How do Niners feel about TNG?

[Admiral Shran]

Praxius wrote:

---

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?

I can readily agree that we need to get rid of corrupt governments, uncaring politicans, religious hatred, wars, and racism. But capitalism? Capitalism is what gave us the comfortable world will live in today.

You say it's simply unsustainable. Well, hasn't history proven that the alternatives to capitalism are what's really unsustainable?

As much as I love Star Trek, I would never want to live on the Trek-verse Earth. It's WAY too socialistic.

flemm wrote:

---

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.

That is an excellent analogy and one I can completely agree with. I'm currently in the process of watching Babylon 5 for the first time. While I've heard so many others talk about how wonderful the show is - I just don't see it as anything special. Yes, it's entertaining, but nothing great. Maybe it's because of something like this. It has nothing to build on like DS9 did, and that hampers it somewhat. However, I'm only into season two right now, so I'll reserve my final judgment.

[Tulaberry whine]

Admiral Shran wrote:

---

I'm currently in the process of watching Babylon 5 for the first time. While I've heard so many others talk about how wonderful the show is - I just don't see it as anything special. Yes, it's entertaining, but nothing great. Maybe it's because of something like this. It has nothing to build on like DS9 did, and that hampers it somewhat. However, I'm only into season two right now, so I'll reserve my final judgment.

Well, B5 dramatically improves in season 2 so don't be too quick to judge. However, IMO B5 is the text book definition of a show that's aged badly (the irony that I've said that in a thread about TNG is not lost on me ), so YMMV.

[tomalak301]

Tulaberry whine wrote:

---

Well, B5 dramatically improves in season 2 so don't be too quick to judge. However, IMO B5 is the text book definition of a show that's aged badly (the irony that I've said that in a thread about TNG is not lost on me ), so YMMV.

Why do you say B5 has aged badly. Perhaps because I just saw it and it's still quite fresh, I do have a different perspective, but I would love to hear yours.

[Anthony Sabre]

This is always a difficult question for me to answer. At the time of TNG's run, I loved the show. DS9 gradually edged it out as my favorite but I still really enjoyed the show. What makes answering the question hard now is that I can barely bring myself to rewatch a TNG episode unless it's a stand out episode like Yesterday's Enterprise, Chain of Command, or maybe Best of Both Worlds. I rewatch DS9 episodes regularly, even episodes that some would consider to just be filler, like the Ferengi stuff. If I had to rank overall the frequency in which I rewatch Trek it would be:

DS9
ENT
TOS
TNG
VOY

[Pemmer Harge]

tomalak301 wrote:

---

Why do you say B5 has aged badly. Perhaps because I just saw it and it's still quite fresh, I do have a different perspective, but I would love to hear yours.

Personally, I think it's aged at least as well as DS9.

[TheGodBen]

Admiral Shran wrote:

---

I can readily agree that we need to get rid of corrupt governments, uncaring politicans, religious hatred, wars, and racism. But capitalism? Capitalism is what gave us the comfortable world will live in today.

You say it's simply unsustainable. Well, hasn't history proven that the alternatives to capitalism are what's really unsustainable?

As much as I love Star Trek, I would never want to live on the Trek-verse Earth. It's WAY too socialistic.

Capitalism could not work in the TNG-verse. Capitalism only works in a world with limited resources and we assign value to that resource based on the quantity of it available and how difficult it is to make. However, in TNG it appears that energy is near-limitless, and replicators can create whatever you desire in a matter of seconds. As a result, there's no value to anything, everything is practically in infinite supply. In the TNG-verse, capitalism is simply obsolete.

Personally, of all the fantasy and sci-fi universes I know of, the TNG-verse is the one I would most like to live in. It's not perfect, and the laws of physics say that it's impossible, but I would love to live in a world where there's no war or poverty, and whatever I want I can have. A universe where a man like Joseph Sisko runs a restaurant because he enjoys it, not because he feels he has to pay off his mortgage. It's not quite paradise, but it's better than what we have now.

