ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Why "Star Trek" (The Original Series) is really the only "True" Trek

Roddenberry's Disciple

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Mar. 09 2012, 11:16 pm

 


In the 1960s, "Star Trek" aired and caught little attention (although more than was reported with the early and imperfect Nielsen system at the time).  As is all too well known, Star Trek was nearly shelved after its second season, and only came back for a third, which was very poorly financed in respect to Season 1. "Star Trek" was Science Fiction, but it was also a Space "Western" (Wagon Train to the Stars), an adventure, a military-political vision, a comedy, and even a suspense/thriller with some slight "horror" elements at times (see "Charlie X", "The Cage", "Dagger of the Mind", "What are little girls made of" and other Season 1 episodes in particular).  


 


In the early '70s, Trek returned as an Animated Series which brought back the Season 1 cast of TOS together (minus Grace Lee Whitney/Yeoman Rand) for two seasons: 22 episodes which as a 4th season of sorts of the original Trek.  


The Original Trek, as in...the TRUE Trek.


 


During the '70s, Star Trek rapidly increased its fanbase due to the re-runs of its episodes in syndication. Trek became a pop-culture phenomenon, the biggest mistake (by NBC cancelling it) ever made by anyone in Television, and a sub-culture of its own, always burgeoning upon culthood. 


The Motion Picture was made which differed in visual aesthetics, tone, and storyline from both TOS and TAS. Many more films followed in its wake.  Then, even the original actors and characters themselves were displaced by "The Next Generation", in which Roddenberry even more drastically altered Star Trek, and, after his death in 1991, three more shows were aired and even more movies.  


However, was anything after TOS TRULY "TREK" ?


 


TOS displayed a future that was "relaxed" and free, yet also hard-working and intelligent.  Starfleet is not a military and it most certainly doesn't even look like one.  They wear uniforms, but they aren't the soul-less and shape-less things worn by the soldiers in reality.  These uniforms are bright, vibrant, and colorful.  They draw the attention of the eyes, and accentuate the human bodies.  One can see Kirk's muscular physique, Spock's lean and meticulous build.  Women dress feminine and show off their shapely and leggy sexuality, all the while appearing professional.  When watching TOS, I feel comforted, as if, perhaps, we may one day live in a less dull and mundane world.  


Now look at the "post" TOS/TAS Trek.  In the movies, EVERYONE wears the same exact uniform of the same exact same colors in the same exact way.  NO individuality, no bright colors.  Only silver (TMP) and red and white (II-VI).  I know feel as if the future will be just as mundane and compromising on our humanity as society is now.  Nothing is accentuated, but rather everything is presented in bleak sameness. In "The Next Generation", they all wear horrid jumpsuits which look as uncomfortable as they are unappealing.  They make men look scrawnier, and women less shapely and feminine (except for Deanna whose uniform allows for cleavage for some inexplicable reason-lol).  


Romulans were truly "Romanesque" in The Original Series, for instance.  TOS painted them as a very advanced civilization (technologically) which valued the military and war greatly, but which also held a lot of honor.  They aren't fearsome, per say, but they are a threat nonetheless.  Our war with them is more a product of each culture's xenophobia and inexperience with each other.  Both parties couldn't even see each other or how one another looked during a rather costly war generations prior.   


 Then, with TNG and its spin offs, Romulans became completely dishonorable.  They "cheat" and evade ethics at all cost.  Heck, they even abduct people!  Romulans deliver no great speeches worthy of Shakespeare, but rather, they care only about subverting the Federation and the Klingon Empire (the latter of whom they kind of took the role on from TOS).


TOS Klingons were truly fearsome and intimidating.  They were Human in almost every sense of the word, except for a more frightening and militarized visage reminiscent of the Mongolian Imperials.  Klingons then were Soviets in Space.  They were US, and our darker history (at that time present), and that's what made them all the more relevant and intimidating.  Klingons, then, were very intelligent.  They harnessed powerful mind scanners/sifters, equally able ships, and a desire to expand their boundaries...sounds familiar.  


