Dull Humans?

[RandyS]

So just for the record here, a show that went seven seasons, spawned four movies, two indirect spinoffs, and one "grandkid" spinoff, had record ratings, developed iconic characters played by actors who draw immense crowds at sci-fi conventions, and continues to serve as the basis for best selling novels was ACTUALLY populated by arrogant, dull, flawed, myopic, boring characters who's hubris and single-minded pursuit of a liberal utopia made the show tedious and terrible to watch? For the love of Chrysler some of y'all need a hobby.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Come to think of it, I couldn't have said it at all. That was a mouthful.

My hat's off to you.

 

[BillJ]

So just for the record here, a show that went seven seasons, spawned four movies, two indirect spinoffs, and one "grandkid" spinoff, had record ratings, developed iconic characters played by actors who draw immense crowds at sci-fi conventions, and continues to serve as the basis for best selling novels...

Would it have ever achieved any of those things if "Star Trek" wasn't part of the equation?

... was ACTUALLY populated by arrogant, dull, flawed, myopic, boring characters who's hubris and single-minded pursuit of a liberal utopia made the show tedious and terrible to watch?

When TNG was good it could be very good. The problem was that the characters inhabiting that world simply weren't interesting enough to carry bad material and there was a lot of it.

 

[BillJ]

Kirk on the other hand was well aware that he was imperfect, and while he believed in his society, he didn't look down on people whose societies were different.

I find this observation counterintuitive.

Don't get me wrong, Picard's major weakness is certainly his idealism, his absolute faith in the abstract ideals of Starfleet and willingness to act on them. His need to act on them, in fact, which Riker in one episode points out as his "Persian flaw."

But Kirk bows to absolutely nobody, most certainly including Picard, as arrogance and willingness to judge other people's cultures goes. In fact his never-hesitating willingness to judge is a key part of his character; he is, in Sixties terms, an avatar of Whiggish privilege, certainty and assuredness, the incarnation of the same assuredness the "greatest generation" that fought WWII brought (sometimes effectively, sometimes disastrously) to complex problems. That's the source of his attraction... and also the reason later ages sometimes came to regard him as being kind of a dick.

Can you name a single episode of TNG where Picard is aware of just how wrong he is on an major issue? Closest I can come to is "Q, Who". The whole idea behind Kirk is that he is flawed to a major degree. We see it quite a bit throughout TOS.

Kirk is a larger than life character that audiences find interesting. We find him interesting because he is like us but his actions can have huge implications. He makes rash judgements that he has to re-evaluate. He has to make tough decisions that could backfire and he acknowledges it. He sometimes allows his emotions to get the better of him. He is also incredibly proud and stubborn. We have none of that with Picard. We have a character that is simply impossible to relate to because he is presented as perfect. Which isn't the biggest problem, the biggest problem is how he looks down on races. They definitely toned down those traits when creating Sisko, Janeway and Archer. Those series also came off as more emotionally satisfying than TNG was.

You can never have spin-off material like DC Comics "The Return of the Serpent" (a sequel to "The Apple") with Picard. Which shows how catastrophic Kirk's actions could be. Because the TV series never wanted to show Picard in a less than flattering light.

 

[Jedi_Master]

So just for the record here, a show that went seven seasons, spawned four movies, two indirect spinoffs, and one "grandkid" spinoff, had record ratings, developed iconic characters played by actors who draw immense crowds at sci-fi conventions, and continues to serve as the basis for best selling novels...

Would it have ever achieved any of those things if "Star Trek" wasn't part of the equation?

I am fairly sure that even the great TOS did not have enough juice in it's popular legacy batteries to keep viewers hooked into a show simply because it had "Star Trek" in the title.

 

[BillJ]

So just for the record here, a show that went seven seasons, spawned four movies, two indirect spinoffs, and one "grandkid" spinoff, had record ratings, developed iconic characters played by actors who draw immense crowds at sci-fi conventions, and continues to serve as the basis for best selling novels...

Would it have ever achieved any of those things if "Star Trek" wasn't part of the equation?

I am fairly sure that even the great TOS did not have enough juice in it's popular legacy batteries to keep viewers hooked into a show simply because it had "Star Trek" in the title.

But it gave people a reason to sample it that wouldn't have otherwise. If TNG had been called "Space Patrol", it wouldn't have made it through its original thirteen episode order.

 

[T'Girl]

Kirk on the other hand was well aware that he was imperfect, and while he believed in his society, he didn't look down on people whose societies were different.

