.

 

[MANT!]

It's multifaceted, the kids get the scary monsters and the action, the teenagers get the interaction between the characters, the adults get a thoughtful action adventure story that can get them thinking about situations affecting them today (Kirk's aforementioned "Will not kill today" speech is one example )..It seldom took the easy road of storytelling that all later Trek's were infected with (Technobabble and time travel reset buttons anyone?) It preached subtlety for the most part..NOT overtly (well maybe not "The Omega Glory") also unlike later Treks..sex was there but mostly implied and the costuming never exceeded the realms of good taste nor the cheap budget..

The special effects were rather groundbreaking for the time..(though showing their age now) and were never used as a crutch to cover poor storytelling....


in short ..Great main and supporting characters, good to great writing that wasn't afraid to push the envelope, continuity between stories, good special effects and costume design...

Lightning in a bottle...

 

[voggmo]

Quote...
They argued, they had vices, they screwed up, in short they weren't the holier than thou cardboard cutouts that came later.


Always felt the same. & they put captains chair right in the same row as the other chairs in TNG instead of above where a captains chair should be. Too pc. TNG did very well, & the actors performed well, but original cast had best chemistry.

Charles Nelson reilly would have made a better Spock, but no real complaints in the casting overall.

 

[Warped9]

When TNG arrived it was and became something distinctive from TOS, regardless of whether you liked it or not. But everything that followed became just more same-old-same-old no matter what they tried to do. They were partly shackled by a very much paint-by-numbers practice that left everything feeling bland and cliched. Trek post TNG became it's own parody and did nothing to challenge convention and break new ground.

Not only was TOS first, but it remained distinctive while challenging conventions and breaking new ground.

A great strength of original Star Trek has how well and how easily newer viewers can get into it even after four decades. Meanwhile a lot of contemporary Trek just seems tired because we've so much of the indistinguishable same-old-same-old.

 

[RobertScorpio]

When TNG arrived it was and became something distinctive from TOS, regardless of whether you liked it or not. But everything that followed became just more same-old-same-old no matter what they tried to do. They were partly shackled by a very much paint-by-numbers practice that left everything feeling bland and cliched. Trek post TNG became it's own parody and did nothing to challenge convention and break new ground.

Not only was TOS first, but it remained distinctive while challenging conventions and breaking new ground.

A great strength of original Star Trek has how well and how easily newer viewers can get into it even after four decades. Meanwhile a lot of contemporary Trek just seems tired because we've so much of the indistinguishable same-old-same-old.

Bingo!!! You nailed it. I think it is easier to watch TOS as a child, and then again, as an adult. And TNG's shelf-life is not as long lived as I thought it would have been. TOS always had a sense of fun, and wonder to it. TNG had the wonder, but seemed to be far from fun, at times. And it is for that reason, I believe, a hundred years from now TOS will be either in reruns, or remade...and TNG onward (in essence, BERMAN TREK) will long forgotten.

Rob

 

[Warped9]

TOS also had an integral sense of humour that really helped to ground the characters and their situations. I've found the same thing on Stargate.

Contemporary Trek's humour usually felt forced and unnatural which made somewhat more difficult to identify with the characters. Contemporary Trek was often so earnest it was bothersome.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Very simply, TOS was crafted by professionals. It shows in all aspects - acting, writing, cinematography, music.
Modern Trek was product, manufactured by a franchise.

 

[Ronald Held]

Interesting idea, Beaker. Anyone else want to refute that?

 

[Kio]

Interesting idea, Beaker. Anyone else want to refute that?

Sure, I'm game.

Very simply, TOS was crafted by professionals. It shows in all aspects - acting, writing, cinematography, music.

All of which is dated. It's quintessential 60s camp. I love it, but I love it in the same way I love Rocky Horror. It brings back childhood memories, I enjoy the kitch, but it's a parody of its own genre, so I don't take it seriously.

Modern Trek was product, manufactured by a franchise.

Because TOS had no commercial aspirations? The creators were devoted to their "art"? Nah, they're all avaricious, but talented people trying to do their best in their own era.

 

[RAMA]

I have recently gotten into STTOS again since they put the episodes on the internet. My kids, for years, have been exposed to the various spin offs and never have shown any interest in them. They did like Star Wars though. After years of them being uninterested in watching any of the spin off episodes, they are starting to look up from their computer games and watch STTOS episodes over my shoulder as I rewatch them on the computer. For some reason TOS catches their eye where the others fail. From what I can tell it seems to be the same as it was 40 years ago - the character Spock catches their eye. "Mom, why does he look like that? Does he have feelings? He's cool" are all comments that I have heard. TNG, DS9, ST Voy and ST Enterprise just didn't interest my adolescent kids but the 40 year old TOS did. Just something about it.

Could it be that we want characters we can relate to? These new shows have crap like 3 sexes. Just how are we supposed to empathize with that? Adolescent kids relate to Spockian personality flaws, lonliness and inability to fit in. They can relate to Kirk's eye for girls and bravery. They laugh at McCoys cynical comments. I think latter incarnations of ST, in their desire to make us tolerant and open minded, totally lost us - we can't relate.

Over the years (but not so much recently) I find that anyone who watches the Star Trek shows prefers the newer shows to the old ones, and specifically STNG. STNG brought so many fans into the fold specifically because it said we could be better, not perfected, just better, and their attitudes to situations were not two-dimensional, which often happened on TOS. As for characters, they were far better developed than anyone on TOS, though Spock is prob the equal of any character. Data's attempt at humanity reflected just how difficult it is to be human, and made us think about our choices. Picard was noble like Kirk, but made more of an attempt to think things through, and was a multi-faceted commander. Riker was meant to be a Kirk-like character, but quickly showed the new attitude of STNG, he adapted quickly to new situations and thought on his feet instead of wrestling a problem to fit his inclinations. He still managed to get most of the girls somehow. I think lots of people can relate to Worf...someone who doesn't always seem to belong. Needless to say a Klingon on the bridge is a 180 from TOS, and in itself demonstrates the progress of the show.

Speaking for myself, I don't generally have to empathize or relate to characters. I don't really do that with fiction. I don't ever feel a need to be any of them, but themes, writing and meaningfulness interest me, and all the Trek shows have that to some degree.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Very simply, TOS was crafted by professionals. It shows in all aspects - acting, writing, cinematography, music.
Modern Trek was product, manufactured by a franchise.

Yeah I am sure the crew on STNG were thinking franchise when they were worried they were going to be canceled because they were a sequel to a failed SF show, AND in syndication.

Ah, and you seem to feel that working under the heel of a huge regular network corporation in the 60s had nothing to do with product? Come on, get real. It was just as much a business then. At least in syndication some of the newer shows had a little more freedom than Gene R did.

RAMA