Then with TMP and everything since, Klingons became cartoonish monsters with excessive facial ridges who spoke only of the "merits" behind their own culture and of being a "warrior".  They use swords even though its the 2300s and they travel at the speed of light in interstellar wars.  Somehow, THESE Klingons became a powerful entity...but I don't understand how or why.  TOS didn't need a stereotypically scarier visgae to be more frightening.  TOS Klingons are the only REAL Klingons. 


TOS actually had FUN characters.  Yes, I do like TNG and DS9, but they all lack characters which you would really want to "hang out" with.  Who would want to hang around Picard, Riker, and Data, when you have Kirk, Bones, and Spock?  Why Wesley, when you have Chekov? 


Musically, Star Trek TOS seemed to be very diverse and free, with Uhura's carefree, yet elegant, singing, Spock's highly cerebral, yet rewarding, Vulcan music, and even the appearance of guitars and many other instruments and musical styles throughout the show.  (Not to mention the spacy soundtrack to the entire show).  


 


TNG has classical orchestras/symphonies and...some Post-Bop era Jazz.  Where have the advances gone in music?  Why is everything from Earth and why is it all only its most cerebral music. Not even Jazz is really very widely valued, seemingly only appreciated by Riker.  Everyone else seems to just love Classical Music, despite its rigidity.  I, personally, enjoy Classical Music, but will a highly advanced multi-world culture ONLY appreciate ONE world's music from multiple centuries prior?  Even Sarek wants to simply hear Earth's Classical-Symphonic music and WEEPS at it (which goes against Spock's assertion that Vulcans find Human music in general to be anything but stimulating btw).  


What spin offs have had shows as serious and dark with such amazing villains as "Space Seed", "Errand of Mercy", and "Balance of Terror", the all around perfectness of "City on the Edge of Forever", the creepishness of "The Cage" or "The Carbomite Maneuver" or the comedy of "The Trouble with Tribbles" or "Mudd's Women", or the visions of technology, religion, and race such as "The Ultimate Computer", "The Doomsday Machine", "Court Martial", "The Return of the Archons", or "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield"?!? All in ONE series!?!


None.


Who wants the bland characters in TNG, DS9 and the sub-standard VOY and ENT and the action based movies, when the Original, and best, Trek is SO much better and offers SO much more?  Sure, all of these later shows are great (except for Voyager) and the movies are too, but NONE have captured the magical, "liberal", world that the original "Star Trek" gave us nearly 50 years ago.  None have captured our collective cultural consceince as highly, and none have been so diverse their scope and "genres", so to say.  All future shows have been sterilized and oftentimes outright bland and disinteresting.  TOS, despite its cornyness and 60s trappings, was anything but a 1960s show. No. It's a timeless show.  


TOS is the only TRUE Trek.  Yes, its become a wider universe, but the original 80 (79 really I know) episodes (and 22 TAS if you want to) of "Star Trek" as developed by Gene Roddenberry, Gene L. Coon, D.C. Fontana and others, is, was, and always will be Star Trek in its truest form and what everything was (and should be) based upon. 


Many have just simply missed the point.  


Even, (gasp!) Roddenberry did himself. 


RoTrekkie

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 477

Report this Mar. 10 2012, 12:59 am

Star Trek in the truest from, I like that.


 


 I also like TNG, and DS9 to some extent, and if there was nothing else to watch I'd go for Voyager or Enterprise as well. But Tos is my #1.


"Now you're beginning to talk like a doctor, bartender."

CloudMinder2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 482

Report this Mar. 10 2012, 10:23 am

i agree with pretty much everything you've said (minus your vew of 'TCOTEOF', which i'm almost alone in thinking isn't a very good episode).


i've only seen bits of the subsequent spin-offs, but they all lack the intensity and originality of the original, often having a 'soapy' feel and with sometimes ridiculous sets and uniforms.


"There are always alternatives" Spock

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 10 2012, 3:35 pm

I agree wholeheartedlly that Star Trek was the original and the best, hands-down. It is a classic American television series that may be one of the best 3 TV shows ever produced in history.


