The death of TOS
David A. Elliott
I remember back in the 60's, 70's and early to mid 80's TOS WAS Trek.
There was Star Trek, no blasted TNG, DS9 or VOY.
This was sci-fi at it's best. Sure there were dud stories, but there
were15 times as many classics! A few special effects were bad, but the
transporter effect was the greatest (best of any of the series or movies,
IMHO).
So why is there no interest (it seems) for Trek Classic?????
Is it because what we cherished has been exploited? We all wanted Trek
back, now look at what we have. Myriads of novels, behind the scenes books
(which look great!), video tapes, new shows, new movies, anything to squeeze
more money out of it until Trek has withered and dried up.
I still yearn for the 23rd century, when there were 12 ships in the
fleet and they all looked the same. When Klingons looked more human and
Romulans more Vulcan. When exploring strange new worlds meant you beamed
down to that world and didn't spend the mission on the bridge, in the
holodeck or on the station and let it look for you.
Sure, I love TNG. Voyager and DS9 are okay. But I guess Trek is now
any show they can slap a Starfleet insignia on.
I think knowing Michael Piller's attitude towards the original, REAL
Star Trek soured me a little. It's like giving a bottle of Dom Peringion to
a bum.
I guess you can't go home again.
My hailing frequencies are open. Please respond.
Lickety Split
David A. Elliott wrote in message ...
| I remember back in the 60's, 70's and early to mid 80's TOS WAS Trek.
|There was Star Trek, no blasted TNG, DS9 or VOY.
| This was sci-fi at it's best. Sure there were dud stories, but there
|were15 times as many classics! A few special effects were bad, but the
|transporter effect was the greatest (best of any of the series or movies,
|IMHO).
| So why is there no interest (it seems) for Trek Classic?????
I would love to see a new ST series based on the universe of TOS or better
yet re-do TOS with new actors. And bring back that salt-sucking monster! I'm
really getting tired of DS9 and VOY.
Why don't we start a petition drive?
C. Michael Millrod
: I guess you can't go home again.
: My hailing frequencies are open. Please respond.
:
:
May it stay dead forever. I hope it was a slow, prolonged, agonizing,
painful death
Randy Landers
I think the reports of the demise of Classic Trek are greatly exaggerated.
It's our second best-selling line of fanzines, coming after Voyager, and
well ahead of Next Gen and Deep Space Nine, both of which I also enjoy and
publish.
Besides, you don't think they'd let Shatner write TOS novels if they weren't
selling, do you?
Randy Landers
ORION PRESS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
For 11MB of quality Classic Trek fan fiction, go to:
http://www.mindspring.com/~randylanders/archives/oaindex.html
For information on ORION PRESS and its fanzines, go to:
http://www.mindspring.com/~randylanders
Tom Holt
The message <uLlL.293$wR2.3...@nntp1.nac.net>
from "David A. Elliott" <dell...@nac.net> contains these words:
> I remember back in the 60's, 70's and early to mid 80's TOS WAS Trek.
> There was Star Trek, no blasted TNG, DS9 or VOY.
> This was sci-fi at it's best. Sure there were dud stories, but there
> were15 times as many classics! A few special effects were bad, but the
> transporter effect was the greatest (best of any of the series or movies,
> IMHO).
> So why is there no interest (it seems) for Trek Classic?????
> Is it because what we cherished has been exploited? We all wanted Trek
> back, now look at what we have. Myriads of novels, behind the scenes books
> (which look great!), video tapes, new shows, new movies, anything to squeeze
> more money out of it until Trek has withered and dried up.
> I still yearn for the 23rd century, when there were 12 ships in the
> fleet and they all looked the same. When Klingons looked more human and
> Romulans more Vulcan. When exploring strange new worlds meant you beamed
> down to that world and didn't spend the mission on the bridge, in the
> holodeck or on the station and let it look for you.
> Sure, I love TNG. Voyager and DS9 are okay. But I guess Trek is now
> any show they can slap a Starfleet insignia on.
