Just a television show...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Roddenberry had an idea that in all candor wasn't yet wholly fleshed out. A group of very talented people then came together and each of them contributed something that may have made the whole of TOS in general something greater than the sum of its individual elements or the contributions of individuals taken separately. It somehow all came together to make a damned good stew.
Can you identify one observable quality present in Star Trek that isn't present in other television shows or movies?
Thus far, all I've heard is that it has engrained some pop cultural references, and motivated and inspired people to do a variety of things. Both of these are not uncommon in other popular media, some examples of which I've presented.
Give me one specific and unique thing that hasn't occured before or since that makes it more than simply a television show.
Thus far, all I've heard is that it has engrained some pop cultural references, and motivated and inspired people to do a variety of things. Both of these are not uncommon in other popular media, some examples of which I've presented.
Give me one specific and unique thing that hasn't occured before or since that makes it more than simply a television show.
I don't think that they're remotely comparable - if nothing else, because Roddenberry didn't "do" Star Trek. However adroitly one may argue that his taste and thinking somehow infused aspects of the series in which he had little professional skill or certain taste - art design, other visual elements, music, etc - the fact is that the series is the expression of the tastes and talents of a larger group of individuals.
There's nothing mystical about Roddenberry's "vision" - he had a few ideas that were remarkable and rather extravagant in terms of what television might be capable of, and the presumed managerial skill to choose the people who would elaborate upon and make them practical aspects of a television series.
It's an important distinction, IMAO. Roddenberry in no way contributed significantly to the development of the skills of writers such as Sturgeon or Ellison, for example. While his series provided them with one market for their abilities - and that's absolutely to the credit of Roddenberry and Justman - they did far more to enhance his TV series than he did to enhance or enlarge their talents (or, arguably, even their careers).
Last edited:
SWISH! Nothin' but net...
I think more to the point, Elton, why the hell are YOU here?
It was unapologetically straightforward yet managing to do so without coming across as overly earnest. While larger than life on some levels the characters were also flawed and imperfect and as such were identifiable and accessible to the audience. There was just enough ordinariness in the characters and the setting was put across as futuristic and yet also somehow commonplace (in context).
What it all added up to was depicting a setting in a credible enough manner that viewers could actually envision it as a genuine possibility.
Was it real? No. But if often enough felt real or at least as if it could be. It showed us a place we wanted to be real. That reality will never exist as is, but many were inspired to want to make aspects of it possible.
What it all added up to was depicting a setting in a credible enough manner that viewers could actually envision it as a genuine possibility.
Was it real? No. But if often enough felt real or at least as if it could be. It showed us a place we wanted to be real. That reality will never exist as is, but many were inspired to want to make aspects of it possible.
If you'd read my posts, you'd know that I'm contesting the idea that original Star Trek is different to any other high-quality television show that has had a lasting impact.
I'm also contesting that original Star Trek "matters" in a way that Star Trek 09 doesn't. A way that can be observed outside the confines of Warped9's imagination, that is.
This is a description of a (good) television show. There are many of those around, and Star Trek isn't unique among them for any reason.
Viewers watch things for the escapism, the humanity, the credible fantasy. Overall, the entertainment. Those are the things you describe.
Star Trek did it, as did countless others. To tie this thread in with the other one... for many people, Star Trek 09 did it too. Not for you, obviously... Spock is still Spock, however, and opinion aside, the new movie still matters no more or less than the old series or any other.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Good one!"So are you saying we should pay more attention to the movies?"
No. Trek was not sent from God.
But like Planet Of The Apes, Twilight Zone & other great SF/fantasy, it delivered the best from the best. It was sculpted by Roddenberry, the network (YES, they helped shape it), the writers, designers, etc. What a moment in time. Lightning in a magnetic bottle.
Is the show a culturally significant? Sure. It was revolutionary when it came on in the 60s. Also, it is amazing how a show spawned such a large and continuously growing franchise. In that regard, it might be considered "more than a TV show."
When it comes to people making stupid arguments about some insignificant continuity issue or whether or episode 12 matches with some throwaway line of dialogue in episode 45 of one of the spin-offs, then it comes down to "It's just a TV show."
When it comes to people making stupid arguments about some insignificant continuity issue or whether or episode 12 matches with some throwaway line of dialogue in episode 45 of one of the spin-offs, then it comes down to "It's just a TV show."
It isn't just my imagination. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before. I also never said Star Trek was the only series to have an impact, but it did have one.
I would say that TOS has had more impact than any of its spinoffs and likely far more than any other SF series.
I would say that TOS has had more impact than any of its spinoffs and likely far more than any other SF series.
That's an interesting thought, because that is something that can never really be proven one way or another. If it wasn't for TOS, none of the spin-offs would have been made. Or, if they were (somehow) made, they would never have to face comparisons towards TOS and could stand completely alone.
You are probably correct on this regard, however it is something that cannot be put to the test.
^^ In another thread someone wondered about what Trek would be like if TOS didn't exist yet everything else happened exactly as seen. Problem is that everything else would not have happened if TOS hadn't existed first. If your parents never existed and met then you wouldn't exist.
Star Trek didn't come into being whole cloth on its own. It was influenced by and built upon what came before: SF literature, a handful of good films and shows like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits. But what came before in the visual mediums didn't really offer the tapestry Star Trek had. Any single episode of Star Trek, like any previous series episode or film, only offers a hint of a deeper backstory and setting. But Star Trek's 79 episodes as a whole has a setting and backstory not just as a conjectural place but as a conjectural society that resonated with many in the audience. While there remained much unknown about the Federation, its worlds and its races as well as the alien threats it had just enough detail to make it not only credible (in context) but even more so desirable to the audience.
Star Trek impressed one as being reasonably fleshed out. It gave the impression of substantive things that existed "beyond the bulkhead" so to speak. A brilliant film like Forbidden Planet, as noteworthy and landmark as it is, doesn't come anywhere near conveying the sense of time, place and society that Star Trek did as a whole. Forbidden Planet showed us cool looking things whereas Star Trek gave us that and a cool and reasonably credible (in context) universe. And the show gave us that at a time when society and a generation were ripely receptive to such ideas.
Star Trek impressed one as being reasonably fleshed out. It gave the impression of substantive things that existed "beyond the bulkhead" so to speak. A brilliant film like Forbidden Planet, as noteworthy and landmark as it is, doesn't come anywhere near conveying the sense of time, place and society that Star Trek did as a whole. Forbidden Planet showed us cool looking things whereas Star Trek gave us that and a cool and reasonably credible (in context) universe. And the show gave us that at a time when society and a generation were ripely receptive to such ideas.