But, it was a product of it's time, and it was PERFECT for that era...so it was a perfect mix of being in the right place at the right time with very talented people involved.


What I don't agree with however, is that the original Trek is the only "true" Trek. The franchise has been a living and breathing evolutionary process for the past 45 years. Many talents have added their own vision and interpertation...and the tone and focus of each of the series reflected the times they were made in.


I think where Gene Roddenberry went wrong was in the 70's when he tried to cash-in on the success of the show by selling himself as a grand visionary and actually starting to BELIEVE that his responsibility was to make Trek something that was about philosophy (to your reference of the "New Humans" in the TMP novelization) and human evolution.


So, what you got in TNG (and in the series that followed to varying degrees) was a much more politically correct, safe, preachy version of Star Trek. There was still great writing and fascinating characters...but the sense of adventure and fun of the original show...the cowboy mentality...the swashbuckling heroism were all gone. In it's place was a show that was overly concerned with showing how future humans are superior in their morality and logic than current humans. While that may seem "visionay," it really isn't very FUN! Having flawless humans cutting a path through the cosmos was not as dramatically interesting as the more real and relatable characters of the original. Kirk and company had sound morailty as well...but they had to FIGHT to maintain it...to harness their good, and to overcome their weaknesses.


I don't think you can ever re-create the feel, tone, or magic of TOS. It was, as I said, a perfect mix of elements (including the era itself that it was produced) that may never come again. I appreaciate and enjoy the later series and movies in the Star Trek franchise...but they can never be as magical or classical as the original work.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Mar. 10 2012, 3:59 pm

Good for its era. As was TNG for the '80s, and DS9 and Voy. for the '90s etc.


You couldn't expect a show airing in 1995, say, to have the same "feel" about it as one which aired in 1965. Not unless it was taking the piss, and I doubt very much that's what people want to see.


Same with JJ's movie. He could well have gone the way of the Brady Bunch movie, and turned it into a parody of the original. That's the only way that you could really recapture that atmosphere these days.


Later Treks, particularly DS9 and Voyager, and to an extent Enterprise, really worked to deconstruct, dissect and examine the moral structures established by TOS. Valid exercises in themselves, as I do believe that a '90s audience would find Kirk's actions and his attitude to -- in particular -- the Klingons problematic in many instances.


"TOS actually had FUN characters.  Yes, I do like TNG and DS9, but they all lack characters which you would really want to "hang out" with.  Who would want to hang around Picard, Riker, and Data, when you have Kirk, Bones, and Spock?  Why Wesley, when you have Chekov?"


That's a subjective matter. In fact the problem with a lot the judgements you have made above, is that they are all entirely subjective. Why skew your argument towards Wesley Crusher instead of, for instance, Martok, Phlox or Garak?
______________________________________


So although it has a very different atmosphere to later Trek series, and may be as you say the "only True Trek" (As a statement this again depends very much on personal judgements and cannot be measured empirically.) I would ask: Does it really matter? And my answer would be: No. The label has no real bearing nor effect on the quality, relevance, enjoyment (or for that matter, popularity) of other Trek series.


To your final argument: Roddenberry is good to have created Star Trek, but he is hardly divine. Star Trek was a collaborative effort right from the very beginning, and continues to be so now.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

Roddenberry's Disciple

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Mar. 10 2012, 6:36 pm

Wow, TrueSpock, you are indeed a True fan. 


I couldn't have said it better myself.


I like the other series too, but they're all totally different games.  


TOS will never be fully recaptured, although TAS almost got close and "Spock Must Die" is an amazing novel that almost gets that effect.  


Very well said. 


"Star Trek" was, is, and will always be "Star Trek" (as in the original series). "The Next Generation" is a spectacular show that I more or less consider equal to the original, and DS9 is pretty good (albeit far overrated by many). The first 8 movies are fine by me too!

galaxyrider

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15

Report this Mar. 10 2012, 7:42 pm

I agree with your points.   Everytime I see an episode or movie (I did enjoy the remake) with Captain Kirk and his crew, I feel like it's a crew I'd like to be a part of.   They worked together as a family and as friends.   Yet each of them were unique and enjoyed different things.   As you stated, TOS captured that in a perfect way.   While some might not like the new movie, it has introduced Captain Kirk and Spock to a whole new audience who can in turn find and enjoy TOS.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 11 2012, 9:48 am

So...


