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.
To me, I always felt that TNG went wrong somewhere. The characters often fell flat. The stories, while well written, lacked a certain spark for me. TNG should've been the "Hills Street Blues" of SF in the late 80's, but it wasn't. David Gerrold once said that "Babylon 5 was what TNG should've been." He was right.
"Encounter at Farpoint" shows a crew that could work together, but not always get along. They had flaws that were really never allowed to develop. Riker wanting his own command, but still attracted to a possible long-term relationship with Troi. Yar full of anger that she cannot control with a past she's not really over. Picard and Crusher, both attracted to own another and both afraid of the past that connects them. Even Riker and Picard had a bit of tension, when Riker first came aboard. Not too mention a "ship full of children."
Why did Riker fear a long-term relationship, especially when this new age of Starfleet allowed families to journey aboard? Could Picard, the lonely explorer, now find time to have a family? What about the families? How do they react to being in a starship light years away from Earth? There were infinite directions and changes (something that rarely happened in TNG) that the characters could go through. Not to mention the fact that the very premise of the characters would be abandoned in later seasons-- like Riker's desire to command.
But there was also the potential for long-term storytelling; however, not necessarily a strict, plotted out arc like B5. Imagine how much more better "All Good Things" would've been had the trial and test aspect of the pilot became a constant undercurrent of the series, rather than Q popping in and out for a comedic visit or two a year. Like Picard says, "We have a long mission ahead of us, there must be many ways we could be tested."
The potential in those two hours showed the promise of a series that would kick butt and take names, forever changing the way we looked at SF.
Discuss.
Middy Seafort
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
If by your comparison of Hill Street Blues to Babylon 5, you mean that TNG should have had arc storylines, certainly. If, however, you mean that Babylon 5 wasn't the unmitigated dung heap of a show it was, then, uh, no. TNG was always superior.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
And uh, how many episodes of "Babylon 5" did you watch anyway, Snay? I'm guessing not many...
That's a very interesting question to think about... I've never spent too much time thinking about the early TNG seasons because they were pretty horrible overall. But yeah, developing internal relationships and conflicts would've been a whole lot more interesting.
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snay: If by your comparison of Hill Street Blues to Babylon 5, you mean that TNG should have had arc storylines, certainly. If, however, you mean that Babylon 5 wasn't the unmitigated dung heap of a show it was, then, uh, no. TNG was always superior.
To each his own.
Babylon 5, like TNG had its flaws, but it was far superior and daring than TNG ever was. TNG, while littered with several fine episodes, played it safe with its characters and storylines.
In an interview years ago, David Gerrold said that back in the 60's "Star Trek" was a subversive show going against the mainstream culture; but in the 80's and 90's it became the "McDonald's of SF," churning out one generic plot after another.
I also blame, not only Paramount, but Roddenberry himself. While GR was a great one for ideas, he was not a details man. He also became more and more amored with the "great philosopher" notion propagated by the fan base.
At the time of TNG's conception, the "Star Trek" movies (except IV, which used the famous reset button) were taking risks, changing the characters and the world they lived in-- much to Roddenberry's disliking. When TNG finally came along, GR saw it as a chance to re-invent the creation that became an albatross around his neck.
Early outlines and plots for "Phase: II" already showed the new direction that GR saw for Trek; but it was not as bland and sterile like TNG. In fact, it would've been interesting to see that series played out in the 70's and the risks it also could've taken (more sexual freedom and so on). Many of those ideas demonstrated GR's acceptance that Trek was his great philosophical contribution to society. This was even enhanced more in the concepts of TNG in its formative years, and later taken on by writers unfamiliar with SF or the original series.
I liken Roddenberry's change of heart towards Trek to the works of Ayn Rand. She wrote two novels that shaped a new philosophical notion: objectivism. The first, "Fountainhead," was her philosophy on a smaller scale, a personal story of a man's struggle against the greater collective of society. It was well-written with great care to literary concerns as well as philosophical. However, when it came to time, years later, to further outline her philosophy, she wrote "Atlas Shrugged." It is the weaker of her works, as it is more of a thousand-plus page dissertation on her philosophy, and tends to ignore the literary needs of the story. The character's are not as vivid and full of a "sense of life" as they are in the "Fountainhead."
That is the same with TOS and TNG. GR was so entranced with his philosophical notions that he could not see past them and allowed it to interfere with the literary, or story/characters, of his last creation.
