Star Trek: The Original Series

Does anyone need an introduction anymore to this great series? In the beginning Desilu said yes to the budget and schedule of Roddenberry only because there were many space stories being pitched and picked up in the mid-sixties, and this was going to be theirs. NBC used Star Trek to compete with Lost in Space, which was already on CBS the year before. NBC being the all color network made the series very high key in lighting and primary-colored in the uniforms and the instrument displays, to better sell color TV at the time. There were so many innovations shown on the screen from Dr.McCoy's diagnostic helpers to the auto door movements to hand communicators, transporters, phased light weapons, all of which impressed viewers. Added to that, they all seemed like they really worked! People have said that Star Trek was the first to show an alien working harmoniously on a space crew and this is not fully true. You might laugh now, but in 1950 there was a very popular, well written, well acted radio and TV series called "Tom Corbett, Space Cadet" that had that very element working for it. Nothing much was very ground breaking on that show except that the acting was a cut above other shows. Roddenberry did go a few steps farther with Star Trek, adding a multi-racial crew and women having real authority as crew members or aliens. Prior to Star Trek, the "alien" or "other" was a concept meant to inspire fear and justify violence. However it seemed that the series delighted in reversing this. Repeatedly the aliens are shown to be less dangerous than thought: the Talosians want the best for Capt. Pike, Balok isn't so bad, the Salt Creature is meant to be pitied, and so on. However if the villain was inanimate or a Frankenstein composed of man's ignorance, say NOMAD or the Planet Killer, then all violence the Federation can muster could be justified. For my money Roddenberry, who appeared to be a casting couch throwback producer from an "Ed Wood" era, accomplished nothing so amazingly wonderful prior to Star Trek, and certainly nothing afterward that ever surpassed this singular achievement. He fought to keep Mr. Spock in the show and oversaw all the writing for a stable consistency,(I'm not a Harlan Ellison fan), so from this perspective, you could say he was born to create Star Trek then step off the stage. His whole life after Trek seemed warped by the show's gravity, and often he was pulled back into it for the 1987 follow on series and the first round of feature films. Some audience members may prefer TNG, or the feature films. They may look back at the 1966 debut of Star Trek as merely "the future looked a lot like the Sixties". But why is it that the pure human emotions in those 79 episodes still attracts new converts? There must be something there that's communicating beyond the show's original five year mission. Star Trek still works as an adventure; one that considers human drama primary. That is unusual for any science fiction based story, wouldn't you say?

I watched this show when I was about twelve years old. Even then I thought most of the episodes were predictable. The aliens only made me laugh. It was shown on Sunday mornings, so I watched it, because I had nothing else to do. Why do people honestly think that this is one of the best scifi-shows ever? It was already camp in the sixties. Even as a boy I thought the Thunderbirds was a better show and Captain Scarlet a better actor than most of the cast of Star Trek. And he was a puppet. In those years I already read scifi-authors like Heinlein and Asimov. So I knew how good scifi could be. So why do so many people still think it is the greatest scifi-show ever? I think most people remember their youth when watching this show again. That's alright, sentimental journeys can be fun. But even if you ignore the poor quality of the special effects - the show was made in the sixties with a small budget - Star trek can't be compared to the story telling of (episodes of) shows like The X-Files, Dr Who (from 2005), or Battlestar Galactica (the modern one). They are much better scifi-shows than Star Trek. If you are too young to have seen Star Trek TOS when it was originally shown, well, give it a try. But don't expect too much. It is as interesting to you as your grandfathers View-Master: fun for a few minutes.

I am 58 and never was a big fan of science fiction. Had seen episodes from Star Trek decades ago, but never was a huge fan. Well...recently have been watching reruns on a free TV channel. And I am amazed at how good and unique this show was....and is...especially for a show from the 1960s. Much credit is due to William Shatner. He's a good, versatile actor and was able to "sell" the script with a sense of seriousness and reality that it made up for the low budget sets, costumes and sometimes silly plots. He should have won an emmy for his acting. Also, loved the vibrant simple colors used on the sets and in wardrobe. The thinly adorned sets were visually enhanced by all these primary colors. The topics, scientific lingo and gadgets were also far beyond what most people were thinking of before this period. Look at all those cell phones they used in the series. And the flat screen TV monitors. Just way ahead of their time. Of course, Spock and the doc were great supporting cast members. But without Kirk, William Shatner, the show probably would not have worked.

