TNG changes to TOS

[Lance]

As with so many things in life, there's truth on both sides. Yes, TOS was an enduring success and that's why TNG was able to be made in the first place; but it was always seen by the general public as something of a cult franchise, popular but not entirely respectable outside the fan community. TNG did bring in a whole new, very large audience and gained ongoing critical acclaim and award nominations, so it did serve to give Trek a wider mainstream legitimacy than it had had before.

Let me put it this way. When I was in high school in the early '80s, being a Trek fan was something that made you part of the nerd/outcast community, something you'd hesitate to admit to if you wanted to be popular. When I went to my high school reunion 20 years later and said I wrote Trek novels, I got nothing but "Wow, that's so cool!" in response. Star Trek absolutely has more public legitimacy now than it did before TNG existed.

Correct. And people today tend to forget just how big Star Trek was circa 1993/1994 as well. I don't think there has been another time, before or since, when Star Trek was as popular with a broad 'mainstream' audience as it was then. And that was totally down to TNG.

Not to disparage it... but to blunt, TOS was never a success. It limped through three television seasons before finally meeting its inevitable fate, and even the movies, as successful as some of them might have been, travelled a rocky path where they never quite broke through that barrier of being 'cult'. TNG is the show that finally proved that Star Trek wasn't just a cult thing. I still meet people today who don't define themselves as "Trekkies", but admit they were weekly viewers of TNG back in the day.

It does get undervalued in that sense.

 

[Warped9]

Back when I did a complete rewatch of TNG a couple of years ago I found one thing definitely missing from the series, even many of the episodes I rated good to excellent: they often lacked energy.

TOS was a dynamic show that crackled with energy. TNG, even when good, often feels more laid back.

It's partly why I prefer TNG's earlier seasons (1-3) because they felt somewhat more like TOS.

 

[Louigi Verona]

I agree that TNG was impossible without TOS. But I would also say that TNG made Star Trek more grandeur.

Also, an important part of the culture were books. There were TOS books and then there was a huge amount of TNG books.

As I said, I am so far unimpressed with TOS, but I do understand what a huge influence it was on its generation and several generations afterwards.

I agree that TNG has aged, especially in some respects like story telling, today it is very different. But I would say that it has aged well and gracefully. A number of episodes look and feel rather well.

As for TOS, again, this is just an opinion of a kid, who grew with TNG, but TOS looks very aged to me.

Perhaps you are right though, that TNG was also the child of its time. I think its optimistic message was very, very dependent on the chemistry of time, with all the new technology appearing. But that chemistry has been ingrained in me and will stay with me forever.

 

[Warped9]

I find TNG much more dated than TOS. TNG feels soo mired in the '80s.

While TNG was on it seemed to be the "go to" series when many thought of Star Trek. But not long after it ended its run that sense evaporated and TOS has come back to the fore as the most recognizable image of Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

I find TNG much more dated than TOS. TNG feels soo mired in the '80s.

While TNG was on it seemed to be the "go to" series when many thought of Star Trek. But not long after it ended its run that sense evaporated and TOS has come back to the fore as the most recognizable image of Star Trek.

TNG was popular, but lacked the long-term cultural impact and staying power of TOS.

 

[Anwar]

Perhaps TOS' smaller cast helped with the "Dynamic" feel. TOS only had three Centrals (and that was on a good day, plenty of times it's just Kirk and Spock) who formed a classic Freud Trio (Kirk the Ego, McCoy the Id, Spock the Superego).

Also, the three had great chemistry but that's mainly dumb luck they fit together so well.

So, a smaller cast combined with impressive presence from Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly and great chemistry comes off as more dynamic than an ensemble show with 3 times the cast who all had to be included in every episode.

 

[Warped9]

I think there was more to it than that. There were a lot of other things going on of which much of it could be seen as subjective.

I didn't care for a lot of the sound f/x on TNG and the other Treks. And, of course, the music has been mentioned often enough. TNG's music was often uninspired and after Ron Jones left it became complete junk that sucked so much ambience out of the show.

Some of the camera angles and lighting on TOS make TNG look like a school play.

TOS had so many obstacles to overcome and yet they often worked magic nonetheless. TNG had so many advantages over TOS and rarely did they really surpass (or really equal) what TOS accomplished.

 

[Anwar]

I think there was more to it than that. There were a lot of other things going on of which much of it could be seen as subjective.

I agree, it's down to the individual viewer. I don't think you and I will agree on things perfectly.

I didn't care for a lot of the sound f/x on TNG and the other Treks.

Were they really that different from some of the sounds TOS used?

And, of course, the music has been mentioned often enough. TNG's music was often uninspired and after Ron Jones left it became complete junk that sucked so much ambience out of the show.

TOS only had like about 5 or so musical cues used over and over.