All literary works should on some level be a philosophical debate, showing how the author/writer/director sees the world around him or her. But literature, whether it be book, movie or television, should raise questions, not provide a simple answer. Roddenberry, as a writer, was more interested in answering rather than questioning.
I also think that GR was trapped in the anthological-style of 60's television. He figured audiences wouldn't tolerate following a continuing storyline over the course of several episodes. At the time of the late 80's, that couldn't be farther from the truth. People showed a willingness to follow the prime-time soap opera's of "Dallas" and "Dynasty," and the ongoing struggles of a police force in Any City U.S. in "Hill Street Blues." Television was changing, Roddenberry, unfortunately, did not change with it.
Middy Seafort
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I would rather put a needle through my brain than watch Dallas or Dynasty, though.
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Posted by Sol System: I would rather put a needle through my brain than watch Dallas or Dynasty, though.
Indeed. I just used those two shows as an example that prime-time audiences and, in general, US audiences were more then willing to follow a series that had ongoing storylines over the course of several episodes. I was not trying to suggest that TNG should've dwindled into soap opera-type plots.
Middy Seafort
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
But, uh, people have always been willing to watch soap operas. They last for forty years each.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
I'm glad to see this discussion, because it's relevant to the reasons I gave up watching Star Trek in any form on a regular basis.
My best friend and I found ourselves watching episodes and 9 times out of 10 saying, "that was an interesting idea, but they didn't take it anywhere. I gave up on TNG about midway through the 4th season, and almost every time I've tuned into any Star Trek show since I'm usually disappointed. It's just not inventive enough for me.
I think Hill Street Blues as a comparison is an apt one. Television had changed a lot since the 60s, and there were a lot of topics that even mainstream dramas could touch. Given that, one could expect that an "allegory" show like TNG could go even further, if not every week, at least once in a while. Quite the opposite. TNG played it so safe that their "message" episodes had less bite than an "ABC After School Special". Hill Street Blues, which is one of the few shows I ever wanted to see every episode of, dealt with all kinds of issues. Racism, fraternization, cultural insensitivity, the delicate balance between protecting people and stomping all over their rights. The characters often had really complex relationships as well.
Characters died too, and not as the central focus of the story, but as a part of life "ont he Hill". I particularly remember the sledgehammer ending of one late-series episode where, in the final two minutes, a series regular was suddenly and brutally killed, and you were left there in shock just like the characters on the show. The dangers of space exploration should have been even greater (and don't throw "Skin of Evil" at me or I'll be forced to puke up something even naster than Armus!).
I'm not asking Star Trek to be Hill Street Blues, but Blues wasn't the only show pushing such boundaries. TNG was milquetoast by comparison. Hell, "progressive" show that it was, it couldn't even be brave enough to have one gay crewman on the ship in seven bleeding years.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: 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
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.
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: 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
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.
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
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Can people at least try to see Middy's point without flying into little Trekkie rages because he dared to mention B5 or suggest that TNG was anything less than perfect? I get where he's coming from. Personally, one of the reasons I don't watch Enterprise because I find it too formulaic, too old-fashioned in structure. These days I prefer to watch inventive stuff like the Sopranos, 24, Six Feet Under; that said, I can watch old TNG eps and appreciate them for how good they were for the time; perhaps not as good as Middy thinks they could have been, but still quite superior to much else that was on TV back then.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, for the record, TNG never struck me as briliant!! striking!! daring!! sci-fi. It had its moments, just like Picard did in AGT, but didn't live up to its potential (which Middy has neatly outlined). In my opinion, TNG could have been truly ahead of the pack if some distinctiveness had been thrown in... instead, it often felt insipid, diverting from the formula on a handful occasions (ie Yesterday's Enterprise) but following too predictable a path throughout.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Of course, at the time, TNG didn't need to be brilliant, striking, or daring. All it had to be was a sequel to TOS.
This all goes back to the argument about just why TNG was such a hit. Because like Middy states, it wasn't very thought-provoking, could have been better, etc. It was a hit because the last time a Star trek series was on the air, women were wearing beehive hairdos. The success of the movies made it crystal clear that there was a good enough fanbase to warrant making a new show. Realizing this, however, TPTB knew that they didn't have to "wow" people, they just had to produce something that the fans would watch. And that's what they did. They got away with rehashing old scripts and remaking old characters into new ones (i.e. Riker/Troi=Decker/Ilia, Data=Spock, etc.) But that didn't matter to us, because it was "THE NEW STAR TREK!," and we wanted to see it.
