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

[shakham]

The fans I knew growing up preferred TNG but I and others were much more TOS. Most people I talk to in the day to day think of TOS when talking Star Trek. Even my mom, who hates science fiction.

As for new fans, I think new fans will come in as they find something of interest to them, be it SF, or characters, or action or comedy. Whether or not they'll stick around comes down to how they feel like they can interact with the community.

For me it's an age thing. Those who grew up with TOS (ie. before TNG existed) prefer TOS. Those who grew up with TNG (ie. started ST with TNG), don't like TOS. The only reason I bring this up because, aside from new fans (post 2009), these are the 2 biggest pools of fans, and may be indicative of new fans today.

TOS is clearly the winner in terms of pop culture. Everybody (above 30) knows who Captain Kirk is and "Beam me up Scotty", even if they never watched the show.

I guess I'm trying to answer this:
Will TOS maintain its legendary status as Trek fandom gets younger?

To me this means those who watch a new show, not pop culture.

Hence for new fans to connect to TOS, they really need to be open to wanting to continue exploring the lore. New fans coming SNW IMO is the best entry point to really connecting with TOS.

 

[Lord Garth]

It's like I said earlier in the thread, new fans -- people who would be discovering it now -- wouldn't feel any allegiance to any one Star Trek show. They'd see it as this large franchise with a bunch of shows. They might like all of them, they might only like some of them, but it's not going to be The TOS Camp or The TNG Camp. Not with them, anyway.

The two main ways I think there are going to be new(-ish) fans is if either their parents are fans or they discovered Star Trek through the Kelvin Films and then started watching the shows.

 

[suarezguy]

From my impression a lot of big/started-with TNG fans do, while not loving, at least like a lot of the original and/or Deep Space Nine (and even parts of the later others), love TNG a lot but like a lot of the overall franchise, TNG was and is a good introduction to the others even while a lot of big fans of the others tend to dislike TNG the most or second-to-most.

 

[MikHutch]

Hmm, I can't say I dislike any show although DSC is probably my least favorite.

 

[Qonundrum]

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)?

As with all the eras, the trappings of the actual society that spawned these shows will be, to varying degrees, lost to them, so a fair chunk the episodes will lose meaning right off the bat. The most obvious example is the miniskirt, for which the complainers are making claims about male blahbetyblah, should read what Grace Lee Whitney and Nichelle Nichols said, because they were there, lived through the prevailing reason of the time, and wrote about it for people to gloss over five decades later. Now multiple that by fifty and now we're in 4523 having to wonder what the hell was going in in 2023, all while we're sitting here guessing whart the Ancient Romans did and likely getting a ton of that wrong as well... and a ton of it right, but how far language evolves and/or devolves and what replaces English, assuming it is replaced, noting we're not speaking Latin and/or Caveman, of course...

In rewatching, people will simply apply whatever is normal for the day and look back with misperception-driven disdain. It's easy and fun to do. TOS has perceived sexism and racism when it, in 1966, was deemed "adult", forward-thinking and fighting those issues, if not being seen as tame or "not far enough" or "too forced and feels fake" and/or whatever else at the time.

What I'm the most curious about is this - if TOS allegedly inspired people to become astronauts and engineers and doctors and so on, what's TNG-onward inspiring? Apart from learning Klingon and getting arrested in airports for trying to bring very large sharp and shiny objects aboard that look like they would cause injury or damage. The 1970s had multiple incidents with flashing and streaking, the 1990s had dangerous weapons... how's that for a comparison... maybe Klingon will become the next big language in real life. Dunno.

 

[Lord Garth]

What I'm the most curious about is this - if TOS allegedly inspired people to become astronauts and engineers and doctors and so on,

This is true. And it's to be applauded.

what's TNG-onward inspiring? Apart from learning Klingon and getting arrested in airports for trying to bring very large sharp and shiny objects aboard that look like they would cause injury or damage. The 1970s had multiple incidents with flashing and streaking, the 1990s had dangerous weapons... how's that for a comparison... maybe Klingon will become the next big language in real life. Dunno.

This is reductive. There's an independent business I take my computer to whenever it's not working, and the guy who started up that business has a poster of Geordi LaForge up on his wall. Geordi inspired him to go into computer repair.

It's like I said on another TrekBBS post once, a long time ago: Scotty is who I'd have fix my car. Geordi is who I'd have fix my computer.

 

[shakham]

This is true. And it's to be applauded.

This is reductive. There's an independent business I take my computer to whenever it's not working, and the guy who started up that business has a poster of Geordi LaForge up on his wall. Geordi inspired him to go into computer repair.

It's like I said on another TrekBBS post once, a long time ago: Scotty is who I'd have fix my car. Geordi is who I'd have fix my computer.

Computer hardware....
If exact parts aren't available, and need hack type fix, it has to be Scotty.
If it's a textbook repair, either would do the job just as well.
If it's managing the hardware of a server farm, Geordi would be better.

If it's a software issue, I want neither Scotty, nor Geordi.
Spock would be great, but Data would be better, and I bet Seven would be the best.

Regardless I fix my own computer, end-to-end, and no I don't have a poster of Scotty/Geordi/Spock/Data on my wall. However I do own a TNG pinball machine, and used to own a TOS one, so wonder if those count.

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

The most obvious example is the miniskirt, for which the complainers are making claims about male blahbetyblah, should read what Grace Lee Whitney and Nichelle Nichols said, because they were there, lived through the prevailing reason of the time, and wrote about it for people to gloss over five decades later.

What did they say? I haven't read anything from them about miniskirts and male gaze.

What I'm the most curious about is this - if TOS allegedly inspired people to become astronauts and engineers and doctors and so on, what's TNG-onward inspiring?