Some of the camera angles and lighting on TOS make TNG look like a school play.

This is what I mean about being subjective, because I believe just the opposite!

TOS had so many obstacles to overcome and yet they often worked magic nonetheless. TNG had so many advantages over TOS and rarely did they really surpass (or really equal) what TOS accomplished.

TOS had three seasons (only 2 of which were real good) vs TNG's 7. They didn't have enough time to run out of ideas, overstay their welcome, develop a stale formula, etc. They didn't have enough time for the rot to set in vs TNG.

It's like how the Creators of Boardwalk Empire are ending the show now in S5 (with a reduced episode number, to boot) because they're realizing they're near empty on the tank.

Plus TNG had disadvantages of its own.

 

[BillJ]

So, a smaller cast combined with impressive presence from Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly and great chemistry comes off as more dynamic than an ensemble show with 3 times the cast who all had to be included in every episode.

This was a huge flaw of TNG and it comes down to the producers. They were contractually obligated to pay every actor for the episodes, but I don't believe they were obligated to show every actor in every episode.

They could've been more focused on a per episode basis on the characters that were actually important to a particular episode.

 

[Noname Given]

Also, TNG wasn't doing all that well in many local TV markets at the start. In many markets then sandwiched a showing of the new TNG episodes between two TOS episodes (IE they's air a TOS episode, followed by the new TNG episode, followed by another TOS episode.

From everything I've read, TNG was a success right out of the gate. Being renewed for a second season in November '87, about six weeks after its premiere. I don't know that I buy your info on it being sandwiched between TOS episodes, every market that I saw had TNG paired with The War of the Worlds.

It was definitely sandwiched in the L.A. market as I was watching on weekends on KCOP channel 13 in 1987. The letters to TV Guide from viewers about the series wasn't too flattering either. As for Paramount, they had a plan to include however many episodes of TNG were made to the TOS syndication package if TNG didn't get the 100+ needed to be a syndication package on its own.

 

[Lance]

So, a smaller cast combined with impressive presence from Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly and great chemistry comes off as more dynamic than an ensemble show with 3 times the cast who all had to be included in every episode.

This was a huge flaw of TNG and it comes down to the producers. They were contractually obligated to pay every actor for the episodes, but I don't believe they were obligated to show every actor in every episode.

They could've been more focused on a per episode basis on the characters that were actually important to a particular episode.

Oh absolutely. The thing is, when they did leave people out (as they occasionally did in Season One), the actors concerned would complain to their agents and worry they were going to be fired.

It did lead to what TV Tropes has since identified as 'Mandatory Line Syndrome', where every character would be shoe-horned into a script regardless of their needing to be there. The weirdest one for me being Deanna Troi in "Yesterday's Enterprise". She's actually present on the bridge scenes capping both ends of the alternate reality, but she doesn't so much as get a single line of dialogue or even a close-up shot. She's just there, presumably because the actress was still being paid regardless. It's almost like she wasn't even written into the script, but they just happened to have Marina hanging about on the stage that day, so they said 'Yeah, sure, why not? Get yourself down to costume, and then we'll put you on the bridge anyway'.

 

[Louigi Verona]

I have to say I am a little bewildered that so many people consider TNG such a bad series. I consider TNG to be one of the pinnacles of sci-fi, as well as DS9. And each time I try to watch TOS, I can barely go through first 20 mins (I am working on it, though, watching middle of season 1 now).

It is all very subjective, of course, but if one looks at facts, I wonder if there is any evidence that can be presented to show that TOS has aged better than, say, TNG.

 

[Warped9]

For one thing when Paramount wanted to bring Trek back to the screen they went for a TOS reboot rather than a TNG one.

 

[Trekker4747]

For one thing when Paramount wanted to bring Trek back to the screen they went for a TOS reboot rather than a TNG one.

Which has more to do with TOS being 40+ years old rather than 20; the cast being elderly or deceased (rather than still alive and kicking), happening earlier in the timeline so a good "reboot" point.

I don't think that the 2009 "reboot" had anything to do with TOS being a better, more impactful, series than TNG. It just made more sense to re-do the original cast rather than re-do the TNG cast who were all still alive, their show only 20 years old at the time, and with a still very active, young, audience. If they did the reboot with TNG people would be saying that the TNG cast is no older than the TOS cast was when they did TMP so why recast them?!

TNG's very impactful to people in my generation as much as TOS was to the previous one. You could go up to someone my age and slap your chest and say "[name] to Enterprise!", call someone "Number One" or make a quirky Data-like phrase and they're more likely to get it than any similar reference to a TOS trope.

TOS is great but, Christ, you put it on such a high-tower that no one should be able to touch it. I like TOS too, but let's face it. There's a reason why it was almost canceled after two seasons.