> I think knowing Michael Piller's attitude towards the original, REAL
> Star Trek soured me a little. It's like giving a bottle of Dom Peringion to
> a bum.
> I guess you can't go home again.
> My hailing frequencies are open. Please respond.
The various incarnations of Star Trek should, I think, be looked at
in the context of when they were made.
TOS belonged to a more naive, more optimistic age, when Roddenberry's
utopian dreams of the future were somehow more believable. The things
I positively dislike about TOS - the mini-skirted bimbos, the Koms
and the Yangs - were very much products of their time as well. Put it
another way; the Golden Hind, the Santa Maria and the Mayflower were
cute ships in their day and amazing things were done with them, but
the ships we build now are just *better*, that's all.
IMHO, some of the elements in TNG that often make it painful to watch
- inflexible liberal dogma and political correctness - are very much
of their time, and they've dated even more than TOS, in a way. The
show's other faults (solid mahogany acting by Patrick Stewart - a
pity, because he was a magnificent stage actor in the '70s; zero
character development or ensemble playing; banal storylines; the
tedious infallibility of Starfleet, bleaching out any vestige of
dramatic tension; rampant technobabble; constant recourse to the
dreaded reset button; Godawful pantomime Klingons, though DS9's just
as bad in that regard; Wesley Crusher; Deanna Troi) can't be excused so easily.
It was the darker, more cynical mood of DS9 that first got me
interested in Star Trek and that too was a sign of its times; also
the more oblique and intelligent way in which major issues were
tackled. Where TNG unequivocally laid down the law and the party
line, DS9 (and Voyager too, particularly - to judge by what I've read
in these newsgroups - in the current season) generally prefers to
raise the question and highlight the conflicting viewpoints without
making any doctrinaire statements of right and wrong. In DS9 and
Voyager, we are increasingly made to face the no-win scenario
("Cardassians"; "Tuvix"; "For The Uniform", to name just a few) We're
no longer in Utopia; when Eddington said that the Federation's worse
than the Borg, I for one felt that Star Trek had finally come of age.
It's this new depth and maturity that has allowed the writers to
develop the characterisation of all the principal cast of DS9 (even
Dax; even Jake - TNG-lovers need only compare Jake and Wesley to see
how far we've progressed) to a degree of richness and complexity that
would have been impossible with Riker, Crusher and the rest of the
cardboard cut-outs of TNG, or the endearing but basically comic-strip
characters of TOS. Bones McCoy never grew as a character; but both
Bashir and the Holodoc have.
As I see it, Star Trek has grown to meet our expectations of it. We
now demand a level of quality and sophistication in writing, plotting
and characterisation that we never expected back in Shatnerian
prehistory, and when the shows occasionally fail to meet the
extremely high standard they've set for themselves, we howl and curse
and sneer like a pack of savage Hummels. In that regard, Star Trek is
a victim of its own evolution.
Michael Wise
"Lickety Split" <lic...@utopia.com> writes:
>David A. Elliott wrote in message ...
>| I remember back in the 60's, 70's and early to mid 80's TOS WAS Trek.
>|There was Star Trek, no blasted TNG, DS9 or VOY.
>| This was sci-fi at it's best. Sure there were dud stories, but there
>|were15 times as many classics! A few special effects were bad, but the
>|transporter effect was the greatest (best of any of the series or movies,
>|IMHO).
>| So why is there no interest (it seems) for Trek Classic?????
>I would love to see a new ST series based on the universe of TOS or better
>yet re-do TOS with new actors. And bring back that salt-sucking monster! I'm
>really getting tired of DS9 and VOY.
>Why don't we start a petition drive?
I agree. I just subscribed to Columbia House's Star Trek Collection
so at least I'm able to watch the real Trek again. I have to say that
the writing is by far superior. Maybe it's a product of the 60s
creativity/counterculture of it's time while the current Trek(s)
are more a product of the bland 80s and 90s.
