RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,885
Posts: 5,329,799
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 509
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 15 2013, 07:54 AM   #16
Melakon
Vice Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

mos6507 wrote: View Post
Even the music is flat. Compare that to TOS which is positively melodramatic. And that's why the predominant experience while watching a TNG era show is one of, at best, mild amusement, but not the engrossing feeling of watching, let's say, City on the Edge of Forever, or Balance of Terror.
Totally agree, and it was one of the biggest problems I had with TNG. It got even worse when Berman fired Ron Jones, who wrote scores with actual melodies and character themes, including the memorable score for Best of Both Worlds. Apparently Berman didn't like his style, preferring the music to be less obtrusive. I wonder if part of Berman's problem was Jones previously working with Disney; maybe he felt Jones wrote "Mickey Mouse music." TOS' music were an important part of its style, with brassy, exciting scores by Fred Steiner, Gerald Fried, and others.
__________________
Curly: Moe, Larry, the cheese! Moe, Larry, the cheese! (Horses Collars, 1935)
Melakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2013, 07:58 AM   #17
Steven321
Ensign
 
Location: UK
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

I wonder what the odds would be for Hans Zimmer to do any future theme if it came about.
Steven321 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2013, 02:05 PM   #18
Trek Survivor
Captain
 
Location: UK
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

I don't think TNG was "cut short" - seven years is a very healthy run, it finished while it was on top (which is far better than running and running into obscurity/indifference from viewers) and it left the audience wanting more. Now, how Paramount then went ahead and gave that audience "more" - that deserves a little scrutiny I think.

Quite simply, we got too much Trek in such a short space of time. Here's how I, with hindsight, would've paced things:

1987 - TNG starts
1993 - DS9 starts
1994 - TNG ends
(only DS9 for this period)
1996 - First TNG Movie Released
1998 - Voyager (or different spin-off) starts
1999 - DS9 ends; 2nd TNG Movie
2002 - 3rd TNG Movie
2005 - Voyager/spin-off ends; 4th TNG Movie
2006 - Enterprise (or a different spin-off) starts

Just eases out that overkill/franchise fatigue we experienced from circa 1995-2000. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't complaining at the time, but in retrospect it was clearly responsible for the drop in quality/audience indifference.
__________________
Want an awesome read? Check out "Showdown: A Darker Evil Rising" on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Showdown-Darke...er+evil+rising
Trek Survivor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2013, 06:40 PM   #19
MikeS
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

Friends lasted 10 seasons. They should have ended that show at the end of the sixth. Keeping something on life support is not necessarily for the best.
__________________
One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energies, energies that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in... some sort of spaceship.
MikeS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2013, 06:55 PM   #20
Captrek
Rear Admiral
 
Captrek's Avatar
 
Location: Second star to the right
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

I think I would have preferred the other choice, because I like the TV series, but the TNG films suck. I don’t even like FC, which is generally regarded as one of the better films in Trek, I like GEN even less, and I cannot abide INS or NEM. Another season or two of the TV series might have been better.
Captrek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2013, 09:24 PM   #21
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

Originally when TNG ended and Generations was being produced, I (and pretty much everyone else) thought that was a great idea. The TNG cast, like the TOS cast, were logically making the transition to films, and DS9 would be able to pick up the slack for the small screen.

The reality of course was very different. DS9 and every other Trek series that came after it just got lower and lower ratings, while the films were anywhere from moderately successful to complete bombs.

So I changed my tune. I felt that instead of making the films, they should have continued TNG, but with a new cast. But since most TV shows that have a cast change after so many seasons inevitably get cancelled anyway not long after (and the fact that Voyager was basically the same as TNG anyway but for a different cast and ship, and that show was no ratings bonanza), that wasn't really the answer.

So basically I'm left with, "The transition to films was the right thing to do at the time...they should have just made better films." And, "They should have stopped producing TV Trek series while the films were being produced, and produce one show only after the movies had run their course, thereby putting all the money and focus on that one show, theoretically making it a better show."

Which, unsurprisingly, seems to be what is happening now.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2013, 10:27 PM   #22
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Originally when TNG ended and Generations was being produced, I (and pretty much everyone else) thought that was a great idea. The TNG cast, like the TOS cast, were logically making the transition to films, and DS9 would be able to pick up the slack for the small screen. </p>
The reality of course was very different. DS9 and every other Trek series that came after it just got lower and lower ratings, while the films were anywhere from moderately successful to complete bombs.

So I changed my tune. I felt that instead of making the films, they should have continued TNG, but with a new cast. But since most TV shows that have a cast change after so many seasons inevitably get cancelled anyway not long after (and the fact that Voyager was basically the same as TNG anyway but for a different cast and ship, and that show was no ratings bonanza), that wasn't really the answer.

So basically I'm left with, "The transition to films was the right thing to do at the time...they should have just made better films." And, "They should have stopped producing TV Trek series while the films were being produced, and produce one show only after the movies had run their course, thereby putting all the money and focus on that one show, theoretically making it a better show."


Which, unsurprisingly, seems to be what is happening now.
:thinks: There is much truth in this, though I do think the films and one television project can co-exist relatively peaceably. Just look at TFF/TUC, which were produced alongside TNG.

