As a historical document this works for me. You learn what later Star Trek shows were based on. Often these newer shows add references to the original show and draw from the concepts laid out in the 60's. I guess this show was groundbreaking in the the 60's. Can I really appreciate this fact? No, since I don't really know how the rest of the 60s TV shows compared. German Raumpatrouille Orion did a better job to show an intriguing futuristic vision, but of course most Americans will have never heard about this show.
Is it really a joy to watch? Definitely not. Most of the times it looks very cheap (at least film has the advantage to be re-published in a quite good looking HQ version with brilliant colors. Sadly, this will never be possible for DS9 and Voyager). Sets look cheap. Costumes are sometimes intriguing though. FX looks silly (but I can overlook this given it's an almost 60 years old show) Most alien planets look like contemporary California (because it is!). Most stories are mediocre. Pacing is too slow most of the time. Often it's outright boring. I really had to force myself to complete some episodes. There are plenty of plot holes and illogical plote elements. The focus on Kirk and his pair of healthy fists often defies the idea that space endeavor is supposed to be a team effort or a diplomatic mission with countless philosophical questions. Let's not even talk how they treat women in this show (it's a child of the sixties and was not written by guys from the future). The score is mediocre - very standard to 60's TV and not very futuristic. All actors (except Nimoy) actors act "too histrionic". It's perhaps 60's standard acting style but I can't get really used to it. Not sure if that's changing in the next season, but season one did not really care about character development or even character description. Side characters like Uhura or Sulu are empty shells: they are nothing more than a background (although I understand that a black woman and an Asian man on the bridge was perhaps revolutionary in itself.). Before, I thought it's maybe like TNG with older technique (which I was prepared to overlook) but the characters and stories are also much worse than in TNG.
My season rating of 6/10 tries to honor the age of this show. You can't really judge such a show by modern standards. If I rated this show according to modern standards I doubt a lot of episodes would even be considered better than 3/10. I'm a Star Trek fan, but I don't really understand how the show gained so many fans back then (Well, I mean, it didn't right? It was cancelled after 3 seasons). There's maybe only 3 or so episodes I'd like to recommend: The City on the Edge of Forever, A Taste of Armageddon and my "guilty pleasure" The Squire of Gothos.
Review by Alexander von LimbergBlockedParent2022-08-12T14:57:55Z— updated 2023-04-02T12:14:37Z
As a historical document this works for me. You learn what later Star Trek shows were based on. Often these newer shows add references to the original show and draw from the concepts laid out in the 60's. I guess this show was groundbreaking in the the 60's. Can I really appreciate this fact? No, since I don't really know how the rest of the 60s TV shows compared. German Raumpatrouille Orion did a better job to show an intriguing futuristic vision, but of course most Americans will have never heard about this show.
Is it really a joy to watch? Definitely not. Most of the times it looks very cheap (at least film has the advantage to be re-published in a quite good looking HQ version with brilliant colors. Sadly, this will never be possible for DS9 and Voyager). Sets look cheap. Costumes are sometimes intriguing though. FX looks silly (but I can overlook this given it's an almost 60 years old show) Most alien planets look like contemporary California (because it is!). Most stories are mediocre. Pacing is too slow most of the time. Often it's outright boring. I really had to force myself to complete some episodes. There are plenty of plot holes and illogical plote elements. The focus on Kirk and his pair of healthy fists often defies the idea that space endeavor is supposed to be a team effort or a diplomatic mission with countless philosophical questions. Let's not even talk how they treat women in this show (it's a child of the sixties and was not written by guys from the future). The score is mediocre - very standard to 60's TV and not very futuristic. All actors (except Nimoy) actors act "too histrionic". It's perhaps 60's standard acting style but I can't get really used to it. Not sure if that's changing in the next season, but season one did not really care about character development or even character description. Side characters like Uhura or Sulu are empty shells: they are nothing more than a background (although I understand that a black woman and an Asian man on the bridge was perhaps revolutionary in itself.). Before, I thought it's maybe like TNG with older technique (which I was prepared to overlook) but the characters and stories are also much worse than in TNG.
My season rating of 6/10 tries to honor the age of this show. You can't really judge such a show by modern standards. If I rated this show according to modern standards I doubt a lot of episodes would even be considered better than 3/10. I'm a Star Trek fan, but I don't really understand how the show gained so many fans back then (Well, I mean, it didn't right? It was cancelled after 3 seasons). There's maybe only 3 or so episodes I'd like to recommend: The City on the Edge of Forever, A Taste of Armageddon and my "guilty pleasure" The Squire of Gothos.