Star Trek (The Original Series)

[Edward]

Yeah, maybe the single most annoying thing to me in the Abrams films is that Starfleet isn't shown to be a meritocracy, but a cult-of-personality outfit where good ends can always justify the means. But my main complaint is that it's so dumbed down, and totally uninterested in the things that distinguished the show: deep space exploration and using SF metaphors to comment on our own society. I thought the second one was even worse: an Earthbound terrorist-infiltration action flick that had zero to do Trek, and it made an awful mess of "honoring" Wrath of Khan.

People who know that I'm a lifelong SF/Fantasy fan keep asking me if I'm excited about Abrams upcoming Star Wars film... and my answer is that he's already disgraced himself by ruining one SF franchise that I've been with from day one and revere, why should I put myself through that torture yet again?

He couldn't possibly make as much of a hash of Star Wars as George Lucas already did. Hell, Ed Wood could make a better picture than George Lucas on a good day.

 

[LizzieMaine]

He couldn't possibly make as much of a hash of Star Wars as George Lucas already did. Hell, Ed Wood could make a better picture than George Lucas on a good day.

Wood had the advantage of being absolutely stone-cold sincere in everything he ever did. Lucas, as he's gone along, has become increasingly cynical, and it shows in his work.

 

[Fading Fast]

...I'm not singling him out for this, though -- I think many men of his generation had exactly the same conflicted look-ahead-but-hold-back worldview, and in that sense he was merely a man of his time.

Reminds me of some of your very astute comments on "Go Set a Watchman." It is easy for us to judge people in the past for not living up to today's standards, but it is more work, doesn't let us feel easily superior and requires a more thoughtful view of history to think about them in the context of their day. I remind myself of this anytime I get on my moral high-horse as, I bet, twenty-five, fifty and a hundred years from now some of our good-and-moral, progressive views will look wrong to the people of that time.

And I loved the original "Number One" as a strong, smart woman and while her desire for Pike was reflective of that period's stereotypes, many women, then and now, do find strong, good looking men attractive (and vice versa). My grandmother was widowed with a small child in the depression - lost her house - but saved a deep-in-debt small business, brought it back to a successful enterprise (took well-over ten years) - and was well-respected in the nearly all-male world of local businesses in her community. Whenever I watch that episode of ST, I see my grandmother in the female "Number One" (they look a bit alike as well).

 

[Zombie_61]

...Star Trek and 2001 were legit science fiction - which I'd also been reading for a decade by 1977 - and Star Wars was clearly... something else...

I agree. Star Trek and 2001 are science fiction, while Star Wars is better described as space fantasy. Similar, but not quite the same.

 

[MisterCairo]

op2:

 

[Benzadmiral]

I was and am a major Trek fan. It led me to reading written science fiction, Heinlein, Silverberg, Anderson, Niven, Herbert's Dune, et al. So when I saw Star Wars for the first time, I appreciated its echoes of written SF -- the desert planet much like Dune, for example. And it was the most visually realistic SF movie made up to that time. Take the battle between Solo's Falcon and the fighter ships. Trek, because of its smaller budget, would have shown the Enterprise firing its phasers, say, and then would have cut to a shot of the smaller vessel exploding. In SW, we got it all: the laser cannon bay swiveling with the actor in it, the cannon firing, the tiny ships flashing past, and then the bit where we saw the cannon, actor, and ship exploding, all together, no cuts. And you were there in the little ship with Luke as he swirled down from space and into the channel on the Death Star's surface. Amazing stuff from a visual point of view.

Ideas? Not much, except for "Trust your feelings." Forbidden Planet in 1956 gave you more awe-inspiring ideas. We are never shown what the long-vanished Krell people looked like, but Morbius points to the squashed-lozenge shape of a Krell door and says, "I suggest you consider it in light of our functionally designed human doors." Wow.

As for George Lucas, he was dynamite when he was younger. The energy, fun, and ultimate flavor of American Graffiti shows what a good director he could be. My friends and I all left the theatre after seeing AG, saying, "I knew somebody in school who was just like [Character name]!" But I've heard very little other than negative comments about the prequel trilogy of the SW films, and haven't watched them.

 

[Doctor Strange]

You're wise to have skipped watching the SW prequels. (I had young kids at the time and couldn't avoid them... not that my kids liked them either!) There was no sign left of the brilliant young director who had made American Graffiti and Star Wars on low budgets despite studio disinterest. He was now the Emperor, sitting atop a Coruscant-sized load of digital effects, with no remaining ability to create compelling characters or believable dialog!

