Will TOS maintain its legendary status as Trek fandom gets younger?

[El Maestro]

Nope.


Nope. And since you have not seen Star Wars this observation rings especially hollow.

Yeah, no.

Rogue captains, Kirk and Spock on espionage missions, uniformity of Federation worlds against individuality, among others.

In Star Trek utopia is purely lip service.

I tend to agree with this. Even in TNG, the series with arguably the most utopia-adjacent material, the label doesn't really apply. Fan culture has a habit of mimetically flattening things toward one absolute or another. Other examples: DS9 isn't as dark as people say, and VOY isn't as TNG 2.0 as people say.

In terms of utopian material, you can really divide the franchise into during- and post-Roddenberry phases where there is really different feel/vibe to it. Again using TNG as an example: you can see a pretty stark difference as the franchise moved to pits post-Roddenberry phase during its run.

 

[Sci]

Federation was only a utopia in the fact earth was consistently shown to be poverty free and bigotry free.

In other ways it was a dystopia.

No. Even when the Federation isn't utopian, it is never dystopian.

 

[Crazyewok]

No. Even when the Federation isn't utopian, it is never dystopian.

The power Starfleet has on civilian, matters is pretty scary. A military should not have the power it has.

Not to mention the corruption at the top. Ever other admiral seems to be corrupt or insane .

It might be bright shiny and have a high standard of living but it has a lot of rot in it.


Then there is the fact a dozen Borg cubes could jump in any time and assimilate everyone. The federation was lucky they were low on the priority list.

 

[Lord Garth]

The power Starfleet has on civilian, matters is pretty scary. A military should not have the power it has.

Not to mention the corruption at the top. Ever other admiral seems to be corrupt or insane .

It might be bright shiny and have a high standard of living but it has a lot of rot in it.


Then there is the fact a dozen Borg cubes could jump in any time and assimilate everyone. The federation was lucky they were low on the priority list.

I would probably say the Federation is on par with the United States. The military has more power ("Starfleet isn't the military!" It's the military.) but, at the same time, I think they have free and fair elections where they don't have to worry about the loser starting an insurrection.

There also seem to be enough good Starfleet Officers to keep the bad ones in check. Not too sure about our police departments.

So, I don't know, I think I'd call it a draw.

 

[Sci]

The power Starfleet has on civilian, matters is pretty scary. A military should not have the power it has.

What powers are you referring to? Because the worst that I can recall that we've seen is that apparently, per DS9 "Let He Who Is Without Sin...," Starfleet officers are legally empowered to act as law enforcement in certain scenarios. That may be questionable in terms of whether it's a good idea in principle, but it's not clear what those exact circumstances are or what limits they have, so I really don't think it's enough to label the Federation as dystopian.

Not to mention the corruption at the top. Ever other admiral seems to be corrupt or insane .

And almost all of them seem to be thwarted in their evil plans, which already means the Federation is doing better than most real-life societies.

It might be bright shiny and have a high standard of living but it has a lot of rot in it.

I dunno, I feel like you've enumerated reasons for why the Federation is a society with problems, not reasons for why the Federation is a dystopia. Like, a dystopia is not just a society with problems -- it's a society that is fundamentally tyrannical and/or fundamentally broken. Even at its worst (the period from 2385 to 2399), the Federation was not fundamentally tyrannical or fundamentally broken.

The only time I think you can make a half-decent argument for some level of dystopia is the chaos that followed the Burn in the 31st Century. But even then, I don't think dystopia applies except in those worlds that left the Federation and came under the thumb of the Emerald Chain. It wasn't the Federation per se that was being dystopian.

Then there is the fact a dozen Borg cubes could jump in any time and assimilate everyone. The federation was lucky they were low on the priority list.

I mean, sure, but the potential for imminent destruction is something every society has to live with. That's not dystopian, that's just life.

 

[fireproof78]

The power Starfleet has on civilian, matters is pretty scary. A military should not have the power it has.

