Why is TOS still #1?

[Warped9]

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.

What a crock of dung.

Whenever I hear "I love the camp of TOS" I shake my head in disgust.

"A Piece Of The Action" was deliberate camp, but the great majority of TOS was intended as straight drama/adventure with occasional humour. Whenever you label the bulk of TOS as camp you're lumping it in with things like the '60s Batman and Get Smart which it most certainly wasn't.

Camp compared to what? The flat acting of so much of contemporary Trek with almost no emotional range? The characters of TOS always resonated as genuine people while most of contemporary Trek's often came off as numb automatons.

 

[Kio]

"A Piece Of The Action" was deliberate camp, but the great majority of TOS was intended as straight drama/adventure with occasional humour.

The fact that they were so serious is what makes it so great as camp. TOS is packed with unintentional hilarity interspersed with classic SF themes, that's a major part of the appeal for me. Come on, Kirk being ridden by a midget?! God, that was priceless!

 

[Warped9]

^^ Evidently you don't get the point of intentional horror and humiliation. The basic point of "Plato's Stepchildren" was the humiliation of our heroes at the hands of those wielding unlimited power and influence for the sake of entertainment or just to prove they can get away with it. A very astute observation on what often happens with people of privilege throughout history and even today.

 

[khelben1979]

There are 3 characters in TOS which really make the series worth itself in heavy gold:

Captain Kirk
Mr Spock
and
Lennard McKoy

TOS is by my opinion the best! And it does not matter how good the graphics effects are in Star Trek Voyager or the TNG.

Trek greetings from Sweden!

 

[RobertScorpio]

There are 3 characters in TOS which really make the series worth itself in heavy gold:

Captain Kirk
Mr Spock
and
Lennard McKoy

TOS is by my opinion the best! And it does not matter how good the graphics effects are in Star Trek Voyager or the TNG.

Trek greetings from Sweden!

I'm with you dude. Although I love the big FX scenes in DS9, I am still more impressed with the FX they did for TOS because "they" really had to do them, not CGI. Nothing against CGI, but when you watch TOS, or 2001-Star Wars 1-2, it is amazing to remember they actually had 'real' space ship props and did all those FX..

And, really? Some of those TOS hold up, especially when compared to the hokey crap TNG's first couple of seasons put out.

Rob
Scorpio

 

[RAMA]

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.

It occurred to me as I reread this, that a lot of elements of the new series like "crap like 3 sexes" you mention are usually metaphor. That usually requires a little more subtlety than bashing audiences over the head with half-black half-white races and so on. If kids are smart, they'll understand it.

I reread this:

in their desire to make us tolerant and open minded, totally lost us - we can't relate.

3 times before I realized exactly what it sounded like: WE CAN'T RELATE TO BEING TOLERANT AND OPEN MINDED! First of all, a fitting sentence for some of the posters in the TOS forum. Second, isn't tolerance one of the basic tenants of ST??? Isn't that IDIC?? How totally mid-west of you. So congratulations on your wonderful post. It should be posted on the main TREK BBS page to let people know what they're in for.

RAMA

 

[maryh]

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.

You might want to go up one level - to the "Main Bridge" and look where the most threads and postings are. Doesn't seem to reflect what you are saying here.

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.

It apparantly didn't bring enough - the Franchise is dying hence the reboot. Check it out:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/05/02/future-of-star-trek-the-experience-in-doubt/

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.

You give an excellent example. Spock was alive denying and dealing with feelings like we all do. Data was a robot with an emotion chip. Lots I can relate to there - NOT.

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.

Picard, Riker, Troi = BORING. Hollow, passionless, poorly constructed meaningless character whom nobody gave a crap about.

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.

Good for you. But I find being preached to and entertainment that is very cerebral also very boring. It seems like I am not the only one either. Please try to remember that if you want someone to skip a football game in favor of watching Star Trek - they'll have to make it more entertaining and exciting than the football game. TNG wasn't. Its even tougher when it comes to shelling out $10 to see a movie. It better entertain and effect our emotions to get us to watch it.

 

[RAMA]

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.

You might want to go up one level - to the "Main Bridge" and look where the most threads and postings are. Doesn't seem to reflect what you are saying here.

Over the years and until the new movie, plus the end of the STNG films, the STNG forum was a lot busier. When remastered started airing and Enterprsie and STNG was not, that's when the forum started to grow. Plus both the TOS and STNG forums lost threads and viewings from various "prunings" in recent years.

It apparantly didn't bring enough - the Franchise is dying hence the reboot. Check it out:

There's no question that fandom has shrunk over the years, but TOS and specifically STNG gave birth to over 700 hrs of shows plus 4 movies. Many of these award winning (STNG with over 70 plus emmy nominations) and many respected by fans if not a wider audience. The reasons for the lack of interest has been speculated on for years, and I won't go over them all, but whatever form it took, I knew the franchise was not going to disappear, and it hasn't.

You give an excellent example. Spock was alive denying and dealing with feelings like we all do. Data was a robot with an emotion chip. Lots I can relate to there - NOT.