And before there was Star Trek, 2001, or Star Wars... there was Forbidden Planet. Catching it on a b/w TV for the first time when I was about 9 years old was just as important as my first viewings of any of the SF and fantasy classics to follow!

The fool, to think that his ape's brain could hold the secret of the Krell!

 

[cm289]

As for George Lucas, he was dynamite when he was younger. The energy, fun, and ultimate flavor of American Graffiti shows what a good director he could be. My friends and I all left the theatre after seeing AG, saying, "I knew somebody in school who was just like [Character name]!" But I've heard very little other than negative comments about the prequel trilogy of the SW films, and haven't watched them.

I agree. Young GL had some great stuff. I think he had some great ideas, but was constantly told 'No, it can't be done', so he had to fight every step of the way to get it done. Then he became a billionaire and people started telling him 'Yes, George, whatever you say. It'll be great'. "Yes men" rarely make anything better. That, and the toy sales aspect of movie making got to be more important than the story.

There are parts of the prequels that I like; I thought Ewan McGregor makes a great Obi Wan, some of the action scenes are amazing, but GL forgot what he once took as gospel: "a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zombie_61]

...And it was the most visually realistic SF movie made up to that time. Take the battle between Solo's Falcon and the fighter ships. Trek, because of its smaller budget, would have shown the Enterprise firing its phasers, say, and then would have cut to a shot of the smaller vessel exploding. In SW, we got it all: the laser cannon bay swiveling with the actor in it, the cannon firing, the tiny ships flashing past, and then the bit where we saw the cannon, actor, and ship exploding, all together, no cuts. And you were there in the little ship with Luke as he swirled down from space and into the channel on the Death Star's surface. Amazing stuff from a visual point of view...

Technology and budget aside, it's important to remember that Star Trek's special effects were created under the severe time constraints of producing a weekly television series. They had a defined schedule they had to stick to, so every week they had to stop at some point and move on to the next effects sequence. The effects are rather flawed by today's standards, but they were groundbreaking for 1960s television.

 

[p51]

My parents were in their 30s when Trek came on. The original series stopped running about 5 months before I was born. Frankly, I didn't like it much in re-runs when I was a kid. Too many of the episodes were representational and that was totally lost on a literal kid like myself. My brother and I alternated watching Gilligan's Island (my choice) and Trek (his) when we were kids. Mind you, he's 5 years older than me. I can't stand Gilligan's Island now, so there's always no accounting for taste...
As for Trek, I only liked the action episodes and a few others (trouble with tribbles, piece of the action, stuff like that). I hated the 'greek god' type episodes.
I get that trek was groundbreaking in that they were having women and minorities in roles that wouldn't be common in that timeframe, but by the time I was watching them, the episodes didn't seem all that forward reaching by then.
Frankly, I was pretty ticked when the Battlestar Galactica 're-boot' changed previously African-American characters Boomer and Colonel Tigh to women. While I'm very non-PV, I feel that both of the original characters were real 'stand up guy' types, and I feel that they truly shafted an entire ethnicity when they did that.

I also like both Star Trek and Star Wars, and have never really understood why some people insist that fans must choose one over the other.

Yeah, that beats the heck out of me, too. Sci-fi fandom has truly turned into this:

 

[DesertDan]

The original series was my favorite TV show as a kid, bar none. It influenced me to begin reading science fiction and fantasy from a fairly young age. TOS is still my preferred series, there were good episodes in the later series but overall they just did not "speak" to me like the original did.

My parents showed no interest in it.

Star Wars came out when I was 13 and like many my age, I lost my mind when I saw it! I never had the toys and such stuff nor cared about such things, But I still love the films and overlook the ridiculous PC re-edits Lucas did later on. The prequels had good parts and bad but just didn't have the elements that made the first trilogy great.

 

[p51]

TOS is still my preferred series, there were good episodes in the later series but overall they just did not "speak" to me like the original did.

Next Generation was the "old v/s new Star Wars" debate among fans in the 80s. I thought the next generation ones had characters that never seemed as 'real' as the old show's characters were. The old show had people who sweated, fought, got ticked off at each other, cried and lost their cool from time to time. The next generation had none of that. Everyone stood like they were in a pass and review, were all workaholics who never left their duty stations and had a level of self-denial for fun that would have impressed the Amish. I never bought into any of them as real people.