TOS was what inspired me to become a physicist, but TNG inspired Miguel Alcubierre (inventor of the actual warp drive), so don't be so quick to dismiss TNG's technological inspiration.

 

[MikHutch]

This is true. And it's to be applauded.


This is reductive. There's an independent business I take my computer to whenever it's not working, and the guy who started up that business has a poster of Geordi LaForge up on his wall. Geordi inspired him to go into computer repair.

It's like I said on another TrekBBS post once, a long time ago: Scotty is who I'd have fix my car. Geordi is who I'd have fix my computer.

The entire "don't criticize the past" attitude is needlessly reductive

 

[smalltabby]

I'm not the youngest possible new fan, closer to 30 than 20, but TOS definitely is something special to me. I hadn't seen any other Trek prior to starting from the beginning, so that probably definitely helps, but it's precisely its positivity, vibrancy and camp that draws me in.
Everything from the lighting, static camera and the "hand-madeness" of the props and costuming that makes it feel like a stage play and helps immerse me. When it's not aiming for realism, I don't need to nitpick about cracks in it like I would with the style of modern tv.
And of course the actors having done stage acting prior enhances the stage play feel. Some people call it overacting, I just find it very engaging. The characters and their chemistry are great fun, so even if an episode is silly, it's nice to follow how the characters navigate it.
All in all, original Trek is different from what media is like today, and that's what's so alluring about it to me.
Additionally, since I've been active in different fandoms throughout my life, it's been very interesting to see where sides of fandom as we know it today have their origins. Fanzines, slash and fan fiction, how conventions operate.

 

[Weyoun 251]

I'm not the youngest possible new fan, closer to 30 than 20, but TOS definitely is something special to me. I hadn't seen any other Trek prior to starting from the beginning, so that probably definitely helps, but it's precisely its positivity, vibrancy and camp that draws me in.
Everything from the lighting, static camera and the "hand-madeness" of the props and costuming that makes it feel like a stage play and helps immerse me. When it's not aiming for realism, I don't need to nitpick about cracks in it like I would with the style of modern tv.
And of course the actors having done stage acting prior enhances the stage play feel. Some people call it overacting, I just find it very engaging. The characters and their chemistry are great fun, so even if an episode is silly, it's nice to follow how the characters navigate it.
All in all, original Trek is different from what media is like today, and that's what's so alluring about it to me.
Additionally, since I've been active in different fandoms throughout my life, it's been very interesting to see where sides of fandom as we know it today have their origins. Fanzines, slash and fan fiction, how conventions operate.

I think I agree with almost all you say - certainly the outlandishness of TOS, the sometimes shoddy sets (enough with the Olde Westerne Townes that had no rooves for their 2d shop fronts), and slightly hammy acting or fight scenes (Kirk Fu could have originated for many reasons including ease of moves for zero g - like the moves That Character uses in that v recent EP of SNW when they fight that thing)

Compared to TNG it felt wondrous and distant whereas TNG could have been set in any era really (no reason it couldn't have been Space 1999 companion series about the USS Space QE2 that was a luxury liner to Moon Base Alpha and got spin off into the galaxy when the Moon Base did) as they were just stuffy business people who rarely got into any real trouble

DS9 returned to that truly out there space vibe - but with far more cash to make it not look shit.

The characters didn't all sound like they were part of the same scrum in an IT start up and acted like real honest to god people.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I think the idea that every character and every conversation that takes place in TNG is stilted and somehow not realistic is getting slightly overstated around these parts of late.

 

[Crazyewok]

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.



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.



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.



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.

Sorry for late reply. I been thinking this over why The Federation seems "off" to me. Few points:
1) the Federation will sell your border colony out to a star nation of lizard Facists so the fat happy people in the core worlds can sit safely at home.

2) The Federation lying to the galaxy about not having a military when it clearly does. The romulans and klingons don't buy it. So ot can only be to keep the weak minded fat and happy Federation citizens happy. That level of self delusion is not healthy.

3) the Federation puts children on its military ships! That's deluded at best ,ruthless and reckless at worse.

And I mean this in good humour


O and don't forget you will never know if your governments been taken over by changelings or some parasitic mind control beetle that could crawl up your butt and take you over at anytime.

 

[MikHutch]

I think the idea that every character and every conversation that takes place in TNG is stilted and somehow not realistic is getting slightly overstated around these parts of late.

Because there are too many TOS fanboys here? It's not like TOS didn't have hokey or odd dialogue

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Because there are too many TOS fanboys here?

By your definition, I am one of your ‘fanboys’.

Also, I think I have told you before how unhelpful and reductive such language is in terms of having a pleasant or productive discussion.

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

Because there are too many TOS fanboys here? It's not like TOS didn't have hokey or odd dialogue

Let's not point fingers and accept that it is written my a human and FICTION, meaning that it doesn't have to be perfect.

 

[MikHutch]

By your definition, I am one of your ‘fanboys’.

Also, I think I have told you before how unhelpful and reductive such language is in terms of having a pleasant or productive discussion.

Well, I don't find the constant "TOS is the best/everything else sucks" attitude helpful either. I tried to be nice and some TOS fanboys acted rude and condescending

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I tried to be nice and some TOS fanboys acted rude and condescending

Saying people are rude on the one hand while continuing to be rude then?

I guess you and I are done permanently then.

 

[MikHutch]

Saying people are rude on the one hand while continuing to be rude then?

I guess you and I are done permanently then.

Calling out rudeness isn't rudeness. Don't "both-sides" this

I'll refrain from calling people fanboys from now on. But I'm not going to agree with every nostalgic attitude

 

[fireproof78]

I tried to be nice and some TOS fanboys acted rude and condescending

I prefer the term "superior"

and it breeds superior ambition.