These days, however, it is obvious that that same type of rehashing cannot be done anymore for TPTB to expect fans to keep watching.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
"The New Star Trek" - but you wanted closely linked story arcs. It wouldn't have been Star Trek then - or a 24th century of TOS. TOS had less continuity than TNG. and I DON'T mean ARCs when I say continuity - I hate how that word has been perverted.
TOS was great - yes. We only really got to know about Kirk and Spock and to a lesser extent Bones.
S, U, S and C were just 'extras' with a few extra lines... really. They probably had more development than Chakotay though!
TNG we got to know more about ALL the characters than we did in TOS.
Middy sounds like he/she needs a good dose of DS9. It has everything your talking/complaining about. The least explored character would probably have been Jadzia.
BUT Who really cares. And who cares about no arcs. It's the stories and the characters that count.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
the more modern series of Trek have definitely struck me as being more ensemble efforts, with much more screen time for characters who perhaps wouldn't have been used as much in TOS. Possibly this contributed to the bitty nature of some TNG etc. episodes. More bredth, less depth perhaps.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Jake was explored less.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
I can't help but agree with all of your points Middy Seafort. I always wanted to see a follow-up from the first season episode "Conspiracy", now that would have been good.
The first two seasons were pretty bad in my opinion, with the first being bloody awful. For me, TNG really started kicking ass in season 3 and started dropping off somewhere around the end of season 5/start season 6. Whether it was the scripts or me just growing up and getting hooked on DS9 I don't know. But I enjoyed seasons 6 & 7.
In either case, you're right Middy Seafort, they did miss a lot of opportunities - a pity, for they may have made TNG that tiny bit better (not that it was bad - it was good, while it lasted).
-AK Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
Hello, all.
I'm glad to see that the discussion I hoped would result from my first post has taken off.
By the numbers, gents.
quote: Originally posted by AndrewR: "The New Star Trek" - but you wanted closely linked story arcs. It wouldn't have been Star Trek then - or a 24th century of TOS. TOS had less continuity than TNG. and I DON'T mean ARCs when I say continuity - I hate how that word has been perverted.
While the word arc has been thrown around and mentioned, I was pondering just an ongoing, developing storyline that folded over the course of serveral episodes like "Hill Street Blues" and "L.A. Law," but not fully plotted out to exact detail. I use the Q/Trial angle as one story element that could've been allowed to grow and grow.
Rather, than continuity, I was thinking more along the lines of character development as well.
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: TOS was great - yes. We only really got to know about Kirk and Spock and to a lesser extent Bones.
S, U, S and C were just 'extras' with a few extra lines... really. They probably had more development than Chakotay though!
Agreed, however, I am not taking about TOS. It was a product of its time; anthology storytelling over ongoing. In fact, TOS, as originally concieved was the story of a ship's captain much like Horatio Hornblower but in space instead of the high seas. TOS from the get-go was just about Kirk, but when Spock proved popular he became a forefront character.
Harlan Ellison recalled in his "City on the Edge of Forever" book that he was disapointed that "Star Trek" at that time didn't have the characters grow and change as the episodes progressed.
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: TNG we got to know more about ALL the characters than we did in TOS.
Did we? Did we really? We got to know them, get familar with their character traits. But did they grow beyond those traits. Did they ever go left, when you fully expected them to go right?
Let's take a line from "All Good Things..." , which I think really summerizes the flaws in TNG well.
Q: "...and what have we seen. You worrying about Commander Riker's career decisions, listening to Counselor Troi's padantic psycho-babble, helping Data in his witless exploration of humanity." (I've paraphrased from memory, forgive me if it is not exact.)
Riker never got his command. Troi never moved beyond her psycho-babble. And Data was not one step closer to being human.
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Middy sounds like he/she needs a good dose of DS9. It has everything your talking/complaining about. The least explored character would probably have been Jadzia.
I, being male, did enjoy DS9 and was going to cite that as an example of what TNG could've done. But I didn't because I felt that would alienate the arguement more than B5.
Besides, I wanted to use a series that was more of a counterpoint than DS9. B5 provides that since it was the first of the new breed of SF-TV that challanged Trek's hold of the airwaves.
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: BUT Who really cares. And who cares about no arcs. It's the stories and the characters that count.
Apparently, I do. You do. And those who have already participated. Yes, it is about the stories and characters. That's why I started this topic.