--
==========================================================================
Widerness doesn't need any defense, only more defenders. | Mike Wise
| wi...@netcom.com
--Edward Abbey | 703.729.7016
Richard E. Gurley
"C. Michael Millrod" <Unli...@number.com> wrote:
>
>
>: I guess you can't go home again.
>: My hailing frequencies are open. Please respond.
>:
>:
>
>May it stay dead forever. I hope it was a slow, prolonged, agonizing,
>painful death
>
If you do not like Classic Trek, you do not belong here. Why don't you
go elswhere and spill forth your hatred and ignorance.
Richard E. Gurley
Trek fan and filker
Joe
"Lickety Split" <lic...@utopia.com> wrote:
>>I would love to see a new ST series based on the universe of TOS or better
>yet re-do TOS with new actors.
As I've suggested before, I'd just like to see the original TOS shows
redone with modern special affects (think of the DS9 tribbles
episode).
Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript
http://www.manning.com/McGinn/459.html
===================================================
Joe
wi...@netcom.com (Michael Wise) wrote:
>I agree. I just subscribed to Columbia House's Star Trek Collection
>so at least I'm able to watch the real Trek again. I have to say that
>the writing is by far superior. Maybe it's a product of the 60s
>creativity/counterculture of it's time while the current Trek(s)
>are more a product of the bland 80s and 90s.
TOS seemed to use more "real" writers, established science fiction
authors, whereas the current series seems to depend much more on staff
writers. That's a big part of the problem.
David A. Elliott
Hi, it's me, David Elliott... the fellow who started this here thread! Keep
it coming! I can't believe there's one or two ignorant people who seem to
prefer the latest Treks over the Classic!
David A. Elliott wrote in message ...
> I remember back in the 60's, 70's and early to mid 80's TOS WAS Trek.
>There was Star Trek, no blasted TNG, DS9 or VOY.
> This was sci-fi at it's best. Sure there were dud stories, but there
>were15 times as many classics! A few special effects were bad, but the
>transporter effect was the greatest (best of any of the series or movies,
>IMHO).
> So why is there no interest (it seems) for Trek Classic?????
> Is it because what we cherished has been exploited? We all wanted Trek
>back, now look at what we have. Myriads of novels, behind the scenes books
>(which look great!), video tapes, new shows, new movies, anything to
squeeze
>more money out of it until Trek has withered and dried up.
> I still yearn for the 23rd century, when there were 12 ships in the
>fleet and they all looked the same. When Klingons looked more human and
>Romulans more Vulcan. When exploring strange new worlds meant you beamed
>down to that world and didn't spend the mission on the bridge, in the
>holodeck or on the station and let it look for you.
> Sure, I love TNG. Voyager and DS9 are okay. But I guess Trek is now
>any show they can slap a Starfleet insignia on.
> I think knowing Michael Piller's attitude towards the original, REAL
>Star Trek soured me a little. It's like giving a bottle of Dom Peringion
to
>a bum.
David
Joe wrote:
>
> "Lickety Split" <lic...@utopia.com> wrote:
>
> >>I would love to see a new ST series based on the universe of TOS or better
> >yet re-do TOS with new actors.
>
> As I've suggested before, I'd just like to see the original TOS shows
> redone with modern special affects (think of the DS9 tribbles
> episode).
>
> Joe McGinn
The only appeal would be new special effects. Big deal.
David
> >: My hailing frequencies are open. Please respond.
> >:
> >
> >May it stay dead forever. I hope it was a slow, prolonged, agonizing,
> >painful death
> >
> If you do not like Classic Trek, you do not belong here. Why don't you
> go elswhere and spill forth your hatred and ignorance.
>
> Richard E. Gurley
>
> Trek fan and filker
Jeez, it IS possible to dislike TOS and still like Trek.
Richard E. Gurley
David <both...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes it is. However, this newsgroup is DEDICATED to Classic TREK. If
you like Next Gen, DS9, Voyager etc, but not Classic, why not go to
the newsgroups for them, and cease dumping your vituperation on thse
who like Classic.
