King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:
I don't think it's a generational thing. I grew up on TOS as well, but the 24th century shows are more to my liking. I prefer character driven drama over science fiction. TOS is a show about science fiction concepts and is very light on characterization. On the other hand, the 24th century shows are about the characters. The plots exist to develop the characters or put them through situations to see how they react. "The Inner Light" wasn't about a society facing its last days; it was about Picard experiencing the life that he gave up for his career.
That's about the exact opposite of my interpretation. I see TOS as being about the characters first. Them and their interactions keep me watching even through the worst episodes. I think David Gerrold once called it a buddy cop show in space pretending to be sci-fi.
TNG I see as a group of unrelatable, unrealistic and ultra-PC characters going through far less colourful adventures.
The TOS characters might be more fun (although I disagree with that), but they have no depth. Uhura, Chekov, Sulu, and Scotty are little more than nameless extras and even the much-vaunted big three are nothing more than a single characteristic (logic, emotion, and dashing hero) that defines their entire existence. Even Harry Kim had more to his character than that. However, I will concede that the films do flesh out the characters a bit more. I am a huge fan of the TOS films (2, 3, 4, and 6).
As for TNG, I preferred the less colorful adventures. "The Drumhead" is one of the first episodes that come to mind when I think about episodes that define Star Trek. It was a bottle episode where characters sat around various rooms discussing things, but talking can often be far more exciting and eventful than the most action-packed adventure. When Admiral Satie had her breakdown in the final coutroom scene and was tearing into Picard I found that far more engaging than anything in TOS. Those are the scenes that made me a Star Trek fan; not Kirk throwing rocks at a lizard.
I don't prefer one over the other. Put on an episode of the first 3 series and I will be happy. I have a sense of wonderment about what we would find in space, and therefore, I like science fiction, especially the optimism of the Star Trek universe. When I bought the remastered Star Trek Season 1
a couple of months ago, I enjoyed episodes like The Man Trap
, Charlie X
, Where No Man Has Gone Before
, The Naked Time
, The Enemy Within
, What are Little Girls Made of
, The Corbomite Maneuver
, Return of the Archons
, Space Seed
, Devil in the Dark
, Errand of Mercy
, The Alternative Factor
, and City on the Edge of Forever
What I didn't enjoy were the episodes that treated women like crap (The Conscience of a King
anyone?) and the iconic Arena
and Balance of Terror
. I thought they were straight bad-guy stories that I've seen too much of.
As for when I bought the 4th season of TNG
a month later, I enjoyed Family
, Data's Day
, The Wounded
, First Contact
, Galaxy's Child
, Night Terrors
, The Nth Degree
, The Drumhead
, Half a Life
, The Host
, In Theory
, and the partial season cliffhangers BOBW, II
and Redemption, I
What I didn't enjoy--Remember Me, which is fast-forward-worthy, Final Mission which was just bad acting from Wil Wheaton, The Loss which featured over-the-top acting from Marina Sirtis, and the rest I was indifferent on.
So it's not a battle of 23rd versus 24th centuries. I think it's prime universe versus the last 2 films. There's been a lot of destruction in JJ Abrams universe and I don't see positive outcomes from that. I think it hurts the franchise that we can't do a story that doesn't involve a galactic war.