Too bad, many of the TNG episodes you could just juggle the characters around, put in Riker instead of Geordi, and it wouldn't have changed the course of the story one iota.
I thank everyone for sharing there views.
Discuss further.
Middy Seafort
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Data is barely the same character between Farpoint and "All Good Things..."
Being seven at the time, I can't really speak to expectations, though I had watched TOS reruns for some time before that. But the fact remains that, from my point of view, TNG was a well written, well acted television show. Anything beyond that is just gravy.
I suspect this may be a division of taste which we cannot breach. Some people seek out complicated plots, and if those are found in stories that are lacking in other areas, the plot makes up for it in their eyes. Others might want identifiable characters, or a story that's simply told in an aesthetically pleasing way. These different interests would seem not to be relatable. Plot does not intrinsically trump character, or vice versa.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Despite this thread/talk - I still think TNG was GREAT. The characters I still love and I can still watch an episode - CAPTIVATED when it is repeated.
While we might not have gone all 'troi' on knowing the insides of each character - we did get growth and change. We did get to know enough about these characters to CARE what happened to them. Voyager on the other-hand - we knew next to NOTHING about them, and what we did was constantly changed. So how could you form any sort of emotional attatchment to them? I would say maybe only the Doctor was the only one that you could empathise/feel/know on that show.
With Voyager as a whole - it's like reading a novel and having the characters change in each chapter. Change not as in growing but change as in fundamentally WHO they are to begin with. Voyager never set the ground work. We never knew where they were coming from. I think I have an article from the start of Voyager where Berman and Braga (not so much Jeri Taylor) didn't want to know ANYTHING about Janeway or Chakotay or Tuvok or Kim etc. Life before "Caretaker" - to be that is just ludicrous.
More episodes like the superb "Gravity" showing that TUVOK wasn't this emotionally staid person we've always seen him to be would have been fantastic. He just became another 'person' though. The brilliance of the relationship that was shown in Year of Hell between him and Seven (her carrying/guiding him through the hall) and him being the 'emotional rock' for Janeway was really fantastic. It just evaporated like one of Guinan's fancy drinks from "Time's Arrow".
I remember one of my questions to Ken Biller I think?? was answered at Trek Web about bringing that relationship between Tuvok and Seven back - he said no... cause their voices were both monotone. Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Personally, I think comparing what TNG was to what other Trek shows have been is sort of missing the point raised at the beginning.
TNG had a lot of interesting potential, but it fell into formula pretty quickly, and any tensions between the characters evaporated within the first handful of episodes (and don't blame Roddenberry for that...after all, he wanted Diana Muldar (Pulaski) in the show as a foil for Data, and she wasn't nice to him at all).
As to the merits of the show. TOS was very much a product of it's time, but TNG wasn't even a product of it's time. Aside from visual effects technology, it was behind the curve in almost every respect compared to the state of the art in the late 80s. Scripting, cinematography, scoring, acting styles...all rather stale.
Frankly, TNG tepidly failed to go where even contemporary dramas had gone before.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Whether or not TNG was as good as it could've been, at least it was a definite improvement over TOS. Same can be said for DS9. Sure DS9 could've been better, but it was a logical and creative improvement over TNG. Then along comes Voyager and we have a series which is clearly a step backwards from both DS9 and TNG. As for Enterprise, I don't think anything needs to be said.
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
Hello, all.
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I suspect this may be a division of taste which we cannot breach. Some people seek out complicated plots, and if those are found in stories that are lacking in other areas, the plot makes up for it in their eyes. Others might want identifiable characters, or a story that's simply told in an aesthetically pleasing way. These different interests would seem not to be relatable. Plot does not intrinsically trump character, or vice versa. [/QB]
It's the old Po-TAH-to, Po-ta-TO arguement. To each their own. However, plot and character are intrinsic to each other in any form of literature. Complicated plots with complicated characters are possible; it has been done in book-form SF for years. But it is all according to taste, upon that I agree with you.
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Despite this thread/talk - I still think TNG was GREAT. The characters I still love and I can still watch an episode - CAPTIVATED when it is repeated.
This is not a TNG-bashing topic. I did not start this topic to denounce TNG, but rather to get others to look at the whole of the series critically in a literary fashion. I have stated that I too enjoyed the seven season of TNG. I also wanted to pose the question, "Was there loss potential?"
