nuTOS (ahem) series ?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Piloting those ships in the middle of a battle at the speeds they do without anything remotely resembling a proper stick is really puzzling.

[Mike DiCenso]

When did anyone pilot a TOS Type-F shuttlecraft into battle? Also why would a single joystick be of use in space combat? Realistically, they would have to have some sort of duel controller for multi-axis translational maneuvers. As ong as they crew can imput what they need through button controls, they should do just fine. At least it's not a sailing ship's wheel as seen space fantasy like "Captain Harlock", or even in series like "Mobile Suit Gundam".
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

Holly dandy squirrel, I didn't speak of Captain Harlock!
I'm puzzled about your lack of faith in the stick. You should use sticks more often. The stick is good, and it's clearly better in case a shuttle would need to escape or engage in a space rodeo. How do you think you could control a ship in a tense situation which requires almost on the microsecond reaction and control with a couple of switches, really? It just does not work.
I mean trying to control a ship with an iPad where there's no obvious sign of emulated direction pad is one thing, but with a few switches??
Really, compare that shuttle, say, to a gateship from Stargate. Imagine what you could get in nuTOS.

[Mike DiCenso]

You're far too obsessed with sticks. As I noted earlier to get proper translation in realistic space combat, the helmsman would have to have a rotational hand controller, like we see in the Soyuz spacecraft, or the aft station of the shuttle for close in maneuvers. As TOS starship combat goes, you can do just fine with a set of button pads, and as any kid who plays a an Xbox or other similar home game system can tell you, they work just fine reaction-wise as long as you get used to the system. The only serious issue is in controlling the ship's speed and acceleration, which would require another set of controls. Which is probably why in TOS we see Sulu or the helmsman of the week with both hands on the board. The navigator takes up weapons and long-range plotting of the ship's course.

So what we have, if we go by the original series depiction of space combat as hundreds of thousands to potentially billions of kilometers between opposing vessels, is the helmsman and navigator pushing buttons and making the ship fly through pre-programmed maneuvers. If for some reason the range closes to point-blank, the navigator takes up all weapons firing duties, while the hemsman just concentrates on flying the ship with the control pad buttons. That would explain the various "pattern" type commands in TNG, DS9, and VOY.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

You're far too obsessed with sticks.

Yesssss... sticks!

As I noted earlier to get proper translation in realistic space combat, the helmsman would have to have a rotational hand controller, like we see in the Soyuz spacecraft, or the aft station of the shuttle for close in maneuvers. As TOS starship combat goes, you can do just fine with a set of button pads, and as any kid who plays a an Xbox or other similar home game system can tell you, they work just fine reaction-wise as long as you get used to the system.

The most intuitive and effective systems of such a pad are the two control sticks, mainly used for control in the vast majority of games.

The only serious issue is in controlling the ship's speed and acceleration, which would require another set of controls. Which is probably why in TOS we see Sulu or the helmsman of the week with both hands on the board. The navigator takes up weapons and long-range plotting of the ship's course.

Piloting the Connie with a mouse would be better at this point. It would be obvious, by looking at the board, where the controls are. You'd easily spot the up and down, the left and right, the steering wheels for all three axises, etc.
Just admit it, there's nothing like that in TOS. It's just random switches and lights lined up.

So what we have, if we go by the original series depiction of space combat as hundreds of thousands to potentially billions of kilometers between opposing vessels, is the helmsman and navigator pushing buttons and making the ship fly through pre-programmed maneuvers. If for some reason the range closes to point-blank, the navigator takes up all weapons firing duties, while the hemsman just concentrates on flying the ship with the control pad buttons. That would explain the various "pattern" type commands in TNG, DS9, and VOY.
-Mike

I'd rather think that the patterns in those shows are flying tactical techniques taught in school which the human has to adapt to the current situation, not a pre-programmed move. When completing a special move during a flight in the middle of a battle, you probably don't want to rely on a pre-programmed path, since as you can't enter the gazillion different parameters necessary to adapt the path to the current situation, you could only select a maneuver in a menu and submit, which is just horrible.

[Mith]

Well, where to start?

1) Does TOS as it is hold up?

Yes. But only some of it does. TOS holds up in the same way that the old BG Trilogy holds up; by good writing, characters, and fascinating ideas rather than exceptional graphics. In the same way, TOS holds up when you're getting involved in some of the more campy or better written episodes. The episodes that sweep you off your feet and make you forget about the age of these episodes that are the best.

The rest...don't hold up. The ship designs, backgrounds, and so forth are absolutely silly. But...that's also the fun. That's why ENT and DS9 both went to great lenghts to preserve it; it's a treasure. It may not be recognized by most people--and it may be silly, but that's fine. Because that's what it is...well, maybe not for Enterprise. I'd say DS9's tribute was better in that manner of the attitude.

2) Can it be Remade?

Would I like the Abrams version? No. The Abrams version is...well, it is pretty shallow. Most of the characters deep moments are at the beginning and end of the film--the rest is just a pretty mess of colors and plot holes and in-jokes. It was amusing, a decent sci-fi flick, but it wasn't exceptional. It would never last as a series, even if budget and actors weren't a concern.

The series would be hard to work out though, simply because of what the fans would want would almost be impossible. We'd want something that's a toss back to the original, yet takes itself more seriously and is more align with the rest of the series. In other words, we'd want something that's better than what TOS was--something we by nature idolize.

It really can't be done. Because the TOS form hit so many different parts of the benchmark; it had solid, deep ideas behind it, but was wrapped up in a campy setting that wasn't ashamed to toss out Kirk teaming up with Abraham Lincoln, McCoy meeting Alice from Alice in Wonderland, and Kirk fighting Jack the Ripper. Hell, if you told me about a secret, unreleased episode where Kirk rides a photon torpedo through space while wearing a hat and screaming "KEYAAAAAAA!" I'd not only say I'd believe it, but I'd also think it was awesome.

But TNG and DS9 was about Star Trek growing up. TNG toned down the silly elements after the first few seasons and established itself as a respectful sci-fi series about an upscale humanity. DS9 grew up in that it took the previous aspects of TOS's and TNG's perfect humans and down played them. It gave us a captain with flaws, it gave us a colorful cast that represented more than just Starfleet morality and beliefs, and it gave us a more realistic view of Star Trek.

The other series...rarely came anywhere close. Voyager was mostly a waste of a show, Enterprise plummeted and only Season 4 was at all approaching even lower DS9 standards.

3) What should Paramount do?

Move forward. I can't believe people actually want to redo Star Trek. It's like asking if you want to redo all of Doctor Who. Perhaps this is just personal attachment--and it probably is, but part of what made those shows great were the actors in it. Those too old to do it again. Even if you got someone just as good, with amazing writers, and so forth--it won't ever be the same. Sometimes, you really can't just repeat something.

Paramount is failing because it fails at understanding what it should do. Voyager failed because they were too afraid of letting Star Trek grow up. Enterprise failed because the people working on it had no concept of what the fuck they were doing. From the ship designs to the plots--it didn't make a lick of sense.

What Star Trek needs is another DS9. Not just like it per say, but something that takes Star Trek to the next level. Something that hasn't been done. A new frontier. New characters, new enemies, new interests, and so forth. Making another TOS is absolutely pointless; you will never do better than the original. You can't. Because the original is why you love it (for those who are TOS fans). I can't help but think of this like TNG's Tapestry, where you go back and try to undo some horrible blotch on your past, to make something better than what it was--only for it not to work out the way you intended it to be.

For better or for worse, TOS should remain as it is.