Doesn't matter, Data is an android and Spock an alien, both SF standbys designed to make a point. No one on Earth is Vulcan, but he was used as a metaphor for what human beings go through. Data explores similar territory in a different type of character, the idea that Data would be a Spock clone never materialized and Spiner made the role his own. We were not only able to see similar METAPHORs for what the human condition is but also with Data we were able to explore the relationship between man and machine, and what really is the difference between advanced AI and humanity which resulted in the writers guild nominated "Measure of a Man" and of course, lots of other stories. Despite being an android I saw lots of fans share a sympathy for the character, even more than one for the unemotional Spock, since he didn't really care to be us.

Picard, Riker, Troi = BORING. Hollow, passionless, poorly constructed meaningless character whom nobody gave a crap about.

Opinion of course. I found Riker to be a good character, though his role on the ship didn't allow him to be the center of attention as much as some other characters. Troi was not one of my favorite characters, but I do think its important to show that what's going on with us psychologically is at least important as what goes on physically. Picard was awesome, my favorite captain, and I know he won over legions of fans both in terms of acting, character, and dimensionality. Some women even thought he was sexy, go figure.

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. Good for you. But I find being preached to and entertainment that is very cerebral also very boring. It seems like I am not the only one either. Please try to remember that if you want someone to skip a football game in favor of watching Star Trek - they'll have to make it more entertaining and exciting than the football game. TNG wasn't. Its even tougher when it comes to shelling out $10 to see a movie. It better entertain and effect our emotions to get us to watch it.

Funny, but TOS was far more preachy in its plotline construction of creating "straw" cultures to tear down in order to teach them human moralities. Don't really have a leg to stand on there. STNG tended to leave things more open ended and even left the prime directive intact once in awhile. It certainly had a point of view, but it was presented so you could think about it and debate rather than be dictated to. I do like to be intellectually engaged when watching fiction from time to time (insert mild sarcasm)even though a good action sequence can be a lot of fun.

Actually STNG's ratings increased almost every year till it avged almost a 13, and 17 million viewers an episode. Lots of people would make time for one of its airings just as those who discovered TOS in reruns did when syndicated markets started showing it in early evenings in the 70s. In short it became a phenomenon in its own right.

RAMA

 

[maryh]

It occurred to me as I reread this, that a lot of elements of the new series like "crap like 3 sexes" you mention are usually metaphor. That usually requires a little more subtlety than bashing audiences over the head with half-black half-white races and so on. If kids are smart, they'll understand it.

The Half-Black race story line was among the lousiest. TOS had some lousy story lines particular when they wrote a story around a social commentary. This was one of the lousy episodes akin to the PC social commentary TNG gave us all the time. Look at TOS's best episodes and you will find little by way of social commentary; instead you will find a good plot and well developed story line. Social commentary was a side show, not the basis for the story.

I reread this:

in their desire to make us tolerant and open minded, totally lost us - we can't relate.

3 times before I realized exactly what it sounded like: WE CAN'T RELATE TO BEING TOLERANT AND OPEN MINDED! First of all, a fitting sentence for some of the posters in the TOS forum. Second, isn't tolerance one of the basic tenants of ST??? Isn't that IDIC?? How totally mid-west of you. So congratulations on your wonderful post. It should be posted on the main TREK BBS page to let people know what they're in for.

I can't relate to 3 sexes but I can relate to peace and harmony - I just don't like watching it because nothing happens!! I prefer tension, character flaws, excitement, adventure, fear, romance, anger, wit, playfulness, clever dialog etc. in my TV shows. I can't say tolerance was the basic tenet of ST. Kirk & Co judged all the time and did not tolerate lots of things. Sounds like "This Side of Paradise". Peace and harmony got boring awfully fast that even they rejected it.

 

[maryh]

Say what you like, but the original thread posted says what I am saying

"Yes, there are TNG fans...yes there are DS9 fans...even VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE have followings...But out in rest of the world? It isn't even close. TOS is still, by far, the most popular of the TREKs. The cultural references are still going strong (The past two weeks of Big Bang Theory) the wink and nods from HEROES (Takie's licence plate on the show was NCC-1701) and so much more....

So why is TOS number one. Oh, I am sure some of you will dispute it, and say TNG is or DS9 is...but they aren't, IMO. Captain Kirk/ Mr. Spock are still the benchmark by which all other TREK characters are measured up against. Picard and Data seem to be fading as each year passes by...."

Deny it all you want but resistance is futile. I am trying to tell you why the spin offs died but you won't learn until you come out of denial.

 

[RAMA]

Say what you like, but the original thread posted says what I am saying

"Yes, there are TNG fans...yes there are DS9 fans...even VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE have followings...But out in rest of the world? It isn't even close. TOS is still, by far, the most popular of the TREKs. The cultural references are still going strong (The past two weeks of Big Bang Theory) the wink and nods from HEROES (Takie's licence plate on the show was NCC-1701) and so much more....