But Kirk bows to absolutely nobody, most certainly including Picard, as arrogance and willingness to judge other people's cultures goes. .

In the episode from the video you selected, when did Kirk at any point look down upon either the Comms or the Yanks? In comparison to the three 20th century people from "The Neutral Zone," when did Kirk show contempt and disgust to the degree Picard did. Captain Tracy received judgement from Kirk, but not the people living on that planet.

Helping a group understand one of their own documents isn't a display of arrogance.

On occasion Kirk drew an negative opinion of individuals within a alien society, but when for a society in general?

 

[Jedi_Master]

Would it have ever achieved any of those things if "Star Trek" wasn't part of the equation?

I am fairly sure that even the great TOS did not have enough juice in it's popular legacy batteries to keep viewers hooked into a show simply because it had "Star Trek" in the title.

But it gave people a reason to sample it that wouldn't have otherwise. If TNG had been called "Space Patrol", it wouldn't have made it through its original thirteen episode order.

So are you arguing that TNG was only able to over come it's general awfulness because it had "Star Trek" in it's title, and therefore all the silly simpletons who had a few minutes in the afternoon would be tempted to try it out because they loved Star and Trek?

Or are you arguing that TNG was able to overcome it's stink of mediocrity because people loved TOS so much they just couldn't believe that TNG could be 'that bad' for so long and they kept giving it another chance?

I don't get your argument. TNG was wildly popular, so why don't you help me understand why a show with such terrible, self-aggrandizing, monotonous, one-note, supercilious, preachy, stuffed-shirt characters who were weighed down with bad material managed to be so popular for so long.

 

[BigJake]

[Short version of this post if TL;DR: BillJ, please show us on the doll where Patrick Stewart touched you. ]

Can you name a single episode of TNG where Picard is aware of just how wrong he is on an major issue?

Since re-evaluating initially mistaken assumptions was a basic part of the character's make-up and most of his stories, I can think of plenty of them. Kirk of course did this, too, and was usually portrayed as eventually reaching the right solution; what was different was their styles and personalities (and the assumptions of their respective eras -- "A Private Little War" didn't look nearly as dodgy when it was written as it does to post-Vietnam War eyes), not their degree-of-flawlessness.

Because the TV series never wanted to show Picard in a less than flattering light.

Again your memory seems extremely selective and confused. About both series. It was very rare for TOS to show Kirk in a less than flattering light or portray him as wrong; his distinctive mark was his swashbuckling, almost swaggering command style, not his "flawed nature" (although he did have flaws). TNG as it progressed had episodes revolving around Picard being tempted into rewriting his own life history out of personal regret ("Tapestry"), experiencing being genuinely broken under torture ("Chain of Command," "I really did see five lights"), dealing with Trek's first attempt to gesture toward the psychological impact of a harrowing in-series adventure ("Family," following "Best of Both Worlds"), having to actually kill a future version of himself to break a destructive cycle of mistakes ("Time Squared"), being dragged into action as a peevish and ill-tempered old man in "All Good Things."

The notion that TNG was afraid to "show Picard in a less than flattering light" doesn't pass the smell test, just factually.

Some fans seem to think that admitting that TNG genuinely earned its obvious success is a zero-sum game that somehow means denying the importance or quality of TOS (or something), to the point of trying to build bizarre myths about TNG's supposed inadequacies that have nothing to do with the actual screen product or its actual flaws. Jedi_Master is spot on; people should have better things to do.

 

[BillJ]

Some fans seem to think that admitting that TNG genuinely earned its obvious success is a zero-sum game that somehow means denying the importance or quality of TOS (or something), to the point of trying to build bizarre myths about TNG's supposed inadequacies that have nothing to do with the actual screen product or its actual flaws.

And some fans seem to think admitting that TNG would've never gained a foothold with audiences without the popularity of TOS means denying the quality of TNG. I openly admitted that they could hit it out of the park on occasion. But, by and large, the characters were dull and many fans of TNG openly admit this. They simply couldn't carry a bad script.

Jedi_Master is spot on; people should have better things to do.

Which is non-sense. We should all have better things to do than discuss decades old TV shows non-stop on the internet.

 

[BigJake]

And some fans seem to think admitting that TNG would've never gained a foothold with audiences without the popularity of TOS means denying the quality of TNG.

Do they? Actually I have never seen anyone say this, and nobody in this thread has done so that I can see. It would certainly be bizarre, because since TNG essentially started out as a modification of Star Trek: Phase II, it is tautological to say it wouldn't have existed or been successful without TOS.

