tcmullet Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 ...The stories were very episodic' date=' and almost without exclusion heavily allegorical in nature. If you want to find out more about the Star Trek universe, or the classic Trek characters you know from the movies, not gonna happen. There are, off the top of my head, about 3 or 4 episodes which deal with the crew's history, or character development, and none which deal with the Trek universe itself.[/quote']Allegorical? You gotta be kidding. TOS was never meant to be allegorical; was meant to be realistic future historical fiction. You can't read The Making of Star Trek and think anything else. Maybe we're not agreed on the definition of allegory. Will look it up when I have a chance. "Trek universe itself"? You seem to be speaking Klingon or Ferenganese or something. Everything about TOS *defines* the Trek universe. What do you think all the fans were talking about all the years from '69 to '80 and then on to '87? Yes, the characters were not as developed as in TNG or the rest. Yes, there may have been messages addressed to the culture of the 60's, but to say it's allegory? No more that all the rest (TNG, DS9, Voy, Ent), and they all certainly are not allegorical. All are realistic future historical fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcmullet Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 ... Ah' date=' the good ol days when you had two Star Trek Series to chose from. [/quote']We weren't supposed to be choosing from the two... were supposed to be watching *both*. It's a shame that some so called "fans" did not. (This is news to me; my ST friends have always watched all shows; never gave up on something due to being tired of it, etc. Only time friends stopped was due to radically changed life circumstances requiring massive cutback of TV altogether.) It was DELIGHTFUL to have two NEW ST episodes to enjoy in the same week. (Am glad it's over though...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annika Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 It wasn't till Nemesis that we saw her as an Admiral Sorry, I always get those two mixed up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcmullet Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 It's not a bad show' date=' just don't expect it to be anything like the Trek you know.[/quote']True, but "the Trek you know" for many of you folks is like you've read the 2nd half of a book whose first half wasn't as exciting as the 2nd, and you wonder whether to bother reading the 1st half. Not only should you read the 1st half, but you should *try* to the best of your ability to "unread" the 2nd half, so that after reading the 1st half, you can read the 2nd half as if for the first time. Yes, it's ultimately impossible. But you can try, and to the extent you succeed, you'll greatly enjoy the 2nd half more. What I'm saying is that you should TRY to make TOS the new "trek you know", then "relearn" TNG etc. from a new perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 It wasn't till Nemesis that we saw her as an Admiral Sorry, I always get those two mixed up... no problem... :) and queenhank - i had gotten it into my head that Insurrection was 1996 it was actually 1998 so the timing would be tight....and it may have been Voyager season 3 or 4 even....but i don't think we'd get any clues from Voyager about the time of Insurrection.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcmullet Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 It wasn't till Nemesis that we saw her as an AdmiralJaneway was in Nemesis?? Damn.. I only saw Nemesis once... knew I needed to see it at least a 2nd chance. Been very busy w/problems... figured I could always get the DVD. Now I know Janeway was in it, I *know* I gotta see Nemesis again soon. (In the theater I was distracted by the girl I was seeing it with; shoulda seen it alone.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 hehe - well Janeway only had a very small part in Nemesis but it was nice seeing her in the movie...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcmullet Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 It wasn't till Nemesis that we saw her as an Admiral Sorry, I always get those two mixed up... no problem... :) and queenhank - i had gotten it into my head that Insurrection was 1996 it was actually 1998 so the timing would be tight....and it may have been Voyager season 3 or 4 even....but i don't think we'd get any clues from Voyager about the time of Insurrection.... Almost doesn't matter. Remember different quadrants. No connection w/each other's events til near the end. I enjoyed Barclay's involvement greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 tcmullet - I really, really don't want you to take what I am about to say the wrong way. I completely respect your view of TOS as being the "real" Trek, and that is a wholly valid and supportable claim. Allegorical? You gotta be kidding. TOS was never meant to be allegorical; was meant to be realistic future historical fiction. You can't read The Making of Star Trek and think anything else. Maybe we're not agreed on the definition of allegory. Will look it up when I have a chance. "Trek universe itself"? You seem to be speaking Klingon or Ferenganese or something. Everything about TOS *defines* the Trek universe. What do you think all the fans were talking about all the years from '69 to '80 and then on to '87? Yes, the characters were not as developed as in TNG or the rest. Yes, there may have been messages addressed to the culture of the 60's, but to say it's allegory? No more that all the rest (TNG, DS9, Voy, Ent), and they all certainly are not allegorical. All are realistic future historical fiction. Yes, it was allegorical, almost exclusively. Each episode took a current (to the times) issue, and spun it into a tale from the future, thus ridding itself of the modern trappings which would cause people to not notice the truth behind it. I mean, a lot of people, if they saw a white man chasing a black man in the 60s, would shout at Kirk to give the guy up. But, when you have a half-black/half-white guy and a half-white/half-black guy, then things are a bit easier to see. The other shows do indeed contain allegory, but to a much smaller degree. A lot of them are more about the inner workings of the Federation, or inter-personal relationships of the crew, or just good, ripping adventure. In TOS, there was always a message, a moral to be learned. In the other ones, they tended to just be good stories. The reason I suggest TNG as a first experience in Trek is that TNG, while retaining the more episodic, allegorical structure of TOS for much of its run, also had more of those aspects which make people love so much the later shows. A lot of the episodes had a message, yes, but a lot of them were also just plain entertaining. DS9 is my favorite series, but I would not suggest it for a first-timer, because it requires a heavy knowledge of the Star Trek universe to be truly enjoyed. TOS, I must maintain, did very very little to establish a "universe". In most aspects, the world at large was just like every other sci-fi show of the time: people in space-ships dealing with aliens, etc. Even in the movies, very little was shown about the structure of Starfleet, or its place within the Federation, or the outlying galaxy as a whole. The TOS movies did do a lot for the development of characters, but did very little to flesh out the universe itself. Pretty much everything we know about the Federation, and Starfleet, was learned from TNG and DS9. I wish to stress again that I understand your enjoyment of TOS, and I don't want to sound like I'm telling you the series is bad, or you're wrong for liking it best, but rather I am attempting to espouse my opinion on why it is not the most preferable series for a newbie to start with. SUre, there are allusions to TOS (and the movies) in TNG, and I am not suggesting, if one were to start with TNG, that they should watch the whole run first, and THEN watch the other series. Personally, I started with TOS, and then later started watching TNG. Even so, I can see that what Star Trek was at its inception, and what it has become today, are two very very different things. And if you are new to Trek, and want to know what it's all about, you would be much better off viewing a few episodes of TNG first, because that is the show which, more than any other, encompasses all those things about Star Trek which we know and love. TOS was a good show, but it is the farthest thing from what Star Trek is today than any other series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcmullet Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Queenhank, thanks for your respectful and informative reply. I will give it some thought and respond when I get to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now