How do Niners feel about TNG?

[Praxius]

I personally don't get all the hate-on over TNG, Picard and the philosophy being presented in TNG.

My wife and I just finished our DS9 watching and last night we watched the very first episode of TNG. I never once saw any notion that Humanity/Federation was superior or perfect in such a way that everybody should adopt their ways.

Q challenged them that humanity was still something like a primitive child race or whatever and was going to punish all humanity for its past history and actions.

Picard never once claimed humanity was perfect, but he did argue that humanity grew beyond the petty things Q was charging them for and claiming humanity was still the same.

The entire moral of TNG from start to finish, in my view, was that yes, compared to today's society and way of life, things are a hell of a lot better and humanity did strive beyond all the petty crap our countries, governments & societies are currently stuck in..... but at the same time, Q throughout the entire series, even in the very first episode, continually showed Picard humility and also showed that Humanity still has a looooonnnggg way to go.

I never once saw the TNG characters as all perfect and Uber 733t..... every one of them had flaws and issues to over come.

Picard right from the start was a tight ass, didn't know how to turn off the professionalism button, couldn't stand children, was continually challenging the abilities of his crew and ship and tried his best to stick to the Prime Directive as best as possible (It was the Flag Ship afterall.... not just some obscure space station on the "frontier.")

Over the span of the series, Picard softened up, learned to be more personal with his crew, made mistakes, learned from those mistakes, showed how much he was affected by his actions as Locutus during the episode "Family".... learned to get passed his hangups with children by interacting more with Wes Crusher, the Captain Picard Day where all the kids made little figures and such of him...... he grew into a relationship with Beverly and in the very final episode, he finally sits down to play some poker with the crew he kept trying to distance himself from and says he should have done this a long time ago.

There were many points in the series where they showed Picard wasn't at all perfect, in fact because of himself constantly trying to give off this "Perfect" persona, it exposed his flaws in his life from being this way and being so detached.

Data with all his perfections, was also not perfect and allowed his adventures of trying to understand humanity more to occasionally put the crew at risk, or even himself.

Riker wasn't perfect, because even with all the sharship command offers given to him over the years, he continually chose to be the 1st officer of the Enterprise, claiming that there is no other ship like the Enterprise, but that was a cover for his problems of not thinking he's really that good and had to face his problems of self confidence during "Best of Both Worlds" where he not only had to take command of the Enterprise, but also out smart Picard/Locutus.

I never once saw TNG giving the impression that humanity was perfect and flawless, but they did continually give the impression that there's a lot more work we have to do to better ourselves far beyond the petty crap that grips our current lives in today's society.

Some here seem to give the impression that they think Gene's version of the future is way beyond reality, shows a perfect Utopia way of life and that we'll never see such a future..... some also comment that it makes them sick or ill to even see episodes where they boast of such a way of life.

That's their opinion.... an opinion I don't agree with and find flawed. Then again, I suppose it depends on where you live in the world and what your current society is like. Do I think Gene's concept of the future could be possible, or close to?

I believe it is possible. Is that blind or wishful thinking?

Hardly.

I see the potential in many people I see every day, people I know, people I just met walking down the street. There's a lot of problems in our lives right now.... or at least in most of our lives. When I got into TNG, I was in Jr. High School.... life was already a pile of crap at that time, I was never really a popular kid and at home, like at school, there wasn't much that made my life good, there wasn't much that gave me joy in life and at times, I wondered what the point of it all was and contemplated suicide on a number of occasions. Then one day out of the blue, nothing was on TV and I decided to watch TNG and for some reason, it stuck with me, I was interested in this show I always thought was boring and was about nothing.... like Star Wars (which I hate)

I am not about to say that TNG saved my life or whatever, but it did help me realize that there was more to life, more beyond the trivial crap I was going through and that there is a possibility that life can be better..... I'm certainly in a much better place in my life then I was back then and I will admit that growing up on TNG helped me change how I look at the world.

If people want a better way of life, then one has to work towards it. People scoff at the idea of a "Utopia" way of life that's shown on TNG...... and believe it'd never happen because it's just ridiculous...... But if people have that frame of mind and feel something will never happen, then it never will because they'll never try. Things don't get handed to you upon command, each of us has to work towards accomplishing something.

What's the alternative?