It is up to everyone to decide for him/herselves.
quote: Originally posted by MrNeutron: TNG had a lot of interesting potential, but it fell into formula pretty quickly, and any tensions between the characters evaporated within the first handful of episodes (and don't blame Roddenberry for that...after all, he wanted Diana Muldar (Pulaski) in the show as a foil for Data, and she wasn't nice to him at all).
Indeed, he did try to add Pulaski as a foil for Data in an attempt to recreate the Spock-McCoy dynamic. However, there have been rumors that Gates McFadden's departure may have been much like the Michael O'Hare departure on B5 (not really a creative decision, but rather a studio-based one). I also wonder what would've been had Pulaski stayed, but that's another topic.
But Roddenberry did dicate from the very beginning that by TNG's time, humans had gotten over their petty problems. A noble aspiration, but I tend to believe more in the Nick Meyers and JMS notion that humans will still be humans... even 400 years from now. They'll still want a burger and a smoke. Besides, no matter how perfect someone is, he or she will still have a hard time getting along with everyone on board a ship filled with 1,000+ souls.
Carry on the debate.
Middy Seafort
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
There's just two points I want to address.
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: And Data was not one step closer to being human.
...
B5 provides that since it was the first of the new breed of SF-TV that challanged Trek's hold of the airwaves.
I disagree quite a bit with the first point. Data was very different by the time All Good Things rolled around.
And, really, B5 "challenged Trek's hold of the airwaves"? Do you really think it made any difference at all?
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: Riker never got his command. Troi never moved beyond her psycho-babble. And Data was not one step closer to being human.
For Riker, see "The Icarus Factor," "The Best of Both Worlds," "Second Chances," and "The Pegasus." For Troi, "Disaster," "Face of the Enemy," and "Thine Own Self." For Data, there are too many to mention, but "The Measure of a Man," "The Offspring," "Brothers," "Legacy," and "The Quality of Life" stick out the most. All those episodes show significant growth for the characters in question, moving them beyond their first season characterizations. I could cite similar milestones for Picard, Beverly, and Worf, and to a lesser extent, Geordi, Tasha, Wesley, and O'Brien.
quote:B5 provides that since it was the first of the new breed of SF-TV that challanged Trek's hold of the airwaves.
It did? In my market, TNG and B5 were on the same channel... B5 was juggled around frequently, while TNG kept the same prime-time spot it had since it premiered.
quote:Too bad, many of the TNG episodes you could just juggle the characters around, put in Riker instead of Geordi, and it wouldn't have changed the course of the story one iota.
This is true, but it still doesn't change the fact that most of the stories were unique and creative. The fact that they could work for almost any type of character makes them that much more appealing, IMO.
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
Hello, all.
I think my use of Babylon 5 and the manner in which I stated that it challanged Star Trek's of the airwaves has caused a bit of confusion.
I meant that it challanged, creatively, the dominant Trek control of SF TV. Everyone seems to think I meant ratings-wise.
Before B5, television execs thought the only successful SF TV could be Star Trek despite the floodgate opened by TNG. Something JMS dealt with when pitching the series in the TNG domintated television world.
Middy Seafort
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, I would be willing to bet that the only show that made any impact on the desirability of future shows in a similar vein was The X-Files.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Personally, I think comparing what TNG was to what other Trek shows have been is sort of missing the point raised at the beginning.
Ummm, why? It's showing what TNG did right and how something like Voyager got it very wrong.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Uh, I would be willing to bet that the only show that made any impact on the desirability of future shows in a similar vein was The X-Files.
You'd win that bet. As for the X-Files though, there would be no X-Files if it wasn't for TNG or Twin Peaks. Oh and some good casting! Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starship Millennium: For Data, there are too many to mention, but "The Measure of a Man," "The Offspring," "Brothers," "Legacy," and "The Quality of Life" stick out the most.
Indeed. I'd add "The Most Toys" - the ending was great.
Ro Laren had a pretty good development given her short amount of episodes. "The Next Phase" and yes, even "Rascals".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I am intensely skeptical that at any point in the process FOX executives said "Well, this new Star Trek seems fairly successful. I guess we should let this guy do his Kolchak: The Next Generation too."
Posted by Darkwing (Member # 834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: 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.
To me, I always felt that TNG went wrong somewhere. The characters often fell flat. The stories, while well written, lacked a certain spark for me. TNG should've been the "Hills Street Blues" of SF in the late 80's, but it wasn't. David Gerrold once said that "Babylon 5 was what TNG should've been." He was right.
Yes, I felt that DS9 got better the more it stole from B5.