 


[quote]


Good for its era. As was TNG for the '80s, and DS9 and Voy. for the '90s etc.


 


You couldn't expect a show airing in 1995, say, to have the same "feel" about it as one which aired in 1965. Not unless it was taking the piss, and I doubt very much that's what people want to see.


 


Same with JJ's movie. He could well have gone the way of the Brady Bunch movie, and turned it into a parody of the original. That's the only way that you could really recapture that atmosphere these days.


 


Later Treks, particularly DS9 and Voyager, and to an extent Enterprise, really worked to deconstruct, dissect and examine the moral structures established by TOS. Valid exercises in themselves, as I do believe that a '90s audience would find Kirk's actions and his attitude to -- in particular -- the Klingons problematic in many instances.


 


"TOS actually had FUN characters. Yes, I do like TNG and DS9, but they all lack characters which you would really want to "hang out" with. Who would want to hang around Picard, Riker, and Data, when you have Kirk, Bones, and Spock? Why Wesley, when you have Chekov?"


 


That's a subjective matter. In fact the problem with a lot the judgements you have made above, is that they are all entirely subjective. Why skew your argument towards Wesley Crusher instead of, for instance, Martok, Phlox or Garak?
______________________________________


 


So although it has a very different atmosphere to later Trek series, and may be as you say the "only True Trek" (As a statement this again depends very much on personal judgements and cannot be measured empirically.) I would ask: Does it really matter? And my answer would be: No. The label has no real bearing nor effect on the quality, relevance, enjoyment (or for that matter, popularity) of other Trek series.


 


To your final argument: Roddenberry is good to have created Star Trek, but he is hardly divine. Star Trek was a collaborative effort right from the very beginning, and continues to be so now.[/quote]



There is much in this post to agree with, and much to disagree with.


First, to say that TOS was good for it's era...just like the other shows were good for theirs is completely inaccurate. Star Trek was an American classic that has survived and remains relevant 45 years later, spawning 11 feature films and 5 spin-off series. You can't compare the cultural impact and classic nature of TOS to ANY of the other series, whether your own personal preference for the more modern works tells you otherwise or not. That is NOT subjective, it is fact.


Second, I find it fascinating (and telling) that your primary examples of "good characters" in the spin-off series are all alien characters, and primarily secondary characters (with the exception of Phlox). The bottom line is that Star Trek in it's purest sense is supposed to be an exploration of the human condition, and the building of the HUMAN characters, with an occasional alien foil thrown in (Spock, Data, Odo, etc) to act as a unique mirror for humanity is the way to accomplish that best. Having to rely on alien characters in the spin-off series diminished what the original show did so well. So, it may be "subjective" but again, it strays from what made Star Trek "great" as opposed to just "good" and eventually "average" in the 90's and 00's.


I agree with servalanfan about the attitude toward the enemies in the original Star Trek as well. I find the sickly-sweet, overly self-righteous approach that the 24th Century series took (particularly TNG) to be insulting to our intelligence and completely unentertaining. The lack of conflict and the "avoid it at all costs" attitude is not realistic. It's MUCH more entertaining and dramatic to see an imperfect character like Kirk struggle against his prejudices and hatred than it is to have someone like Picard simply preach at everyone about how humanity has outgrown such childish behavior. Ok...so it's "philosphical and evolved," but it sure as heck isn't dramatic or entertaining.


The one thing I will agree with is that we cannot say what is "true" Star Trek. Star Trek has been an evolving entity over the last 4 decades...and it will continue to evolve. No one vision is any less "true" than the others. Less entertaining? Yes. Less culturally relevant? Certainly. Less unique, creative and original? Yes, without a doubt.