That is an excellent analogy and one I can completely agree with. I'm currently in the process of watching Babylon 5 for the first time. While I've heard so many others talk about how wonderful the show is - I just don't see it as anything special. Yes, it's entertaining, but nothing great. Maybe it's because of something like this. It has nothing to build on like DS9 did, and that hampers it somewhat. However, I'm only into season two right now, so I'll reserve my final judgment.

I felt the same way when I was watching season 2, I found the show mostly enjoyable but it didn't appear to be anything special. However, season 3 was very good and I awarded it the highest score of any season I've reviewed so far, and season 4 is off to a very strong start. It's not a perfect show by any means, but for its time it was leading the way for science fiction, and looking at the sci-fi produced over the last decade it seems that it was a major influence.

[Admiral Shran]

TheGodBen wrote:

---

Capitalism could not work in the TNG-verse. Capitalism only works in a world with limited resources and we assign value to that resource based on the quantity of it available and how difficult it is to make. However, in TNG it appears that energy is near-limitless, and replicators can create whatever you desire in a matter of seconds. As a result, there's no value to anything, everything is practically in infinite supply. In the TNG-verse, capitalism is simply obsolete.

Personally, of all the fantasy and sci-fi universes I know of, the TNG-verse is the one I would most like to live in. It's not perfect, and the laws of physics say that it's impossible, but I would love to live in a world where there's no war or poverty, and whatever I want I can have. A universe where a man like Joseph Sisko runs a restaurant because he enjoys it, not because he feels he has to pay off his mortgage. It's not quite paradise, but it's better than what we have now.

I suppose if there was literally no limit on the production of resources, then socialism might work. However, I personally would still have problems living in the Trekverse, even though it would indeed be a comfortable life.

For example, it seems to me that the UFP government exerts a vast control over the lives of citizens - given what little we've seen of the government or civilian life. In one episode of TOS, Mudd's Women, miners who live out in the boondocks still have to submit to regular Starfleet examinations and health check-ups simply because they're told to. If they don't, they lose their mining license. The episode plays it like the miners are essentially their own independent group which sells dilithium crystals to the Federation. So, the government can insist on overseeing the work environment and health status of people who don't even work "for" them and live, by all accounts, outside the Federation? In one episode of DS9, Doctor Bashir, I Presume, Starfleet exercises legal authority over the crimes of a civilian, Richard Bashir. The military operates civilian courts?

I guess I'm just too much of a limited government supporter. After all, that's why I didn't vote for either Obama or McCain - they're both supporters of massively big government.

I felt the same way when I was watching season 2, I found the show mostly enjoyable but it didn't appear to be anything special. However, season 3 was very good and I awarded it the highest score of any season I've reviewed so far, and season 4 is off to a very strong start. It's not a perfect show by any means, but for its time it was leading the way for science fiction, and looking at the sci-fi produced over the last decade it seems that it was a major influence.

I have to say, it was your review thread that got me to watch it. I've just finished the fourth episode of the second season and am racing through them as fast as I can on Hulu.com to catch up (I'm watching four or five a day). It really helps to have next to no social life sometimes.

[TheGodBen]

Admiral Shran wrote:

---

I suppose if there was literally no limit on the production of resources, then socialism might work. However, I personally would still have problems living in the Trekverse, even though it would indeed be a comfortable life.

I'm not even sure if the TNG-verse qualifies as socialism, the realities of that universe are so different from what we know now that our current economic concepts couldn't apply. I mean, if socialism is about redistributing wealth then it doesn't apply because there is no concept of wealth on Earth. Without wealth crime would diminish, especially since the Federation has the ability to cure the criminally insane. So there's not much of a need for a authoritarian regime.

In one episode of DS9, Doctor Bashir, I Presume, Starfleet exercises legal authority over the crimes of a civilian, Richard Bashir. The military operates civilian courts?

That's a problem with a lot of Star Trek, I didn't even realise there was a difference between Starfleet and the Federation until I was around 13 because of this. For example, in TVH a lot of the people sitting on the UFP council were Starfleet officers, and in Rapture the Federation sent admirals to sign the treaty accepting Bajor into the Federation. One could almost make the case for the Federation being some sort of military regime.

I have to say, it was your review thread that got me to watch it.

I wholeheartedly apologise that I am the cause of you watching Infection.