So why is TOS number one. Oh, I am sure some of you will dispute it, and say TNG is or DS9 is...but they aren't, IMO. Captain Kirk/ Mr. Spock are still the benchmark by which all other TREK characters are measured up against. Picard and Data seem to be fading as each year passes by...."

Deny it all you want but resistance is futile. I am trying to tell you why the spin offs died but you won't learn until you come out of denial.

Well after 40 years there does seem to be a natural revival of TOS...think about it, new shows based around the same universe running straight and successfully for almost 20 years, and when it finally dies down, perhaps due to over-saturation, or the fact they aren't shown in all markets, etc...then its logical (pardon the word) to go back to the beginning, which is the show furthest removed from new Trek. ST Remastered sparked off a lot of interest in fandom and in this forum, and the producers and fresh new blood have overcome the original trepidation to doing a movie with new actors in the original roles. I myself wouldn't mind a fresh look, but I have to say, despite liking STNG the most, I am a Trek fan, and I consider the current ST universe to be one contiguous history. When I say Star Trek to someone, I don't mean STNG or TOS, I mean all of it, so I consider myself a true ST fan. One who is exposed to all the very best stories from each era.

FYI, STNG never "died" it went out on top of its ratings, similarly DS9 and Voyager both lasted 7 full seasons they were intended to, even though the ratings went down, and all lasted longer than TOS.

 

[Red Ranger]

The only thing I think I should add to the mix is this simple sentiment: "Can't we all just get along?" -- RR

 

[maryh]

Just a minor point - you have to decide if you want to debate the truth of the premise of this thread or accept the premise and discuss why it is.

 

[Red Ranger]

Just a minor point - you have to decide if you want to debate the truth of the premise of this thread or accept the premise and discuss why it is.

I don't have to decide any such thing. I already made a number of statements earlier. I'm free to make the observation that people posting here are taking this just a little too seriously and getting their noses bent out of shape. OK? -- RR

 

[maryh]

Wasn't responding to you. My nose isn't bent out of shape rather some of us are expressing why we were disappointed in ST spinoffs and suppose our feelings reflect those of others.

 

[Red Ranger]

Wasn't responding to you. My nose isn't bent out of shape rather some of us are expressing why we were disappointed in ST spinoffs and suppose our feelings reflect those of others.

Your point is well taken. I was also commenting in general on the level of acrimony at times directed at later Trek. Sure, it isn't all good, but neither is it all bad. There are plenty of TOS stinkers that equal TNG stinkers, for example, Spock's Brain vs. Rascals. -- RR

 

[RAMA]

I wanted to point out a few things related to recent discussions on this thread, though its on another thread.....my post:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1622543&postcount=13

 

[Balthier the Great]

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

I think there's a different reason. In the first series, almost everybody involved was a writer first. There are references to history and mythology and so on that are absent later. I think it's because they were interested in that sort of stuff. Kirk was based off Hornblower -- which I assume means that at some point somebody on the Trek set read that book. Maybe it's a generational thing, maybe not.

Well, as to the second point -- freedom is nice, but if you aren't going to do anything with it ... what's the bloody point?

 

[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

I think there's a different reason. In the first series, almost everybody involved was a writer first. There are references to history and mythology and so on that are absent later. I think it's because they were interested in that sort of stuff. Kirk was based off Hornblower -- which I assume means that at some point somebody on the Trek set read that book. Maybe it's a generational thing, maybe not.

Well, as to the second point -- freedom is nice, but if you aren't going to do anything with it ... what's the bloody point?

Well mythology was mentioned so much because they were on the Paramount lot, and they could use sets and props to make the episodes cheaper.

STNG could have been more dangerous, no question about it, but on the other hand, they also produced episodes that were banned in England because of their presentation of terrorism, and if STNG had been on a network, numerous liberal attitudes on the show would NOT have made it past studio and network sensors. Episodes like Who Watches the Watchers would probably have been a huge controversy on a regular network, but in syndication, there were few protests.

RAMA

 

[Warped9]

Before TNG there was only TOS (and TAS and the films) and that was Star Trek. While TNG was in its run I think it did get the lion's share of attention largely because it was the newest material and everybody seemed to be watching it. Also during the mid '80s to early '90s it was somewhat cool or at least okay to be into Trek since it was tapping into the mainstream.

But after TNG ended its run the broad interest didn't really translate to the subsequent spinoffs and films. Trek seemed to go somewhat off the radar for the broader public.

Although there are a lot of TNG fans I don't think it percolated into the public mainstream the way TOS did, which after all had a twenty year head start and it was the first.

The issue isn't which one has more fans, but which one has become and remained the most recognized. Before TNG we also saw mainstream science occasionally invoking references to TOS. When TNG was in production many of those references were transferred to TNG. But after TNG the references began refering back to TOS again.

TOS did have its commercial considerations as did TNG and the later shows. But perhaps it has something more to do with when the shows were produced. TOS came out of a time of creative innovation and experimentation in many art forms. The '80s had its measure of creativity as well, but the era is not generally remembered as such. And some of that sensibility may or may not have seeped into the shows themselves.