Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2020 April 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 11

ST:TOS

In current US popular culture, do we now live in a time where significant numbers of the "online generation" are not familiar with this show? I don't mean that they've seen every episode, but that they'd understand references to people like Dr. McCoy. The show is from the 1960s after all, though it is still on TV in reruns every night here. I've posted a few other ST questions recently so will mention that I've gotten to like ST:ENT, if that matters. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean Generation X, Millennials, Generation Z, or Generation Alpha? I've seen Boomers lump all of them together under varying terms. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Between reruns of the original series, the movies with the original cast, appearances on the sequel series, and the recent Abrams movies, I'd say it would be a very rare person in the US who would not have some general idea of the basics about ST:TOS and its major characters (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and probably Scotty). --Khajidha (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I don't know about generations but let's say people who are under 30 today. I used "online generation" as meaning relatively technology-oriented people (though not outright nerds), as opposed to an age group. Khajidha, hmm yeah, I forgot about the movies. Does anyone watch the pre-Abrams ones at all any more, and are the Abrams ones not mostly aimed at TOS fans? I've only seen the first one though. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Movies aimed at existing fanbases (and not at expanding them) tend to: 1) not do anything innovative with the canon (to avoid upsetting diehard fans but at the cost of making it harder for casual viewers to enjoy it), 2) divide the fanbase anyway (doing literally anything, including nothing, will always divide a fanbase), 3) not do well by any measure. The Abrams movies did well because they adjusted the canon to draw in new viewers.

There's also constant references in shows like Futurama and Family Guy. I've seen reviews for The Orville call it 'more Star Trek than the current official shows,' and viewers of that would be curious about the original shows. As much as I am loathe to acknowledge the existence of this minstrel show and think that Rick and Morty isn't smart (it's just the Family Guy of sci-fi and sci-fi comedies aren't new) -- both of those shows apparently contain references that would require a completely ignorant viewer to look up Star Trek to get the joke.

Outside of your revised age range (but in line with your "relatively technology-oriented people," any 30-something (i.e. most Millenials) who spends the least amount of time on the Internet damn well knows about Star Trek -- I'd expect that that'd leek over onto the younger net dwellers to a point (although Know Your Meme exists because memes are generational enough to need to be documented so different ages can communicate). Anyone in their 30s or so would probably remember when The Next Generation was one of the bigger shows on TV (I'm 33 and can date when I first went fishing because the episode that aired the previous night). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

TNG was from 1987 to 1994 per the article, so someone in their 30s now would have been a little kid then! I saw a fair number of episodes of it in reruns but had never seen ENT until a month or so ago. I had no idea who Archer, T'Pol etc. were. I guess you are right that TOS is more pervasive though. Thanks! 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't think kids watched it? --Khajidha (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone in their 30s is a kid now... --Jayron32 17:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory did a fair amount of TOS-stuff. Do we have an article about the Shatner pause? (1:54) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

None of these responses seem to be referring to the parents of the "under 30s relatively technology-oriented people". For an anecdotal answer, my nephews are 12 and 14 and know the basics of ST:TOS since their mother is a ST:TNG fan and has taken them to see the new movies (or watched them at home). They're also aware that Doctor Who has a long history due to the influence of their grandfather and I. †dismas†|^(talk) 18:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw virtually all the episodes of the original series, and random sprinklings of the later manifestations, but I had no idea what TOS meant in ST:TOS. (I even had to work out what ST was from the context of the thread.) Searching in Wikipedia produced no results. The penny only dropped when I searched Star Trek and there it was, "Star Trek: The Original Series".

Those who inhabit the ST universe know the acronymic lingo, and those who don't inhabit it don't need to know. In either case, no explanation is deemed necessary. That's a fine theory, but it falls down when a ST question is posted on a general site such as this, which is not frequented solely by Trekkies. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess TOS is even a neologism (neologacronym?) since the series was originally just Star Trek. Sort of like the movie Star Wars being retronumbered to Episode IV. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)