Keep living the way we currently are? Corrupt governments, politicians who never listen to us and stab us in the back once they get power? Various religions finger pointing at one another for one fault or another? Wars? Racism? Capitalism?

We've seen how all this improves our way of life. *sarcasm*

^ That's not exactly an alternative, because that way of living will never last.... no matter what your personal beliefs are, the above way of living has only one logical conclusion.

About 10 years ago, I written up a detailed new form of government that revolves around not just Digital/Direct Democracy, but also on much of the principles given in Star Trek (TNG in particular) I took the time to incorporate some of the concepts expressed in TNG and used them in an approach that could realistically work in today's way of life. I spread it around the internet over the years to get feedback and suggestions on improvement, because one person can't suggest what is best for everybody.

I've had mixed responses.... many people like the theory with some of their own suggestions, some loved it..... and then there's the people like some in here I see, who read the first two lines and then toss it aside and claim it's impossible and would never work. That's their opinion, but an uneducated one (especially when they never read what it all entails)

Their reasons when asked, is that they claim it'll never work because the corrupt people in power would never allow it to happen in the first place..... or they claim society is too beaten to bother to care for such change..... or people are simply too greedy and selfish to give a damn.

If that was really the case, then the American Revolution would have never happened, people would have let Nazi Germany steam roll over the entire planet, woman wouldn't be able to vote today, minorities would still be working in crap jobs, black people would still be sitting in the back of the bus and using separate public washrooms..... It takes people to believe in something that doesn't currently exist and it requires those people taking action to make it exist.... usually at risk of their own safety.... that's how change really occurs.... sacrifice.

It's not easy, but anything worthwhile never is. The question isn't if something is easy or hard, the question is "Is it possible & do you want it to happen?"

Gene was ahead of his time.... he's still ahead of the current times.... some people think his views were entertaining.... some people think they're ridiculous and a waste of time..... and others believe in it just as he did.

For those who think the ideas Gene gave us are junk, you're entitled to your opinion..... Speaking for myself, I don't think they're junk, I think they're logical and very possible, even in today's society.

I am not a pessimist or an optimist.... I've been continually been identified by those who know me as a Realist.... and through my own works and studies over the years, I believe Gene's future (more or less) is indeed realistic and possible..... but it all depends on what you want, not just what I want..... and that's the key.

This is all just what makes sense to me, I'm not trying to claim I'm some expert, it's just my opinion and I'm just expressing myself just as others are in here.... but from what I've read in the last couple of pages, I felt that I needed to say something as a differing point of view.

Praxius, I really liked reading that. TNG had a similar influence on me when I was growing up - and it continues to help me now. I was dismayed when I read some of the comments that were made about TNG, earlier in this thread. I'm glad that you have addressed them. It was an excellent post.

[TheGodBen]

I have no problem with the idea that Earth is a paradise of sorts, and even if a group of people don't like living on what pretty much amounts to a socialist Earth, there's hundreds of habitable planets in Federation that those people can settle on to get away from Earth. The near-utopian Earth isn't a problem for me, Earth is but one planet, we hardly ever see it in the shows. So long as the frontier of deep space has interesting things going on then Earth can be the most boring planet in the universe for all I care.

What's a problem for me is that Gene took his ideals to crazy extremes. For example, I've heard that in the original script for BOBW Picard was going to have his arm lopped off and replaced with a Borg arm, and once he was rescued he would get a replacement arm that would be indistinguishable from his real arm. Gene shot it down on the basis that in the future people's limbs wont be amputated.

What the hell?!

Because Earth is a paradise that means that accidents can't happen? People can't lose their limbs in combat? The Borg, a soulless entity determined to assimilate the galaxy, would adhere to Roddenberry's utopian principles as well? That makes absolutely no sense. It's idealism gone mad. It's also one of the reasons why Ira Behr had to fight Berman for Nog to lose his leg, because Berman was trying to protect Gene's vision and Ira Behr was trying to tell a good story.

indolover wrote:

---

Earth was said to be a paradise, no war, no poverty, etc. This is the whole idea of the franchise.

How did DS9 contradict this? There's still no poverty or war on Earth in DS9.

[Anwar]

Are you sure about that? I mean, Gene was okay with Geordi being blind instead of getting new eyes or whatever.

[TheGodBen]

I can't be sure of it, but that's the story I've been told.