Over-hyped, overpraised. Trekkies (or Trekkers, as they sometimes prefer) may adore this series, which probably takes the place of actual lives. But in the main "Star Trek" (created but thankfully not much written by that dreadful lack of talent called Gene Roddenberry) is tedious, repetitive and po-faced. Yes, the last accusation may be unfair. A series like "Star Trek" has to take itself uber-seriously or viewers will notice how creaky it is. With its spaceship hallways the size of tennis courts and the girth of its out-of-shape Captain who never works out shoved into his uniform like he was squeezed in it from a tube. Unless it took itself serious as death and taxes the (necessarily) cheap sets with the phony red or yellow backlighting for planets, and cheesy props that might fool a first-grader ("This stick is a gun 'cause I say so") would stand out more. But it's also po-faced because it pretends to take on issues. I don't like shows that pretend to address "issues" because it usually ends up with a preachy sermon from some hack writer who thinks he knows better than the rest of us. I.e., in this case, that mantle best fits the preachy hack Roddenberry. Star Trek has a few good episodes. Having yawned through the series more than once just to say I saw it, I like experimental pieces like "Hour of the Gun" and humorous bits like "The Trouble with Tribbles" and "I, Mudd." Also good is the rapport everyone has in space. As I understand it this was not Roddenberry's idea; and, indeed, once his brainchild was launched by others, he came back to make the atmosphere unpleasant for everyone. Still, the friendship depicted between Kirk and McCoy seems real enough. And though some characters have flaws (such as Chekhov's outrageous accent) they mollify them by tidbits such as Chekhov believing his beloved Russians invented everything. Chekhov is not the only bum actor in the piece. William Shatner's Kirk is famous, even among Trekkies, for his overacting. Nimoy's Spock is emotionless because . . . well, have you ever seen Nimoy in anything where he emotes? He gave better performances in "In Search Of . . ." Sulu looks like he was carved, and acts like it. Poor writing, poor acting, tedious and repetitive stories ("get along with us or we'll blow you up"), lousy props and sets. Man, I'm glad I'll be dead by the twenty-third century, if it's anything like this pile of dingo's kidneys. Fortunately for the future, "Star Trek" already looks incredibly dated (watch how they fight, with those wide punches and the Laurel-and-Hardy law that states you can't do anything to me while I'm hurting you, and we'll take turns throwing punches). But the worst aspect of the show is its I-know-better-than-you preachiness. I hate being preached by by know-it-all Hollywood types. Or by people who wear pointy ears to conventions. I'm fine with people being fans. I'm a fan of some things myself (not just one thing). But I never dress up. I enjoy what I enjoy, then put it back in its box and get on with life. And if I lived "life according to Star Trek" I'd be a basket case. See it once through just to say you have then leave it to the pocket-protector types who live vicariously through it. Overall, lots of hooplah, but as MacBeth might have said, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Lets just sum it up. One character has basically one line for every stupid episode over course of three seasons this crap lasted, and that is "He's dead Jim!". Virtually every single episode they are on different planet. So that means there should be ton of different races, different cultures, ... well, no. To writers of this show that meant to recycle Nazi's, Roman's, Greek's, God and Wild West, over and over and over and over until sane person just wants to scream ENOUGH! I expected so much more out of this show. Instead its just stupid and lacks creativity. Even one character worth perhaps few redeeming points, Spock, only has his superpowers when suitable. And Kirk is probably in Top 10 list of most one dimensional, non creative, characters ever made. I actually like William Shatner. I love Tekwar. I liked his sitcom too. But this role is what made him famous, yet its something he is probably embarrassed about as an actor as he seemed so much smarter than this to me. This TV show should not have lasted even one full season. No wonder it died at season three. If you are looking for Star trek fix, Next Generation delivers so much more.

This show made all of it's principles into cause celebrities & in fact did the same for it's producers & almost everyone involved with it. This was one of the last series produced by Desilu studios it's first season. Then Desilu was sold to Paramont in order for Lucy & Ricky to separate their business interests after the divorce. Oh, but what a way to end their partnership. This original series & it's films & syndicated sequels have produced more money for Paramont than any other franchise. William Shatner became so famous for his role in this, that he went to to advertise Promise Margerine, do TJ HOOKER (a Cop series) in the 1970's for ABC. Then he kept working on other stuff until now he has managed to become a TV regular again on Boston Legal. Lenoard Nimoy(Spock) went on to do several other projects including hosting the syndicated series "In Search of". All the others came back for the movies as well. The big thing that made this series so popular was the plot lines which especially in the first seasons were so imaginative. These were from creator Gene Roddenbury who had learned his craft in the unusual Western series hit Have Gun, Will travel. Roddenbury made morality a major strength in plotting these original episodes. He tapped some talented science fiction writers as well for ideas. This was really his wagon train to the stars. This original series has a couple of fine veteran Western folks behind the camera with Gene L. Coons & Fred Friedberger who worked on action series like The Wild Wild West. The resemblance of Kirks fight scenes in Star Trek to the Wild Wild West are no coincidence. Towards the end, as NBC kept cutting the budget, the show suffered too, but by then, NBC still had not realized what they had & killed off the series. Thank goodness for re-runs, then video & now DVDs to keep this original going. The guest list for this series was small, but it had some excellent guest stars including William Windom, Roger C. Carmel, Michael Dunn (Dr Lovelass on Wild Wild West), Ricardo Montoban, & others (Most did guest shots on West too). It is one of the rare Science Fiction series to combine serious themes & comedy successfully & really be inventive. After all, to me it seems like these guys invented the cell phone style of communication in the 1960's. European Scientists are still experimenting to see if beaming people up can be done. What a legacy this series has left all of us.

