Star Trek: 10 Unpopular Opinions About The Original Series, According To Reddit

Star Trek: The Original Series sparked a sci-fi revolution in 1960s television and offered fans a hopeful glimpse into the future of mankind. Though very much a product of its time, TOS established a lasting legacy that would influence the Star Trek franchise for decades to come.

RELATED: The 20 Best Star Trek: The Original Series Episode To Rewatch

Despite its sainted reputation, there are aspects of the show that fans have taken umbrage with, and they aren't afraid to voice their opinions. Users on Reddit have taken to the site to speak out and make known many of their more unpopular opinions about the classic show.

One of the defining aspects of TOS was its dynamic cast, including its charismatic leader in Captain James T. Kirk as portrayed by William Shatner. Though Kirk produced some of the most difficult moments of the series, some believe that Shatner's performance is suspect. User RP_Fan said of the actor, "William Shatner is a terrible actor and an embarrassment to the brand".

Though large aspects of TOS are cheesy by today's standards, they were revolutionary for their time. As for Shatner, his history as a television actor made him a perfect choice for the verbose character. Over time, Shatner settled into the role and showed growth in the character in the films, especially The Wrath of Khan. 

The television of the 1960s was more focused on the story and less focused on dazzling sets and exciting special effects. Because of this, TOS is very much a product of the time it was made in, and it is best to look past its technical flaws. User N0-1_H3r3 couldn't see past the flaws when they wrote "The Original Series is good for its time, but it has not aged well".

In many ways, if something is good for its time it is also good for all time as well. As media ages it will inevitably fall behind modern advancements in technology and what remains is the positive aspects. TOS was anchored by an important idea and clever concepts which still stand out today, even if the technical aspects haven't aged well.

Comparison can be a sincere form of flattery but it can also be used as a point of derision when something is meant to be inferior to the thing it is being compared to. The 1960s was a progressive and influential time in television and there were certain similarities between successful shows. A deleted user saw a comparison to be made between two '60s staples when they wrote "TOS was just Twilight Zone in space".

Though The Twilight Zone also produced many classic episodes, the two shows were also very different. Both shows were helmed by TV visionaries but they departed most on their outlook on the world and the future of humanity. Star Trek was a utopian vision for the future while The Twilight Zone was a less than positive view of human nature through short morality tales.

The Original Series had soaring moments and classic episodes, but it is also widely agreed that there were a fair number of duds as well. No show, no matter how beloved, is entirely perfect and many fans have chosen to ignore the less than stellar aspects of TOS. However, user SingerOfSongs_ had a more rosy view of the show when they wrote "The bad episodes of TOS aren't even that bad, and are still very entertaining".

RELATED: 5 Ways Wrath Of Khan Is The Best Star Trek Movie (And 5 Ways It's The Undiscovered Country)

Star Trek purists typically are averse to some of the stranger episodes of TOS and prefer to focus on the many highlights. However, there are also a fair number of great moments to be enjoyed within the cheesier episodes of the show as well. The episode "Catspaw" for instance, is an entertaining and spooky space adventure that essentially serves as a Halloween episode.

In a long running franchise like Star Trek, it is important to establish the rules of the universe so that the stories can remain consistent. When it comes to TOS, the classic series helped to establish what the future of the franchise would look like. User im_at_worq wasn't happy with TOS's canon when writing "At least 60% of TOS should be de-canonized. Some of the concepts don't make sense at all".

While many of the sequel series have had to grapple with updating the antiquated look of TOS, the bones of the canon are still strong. While sets, special affects, and makeup technology improve with each passing year, what is most important about Star Trek is its story canon. Eliminating large swaths of TOS would fundamentally destabilize what Star Trek was intended to be.

Though it broke new ground, TOS didn't have the best run when it initially aired. Though fans rarely agree on most things, it is almost universally accepted that the third season of the show was inferior to its predecessors. However, user MiddleAgedGeek had different ideas when they wrote "TOS season 3 is underrated".

Though there were bright spots to be gleaned from the third season such as "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", the season also had many lows. Many of the episodes in the final season tended towards cheesier aspects or were downright laughable such as the infamous episode "Spock's Brain".

Some fans lament the handling of canon in regards to newer series that attempt to co-opt the Trek universe. User spillwaybrain offered a different view on the sanctity of the canon when they wrote "TOS breaks canon more than any other series, movie, time travel episode, or alternate timeline since".

The establishment of canon in the 1960s wasn't necessarily the most important goal of TOS. However, as the universe got more fleshed out, a more careful eye was taken to preserving the canon. Subsequently, many of the novels, movies, and extraneous media have attempted to establish a more consistent narrative.

In its relatively short run on TV, Star Trek established many memorable characters in the main cast as well as in supporting roles. Harry Mudd was one of the few side characters to appear more than once, and he left an impression on fans. However, a deleted user had a less positive view of the character when writing "Harry Mudd is a tiresome bore of a character".

RELATED: The 20 Best Star Trek: The Next Generation Episodes Of All Time

The character is not supposed to be likable which makes him the perfect foil for the stand-up characters of the Federation. However, it is possible that an unlikable character can become so unlikable that fans don't want to see them. Though he may rub some viewers the wrong way, there is no doubting Harry Mudd's importance in the TOS legacy.

The episode "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" finds the Enterprise above modern day Earth and a fighter pilot is taken aboard the ship. User Muteatrocity wrote this of the episode "My main reason for disliking TOS is boiled down to the episode 'Tomorrow Is Yesterday'...that really obvious sci-fi concepts such as timeline pollution is treated so clumsy".

The fact that Kirk fails to realize he is polluting the timeline is obvious to modern viewers, but in the 1960s it was complicated stuff. Though time travel would become an important part of Trek, it was necessary to explain the idea of timeline pollution to the viewer so that they could more easily understand it.

Gene Roddenberry's vision for a utopian future was the impetus for Star Trek and he is the entire reason the franchise exists. However, user FKRMunkiBoi would rather he be forgotten when writing "I think Gene Roddenberry gets way more credit than he deserves compared to others who worked on Trek".

Though many creators have taken his ideas and ran with them, there is no denying Roddenberry's importance to the Star Trek universe. What makes him so important is his insistence on the original concepts of TOS. As the franchise spun off into movies and subsequent shows, Roddenberry insisted on consistency within the themes.

NEXT: The Doctors Of Star Trek, Ranked By Likability

from ScreenRant - Feed

Post a Comment