Not to mention the corruption at the top. Ever other admiral seems to be corrupt or insane .

It might be bright shiny and have a high standard of living but it has a lot of rot in it.


Then there is the fact a dozen Borg cubes could jump in any time and assimilate everyone. The federation was lucky they were low on the priority list.

That doesn't make it dystopian. One, there is still civilian oversight of Starfleet, even with bad apples. The fact that presidents and the Council gives such leeway does not make it dystopian. Just that civilian leadership needs to exercise that oversight.

 

[MikHutch]

I would probably say the Federation is on par with the United States. The military has more power ("Starfleet isn't the military!" It's the military.) but, at the same time, I think they have free and fair elections where they don't have to worry about the loser starting an insurrection.

There also seem to be enough good Starfleet Officers to keep the bad ones in check. Not too sure about our police departments.

So, I don't know, I think I'd call it a draw.

Yeah Starfleet generally doesn't seem to have a police brutality and for-profit prison system problem

 

[El Maestro]

No. Even when the Federation isn't utopian, it is never dystopian.

Right...definitely not dystopian. I get the vibe that like a certain real-world superpower they tend to believe their own hype a bit, and try to get others to believe the lies they tell themselves....but it's certainly not a failed society.

 

[MikHutch]

Is there an example of an actual dystopia in ST?

 

[Lord Garth]

Is there an example of an actual dystopia in ST?

I'm tempted to go with the Confederation from the Alternate Reality in Picard Season 2, but I want to put more thought into it first, before solidifying that position.

 

[El Maestro]

Is there an example of an actual dystopia in ST?

Whatever planet Tasha Yar was from…and the S1 two planets from Symbiosis arguably…the Dominion is one if you’re not a Founder….

 

[Sci]

Is there an example of an actual dystopia in ST?

The Cardassian Union before the fall of the Obsidian Order and Central Command, and then again during Dominion occuation.

Bajor under Cardassian occupation.

The Romulan Star Empire before the supernova was, if not outright dystopian, then certainly not a free society.

The Terran Empire.

The Confederation of Earth from PIC S2.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

The legendary status of TOS is assured. Even Star Trek fans who have never watched it know what it is. People who've never watched Star Trek are aware of TOS iconography.

The passage of time will enhance and increase its reputation. After nearly 60 years, it can be very safely said that TOS is a resilient, perennial classic and I'm certain it will continue to endure.

 

[Sci]

The legendary status of TOS is assured. Even Star Trek fans who have never watched it know what it is. People who've never watched Star Trek are aware of TOS iconography.

The passage of time will enhance and increase its reputation. After nearly 60 years, it can be very safely said that TOS is a resilient, perennial classic and I'm certain it will continue to endure.

Indeed, I can't think of many television programs from the 1960s that remain in popular distribution and have multiple spin-offs in current production and inspired three different series of six, four, and three feature films each, and had previously inspired four spin-offs in nearly continuous production from the late 1980s to the mid-2000s, and has inspired a nearly-continuous media tie-in novel, video game, and comic book publishing program that's lasted over four decades.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I think even the people who don't watch or like TOS wouldn't deny it's iconic power.

As far as a TV show staying the distance and forming a decades spanning story and media empire, there's only Doctor Who that can match Trek.

More than half a century on and young people are still coming to TOS for the first time and loving it. TOS has become like Forbidden Planet or the original Planet of the Apes. Any science fiction fan has at least heard of it, those who have never seen it probably intend to at least give an episode or two a go and most who do try it will find something to like in it.

TOS still stands up. I'd say objectively. It creaks in places and shows it's age as much as anything that old does, but it's a shining example of early TV Sci-fi that still works in a way that so many other shows from the time don't.