Richard E. Gurley
Marcia
> >Jeez, it IS possible to dislike TOS and still like Trek.
>
>
> Yes it is. However, this newsgroup is DEDICATED to Classic TREK. If
> you like Next Gen, DS9, Voyager etc, but not Classic, why not go to
> the newsgroups for them, and cease dumping your vituperation on thse
> who like Classic.
>
> Richard E. Gurley
cross-posting, but I'm leaving it in this message. While I can't tell
anyone what to do...I wish that all of the cross-posting would stop. I'm
really tired of seeing the same messages in all of the Trek ng's. I like
TOS (it's my favorite), DS9 and TNG -- but when I go to the ng dedicated to
one particular series, I'd really like to read about just that series.
TGA
99% of the original Trek episodes were puerile and stupid. They were just
childish adventure stories based aroung unbelievable SF concepts. Even the
worst of DS9 episodes is better than an average TOS episode. The reason
Trek achieved such a cult following was baecause of the fact that it was
very novel in it's day and the whole idea of a UFP in it's pioneer days
was very appealing. PLEASE DON'T BRING TOS BACK!
But then, I never did understand all the TOSsers.
ATIJMHO
GeneK
You're right, you can't, and we probably shouldn't. TOS
captured something that will probably not come again, and
knowing the attitudes of the current producers, they'd
probably revise the hell out of the basic premise. I'd
love to see someone go back and do for the best TOS episodes
what Lucas did for the Star Wars movies, restore the footage,
insert lost footage that may be collecting dust in the vaults,
redo some of the admittedly cheesy 60's FX, but I don't think
I'd like to see Berman and/or Pillar reinterpreting the
original format, let them do that in the current incarnations.
GeneK
John Smith
aren't moved by eps like 'City on the Edge of Forever'...
Joe
thoma...@spam.ox.ac.uk (TGA) wrote:
>99% of the original Trek episodes were puerile and stupid. They were just
>childish adventure stories based aroung unbelievable SF concepts.
Change that two 5-10% and you might have a reasonable point. The
majority of the TOS stories were vastly superior to what we get from
Trek today (not surprising, since many TOS eps were written by real
science fiction writers, not staff TV writers).
Joe
deborah r. segar
>"Lickety Split" <lic...@utopia.com> wrote:
>
>>>I would love to see a new ST series based on the universe of TOS or
better
>>yet re-do TOS with new actors.
>
>
Redo TOS with new actors? You mean watch someone else play Spock? Let's hope
that before that happens, they will be able to make snowballs in hell.
Lord 吠ock (Daphne)
Joe
john_s...@yahoo.com (John Smith) wrote:
>>But then, I never did understand all the TOSsers.
> It sounds like you have either no heart or a heart of stone if you
>aren't moved by eps like 'City on the Edge of Forever'...
Good point. That is still the most powerful Trek episode of all time,
including the modern shows.
Joe
Kalel
GeneK <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
We CAN, however, rejoice in the fact that the SciFi Channel aquired
the rights to TOS and will be showing them completely restored and
UNCUT (praise God) next year! The plan is to eventually have all the
"Treks", but for now I'll be more than happy to see footage restored
and a reliable schedule!
kal
Alson Wong
This was partially done for DS9's Tribbles episode last season. I think
that was the closest we'll ever get to seeing a "new" TOS episode.
--
Alson Wong
GeneK <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in article
<3501912F.ADDC290F@genek_hates_spammers.com>...
Kalel
>Lord §pock (Daphne)
>
>
There is a new film soon to be released tentatively titled "Oh, God
IV" with a completely CG George Burns, using techniques that "SciFi
Buzz" states is virtually seemless. The reporter went on to say that
with this new CG/movie technology, we are not far from "new" John
Wayne and Marilyn Monroe movies, with the actors being near-perfectly
computer gererated.
...which is all well and good, I suppose, but think of "new" TOS
movies with Kirk, Spock, et al, at their prime while the actors do the
voiceovers! No, it's not "real" and no, it's not quite the same, but
it could be very good if done right!