Another thing to factor in is that the original series movies were being produced by a completely different team to the TNG series, whereas the TNG films were all made by the very same production team who were balls deep in two other ongoing projects at the same time. Maybe what Berman should have done is moved over to dedicated film production, and left television Trek in the hands of a new broom. Or they could have moved TNG to the big screen, but given it over to experienced hands like Nick Meyer, leaving Berman solely in charge of television Trek. What they basically did in 1994 with Generations was move the film series "in-house", instead of it being a seperate, independent entity like it had been for the original series movies.

I do think moving TNG to film was a good idea. But from a production stand point it could have been handled a whole lot better.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2013, 10:36 PM   #23
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

It's hard to complain that a show that got 168 episodes was cut short.

Maybe an 8th season could have had some interesting episodes.

TNG could have produced so much better movies than it actually did.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2013, 10:51 PM   #24
tighr
Commodore
 
tighr's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

I think the decision to have the two continuation series set in the contemporary for TNG was the wrong move. Unfortunately, DS9 had already started by that time and was running concurrently with TNG.

After TNG ended, and we go to the film-era, Voyager should have been set in the 25th Century.

Enterprise was a bomb primarily because we had just watched 21 seasons of the 24th Century, with its rich history and full of characters, and we had already had TOS with 3 seasons of the 23rd century, none of which reference the fact that a ship named NX-01 Enterprise ever existed. It was doomed from the start.
__________________
~Tighr™: Not helping the situation since 1983
tighr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2013, 11:14 PM   #25
Minuet
Lieutenant Commander
 
Minuet's Avatar
 
Location: The marvelous progressive utopia of California
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

I think the show left on top. Creatively, even if the seventh season was a bit of a let down in a few ways, there were still a good amount of entertaining episodes, and the finale was easily the best finale of Trek, period. We often forget about episodes like "Attached," where Picard and Crusher finally come to grips with their feelings with each other, or seeing the ship from a unique, junior officer perspective in "Lower Decks."

There's so many good character arc endings in the seventh season that I can't fully dismiss the season outright. When it first aired, I was so in love with the characters that I was completely onboard, even though there was nothing as vividly memorable as "The Best of Both Worlds" or "The Inner Light" or "Family."

I think, if they had an eighth season, they could have regrouped, seen the faults of the previous season, and given us a higher quality finale season. But, as it stands, I love a lot of Season Seven (more than most people, I'd gather) and I wouldn't change anything.
__________________
"What's a knockout like you doing in a computer generated gin joint like this?"
Minuet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2013, 11:15 PM   #26
Minuet
Lieutenant Commander
 
Minuet's Avatar
 
Location: The marvelous progressive utopia of California
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

Although, I probably would have demanded that Riker get a goddamn promotion already.
__________________
"What's a knockout like you doing in a computer generated gin joint like this?"
Minuet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2013, 01:31 AM   #27
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

tighr wrote: View Post
I think the decision to have the two continuation series set in the contemporary for TNG was the wrong move. Unfortunately, DS9 had already started by that time and was running concurrently with TNG.

After TNG ended, and we go to the film-era, Voyager should have been set in the 25th Century.

Enterprise was a bomb primarily because we had just watched 21 seasons of the 24th Century, with its rich history and full of characters, and we had already had TOS with 3 seasons of the 23rd century, none of which reference the fact that a ship named NX-01 Enterprise ever existed. It was doomed from the start.
I thought Enterprise was a bomb because the writing was terrible for the first 2 1/3 seasons.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2013, 03:29 PM   #28
Use of Time
Commodore
 
Use of Time's Avatar
 
Location: Va. Beach, VA
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

Seven seasons was fine with me. Season 7 was suffering at times and if you read some of the background for that season the writers were really struggling to find new arcs and stories. It's possible that fresh writer's could have revived it but at the end of the day I think the show rant its course.
__________________
Searching for something, a million miles and a ways to go.
Use of Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2013, 07:54 PM   #29
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

tighr wrote: View Post
After TNG ended, and we go to the film-era, Voyager should have been set in the 25th Century.
But how would setting Voyager in the 25th century have been any different? They were stranded in the Delta Quadrant, so whatever century it was in the Alpha Quadrant would have made no difference.

Enterprise was a bomb primarily because we had just watched 21 seasons of the 24th Century, with its rich history and full of characters, and we had already had TOS with 3 seasons of the 23rd century, none of which reference the fact that a ship named NX-01 Enterprise ever existed. It was doomed from the start.
Enterprise did not fail because it was a prequel, or because the ship was named the Enterprise. It failed because people were sick of Star Trek, and it failed because people were running out of ideas and ran the brand into the ground, and it failed because it was more expensive to produce it than what it was returning in profit.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2013, 11:31 PM   #30
tighr
Commodore
 
tighr's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Do you agree with TNG being cut short for the movies/other shows?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
tighr wrote: View Post
After TNG ended, and we go to the film-era, Voyager should have been set in the 25th Century.
But how would setting Voyager in the 25th century have been any different? They were stranded in the Delta Quadrant, so whatever century it was in the Alpha Quadrant would have made no difference.
Because we already knew what ships from the 24th century were capable of, particularly the Galaxy class (which was brand new as of TNG S1), so a much smaller Intrepid class ship should have had nowhere near the capabilities of the larger Galaxy class ship, especially without frequent stops at a starbase. It would have been more believable in the 25th Century, where random technobabble could be pulled out of their asses and the writer's could pass it of as "oh yeah, that got invented sometime in the last 50 years, you just never heard about it".
__________________
~Tighr™: Not helping the situation since 1983
tighr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 AM.

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