I've just finished the fourth episode of the second season and am racing through them as fast as I can on Hulu.com to catch up (I'm watching four or five a day). It really helps to have next to no social life sometimes.

I know, I'm half-way through Red Dead Redemption after only 2 days of playing!

If you're only up to 204 then that explains why the show hasn't gripped you yet. There's a brilliant episode coming up soon that should convince you about the show's potential, at the rate you're going you should see it in a day or two.

[Admiral Shran]

TheGodBen wrote:

---

That's a problem with a lot of Star Trek, I didn't even realise there was a difference between Starfleet and the Federation until I was around 13 because of this.

That's one of my major problems with all of Trek - there's next to no attempt to define what the structure of the Federation is? Is it a constitutional republic? What's the relationship of the UFP President to the Federation Council? Is it similar to the U.S. system, or is it more of a parlimentary-based government?

For that matter, there's also really no attempt to define what the organization of Starfleet is beyond the level of the individual ship/station. Who exactly do the captains respond to in the chain of command? (At one time they answer to whatever rank of admiral is present for the episode. At another, they answer to the highest possible ranking officer, a Fleet Admiral. At other times, most notably in DS9, they answer to a Vice Admiral. It appears that Ross is Sisko's direct superior. Shouldn't a One-Star Rear Admiral be his immediate superior?) How it Starfleet organized in terms of it's upper echelons?

In your ENT review thread you said how you would have liked to see an episode in the third season based on Earth - showing how the public was preparing for the possible destruction of Earth. I would have loved to see something like that on any of the shows. For instance, how about showing how the Federation government decided to formally declare war on the Dominion?

I wholeheartedly apologise that I am the cause of you watching Infection.

Infection was pretty bad. However, I have to say that Soul Hunter was the worst of the season, IMO. And that comes from a guy who believes in souls.

For me, Soul Hunter would get a 0 and Infection would get ½*.

[Stanley]

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.

TNG has always been my least favorite of the sequels. Only now, after I have seen all the others, am I beginning to warm up to it. I find its main appeal in the backstory and world-building -- it's a corner of the Star Trek universe that I haven't yet explored.

[Tulaberry whine]

tomalak301 wrote:

---

Why do you say B5 has aged badly. Perhaps because I just saw it and it's still quite fresh, I do have a different perspective, but I would love to hear yours.

I find B5 very much of its time. It's particularly evident in the dated visual effects and the (very) cheap looking sets of the show - but the often melodramatic dialogue and the at times hammy characterisations and performances are just as problematic IMHO.

I also feel that after an amazing build up the narrative on the show played out in a rather formulaic fashion, with some particularly galling pat resolutions (‘Now get the hell out of our galaxy!’).

These issues, coupled with a slide in quality that began in its fourth season (which almost became terminal during parts of its fifth season), mean I tend to find B5 does not stand up to scrutiny or multiple repeat viewings like other genre shows of the time (eg, X-Files, DS9, TNG, Farscape, Buffy (and yes, I know all these shows have their own weaknesses)).

[Kira Nerys]

Love em both

[Kathryn-janeway]

Got to admit, i never watched TNG that much only a couple of times on re runs. I prefer DS9 and Voy the most. Then again i did enjoy some of the movies with the TNG cast. Its just not my cup of tea

[Apogeal Alpha01]

I still watch the occasional TNG episode, and Voyager for that matter, and like it. But I had the thought this evening of whipping out the DS9 shows and watching the series again. I miss the family.

[Praxius]

Admiral Shran wrote:

---

I can readily agree that we need to get rid of corrupt governments, uncaring politicans, religious hatred, wars, and racism. But capitalism? Capitalism is what gave us the comfortable world will live in today.

Capitalism is the reason why those things you agreed with above have been allowed to expand and run rampant with little oversight for so long.

Comfortable?

Perhaps, but I personally believe that if Capitalism never existed in the first place, we'd be much further in our "Comfort" then we are today.

Don't forget that many civilizations and cultures thrived and flourished long before Capitalism ever existed. What capitalism does is progress humanity and civilization further through feeding the individual's own personal greed over another..... it separates humanity into personal gain rather then collective gain. It's like making every individual ant in a colony strive to be the queen ant and thus act like the queen ant, even if it's at the expense of all the other ants.

