"Marvin Long, Jr." wrote: > Actually, this relationship is one of the best things about ST:TOS in my > opinion, and I love it as well. But it's not really a relationship that > grows from episode to episode. (It grows on the viewer, but that's > different.) The actors get better at expressing it; but you don't really > see a narrative of character growth and change from episode to episode > until the movies kick in. On the other hand, this is precisely the thing > that makes ST:TNG successful and, I suspect, appealing to a much broader > audience (I know a number of people who love ST:TNG but can't stand the > original series, and I suspect it's not just the scenery dripping from > Shatner's teeth that puts them off).
> I think it's their fixedness in these archetypal roles that makes TOS > dramatically weak as a serial, however. With the exception of Spock's > spiritual quest, which only really takes off in ST:TMP, TOS doesn't have a > narrative of growth and change for its characters as individuals. So, > while it's great fun to watch them, you're not going to learn much new > about them from episode to episode except for the plot details of a given > week's "big idea." Contrast this to ST:TNG, where Picard and Data and > Worf and Riker & Troy and, hell, even Wesley have ongoing issues and > projects and concrete pasts that the series returns to again and again > over the years to show how people grow and change and have private lives > that matter to them. TNG featured more personal character growth than TOS did (which isn't saying much, really), but not as much as it should/could have had. For every "The Inner Light" episode (IMHO the single best trek episode ever), there were 10 episodes something like Geordi gets killed then later resurrected, the reset button gets pushed, and it's never brought up again. The powers that run the ST franchise seem anchored to producing stand-alone episodes and fear continuity/character evolution; only occasionally daring to experiment with it in a deliberate way. Contrast this with Babylon 5, where the characters at the end have grown/changed in dramatic but believable ways gradually over the course of the show. As for why some people like TNG vs hate TOS, I think a lot has to do with the fact that TOS is almost 20 years older than TNG, and it's dated by many of the same attitudes and assumptions of other 60's TV, like, say, Wagon Train. (Which is what Rodenberry was aiming for - a "Wagon Train to the Stars"). For example, while Uhura may have been groundbreaking at the time, the role of women in TOS is largely as love interest for Kirk, to be shown in those godawful soft-filter closeups. And when the show had a social/moral point to make, it wasn't very subtle about it, clubbing the point home (again, similar to other 60's TV). My wife, who's not a SF fan at all, can tolerate TNG, but honestly thinks that TOS is "campy", and actually intended to be so, despite my efforts to convice her it was a serious show. > See, one of the really cool things about ST:TMP for me is that it takes > just this tension and pushes it about as far as it can go. Plus, we > actually see the characters mature and change through the movie. They are > estranged when they meet, but when the movie ends, they're back to the > heroic trio we know and love, but wiser than before and all that good > stuff. And Spock has taken his first steps toward becoming the Great > Rabbi of the Galaxy (or something like that). ;-) > > So, for me ST:TMP pushes the original Trek formula to its highest point. > ST:TWoK jiggers with the formula and allows Trek to hit other points, many > of them high, but of the movies none capture the Star Trek spark that I > loved as a kid the way that ST:TMP does. ST:TWoK is a close, close > second...but it's still second for me. TMP for me ranks only about third or fourth among the ST movies. When I saw it in the theatre my initial impression was "Yep, that was just like a Star Trek episode- but stretched out to 2 hours". The long color-swirly parts were pretty but to me mostly seemed like gratuitous (and rather dull) use of their vastly-increased sfx budget. That and to me it seemed TMP recycled a fair bit of its plot from the NOMAD episode and others. To be fair, I've never seen the re-edited version of TMP, which I've heard is a big improvement in terms of pacing. > Hm. While I agree that the best SF tends to have good characters, when I > *think* of great SF I tend to think of the big picture. I loved Dune, for > instance, but I have no particular attachment to Paul Atreides as such. I > love Asimov's Foundation series, but in the original trilogy Seldon is > little more than a glyph; and I'd be hard-pressed to remember the name of > the rest of the characters (aside from The Mule). But it's the idea, the > universe they inhabit, that infatuates me. I loved _Earth_ and I enjoyed > _Kiln People_ but at the moment I can't remember the names of any of the > characters, even the protagonists. But the big pictures linger. Forge of > God? Blood Music? Great books, but I can't remember a name from either. I agree. For me, the character names fade rapidly, while the universe and the general story stick with me much better. In that thread a while back about 10 best SF heroes, I was hard pressed to come up with any names, even though I've read a ton of SF. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