One must remember that Star Trek was made as a for profit network TV. The amount of money and total lack of any computer aided special effects. Was the norm, it a call for innovation, creativity, thinking outside the box, in fact they did not even have a box. So remember 10 years before Star Wars, Ten years before the the first Apple Computer, during the Civil Rights movement, during the peak of the Viet Nam War, Before man had set foot on the surface of the moon, a man name Roddenberry had a vision to " Go where no man went before". Exploring social issues, with appearances by some of the days leading actors, and actresses. Star Trek in a way is a time warp of the mid 1960's. The styles and culture are mixed in series. Indian mysticism, invaded the series just like the white album. I believe the most diverse cast and characters in the history of TV. The one high tech aspect of the show is and was it was filmed in color when few people owned color TV's. Live long and prosper.

The original Star Trek series and movies all had solid story lines and well developed characterizations (as does J.J. Amrams' ABC series LOST). This mediocre movie is simply about how they re-work the old characters and the answer is: not well. There's virtually no story, no continuity, shallow character development, mostly slam-around action nonsense with a glaringly loud soundtrack to give the mistaken impression something important is happening. It isn't. Even when 10 million people are exterminated in 5 seconds there's none of the emotion (unlike the Death Star scene in Star Wars). Hand combat scenes are handled in the usual 2009 style whereby all we see is a blur, rather than a choreographed fight. Ho, hum, if the filmmakers have no clue what's going on, maybe they can fool us with a blur and a sound track. There's way too much camera-shaking as a substitute for story, not nearly enough interaction among the characters. Wynona Rider was a major player and I love her; but I never noticed her until they rolled the credits. Good grief! I would not have missed this movie for anything, but there's no reason to over-rate it. Doing so only encourages more bad movies. I enjoyed it but 6/10 is a truthful rating.

This show changed the way we looked at science fiction forever. Before there was The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and the prequel Enterprise. There was Captain James T. Kirk and crew on the Starship Enterprise. Exploring new worlds and new life. Traveling through time and space. Leonard Nimoy is great has Mr. Spock, the half human/half alien science officer and second in command. Deforest Kelly is also great Has Dr. Leonard Bones Mccoy, our favorite whiney Doctor, who came out with favorite sayings like "He's dead Jim" and "I'm a Doctor not a brick layer". The special effects may have seemed hoaky at times. But the show was still great in it's day. Gene Roddenberry was a genuis when he created this show. The show was well acted by everyone . So Star Trek fans live long and prosper.

What is it with the adulation the original series receives (especially when compared to the various superb spin-offs of more recent date)? Okay, some of the early stories were good, but the supply soon ran out and the remainder were repetitive and tediously predictable for the most part. Plus lousy sets and some pretty second-rate acting (apart from Leonard Nimoy). I remember the first series hitting the small screen in England and how disappointed I felt... from the tacky opening music onwards (sci-fi music that sounded more like a chat-show theme? What was that all about?). Of course, we'd already been treated to several years of Dr Who, the two Andromeda series, Quatermass, plus other excellent offerings, including US productions such as The Twilight Zone. So maybe I was just plain spoilt for choice. The campiness can be vaguely enjoyable at this distance in time, but, for me, that's as good as it gets. And let's face it, hammy campiness and a handful of decent scripts does not a decent series make. Fine. De gustibus non disputandum est, or some such thing. If people still rave about it for reasons best known to themselves, so be it. But I would never, even for a moment, swap Picard for Kirk... And as for the so-called social commentary of the original series - about as deep and meaningful as Dr Seuss. Or did I miss something? Whatever... I can certainly use my TARDIS for doing better things than watching reruns of Shatner mincing his stuff as he saves the crew/ship/planet/universe yet again with little more than a torn t-shirt and a smirking mouthful of half-baked philosophy...