I like Irwin Allen stuff, but his shows were crude finger paintings compared to TOS. I can absolutely see why someone wouldn't want to sit through Lost in Space or Land of the Giants. TOS had good production values, thoughtful directors, talented writers working with a great cast... Roddenberry really, really tried to make a show that offered more and by and large he succeeded.

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

I guess the title asks it all. As new generations of fans discover Star Trek (through the current shows, no less), do you believe that TOS will remain respected and loved in the coming decades - or will it fall by the wayside as fans instead look back with nostalgia on "their" Trek (in most cases, not TOS)?

I am a member (as much as I may not love it) of the latest generation, and TOS was the first Star Trek I watched. From The Man Trap to the Turnabout Intruder. It is "my" Trek. The only problem I see with younger Star Trek fans is being scared off by the 60s look. But if you can sit through the Phantom Menace without complaining you can sit through TOS.

If anything, in my experience, these new shows Paramount created to cater to younger audiences have done nothing but discourage them. People I know will see the dumpster fire that is Prodigy (like it or hate, from the trailer you have to admit it isn't encouraging), and assume the entire franchise has jumped the shark like that. Paramount is advertising its new shows as if anything before DIS didn't exist, in my opinion.

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

I am a member (as much as I may not love it) of the latest generation, and TOS was the first Star Trek I watched. From The Man Trap to the Turnabout Intruder. It is "my" Trek. The only problem I see with younger Star Trek fans is being scared off by the 60s look. But if you can sit through the Phantom Menace without complaining you can sit through TOS.

If anything, in my experience, these new shows Paramount created to cater to younger audiences have done nothing but discourage them. People I know will see the dumpster fire that is Prodigy (like it or hate, from the trailer you have to admit it isn't encouraging), and assume the entire franchise has jumped the shark like that. Paramount is advertising its new shows as if anything before DIS didn't exist, in my opinion.

The way I see it, TOS is a fundamental basis for the entire franchise. You can watch whatever you want after it, but it provides the background, technological, and worldbuilding glue that the rest of the series is based on.

 

[fireproof78]

The only way I see Trek jumping the shark is the fandom's obsession with legacy. A show can't exist anymore. It must be the next best thing. It must be a cultural phenomenon or its undoing Trek's work.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

People I know will see the dumpster fire that is Prodigy (like it or hate, from the trailer you have to admit it isn't encouraging), and assume the entire franchise has jumped the shark like that.

I don't think I've seen a single person who's watched the show describe Prodigy as anything remotely close to "dumpster fire". At worst, I've seen "Eh, not for me", the rest of the reviews seem to be glowing.

Paramount is advertising its new shows as if anything before DIS didn't exist, in my opinion.

Do you have an example of this? I'm not sure I understand what's meant exactly. I mean, the product is advertised as is, like any other legacy franchise out there. We're not going to get clips of Kirk fighting Gorn when advertising season 1 of Picard, but they still focused on things from Next Gen in those first trailers like Data in the TNG uniform and Riker appearing. The whole series is a recognition of a show that came before, so I'm not sure how your statement can be true in any way?

 

[Warthog81]

I think it will. I grew up in the 80s and 90s. For me TNG was the current Trek, I did enjoy it a lot, I watched DS9 and Voyager when they came out, could not miss an episode. We also had re-runs of the TOS. While I enjoyed the newer shows a lot for me the main definitive crew were always the TOS crew. These days 99% of the time when I watch Star Trek it will be TOS or a TOS movie. I have been unable to do a full re-watch of TNG, totally unable, DS9 I got part way through Season 6 and stopped, with Voyager also unable. I actually gave up watching when Enterprise was in the air as did not want a prequal. I have since watched Enterprise end to end a couple of times and thought it was ok, better than any of the modern stuff.

TOS just has something so special about it, the Kirk, Spock, McCoy friendship and actor chemistry just works so very well. They deserved more seasons and a bigger budget.

So I am from a younger generation than when TOS was created and grew up with the 90s shows but have gone back to the TOS period and it is my top show.