But not less "true."


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Mar. 11 2012, 11:47 pm

Thank you for your response. A few things I could mention...



There is much in this post to agree with, and much to disagree with.


First, to say that TOS was good for it's era...just like the other shows were good for theirs is completely inaccurate.


Not entirely, because what it means/meant is that of course the originals have the lasting cultural impact, but at the same time can't be entirely transplanted into the modern era. It remains good to watch, but doubtful that an identical series would be successful now. The same remains true of TNG, which although also still good entertainment, is still very much a product of its time. Our cultural sensibilities and expectations have changed so dramatically over the decades since both were released == I was never meaning to say that they have lost their relevance; but rather that a show in the '90s for instance would naturally have to adapt to the sensibilities of that time.


You can't compare the cultural impact and classic nature of TOS to ANY of the other series, whether your own personal preference for the more modern works tells you otherwise or not.


...Which has never been my intention. If anything, I would argue that -- as a product of a different time -- the nature of TOS, TNG, and Enterprise (for example) does make them resistant to objective comparison in many ways, favourable and unfavourable.
 .


Second, I find it fascinating (and telling) that your primary examples of "good characters" in the spin-off series are all alien characters, and primarily secondary characters (with the exception of Phlox).


Merely an example -- which could just as easily have been Sisko, Bashir, or Trip Tucker. I found it equally telling that the OP chose deliberately to use unpopular character/s (Wesley) as his example.


The bottom line is that Star Trek in it's purest sense is supposed to be an exploration of the human condition, and the building of the HUMAN characters, with an occasional alien foil thrown in (Spock, Data, Odo, etc) to act as a unique mirror for humanity is the way to accomplish that best. Having to rely on alien characters in the spin-off series diminished what the original show did so well.



Not disagreeing with you about the human exploration -- but I would disagree that the shift to alien characters somehow lessened the drama of the originals. I would say rather that it was a natural progression, and when you really think about it, the non-humans of later series (as was Spock in the original) and their cultures and daily dramas were still very human-like.


I agree with servalanfan about the attitude toward the enemies in the original Star Trek as well. I find the sickly-sweet, overly self-righteous approach that the 24th Century series took (particularly TNG) to be insulting to our intelligence and completely unentertaining. The lack of conflict and the "avoid it at all costs" attitude is not realistic. It's MUCH more entertaining and dramatic to see an imperfect character like Kirk struggle against his prejudices and hatred than it is to have someone like Picard simply preach at everyone about how humanity has outgrown such childish behavior. Ok...so it's "philosphical and evolved," but it sure as heck isn't dramatic or entertaining.



Ok-- I do like Picard as a character (it was refreshing to have an intellectual sci-fi hero as opposed to the usual grunts -- by "grunts" I'm really not necessarily referring to Star Trek here at all, mind you... But he did make a nice change from the Flash-Gordon-Han-Solo types that usually get the central roles in Space Opera.)


But I don't disagree with you there. One of the reasons I am (and no doubt you know this by now) such a DS9 fan is precisely because of the shades of grey treatment of allies and enemies, shades of grey, and flawed characters who aren't always right in the same way that Picard seems to be. Not so sure about "not dramatic and entertaining", because there are still some quite dramatic moments in TNG (not the preachy bits, necessarily, but certainly some of the narrative elements.)


This point, however, is where we may be coming to some consensus. The deconstruction of humanity's "evolution" beyond the "flaws" of its ancestors is far more interesting than "evolved humanity" itself.


The one thing I will agree with is that we cannot say what is "true" Star Trek. Star Trek has been an evolving entity over the last 4 decades...and it will continue to evolve. No one vision is any less "true" than the others. Less entertaining? Yes. Less culturally relevant? Certainly. Less unique, creative and original? Yes, without a doubt.
To say that one thing is less or more entertaining than another would really depend a lot on the question: Are you, or am I, or is Granny Harriet who lives down the road, more or less entertained? The answer may yet be different in every instance.



But not less "true."