But of course simply assuming that people must be discounting TOS if they happen to praise or respect TNG is built in to that zero sum mentality. Fighting among Treeb sects and Largoths... ah, the foolishness.

 

[BillJ]

Again your memory seems extremely selective and confused. About both series. It was very rare for TOS to show Kirk in a less than flattering light or portray him as wrong; his distinctive mark was his swashbuckling, almost swaggering command style, not his "flawed nature" (although he did have flaws). TNG as it progressed had episodes revolving around Picard being tempted into rewriting his own life history out of personal regret ("Tapestry"), experiencing being genuinely broken under torture ("Chain of Command," "I really did see five lights"), dealing with Trek's first attempt to gesture toward the psychological impact of a harrowing in-series adventure ("Family," following "Best of Both Worlds"), having to actually kill a future version of himself to break a destructive cycle of mistakes ("Time Squared"), being dragged into action as a peevish and ill-tempered old man in "All Good Things."

You still haven't shown where Picard chased the wrong course of action and then openly admitted he was wrong. Like Kirk in "Arena", "The Devil in the Dark" or "Errand of Mercy". Or where Picard has let his emotions cause him to risk his ship and crew like "The Conscience of the King" or "Obsession". Kirk reacted to situations in a manner that everyday people could understand then learned a clear lesson along the way that things weren't always what they appeared. TNG mostly lost that.

Picard was simply never wrong. He had no need of advisers. Which really killed any need he had for advice. Which killed much of the interpersonal chemistry.

 

[BigJake]

Picard was simply never wrong. He had no need of advisers.

Dude. This statement is egregiously stupid and again has simply nothing at all to do with what's in the screen product. Picard ran his ship on a consultation model with his officers, that was the source of all those meeting scenes that people are forever complaining about, and yes he routinely took and implemented their advice. You seem to simply have no idea what you're talking about.

You still haven't shown where Picard chased the wrong course of action and then openly admitted he was wrong.

Actually there are several direct examples right there in the post you quoted.

Like Kirk in "Arena", "The Devil in the Dark"

And this doesn't do much to convince me that your reading of TOS episodes is very competent, either. I just watched "The Devil in the Dark," for instance. In terms of learning about and re-evaluating an apparent threat, it has zilch to do with Kirk "admitting he was wrong." It's just a process problem-solving episode like many other stories of both Picard and Kirk. They're both people who change their minds when new facts come to light, because that's part of being competent.

 

[BillJ]

Picard was simply never wrong. He had no need of advisers.

Dude. This statement is egregiously stupid.

Go back and roll through the series and tell me if you think Picard ever really needed advisers. Seriously.

 

[BigJake]

Picard was simply never wrong. He had no need of advisers.

Dude. This statement is egregiously stupid.

Go back and roll through the series and tell me if you think Picard ever really needed advisers.

Repeating a silly statement doesn't improve it. See above.

 

[Jedi_Master]

So wouldn't Picard not needing advisers and being able to make his own head-strong decisions make him more Kirk-like, thus automatically becoming more exciting?

 

[wulfio]

Either Picard is the incarnation of arrogance and perfidy or ...

Picard was just as susceptible to imperfections as Kirk was.

Both are true, Picard was imperfect and I don't think anyone is under the false impression that he was perfect. His failing was his perspective that he and his society were perfect. That his was a utopian paradise and that unless you embraced (or had already obtain) his type of society he was better than you.

This is where you find the near universal observation that Picard was arrogance incarnate.

Kirk on the other hand was well aware that he was imperfect, and while he believed in his society, he didn't look down on people whose societies were different.

Now did the arrogance result in a loss of rating? Hard to say, but it was tiresome. It would have been (imho) an interesting improvement in Picard's character if he had gradually lost his hubris over the course of the series.

The prime directive is not heartless ...

That depends on the application, not simple on the existence of the directive.

I think the issue people have with the prime directive is the same thing that people don't understand about our environment

I would think that there would be absolutely no similarities in the slightest.

and it's up to us to control our environment.

It's up to us to control our surroundings to our best benefit.

so, case in point.

 

[T'Girl]

So wouldn't Picard not needing advisers and being able to make his own head-strong decisions make him more Kirk-like, thus automatically becoming more exciting?

Kirk had two main advisers, and incorporated their positions and opinions into his many decisions.

so, case in point.

I made four (at least) separate points, to which were you referring?

 

[wulfio]

every one of them.

 

[T'Girl]

Então estamos acabados aqui.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

THE SMILEYS!