Why was the original Star Trek series better than the others even without advanced special effects?

Answer 1

That's a good question. It makes you think about what really makes art, movies/paintings/music, hit the mark. It goes to show that there is a little bit of magic in all these art forms. Something you can't plan, or manufacture, not with the best special effects studio, or the best actors.

Lets face facts, William Shattner isn't near the actor that Patrick Stewart is, but still, there was something about how he approached being the Captain of the Enterprise. A macho bravado that ate up the small screen. The freshness of the story lines, and the fact that we were still riding the high of putting a man on the moon.

Now our going to the moon is ancient history, and space travel in general isn't such an unknown, it's old hat. I've got pictures of Mars from one of our missions, in my desktop picture files.

So I guess we enjoy the old series for what it does for us and question as we may, it's hard to describe why - I guess we like the original, because it was so much fun!

Answer 2

Actually I think Voyager was the best.

The original is a close second with me.

Next is Next Gereration, Deep Space 9 and dead last is the one with whatshisface which I never watched.

Did I forget one?

Answer 3

It was new, having never been done before. The special effects were poor, yet the writing was generally very good.

Answer 4

i think tng was pretty good too - but it's because it was original. back then all they really had was westerns to watch [my dad said, atleast] so it was bonanza or star trek and bonanza was gettin pretty played out. also it's just great to look at everything ole rodenberry*[sp] thought up on his own and see just what has actually been invented and works now! [cell phone/communicators, etc]

Answer 5

The public that they cater to now is a lot less intelligent and creative than at that time.