Now I'm not for dictating or issuing individuals to be assigned certain jobs or ways of life based on one leader's/dictator's view like ants, as I'm against that as well. I'm just using that as an example of how such a way of life of personal greed can disrupt and corrupt the overall collective of a civilization.

Capitalism allows places like the US to charge their citizens for basic needs of living like medical coverage, where if you don't have the money, you can't get the surgery you need to stay alive...... it allows corrupt insurance agencies to make up the rules as they go and deny those who paid them coverage by claiming something is "Experimental." It allows whoever has the most money or the higher position in society to jump in front of others for their own needs, which can be less serious as those waiting in line simply because they can't afford it.

Capitalism has allowed people Like Bush, Nixon and Regan to be bribed and allow big oil companies to get away with expensive regulations and safety procedures (See the current oil spill) allowed cop out health programs that have left so many people without decent medical coverage to the point where they have to choose between life saving treatments or their homes..... usually ending up as burdens on the rest of their family to help pay for treatments.

Look at many of the above things you agreed with me on, like corrupt governments, wars, religious hatred, etc. and you will see many areas where Capitalism had its dirty hands involved in one way or another.

The current child molestation issues in the Christian church, mainly the Roman Catholic church...... for so many years now, the church has kept their victims quiet by issuing out backdoor settlements for various sums of money, in order to avoid justice...... look at many of the big companies that have caused harm or death to so many through faulty products or practices, that ended up never going to jail or having their companies shut down, because of settlements and pay outs to keep victims quiet.

Settlements in the Court is just another fancy word for Bribes to Avoid Legal Prosecution and undermine the core elements of Justice and Law.

There's also a very good quote from Fight Club:
"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

Protection of the consumer/customer/citizen for these companies is primarily based on the cost to the company.... it is very rarely ever about what is generally the right thing to do, it's about how much money they can save, which in many cases, "how much money they can save" is also the primary reason why their products fail and cause harm to the public in the first place.

Looking for the cheaper way to design something..... making companies in China/Japan to manufacture their products because they pay their employees far less then what they can live off of while making them work even longer hours..... which they end up using inferior materials or illegal materials already proven to harm humans (Lead in toys/chemicals in milk products to simulate a better product for cheaper/shoddy gas peddles that cause vehicles to speed up out of control and crash)

Capitalism has given us the comfortable world we live in today?

IMO, it has set humanity back for far too long and more people are beginning to realize this...... Nobody tries to make the best product of the best quality and of the best safety anymore, because it's far more easier to make the newest, trendiest product using the cheapest material, with the cheapest manufacturing, with the workers who will work for the cheapest pay and for the longest hours, because they have no other opportunities available to them..... and charging an arm and a leg for that product in the process..... all for personal Profit and Greed.

Nobody tries to provide the best service and the best coverage, simply because of the fact that some other company will provide a cheaper service for what seems to be more coverage (minus the fine print of pre-existing conditions that may later disqualify your coverage) thus running them out of business, even if their competition is far more inferior and riskier.... it's all about how much you can gain for yourself while paying as little as possible..... in order to gain as much as possible for yourself.

And the vicious cycle continues on and on.... the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer..... the poor are prosecuted, while the rich walk away.

You say it's simply unsustainable. Well, hasn't history proven that the alternatives to capitalism are what's really unsustainable?

Simply put, Nothing lasts forever.

Capitalism spread around the world and held onto its position in our societies much like how Christianity spread around the world over the centuries.... through force, fearmongering and oppression.

Nobody is willing to seek any other alternative method of living because people have become too accustomed to the way we live today.... we've been told for so long that this is the best way to live and we've grown afraid of anything different.

And who's been telling us all this?

Those who are currently rich and hold the power...... so of course it's perfectly fine for them.... the very select few of humanity.

But what about humanity as a whole? What about giving every single person on this planet the equal right and equal chance to live equal lives, to equally choose to do with their lives as they see fit without restrictions based on your financial status in society? Upper Class, Middle Class, Lower Class, etc.?