Kal
>
Dan Flanery
TOS had some real clunkers ("Spock's Brain" leaps to mind), but it
also had, by far, the best "real" SF episodes. Shows like "City On
The Edge Of Forever", "Mirror, Mirror", "Balance Of Terror", "Shore
Leave", and "The Doomsday Machine" may be a little dated in the
details, but they're far better than anything Voyager has ever done,
and would easily rival the best of DS9 and TNG.
It took TNG almost 7 years to amass as many "classic" episodes as TOS
did in 3. DS9 was giving TOS a run for its money, before they
essentially stopped making good SF episodes after their third season.
DS9 has since turned into an immobile version of Battlestar Galactica,
albeit with less stock footage.
DF
= Remove the "x" from my email address to reply via email
------------------
= Acid,booze and ass
= Needles, guns and grass
= Lots of laughs
= Lots of laughs
=
= Joni Mitchell - Blue
Joe
ka...@thewebcorp.com (Kalel) wrote:
>There is a new film soon to be released tentatively titled "Oh, God
>IV" with a completely CG George Burns, using techniques that "SciFi
>Buzz" states is virtually seemless. The reporter went on to say that
>with this new CG/movie technology, we are not far from "new" John
>Wayne and Marilyn Monroe movies, with the actors being near-perfectly
>computer gererated.
>...which is all well and good, I suppose, but think of "new" TOS
>movies with Kirk, Spock, et al, at their prime while the actors do the
>voiceovers! No, it's not "real" and no, it's not quite the same, but
>it could be very good if done right!
This IS coming soon, but as a PC computer game, not a movie. It uses
similar technology. The human actors (they have all the TOS originals)
do both voives and motion captures of their physical acting. The
models are then de-aged and computer generated to create a series of
new, interactive TOS episodes. The game's called "The Secret of Vulcan
Fury" and will be out sometime this year (it's actually overdue, was
supposed to be relased for last Xmas). Best of all, the game's written
by TOS script consultant and sf writer D.C. Dontana, so it should be a
good story too.
Joe
"Alson Wong" <aw...@gte.net> wrote:
>This was partially done for DS9's Tribbles episode last season. I think
>that was the closest we'll ever get to seeing a "new" TOS episode.
And what a great episode it was! In part because we got to see how
cool the original Enterprise looked with modern f/x. I think it's the
coolest looking starship in the ST universe.
Merrick Baldelli
>>Jeez, it IS possible to dislike TOS and still like Trek.
>
>Yes it is. However, this newsgroup is DEDICATED to Classic TREK. If
>you like Next Gen, DS9, Voyager etc, but not Classic, why not go to
>the newsgroups for them, and cease dumping your vituperation on thse
>who like Classic.
>
> Richard E. Gurley
>
>
Ummmm Richard, it's the clue phone, and it's ringing for the
likes of you...
Ever hear of cross-posting? You seemed to have missed that
fact when you decided on slamming a response out.. Sure YOU may be in
the TOS group, but this also got to TNG's, DS9's and Voyagers groups
as well... As you can see from the headers:
alt.tv.star-trek.tos,
alt.tv.star-trek.next-gen,
alt.tv.star-trek.voyager,
alt.tv.star-trek.ds9
As I'm responding to this from Voyager's group... Now that
you've been happily reeled in from a cross-post, might I suggest you
take a pill and just let it pass on by.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 ` mbal...@mindspring.com
(\\\\ \_/ / http://www.mindspring.com/~mbaldelli
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/
/ /
WRobert525
>I agree. I just subscribed to Columbia House's Star Trek Collection
>so at least I'm able to watch the real Trek again. I have to say that
>the writing is by far superior. Maybe it's a product of the 60s
>creativity/counterculture of it's time while the current Trek(s)
>are more a product of the bland 80s and 90s.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for a good laugh, Mike.
Better writing--Jesus! Hahahahaha.
Actually, TOS was, and still is, really great stuff. But the "writing
is superior" is a tad subjective for my tastes: I always found them
struggling to convey a big, left-hook of a "message" to the
audience. Define parameters for good writing and we'll
talk--
Sean
WRobert525
>Subject: Re: The death of TOS
>From: rgu...@mindspring.com (Richard E. Gurley)
>Date: Fri, Mar 6, 1998 12:18 EST
>Message-id: <35002ec3...@news.mindspring.com>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >: I guess you can't go home again.
>>> >:
>>> >:
>>> >
>>> >May it stay dead forever. I hope it was a slow, prolonged, agonizing,
>>> >painful death
>>> >
>>> If you do not like Classic Trek, you do not belong here. Why don't you
>>> go elswhere and spill forth your hatred and ignorance.
>>>
>>> Richard E. Gurley
>>>
>>> Trek fan and filker
>>
>
>
>Yes it is. However, this newsgroup is DEDICATED to Classic TREK. If
>you like Next Gen, DS9, Voyager etc, but not Classic, why not go to
>the newsgroups for them, and cease dumping your vituperation on thse
>who like Classic.
>
> Richard E. Gurley
>
Odd that it is appearing in our DS9 group, then!
-Sean
WRobert525
>Subject: Re: The death of TOS
>Date: Wed, Mar 4, 1998 20:36 EST
>Message-id: <199803050...@zetnet.co.uk>
>
>The message <uLlL.293$wR2.3...@nntp1.nac.net>
> from "David A. Elliott" <dell...@nac.net> contains these words:
>
>
>> There was Star Trek, no blasted TNG, DS9 or VOY.
>> This was sci-fi at it's best. Sure there were dud stories, but there
>> were15 times as many classics! A few special effects were bad, but the
>> transporter effect was the greatest (best of any of the series or movies,
>> IMHO).
>> So why is there no interest (it seems) for Trek Classic?????
>> Is it because what we cherished has been exploited? We all wanted Trek
>> back, now look at what we have. Myriads of novels, behind the scenes books
>> (which look great!), video tapes, new shows, new movies, anything to
>squeeze
>> more money out of it until Trek has withered and dried up.
>> I still yearn for the 23rd century, when there were 12 ships in the
>> fleet and they all looked the same. When Klingons looked more human and
>> Romulans more Vulcan. When exploring strange new worlds meant you beamed
>> down to that world and didn't spend the mission on the bridge, in the
>> holodeck or on the station and let it look for you.
>> Sure, I love TNG. Voyager and DS9 are okay. But I guess Trek is now
>> any show they can slap a Starfleet insignia on.
>> I think knowing Michael Piller's attitude towards the original, REAL
>> Star Trek soured me a little. It's like giving a bottle of Dom Peringion
>to
>> a bum.
>> My hailing frequencies are open. Please respond.
>
>
>in the context of when they were made.
>
>TOS belonged to a more naive, more optimistic age, when Roddenberry's
>utopian dreams of the future were somehow more believable. The things
>I positively dislike about TOS - the mini-skirted bimbos, the Koms
>and the Yangs - were very much products of their time as well. Put it
>another way; the Golden Hind, the Santa Maria and the Mayflower were
>cute ships in their day and amazing things were done with them, but
>the ships we build now are just *better*, that's all.
>
>IMHO, some of the elements in TNG that often make it painful to watch
>- inflexible liberal dogma and political correctness - are very much
>of their time, and they've dated even more than TOS, in a way. The
>show's other faults (solid mahogany acting by Patrick Stewart - a
>pity, because he was a magnificent stage actor in the '70s
My God! These Trek groups never cease to amaze me.
Stewart's a world-class actor. You can't tell me you found his
work in "Family," "The Drumhead," "Sarek," and a half-dozen
others of which I can't remember the titles at the moment
("Darmok" [?], and the Kalen thing) flat or boring--I won't hear/see it! His
character was uptight; remember, Roddenberry wanted
a departure from "let's kick their ass first, deal w/ the Prime
Directive later", "boyish" Kirk. Picard makes for a more real
officer than most care to admit.
zero
>character development or ensemble playing
Disagree here, too. People too often mistake character
development for freakish changes in the name of
"growth," e.g. Major Kira. Don't get me wrong: I love
DS9 and consider it to be the best of the Treks in many respects.
But Sisko, Dax, and Bashir all can't lay claim to being the most
well-developed characters in the galaxy either. A well-developed character is
one that doesn't blow the doors off of all realism
whilst attempting to grow and change every episode.
; banal storylines;
"Heart of Glory," "The Neutral Zone," "Q Who?," "The Best
of Both Worlds," "Redemption," "Reunification," "Sins of
the Father," "Reunion," "The Drumhead," "Data's Day,"
"Family," "Darmok," and many more all have their faults,
but banal? LOL, I say. LOL.
the
>tedious infallibility of Starfleet, bleaching out any vestige of
>dramatic tension;
>rampant technobabble;
Worse than TOS, yes; worse than VOY or DS9, a resounding
NO.
constant recourse to the
>dreaded reset button; Godawful pantomime Klingons, though
K'mpec, Gowron, Duras and co., Korris and Konmel, all
quite different.
DS9's just
>as bad in that regard; Wesley Crusher; Deanna Troi) can't be excused so
>easily.
>
>It was the darker, more cynical mood of DS9 that first got me
>interested in Star Trek and that too was a sign of its times; also
>the more oblique and intelligent way in which major issues were
>tackled. Where TNG unequivocally laid down the law and the party
>line, DS9 (and Voyager too, particularly - to judge by what I've read
>in these newsgroups - in the current season) generally prefers to
>raise the question and highlight the conflicting viewpoints without
>making any doctrinaire statements of right and wrong. In DS9 and
>Voyager, we are increasingly made to face the no-win scenario
>("Cardassians"; "Tuvix"; "For The Uniform"
Cardassians and Tuvix were pretty well-done, though For
The Uniform defines banal for your anti-TNG standard.
to name just a few) We're
>no longer in Utopia; when Eddington said that the Federation's worse
>than the Borg, I for one felt that Star Trek had finally come of age.
>
BoBW, Pt. I, 1990. Trek came of age.
>It's this new depth and maturity that has allowed the writers to
>develop the characterisation of all the principal cast of DS9 (even
>Dax; even Jake - TNG-lovers need only compare Jake and Wesley to see
>how far we've progressed)
Is that what it's called? What about Jake's father, Mr.
Ham Fist stage man?
to a degree of richness and complexity that
>would have been impossible with Riker, Crusher and the rest of the
>cardboard cut-outs of TNG, or the endearing but basically comic-strip
>characters of TOS. Bones McCoy never grew as a character; but both
>Bashir and the Holodoc have.
>
>As I see it, Star Trek has grown to meet our expectations of it. We
>now demand a level of quality and sophistication in writing, plotting
>and characterisation that we never expected back in Shatnerian
>prehistory, and when the shows occasionally fail to meet the
>extremely high standard they've set for themselves, we howl and curse
>and sneer like a pack of savage Hummels.
Yes, apparently some do when the lithium meter runs a little low.
:-)
-Sean
WRobert525
>Subject: Re: The death of TOS
>Date: Sat, Mar 7, 1998 18:13 EST
>Message-id: <LwkM.19$aR6....@newsgate.direct.ca>
I don't think you've seen "Duet," "The Visitor," "Family,"
or DS9's more recent time-travel jaunts (when the crew
of the Defiant settle a planet) recently.
-Sean
WRobert525
>Subject: Re: The death of TOS
>Date: Thu, Mar 5, 1998 18:17 EST
>Message-id: <hoGL.336$wR2.4...@nntp1.nac.net>
>
>Hi, it's me, David Elliott... the fellow who started this here thread! Keep
>it coming! I can't believe there's one or two ignorant people who seem to
>prefer the latest Treks over the Classic!
>
And I cannot believe the need for these idiotic prick-waving.
"Look, look! TOS comes in a half-inch bigger than TNG!
Woo-hoo!" I'll say it once more: TOS was great. Still
is. But TNG and DS9 aren't anything to sneeze at, either.
-Sean
WRobert525
>Subject: Re: The death of TOS
>Date: Sun, Mar 8, 1998 23:44 EST
>Message-id: <KsKM.373$aR6.1...@newsgate.direct.ca>
>
>"Alson Wong" <aw...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>This was partially done for DS9's Tribbles episode last season. I think
>>that was the closest we'll ever get to seeing a "new" TOS episode.
>
>And what a great episode it was! In part because we got to see how
>cool the original Enterprise looked with modern f/x. I think it's the
>coolest looking starship in the ST universe.
>
>Joe McGinn
Biased, biased :-) The Klingon Bird of Prey holds that
honor, IMHO.
-Sean
Joe
wrobe...@aol.com (WRobert525) wrote:
>I don't think you've seen "Duet," "The Visitor," "Family,"
>or DS9's more recent time-travel jaunts (when the crew
>of the Defiant settle a planet) recently.
I've seen all of those. They are good episodes, but no where NEAR in
the same class of writing/story as 'City on the Edge of Forever'. Not
even close.
Joe
John Smith
different. Those DS9 eps are more focused on internalised and localised
troubles; 'City' has the entire galaxy at stake (which adds poignancy to Kirk's
inner struggle).
John
Profeswho
> Sure, I love TNG. Voyager and DS9 are okay. But I guess Trek is now
>any show they can slap a Starfleet insignia on.
> I think knowing Michael Piller's attitude towards the original, REAL
>Star Trek soured me a little. It's like giving a bottle of Dom Peringion to
>a bum.
> I guess you can't go home again.
I AGREE WITH YOU 100%!!!
Profeswho?
Tony Harris
I just joined this NG last nite but I gotta throw in my 2 cents to this
discussion. TOS in my opinion was one of the corniest shows ever. It is
being re-run now in Aus and now I just watch to see how many laughs I van
get in an episode. Yes there are some classics that will stand the test of
time (City ' Forever) but not much else.
This may be due to the fact that U started watching Trek from TNG and that
has been where I get my ideas on how Trek should be. few TOS episodes have
had the impact of BOBW as a cliffhanger when Riker says FIRE!!!. Also not
many episodes had the acting ability of people like Patrick Stewart. he was
absolutely brilliant in Chain of Command (my fav Trek) and also in the Inner
Light. Those episodes were just awesome.
I didn't;t get into DS9 too much when it started but I have now bought every
video from Way of the Warrior, start of season 4, and so far have 3 tapes
into season 6. All I can say is that DS9 has come a long way even in those 3
years.
I also have every episode of Voyager and season 3 for me marked a huge
change in writing for this series. I admit there were still a lot of dud
episodes but there were still a lot of good ones with the finale of Scorpion
being well up there.
How does this relate to TOS. well I guess if we didn't have TOS we wouldn't
have any of these others BUT if anyone thinks that TOS is/was better than
any of these other series of Trek you are going have to go a long way too
prove it to me. I think some ways Gene Roddenbury himself was at fault with
some of the TOS by basically trying to rewrite every episode that come
across his desk. I'm sure most of you have read book about those days and
the amount of writers quitting because of Roddenbury was a joke. In my
opinion didn't make ST he just created it. There is a difference.
Bomber
Joe wrote in message ...
>wrobe...@aol.com (WRobert525) wrote:
>
>>I don't think you've seen "Duet," "The Visitor," "Family,"
>>or DS9's more recent time-travel jaunts (when the crew
>>of the Defiant settle a planet) recently.
>
>I've seen all of those. They are good episodes, but no where NEAR in
>the same class of writing/story as 'City on the Edge of Forever'. Not
>even close.
>
>Joe
>