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: "Encounter at Farpoint" shows a crew that could work together, but not always get along. They had flaws that were really never allowed to develop. Riker wanting his own command, but still attracted to a possible long-term relationship with Troi. Yar full of anger that she cannot control with a past she's not really over. Picard and Crusher, both attracted to own another and both afraid of the past that connects them. Even Riker and Picard had a bit of tension, when Riker first came aboard. Not to mention a "ship full of children."
Good points, all, and good fooder for interesting stories.
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: Why did Riker fear a long-term relationship, especially when this new age of Starfleet allowed families to journey aboard? Could Picard, the lonely explorer, now find time to have a family? What about the families? How do they react to being in a starship light years away from Earth? There were infinite directions and changes (something that rarely happened in TNG) that the characters could go through. Not to mention the fact that the very premise of the characters would be abandoned in later seasons-- like Riker's desire to command.
I understand that Roddenberry wanted Picard, Riker, and Wesley to represent one man at three different stages of life, and that that man was Roddenberry. That may shed some light on their foibles...
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: But there was also the potential for long-term storytelling; however, not necessarily a strict, plotted out arc like B5. Imagine how much more better "All Good Things" would've been had the trial and test aspect of the pilot became a constant undercurrent of the series, rather than Q popping in and out for a comedic visit or two a year. Like Picard says, "We have a long mission ahead of us, there must be many ways we could be tested."
Agreed. Several eps stand out as candidates for arcs, in my mind. The Child, for example, would have worked much better if the light that knocked Troi up had happened in the first quarter of the season, and her pregnancy had advanced over the season, with the payoff in the penultimate ep of the season.
Conspiracy should have been spread out. The scene with the captains on Ditallix B should have been a side event in a mid-season ep, with the mention of the Horatio's loss a few eps later, and the odd goings-on (old friends with no memory, strange transfers, etc) being noted from time to time, with the return to Earth being the last ep of the season. That would have made a lot more time for the events on Earth, and then the first ep of the new season should have started with Picard in consultation with Starfleet command over the worrisome signal and the huge workload ahead due to the compromised security, loss of senior personnel and ships, etc. Maybe mention of a longterm project to find out more about the parasites and imrpove security against them. This could have taken about ten minutes, wherein Picard would have to explain why he wants to remain on the E-D, instead of moving up, and why Riker wasn't quite ready yet to take a command of his own. Then the grist of the new ep could have taken place.
Chains of Command could have taken place over four or five eps, mixing in the events of atwo or three other eps with what happened in those two, which would have made Picard's loss appear more likely to be permanent, and the upset factor over Jellico a lot stronger.
Deja Q (I think - the one where Q lost his powers) was entirely too predictable. It would have been a lot better if Q had not gotten his powers back at the end. Laforge fixes the moon with advice from Q, the Calamarain are beaten back, and the show moves on. Every other ep, we see Q for a couple minutes, not dealing well with his situation (and adding some humor), until several eps later, Data sacrifices himself to save Q. Data is irreparable, and is then stored until Geordi can figure out what to do. Q is seen questioning himself and suffering guilt. We also see the other Q looking in on him from time to time, as a face in the corner of the screen, maybe talking to Q once or twice.
Finally, the ep after Data's sacrifice, Q asks that the Comtinuum give his life to Data. Receiving no answer, late in the ep, he steals a shuttle to save the ship from another attack by the Calamarain or similar old foe, and the other Q restores his powers. He then brings Data back to life before thanking Picard and moving on.
Thing is, since several eps were filmed at once, and put together in editing, so all this would have taken is editing the pieces into parts of several eps. Also, the actors would have had to agree in their contracts to being paid based on screen time, rather than per ep they appear in.
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: The potential in those two hours showed the promise of a series that would kick butt and take names, forever changing the way we looked at SF.
Discuss.
Middy Seafort
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darkwing: I understand that Roddenberry wanted Picard, Riker, and Wesley to represent one man at three different stages of life, and that that man was Roddenberry. That may shed some light on their foibles...
Indeed, I read that somewhere once, as well. Too bad that triad didn't really seem to interact much with one another in a way that demonstrated the three ages of the explored man.
Re: Episode arcs
Darkwing, You make some very good choices for storylines that could've been streatched out. The most intriguing is "The Child." You are right, that episode would've had more impact had the pregnacy been suspended over a period of time building to the climatic birth and then the repercussions. That episode hadn't really come to mind.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)