[Marth22]

I like TNG but overall I prefer Deep Space Nine overall as a series, you can't beat this classic sorry it was too well made and the story is really compelling.

I prefer to see TNG and DS9 as one long continuous story. It is true that there is much of TNG season 1 that is very idiosyncratic (to say the least). However, TNG season 1 did manage to establish what was happening in the 24th century - in terms of treaties, new threats, and so on. It established the new technology, how humanity had developed, and what had happened since the time of Kirk and Spock. An awful lot of what went on in DS9 was built on the foundation that TNG laid down in season one.
TNG improved, and by season 3 it really found its rhythm. For some reason, certain very bizarre falsehoods developed about the show. I think Praxius wrote a really great post earlier, and as well as exploding those falsehoods, he articulated the spirit of TNG.
TNG carries on, and then we are introduced to DS9 and Benjamin Sisko. In Emissary we see what happened to Sisko and his family at Wolf 359 - and the very personal connection he has with Picard. TNG ends and DS9 continues the story on its own.
From Encounter At Farpoint to What You Leave Behind is one long narrative. There is a definite shift in tone about midway through as the war starts, and the values that were espoused in TNG are tested in DS9. In my opinion, for the most part, they held up.

[flemm]

Mr Cool Dude wrote:

---

the values that were espoused in TNG are tested in DS9.

Excellent post overall, and I think this point is particularly perceptive. DS9 puts Trek overall and TNG in particular to the test. Creatively speaking, it uses the world that TNG established as a kind of constraint that it stretches, turns inside out, unravels, deconstructs and examines.

Having TNG's idealistic world to work with (and against) is a resource that DS9 had that most comparable shows do not have: there is a past history there that grants the show a historical and moral depth that is more compelling than any simple "backstory" that a show might come up with from scratch to shape its characters and storyline.

I compare this to the LotR, which is pretty much the reference as far as world-building is concerned. These novels attain a sense of depth and "reality" of the fictional world that has rarely been equaled since, imo for one simple reason: the world already existed when Tolkien wrote the LotR. He had invented the languages and mythology of Middle Earth over the course of many years since childhood as a pastime that he never even intended to publish. Then he wrote a story for his nephew (The Hobbit) that his brother suggested he publish. Its popularity led to the LotR.

So, by the time the LotR was composed, Tolkien had this pre-existing universe to work with and build upon that he didn't just invent on the spot to serve as backstory for the novels. This is a dynamic that can't really be created from scratch because at that point, by definition, you are creating the backstory with your current story in mind.

TNG provides that pre-existing world for DS9 to work with as a resource, which is why the show has a depth that it couldn't have created all by itself. DS9 certainly would not have been possible without what TNG had established. However, what DS9 did right (that Voyager unfortunately did not do) was take the established universe and send it in a new direction, subvert it, analyse it, create something new with that resource.

[Kelso]

I love me some TNG. Great show.

[RandyS]

Kelso wrote:

---

I love me some TNG. Great show.

That it is.

[indolover]

TheGodBen wrote:

---

I have no problem with the idea that Earth is a paradise of sorts, and even if a group of people don't like living on what pretty much amounts to a socialist Earth, there's hundreds of habitable planets in Federation that those people can settle on to get away from Earth. The near-utopian Earth isn't a problem for me, Earth is but one planet, we hardly ever see it in the shows. So long as the frontier of deep space has interesting things going on then Earth can be the most boring planet in the universe for all I care.

What's a problem for me is that Gene took his ideals to crazy extremes. For example, I've heard that in the original script for BOBW Picard was going to have his arm lopped off and replaced with a Borg arm, and once he was rescued he would get a replacement arm that would be indistinguishable from his real arm. Gene shot it down on the basis that in the future people's limbs wont be amputated.

What the hell?!

Because Earth is a paradise that means that accidents can't happen? People can't lose their limbs in combat? The Borg, a soulless entity determined to assimilate the galaxy, would adhere to Roddenberry's utopian principles as well? That makes absolutely no sense. It's idealism gone mad. It's also one of the reasons why Ira Behr had to fight Berman for Nog to lose his leg, because Berman was trying to protect Gene's vision and Ira Behr was trying to tell a good story.

How did DS9 contradict this? There's still no poverty or war on Earth in DS9.

I guess I was just balancing the discussion lol.