 

[Zombie_61]

Next Generation was the "old v/s new Star Wars" debate among fans in the 80s. I thought the next generation ones had characters that never seemed as 'real' as the old show's characters were. The old show had people who sweated, fought, got ticked off at each other, cried and lost their cool from time to time. The next generation had none of that. Everyone stood like they were in a pass and review, were all workaholics who never left their duty stations and had a level of self-denial for fun that would have impressed the Amish. I never bought into any of them as real people.

I agree. I've never been able to explain exactly why, but for some reason the original series seemed more "real" and the various spin-off series' felt like high-budget fan films. Also, as a friend once put it during a conversation about The Next Generation, "They're on a ship exploring deep space, but they all want to be actors and musicians and play make-believe on a holodeck???" lol

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Deep Space Nine" had all the grit and realistic personality types that TNG lacked. All of the characters were flawed or damaged in some way, and often made bad decisions with real consequences. The series was also far more realistic in its treatment of war than any of the other Trek series. I don't just consider it by far the best of any of the ST series, I consider it, in any genre, the best TV series of the '90s.

 

[Big J]

I agree. I've never been able to explain exactly why, but for some reason the original series seemed more "real" and the various spin-off series' felt like high-budget fan films. Also, as a friend once put it during a conversation about The Next Generation, "They're on a ship exploring deep space, but they all want to be actors and musicians and play make-believe on a holodeck???" lol

I always had the feeling that the Next Generation crew were too busy 'finding themselves' to look for anything in deep space.

They could just have easily gone into a kind of 'group isolation therapy' on earth. The starship was just a device to facilitate their development into better people, whereas in the original series, the starship was the means by which Kirk et al explored space, encountered new races, and gave them the benefit of our superior culture.

 

[Blackthorn]

"Deep Space Nine" had all the grit and realistic personality types that TNG lacked. All of the characters were flawed or damaged in some way, and often made bad decisions with real consequences. The series was also far more realistic in its treatment of war than any of the other Trek series. I don't just consider it by far the best of any of the ST series, I consider it, in any genre, the best TV series of the '90s.

DS9 was my favorite by far.

 

[p51]

"Deep Space Nine" had all the grit and realistic personality types that TNG lacked. All of the characters were flawed or damaged in some way, and often made bad decisions with real consequences. The series was also far more realistic in its treatment of war than any of the other Trek series.

While I never was huge fan of DS9, I agree fully with your take on it.

 

[Doctor Strange]

The DS9-is-best thing is a prevalent view among a lot Trek fans, particularly of an age group for whom it was their first serious exposure to a really serious story with boatloads of moral ambiguity.

While I don't disagree in principle, I have just never warmed to DS9. I missed a lot of it during the original airing because it coincided with my kids being infants/toddlers, and since it had such detailed plot arcs, dropping in on an occasional episode was unsatisfying. I have tried watching large chunks of it again many times since, but alas, it still mostly leaves me cold. This doesn't mean that I don't agree that it did some great things (e.g., the brilliantly done "Beyond The Farthest Star"), and Lizzie's totally right in her assessment... but it will never be a personal favorite. Not for me.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"In The Pale Moonlight," in which Sisko ponders and eventually commits to a highly-immoral course of action in order to bring the Romulans into the ongoing war on the side of the Federation, is DS9 at its best. His closing monologue, in which he outlines all of the crimes he's committed along the way -- from murder on down -- and concludes "I can live with that" is absolutely chilling. It also features a prominent role for the Cardassian spy Garak, probably the most fascinating minor character in all of Trek. Highly, highly recommended.

That said, much of it doesn't work taken as individual episodes -- it was a deeply serialized storyline which continued from season to season, and taking episodes out of their context strips them of much of their power. Watching it in sequence from about the third season on -- the point where Sisko grows the goatee and shaves his head -- gets you most of the best moments.

 

[FedoraFan112390]

I agree. I've never been able to explain exactly why, but for some reason the original series seemed more "real" and the various spin-off series' felt like high-budget fan films. Also, as a friend once put it during a conversation about The Next Generation, "They're on a ship exploring deep space, but they all want to be actors and musicians and play make-believe on a holodeck???" lol

Yeah, the characters in TNG seemed very sterile. The original cast had amazing, almost magical chemistry; While Picard made for an interesting character, I never felt any chemistry between the cast in general, and I HATED Data.
Also, watch the old and new series on Netflix back to back. Despite being some 20 years older, the video quality of TOS way outshines TNG, which almost looks as if it was shot on video rather than on film.