 

[F. King Daniel]

For one thing when Paramount wanted to bring Trek back to the screen they went for a TOS reboot rather than a TNG one.

Has a spin-off series ever been rebooted?

 

[{ Emilia }]

So, a smaller cast combined with impressive presence from Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly and great chemistry comes off as more dynamic than an ensemble show with 3 times the cast who all had to be included in every episode.

This was a huge flaw of TNG and it comes down to the producers. They were contractually obligated to pay every actor for the episodes, but I don't believe they were obligated to show every actor in every episode.

They could've been more focused on a per episode basis on the characters that were actually important to a particular episode.

But that's what they did, isn't it?
Episodes tended to focus on a specific set of character. The big cast actually worked for me and I liked the episodes that involved all of them just as much as those that focused on one or two characters.
A large cast of characters works for me. It makes the world feel bigger and more complex. I prefer that over having the same 3 guys on screen all the time.
Shows like DS9 or even Lost are good examples of that. Tons of recurring supporting characters and also a large number of "main" characters that give the shows consistency.

 

[Warped9]

For one thing when Paramount wanted to bring Trek back to the screen they went for a TOS reboot rather than a TNG one.

Has a spin-off series ever been rebooted?

Not to my knowledge.

And TOS has the greater recognition factor translating into the potential for a bigger financial return.

 

[Nerys Myk]

For one thing when Paramount wanted to bring Trek back to the screen they went for a TOS reboot rather than a TNG one.

Has a spin-off series ever been rebooted?

Not to my knowledge.

And TOS has the greater recognition factor translating into the potential for a bigger financial return.

Yep, none of the spin off characters ( including TNGs) have ever become as deeply ingrained into the cultural subconscious as TOS.

 

[Warped9]

If you step away from fandom then a different picture emerges in terms of what people in general think of when they think of Trek.

I see TNG a bit like X-Files as far as the general public is concerned. In their heyday when the series were in production it seemed like next to everyone was into these shows. But not long after the run ended they went off the rader for the general public as they went on to watch something else.

So TNG can be popular among its fans, but that doesn't automatically translate into a broad sentiment with the general audience.

Another element at play is reputation. TOS carried (and still does) the idea of being significant in terms of how SF could be done on television and film. But TNG doesn't have that same reputation given that it basically expanded on what had already been established. TOS stood out against what else was being done at the time it was being made and for some years after. But by the time TNG came along the landscape for SF on television and in film had already changed. Whereas TOS was largely alone TNG became one of many.

 

[Christopher]

For one thing when Paramount wanted to bring Trek back to the screen they went for a TOS reboot rather than a TNG one.

Which has more to do with TOS being 40+ years old rather than 20; the cast being elderly or deceased (rather than still alive and kicking), happening earlier in the timeline so a good "reboot" point.

No, it's mainly because TOS is more perennially popular. When it comes to the sales of Trek novels and comics, TOS is the best seller, although TNG comes second, well ahead of the other spinoffs.

I don't think that the 2009 "reboot" had anything to do with TOS being a better, more impactful, series than TNG.

"Better" is a subjective judgment and really isn't at issue here. What's at issue is profitability, because the decisions about what gets produced are being made by businesspeople, not film critics. TOS is the strongest seller, followed by TNG.

TNG's very impactful to people in my generation as much as TOS was to the previous one.

Yes, and maybe in 10 or 20 years, when the studios are run by people who grew up with TNG, we'll see more interest in rebooting TNG.

TOS is great but, Christ, you put it on such a high-tower that no one should be able to touch it. I like TOS too, but let's face it. There's a reason why it was almost canceled after two seasons.

Again you're mistaking popularity with quality. TOS was a critically well-regarded, Emmy-nominated series, but it was also one of the most expensive series to produce at the time, and that made it difficult to keep it on the air. A show's renewability isn't just about ratings in the absolute, but about the ratio of ratings to budget, profit to overhead. The more expensive a show is to make, the higher the ratings it needs to survive. So a high-budgeted show may get cancelled with ratings that would guarantee success for a lower-budgeted show.

Historically, science fiction on television has always struggled to survive due to its greater expense and niche audience. This was very, very far from being unique to Star Trek. Three seasons was actually a pretty good run for a '60s or '70s SFTV series; most didn't even make it that far, and only the biggest successes ran longer.

Has a spin-off series ever been rebooted?

The Bionic Woman, spun off from The Six Million Dollar Man, was briefly and poorly rebooted as Bionic Woman.

And here's an interesting case: Three's Company was a remake of a British sitcom called Man About the House. TC's spinoff The Ropers was a remake of MAtH's spinoff George and Mildred. And TC's sequel series Three's a Crowd was a remake of MAtH's sequel series Robin's Nest.