________________________________________



Like many of you, I have been a fan of the Original Series since it first aired, but I also accept the later shows as "part of the family"


Well said by Desdinova (above) methinks. I would think that rather than becoming less true to itself with the inclusion of later shows, their influence has broadened what Star Trek is, and added facets to the story, making it richer more than they ever took away from the original "core".


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 12 2012, 7:28 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Mar. 11 2012, 11:47 pm

>

>Thank you for your response. A few things I could mention...

> 

>There is much in this post to agree with, and much to disagree with.

>First, to say that TOS was good for it's era...just like the other shows were good for theirs is completely inaccurate.

>Not entirely, because what it means/meant is that of course the originals have the lasting cultural impact, but at the same time can't be entirely transplanted into the modern era. It remains good to watch, but doubtful that an identical series would be successful now. The same remains true of TNG, which although also still good entertainment, is still very much a product of its time. Our cultural sensibilities and expectations have changed so dramatically over the decades since both were released == I was never meaning to say that they have lost their relevance; but rather that a show in the '90s for instance would naturally have to adapt to the sensibilities of that time.

>You can't compare the cultural impact and classic nature of TOS to ANY of the other series, whether your own personal preference for the more modern works tells you otherwise or not.

>...Which has never been my intention. If anything, I would argue that -- as a product of a different time -- the nature of TOS, TNG, and Enterprise (for example) does make them resistant to objective comparison in many ways, favourable and unfavourable.
 .

>Second, I find it fascinating (and telling) that your primary examples of "good characters" in the spin-off series are all alien characters, and primarily secondary characters (with the exception of Phlox).

>Merely an example -- which could just as easily have been Sisko, Bashir, or Trip Tucker. I found it equally telling that the OP chose deliberately to use unpopular character/s (Wesley) as his example.

>The bottom line is that Star Trek in it's purest sense is supposed to be an exploration of the human condition, and the building of the HUMAN characters, with an occasional alien foil thrown in (Spock, Data, Odo, etc) to act as a unique mirror for humanity is the way to accomplish that best. Having to rely on alien characters in the spin-off series diminished what the original show did so well.

>
Not disagreeing with you about the human exploration -- but I would disagree that the shift to alien characters somehow lessened the drama of the originals. I would say rather that it was a natural progression, and when you really think about it, the non-humans of later series (as was Spock in the original) and their cultures and daily dramas were still very human-like.

>I agree with servalanfan about the attitude toward the enemies in the original Star Trek as well. I find the sickly-sweet, overly self-righteous approach that the 24th Century series took (particularly TNG) to be insulting to our intelligence and completely unentertaining. The lack of conflict and the "avoid it at all costs" attitude is not realistic. It's MUCH more entertaining and dramatic to see an imperfect character like Kirk struggle against his prejudices and hatred than it is to have someone like Picard simply preach at everyone about how humanity has outgrown such childish behavior. Ok...so it's "philosphical and evolved," but it sure as heck isn't dramatic or entertaining.

>
Ok-- I do like Picard as a character (it was refreshing to have an intellectual sci-fi hero as opposed to the usual grunts -- by "grunts" I'm really not necessarily referring to Star Trek here at all, mind you... But he did make a nice change from the Flash-Gordon-Han-Solo types that usually get the central roles in Space Opera.)

>But I don't disagree with you there. One of the reasons I am (and no doubt you know this by now) such a DS9 fan is precisely because of the shades of grey treatment of allies and enemies, shades of grey, and flawed characters who aren't always right in the same way that Picard seems to be. Not so sure about "not dramatic and entertaining", because there are still some quite dramatic moments in TNG (not the preachy bits, necessarily, but certainly some of the narrative elements.)

>This point, however, is where we may be coming to some consensus. The deconstruction of humanity's "evolution" beyond the "flaws" of its ancestors is far more interesting than "evolved humanity" itself.