DS9 did have over TNG that it had better character development and continuity, but all of Trek is based on the idea that humanity is evolved/different in the future. DS9 did depart from this.

TOS was not all kum-bye-yah and harmony. Bones, whilst being one of Spock's best friends on the ship, often made speciesist/racist comments to Spock but it showed that humans had overcome many of our faults in the present. One point is that Gene was looking at 1960s America and making a reference from that. This to me is part of the appeal of Trek as a franchise.

Saying that the Roddenberry vision is unrealistic or that human nature can never change is by the by, but DS9 in my opinion did go against it somewhat.

[J. Allen]

I started watching TNG when it premiered in 1987. Up until that time I had been a hardcore TOS fan (I was only 7), but when TNG made it's way into our living room, I had to watch, and was always held at rapt attention. As I grew older, the show still resonated with me. In 1993, Deep Space Nine premiered, and I watched the first couple of episodes and didn't really feel interested. Where were the bright lights? Where was the feeling of comraderie between Officers and crew? I didn't watch it consistently until about 2002/2003, and got a hold of some DS9 VHS tapes. I found that I enjoyed the series now, and that I understood it's context. I started recording episodes on TV, watching as many as I could, and over time, I felt myself started to sway from being a TNG fan to being more of a DS9 fan. I believe "In the Pale Moonlight" triggered my switch in allegiance. I became a Niner after that episode (about 2004/2005 is when I saw it).

Today, I consider myself a Niner, but I think TNG is still an excellent show.

[ClayHefner]

What I like about DS9 is that they took this idea of a utopian society seriously and not try to undermine it, never questioned the ideals of the Federation.

They did question the ideals and integrity of Starfleet, but that is another matter (and a wise choice).

[CaptainStoner]

Mr Cool Dude wrote:

---

Praxius, I really liked reading that. TNG had a similar influence on me when I was growing up - and it continues to help me now. I was dismayed when I read some of the comments that were made about TNG, earlier in this thread. I'm glad that you have addressed them. It was an excellent post.

I second that, although I didn't quite read all of Praxius' post.
And, if we look at the poll, the "hating on TNG" are a very small minority. Who are welcome of course to let their feelings be known.
As for me, I just don't buy the overly simplified cliche interpretation of TNG as uber-PC, or holier-than-thou. Yes, the future in Star Trek is supposed to show a generally more enlightened society. That is a PRIMARY ingredient of ST and you DO see it in DS9 as well - only then it is against a different backdrop. ST without an optimistic vision of our future simply is not ST.
Nor do I buy the false assertion that this aspect is not present in TOS - the hell it isn't. If anything, it's even stronger. Not that humanity is perfect, but that it is striving towards betterment, individually and as a whole. TOS regularly asserts those humanistic and uplifting values that are central to the ST theme.

As for being a "Niner", I suppose I am by some margin. I haven't seen VOY or ENT yet, so I can't address those. But DS9 to me felt like it hit the ground running. It built on the foundations of TNG - writing, production-wise, you name it. I can't really say I prefer DS9 that strongly, but the overall quality of DS9 is consistently higher from the getgo. Amazing show.

[tomalak301]

In the 7 years I've been here, I've never really seen the superiority complex that others saw in TNG other than in the first two seasons. Granted, maybe it's there, and maybe I just look at TNG in the whole "rose-colored glasses" (Since I grew up with it) but in the later seasons I didn't really see much of it. What I did see is a series that expanded on the universe that Star Trek created, and really gave the federation more teeth.

With DS9, the same can also be said, and I think both TNG and DS9 compliment each other very well. If TNG gave us that federation utopia, than DS9 expanded it to give us the other side. Ira Behr always brings this up and I agree with it, but the quote in Maquis, "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise" really is what DS9 wanted to accomplish. If someone asked me what is one thing that you would say DS9 is about, I was say that quote. It's the underlying theme of the show, it was just really awesome to see it explored.

DS9 also expanded the universe that TNG continued. It made it more organic, more real, and a lot more interesting. This is really why I absolutely love 90's Star Trek. It was a progression of the entire universe, covering all the basis and I was very interested in that. I like that the studio's brought Star Trek back to the masses with a reboot, and the whole debate on what Abrams did still continues, but I miss the 24th century universe. Star Trek was always about moving forward, and for 16 or so glorious years, it did just that. I miss it so much.