The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   General Trek Discussion (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   How would '94/'95 have been better spent? (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=200386)

ThankQ January 15 2013 04:11 AM

How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
From a post in TNG, new kid here got me thinking....

Quote:

Steven321 wrote: (Post 7536460)
I had never really looked to much into it before as I was only 11 when the last TNG movie came out lol, but recently I have started a re-watch of TNG and started to read into the final season, with the actors being contracted to 8 seasons, and only 7 being made, reasons being that the cast would be available sooner to start on the movies,and to prompt fans to watch more of DS9 and Voyager (among other reasons).

But do you think that they were right in their decision to cut the series down by one season?

I've heard that, too, and I assume there is some truth to it.

I also think that most of us agree that Season 7 of TNG was the weakest since 1/2, so it makes me wonder if season 8 would have been worth much...

That being said, Season 1 of Voyager wasn't exactly The West Wing or M*A*S*H, and it didn't have the characters we'd fallen in love with.

So, if we could do 1994-1995 all over again, surely we would spend less time following the OJ trial, but which Trek would we choose?

ElimParra January 15 2013 04:39 AM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
Not sure what to say here, as around this time, we found out about the dominion, so it would have been interesting to see how tng dealt with them, but some folks, may been a little confusing, to some viewers, who weren't fans of ds9.

In the end, best as it was.

Nerys Myk January 15 2013 05:20 AM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
What's the third option?

ThankQ January 15 2013 05:28 AM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
Quote:

Nerys Myk wrote: (Post 7536847)
What's the third option?

An extra season of Enterprise... slotted between 1 and 2.

RandyS January 15 2013 05:54 AM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
Quote:

ThankQ wrote: (Post 7536613)
So, if we could do 1994-1995 all over again, surely we would spend less time following the OJ trial, but which Trek would we choose?

If I could do 1994 over again, I would, and for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with Star Trek. That was one of the best years of my life. Well, except for one thing.

As far as Star Trek of that period however, the only thing that really needs fixing is not destroying the Enterprise-D. There was no point to that at all.

And I agree about the damned OJ trail. I didn't follow it, but I DID get sick of it pre-empting my favorite shows for months on end.

CorporalClegg January 15 2013 06:23 AM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
I would say neither. In retrospect, I think the best option would have been to just run DS9 on its own for awhile, assuming they could've re-worked the syndication contract and move it to UPN.

It would have been the perfect time to do it since the show was essentially being rebooted with season 3 anyway. It would have given it the stronger showing in many markets that it badly needed, and they could have easily rewritten "The Search" to add some "catch-up" exposition for new viewers.

This would also have allowed for more prep time for Voyager--something it badly needed.

As far as the film, it would have been better to wait for that too until they could bring in some outside talent in a few areas. Carson is a fine director; however, he directed the film the same way he directed episodes of TNG and DS9 which is a big reason why it has the "glorified episode" feel. Same goes with McCarthy's score. He scored the film like the umpteen different episodes he scored--with the excessive use of the middle-register horns. Yeesh.

It also would have given Braga and Moore time to tighten up their script.

I seem to recall reading once the reason why it was rushed was so they could ensure they got Dee into it. But since he ended not in it anyway, I don't see why they couldn't have postponed.

Trek Survivor January 15 2013 02:00 PM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
Crucially, Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner were NOT contracted for an 8th season and were using all their negotiating power (as the "star" and "most popular character") to get more money. The others, of course, would probably do Star Trek for free if somebody would let them.

I voted for an 8th season, though, on the proviso that season 7 suffered in quality as a result of the attention "Generations" got, and that if there were an 8th season this problem wouldn't be there.

Felidae January 15 2013 02:21 PM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
I think another season of TNG. Giving Voyager some more prep time for the first season wouldn't have been bad, plus another season TNG is great, no matter how bad it was, when I watch a series like this I am addicted to the world and characters so more is always a good thing.

That said, I was 12 in 1994, so not really into that sorta discussion then, more into starting highschool and such. Think me and mom only started watching TNG a year before that or so, so I wasn't as far as season 8 by then.. ;)

Tosk January 15 2013 02:29 PM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
Quote:

CorporalClegg wrote: (Post 7537063)
I would say neither. In retrospect, I think the best option would have been to just run DS9 on its own for awhile, assuming they could've re-worked the syndication contract and move it to UPN.

All things considered, I'm very glad that never happened.

Seven of Five January 15 2013 04:38 PM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
Yeah, Star Trek on UPN was up against it a lot of the time.

It's interesting to think what could have happened if TNG had continued. Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner would have eaten up a lot more of the budget, but I would have thought that with a hypothetical 8th season, there wouldn't be any VOY or GEN to distract the producers. Seasons 7 and 8 may have been more on season 6's level of quality. It's a very hypothetical situation though.

What I think should have happened that might have been beneficial, is for GEN to have been put into production after TNG finished. VOY was distracting enough for the producers, so leaving the film till things were up and running may have been sensible.

PaulMarshall January 17 2013 06:04 PM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
Voyager season 1 all day but it would still be cool to see a couple extra tng seasons

Kadratis January 17 2013 06:26 PM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
Quote:

RandyS wrote: (Post 7536967)
As far as Star Trek of that period however, the only thing that really needs fixing is not destroying the Enterprise-D. There was no point to that at all.

This! :bolian:

King Daniel Into Darkness January 17 2013 06:29 PM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
Would 94/95 be too late to do that Star Trek: The Academy Years prequel?

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/22789

BillJ January 17 2013 07:54 PM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
Create a new series under the TNG banner with season seven serving as the phase-in to new characters.

Gary7 January 17 2013 08:03 PM

Re: How would '94/'95 have been better spent?
 
TNG was getting tired. The "same old thing"... zipping about your known quadrants and dealing with ever more "desperate to be creative" alien encounters. The cast was also getting tired. You could tell this in their performances, for the most part. Also, the episodic nature was getting tired too. DS9 introduced a more serialized approach and VOY picked up on it to some degree.

VOY started out well, but stumbled in the early seasons. Once the Kazon and Seska were out of the way, it began to "get going". Sure, it wasn't perfect and there were some characters easily disliked (like Neelix, although I think it took many seasons of character building to begin appreciating him more), but I thought this was a good series in many respects.

TNG ended when it should have. It was time.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.