>The one thing I will agree with is that we cannot say what is "true" Star Trek. Star Trek has been an evolving entity over the last 4 decades...and it will continue to evolve. No one vision is any less "true" than the others. Less entertaining? Yes. Less culturally relevant? Certainly. Less unique, creative and original? Yes, without a doubt.
To say that one thing is less or more entertaining than another would really depend a lot on the question: Are you, or am I, or is Granny Harriet who lives down the road, more or less entertained? The answer may yet be different in every instance.

> 

>But not less "true."

>________________________________________

>
Like many of you, I have been a fan of the Original Series since it first aired, but I also accept the later shows as "part of the family"

>Well said by Desdinova (above) methinks. I would think that rather than becoming less true to itself with the inclusion of later shows, their influence has broadened what Star Trek is, and added facets to the story, making it richer more than they ever took away from the original "core".

>


 


A couple of areas to clarify:


 


1. What I meant was that you were saying that each series was "good" for it's time. I disagreed with that. TOS was infinately more than "good" for it's time, while other series that came after may not have EVEN been considered "good" for their time.


2. I'll give you Sisko and Bashir. DS9 had the second-best set of characters (and it's a CLOSE second) to the original. Tripp Tucker...not so much.


3. My argument is based more around the point that Star Trek was always more relevant when it primarily portrayed HUMANS as the people who were learning to overcome their weaknesses and work together to achieve great things. Sure, showing that we can work together on a greater galactic scale with aliens may be more "realistic" and, in some ways, more "fun," but it takes away from the relevance of the important message and the relatability of that message. It's one of the reasons I like that the rebooted BSG and Firefly avoided alien characters altogether.


4. Agree with everything you said in your clarification of the "evolved humanity" topic. I also LOVE the Picard character in a general context...but in a dramatic context, he doesn't fit the bill. Agree that DS9 was the closest to the original in the "shades of grey" aspect as well, which is why DS9 will always be my second-favorite Trek series. The characters were tremendous.


5. Saying "less entertaining" may indeed be subjective. Perhaps "less dramatic" would have been more accurate, since drama is born of some form of conflict. But the other elements I pointed out there (less relevant, less unique /creative/original) I stand by as fact.


 


 Good exchange.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

TheDriver

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1653

Report this Mar. 14 2012, 8:33 am

I tend to echo Vger23's sentiments.


And I believe had the original poster actually watched DS9? He wouldn't have typed that incredibly long essay.


Don't get me wrong. TOS is clearly the best, purest, and most popular incarnation of Trek. But as for cast chemistry? Or amazing villains? Or sense of fun? DS9 has all of those things in spades. And while I have thought TNG, VOY, and ENT became a bit sterile and bland at times, DS9 was never sterile or bland.


...well, at least, once it hit its 3rd season. Ha.


But hey, this is just my opinion.


I'd also say that my opinion is that Roddenberry's "vision" is highly overrated. The man himself was a lecherous individual who continually cheated on his wives (including Majel Barrett) and managed to ostracize many of the creative people who worked on the Star Trek franchise. The man's ego was, quite frankly, hugely inflated due to the number of Trek fans who believed it was Roddenberry's singular vision that drove Trek, completely ignoring the collaborative effort that made such a science fiction series possible.


Again, this is why I dig DS9 so much. Behr and Moore have gone on record saying they felt Roddenberry's "vision" for TNG was absolute crap. And then they went and did their own thing ... which, interestingly (and ironically), got DS9 closer to the spirit of TOS than any of the other "Roddenberry-driven" spin-offs.


"Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast."

CloudMinder2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 482

Report this Mar. 15 2012, 8:27 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>The beauty of Deep Space 9 was that it showed, for all it's high ideals and good guy facade, the Federation had an underside like anything else.

>Roddenberry got so into his "New Human" ideal with The Next Generation, and combined with Berman's reported stand against any kind of interpersonal conflict, that they forgot that some kind of conflict is almost inevitable. And usually good basis for a story. Behr and Moore capitalized on that concept.

>


Of all the 'spin-off' series i must admit DS9 interests me the most, but as i didn't really watch it at the time, i'm not sure i'd be prepared to take it on after the event, so to speak - not when there's 7 seasons!


 


 


"There are always alternatives" Spock

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra, FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum