Post A Reply my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » General Trek » Encounter at Farpoint-- loss potential » Post A Reply

Post A Reply Login Name: Password: Message: HTML is enabled. UBB Code™ is enabled. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Middy Seafort: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by AndrewR: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Middy Seafort: [qb] Hello, all. I recently re-watched the two-hour premier episode of TNG, "Encounter at Farpoint." While watching it, I realized there was a lot of potential for this series to go into many interesting directions that would've redefined television SF rather than merely update a 60's television series. Middy Seafort [/qb][/QUOTE]WTF are you TALKING about. TNG might have made a few TOS-ish episodes in early season 1 but by season 2 and definatley by season 3 TNG was a show unto itself. Leonard Nimoy after famously commenting you can't catch lightning in a bottle twice admitted by season 5 that TNG was it's own show. TNG redifined not only sci-fi TV but TV and sci-fi in themselves!! I'm sick of typing this but. If there was no TNG there would have been NO Babylon 5, DS9, Voyager, Stargate SG1, Buffy, Angel, Hurcules, Xena, *X-Files*, SeaQuest DSV, Sliders, Outer Limits, Space: Above and Beyond, Time Trax, Andromeda, Earth: Final Conflict, Charmed, Jeremiah, Earth 2, Firefly, Dark Skies, The Dead Zone, Crusade, 7 Days, Farscape, Highlander TV Series, The Crow TV Series, The Raven, Twin Peaks, Birds of Prey, Millennium, The Lone Gunmen, Harsh Realm, Total Recall: 2070, Lexx, Dark Angel... And those are off the top of my head. Yes some of those didn't last very long - but the fact that any of them were given the go ahead was a direct result of TNG showing that an hour long fantasty/sci-fi tv series could be WILDLY successful. And SYNDICATED to boot. What was around before TNG in 1987 or even 1990 with season 3 that was pulling ratings (and of the type of show TNG was)?? I would harbour a guess 1 or nothing. [/qb][/QUOTE]I was stating that TNG did nothing to re-define the manner in which SF stories would be told-- i.e. episodic versus serial. It did, however, make SF more mainstream and did, in fact, open the flood gates for more SF-TV. However, it did not offer up a paradigm shift in the manner in which SF stories were told like Babylon 5. In updating a 60's series, I meant that it did nothing but take the basic premise and plug in new characters. The premise being an exploration show in which week after week our characters bumped into a new world, alien or story--basically, an anthology series with an ongoing cast of characters with a traveling locale (i.e. the Enterprise). TNG is what can be dubbed a "Templete Series." The term was conned by SF author James Blish. It is where week after week nothing changes to affect the characters or the universe they live in; much like the Holmes novels and the other old pulp adventures like John Carter of Mars or Tarzan. TNG was a serial; a series of ongoing adventures week after week. It wasn't a serial with an overall story arc (something that was discussed for its first and second season, believe it or not), but it was a serial. What makes it a "template series" is that the characters must basically be the same at the end of the story as when we came into the story-- a dictim of Roddenberry's that is really felt in the Pocket Book novels. TNG did come into its own in season 3 and did have more than its fair share of good, well-written episodes (some even capturing the coveted Hugo award like "The Inner Light"). In retrospect, however, we really did not learn who the characters were, deep down, neither did they grow beyond who they were at the start of the series. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed TNG when it originally ran from 1987-1994. I recorded every episode and still have those worn out tapes. Is it my favorite Trek? No. Is it my favorite SF series? No, not with shows like TOS, B5 and the Prisoner on my top list. There was some excellent writing, but the universe and the characters were most times limited to their original bible descriptions. Were there changes? Some, but not tons and nothing that shattered their lives or changed them forever-- except for Picard and Data. Even then, those changes were mostly ignored for periods of time until it served a story function. And the actors did an excellent job with whatever material they were given. The example of BoBW and Family. Yes, that is an example that will blow holes in my theory.Excellent episodes, well-written and acted. But Picard was pretty much over the experience by the end of "Family," until the writers need it again to help further the plot of an episode or two. However, I counter with "The Chains of Command." Picard's torture, even though Troi says it'll take time, is forgotten. Next week, Picard is seen as himself with no lingering feelings toward the Cardassians. At least, O'Brien acted like a man who had fought an enemy and was still trying to overcome his hatred in DS9 and in the TNG episode, "The Wounded." I started this post to get people thinking about what could've been and what was. In the end, I wanted people to think what more TNG could've been had it pushed the envelope a bit more. Discuss. Middy Seafort [/QB][/QUOTE]

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™                                   What is UBB Code™?

Options Disable Graemlins in this post.

 

© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3