Hard to get up in class, but a lot easier to fall down out of a class. You spend 50+ some years continually working at a job, usually one you either don't like or never wanted to do in the first place, just to pay off your bills, your expenses, taxes to the government, car, cable, telephone, medical, food, etc. etc. etc.... just to get by..... then and usually only then when you retire at the age of 65 or older, will you possibly have the slight chance of being able to do with your life what you always wanted to do as a child..... so long as your retirement plan doesn't cop out for one reason or another or life expenses suddenly increase to the point you now have to spend the remainder of your retirement paying more just to continue to get by.....

.... Then you die and your children continue the cycle.... and their children.... and so on.

As much as I love Star Trek, I would never want to live on the Trek-verse Earth. It's WAY too socialistic.

And the funny thing is that your fire department, your police, your military that all protect you, etc. are all forms of socialism which you accept as necessary every day of your life..... which for the most part, do a pretty good job in protecting you, your family & property..... It's these forms of "Socialism" that allow our Democracies and even Capitalism to exist in the first place.... if it wasn't for these forms of Socialism, you'd be stuck having to have fire departments stand by to watch your house burn until you can prove you can pay them, you'd be stuck having to pay police every few weeks to ensure they protect your neighborhood or even just your house/yourself.... I'm not even sure how the Military would even exist without socialism and taking your tax money..... you'd have Mercs working in isolated cells, which a nation using a socialized military would roll over with little effort.

Tell me.... who pays for all that technology and equipment your military uses? How does your military continue to exist?

Yet when it comes to the other aspects of making sure you and your "society" thrive and flourish with little interruption from greedy and selfish people, like the need for medical coverage, hospitals, housing, food, water, etc.... anything that removes your individual and subjective high spending of those things and possibly makes you spend a far less amount via "Taxes".... suddenly it's evil socialism and the evil Commies are out to get you and send you off to some fascist concentration camp... Booga booga. (Even though Capitalism has nothing to do with Democracy, Socialism, Communism or any other governmental system)

And even mentioning the idea of removing Capitalism altogether, seems to cause many, especially in the US, to chat-noir their pants and cry the end of the world and total death and destruction..... yet again, even though for thousands of years before Capitalism existed, humanity and societies existed and thrived for other means then personal greed.

But this is just my opinion of course.

I have heard many over the years complain and finger point at Canada over our health care system (Which the UK, many EU nations and many other nations around the world all have some form of similar health coverage) and point at it being bad, possibly failing in the future, costing too much.... yet why do all of these countries still use socialized health care and other socialized systems in our democracies if they were so bad?

Why is the US one of the only few developed nations without this type of health system? Why does the US have a much lower life expectancy then say Canada?

I have heard many in the US claim they'd never want to live in Canada because of our "Socialism" ways..... but in turn, I would never.... ever, wish to live in the US and risk my own quality of life in a nation that seems to protect Capitalism over Democracy and Equality of Life above all else.

Each system has their pros and each system has their cons..... and whenever one system is allowed to take over without any oversight or protection of the citizen, that is when we all truly see just how bad those cons can really be.

Global Financial Meltdown, BP's Continuing Oil Spill, the invasions of two sovereign nations over botched information to cover the attempt to gain further profit over natural gas pipelines and oil reserves, the "War on Drugs", the "War on Terrorism" (Two Wars which try and fight an ideology and substances that are a part of this Earth that are impossible to extinguish through military might) the continued mass scale experimentation on our societies from the pharmaceutical companies who now basically tell us everything under the sun is a disease and they have one pill or another to cure it or mask it while we ignore the additional serious side effects these pills give us, which they have more pills to mask or counter, and so on..... whom pharmaceutical companies continually fight the legalization and research on Marijuana for the simple fact that this easily made and cheap plant from Earth would make them lose billions upon billions of dollars every year........

..... It's all for profit, power and greed..... to hell with the general population. The general population is just to be used to step on to get higher up in society and if a few citizens suffer and/or die in the process, well then that's just more money not being spread around and can come to you.

Remember, Capitalism is not about bettering Humanity..... it's about bettering You (If you're lucky)

But to each their own.