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.
posted
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
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.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
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.
posted
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.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
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
Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
"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.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
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.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
