*Why* are TNG Seasons 1 & 2 Bad?

What about Data's "Terrorism is OK sometimes speech" in "The High Ground?"

That was a good scene but I'm wondering what an audience today would make of it?

 

The High Ground actually wasn't shown for many years in the UK because it was felt the parallels to the IRA were a bit too on the nose.

 

I knew about that.... I wonder if the speech was edited out.

 

Why should children be more or less afraid of death than adults? There are many ways in which children and adults are usually very different. But many other ways in which adults and children are usually very similar. I suspect that being properly terrified of death is something that adults and children are usually equally good at.

Dr. Crusher in "The Neutral Zone", stardate 41986.0, expresses Roddenberry's preferred attitude toward death:

But in "The arsenal of freedom", Stardate 41798.2, she is injured and seems quite frightened.

 

Half the budget must have been spent on hairspray lol. And it was hilarious having scenes with bald, stern Picard juxtaposed against a soundtrack of sparkling, Disney-esque 80s synth melodies. I do think that the music fit Deanna well.

Early TNG was quite experimental, and some of the special effects (the plastic glowing sky used on planets) did stretch the suspension of reality, but there were some gems like Worf meeting Klingon warriors for the first time as an adult. Besides the annoying antics of Boy Wonder Wesley, the only thing that really grated on me was just how bright the main bridge was; it practically looked like a padded room.

 

Oh and "Shut up Wesley" was an actual thing..... All these years I thought that was an internet thing only .. Just it was never used enough on the show.

And even when he nearly destroys the ship "evolution" he came off smelling roses. I hated that kid.

 

I think they're overall uneven rather than overall, let alone consistently, bad; they also have some of the best episodes of the series.

My biggest complaint is probably that several of the stories felt too stretched-out or just weak even conceptually. I think the biggest complaints from viewers generally are that the stories seemed too unsubtle (although that's much of Trek) and maybe in particular too preachy.

Also in season 1 Data, Troi and Wesley Crusher and somewhat Yar were pretty unrestrained, especially as with Wesley and maybe Troi the producers seemed OK with them being intentionally-annoying characters, I think that was toned down a lot with Data and Troi and somewhat Wesley and then even more so in the Piller years.

 

I disagree, especially in season 2 but even somewhat season 1 there was a significant amount of characters disagreeing with each other and some views, judgments and actions were meant to be controversial. I also don't see how this tendency or flaw decreased in the latter years; Jeri Taylor seems to be very much into high idealism and even holier-than-thou style as much as Roddenberry and Michael Piller to have pretty much embraced it even if to a somewhat lesser degree.

I liked that they were at least ambitious, willing to take big risks (it helps that I also liked the end results for those). Regardless some elements of those episodes seem to have been redone often later on.

 

To much "Gene".

Tried to hard to pay homage to the original.

 

It really was the characters felt off, Picard was a "get off my lawn!" old man, everyone else was too child like, or just didn't feel right. Even Q makes a joke to Riker "I like the beardless you more', or something like that. But then the stories were just as bad. I don't mind season 2 that much, but to answer the question... 'The Royale'.

 

What happens when there is chaos in the writers room and you are trying to flesh out characters that no one knows. Contradictions will come up.

 

The Royale was awesome.

 

Well, that's easy. Gene Roddenberry and his script rewrites. Anyone who says seasons 1&2 were bad because of the writing gives a great disservice to the actual writers of those episodes. If TNG had debuted on an actual network instead of being syndicated, it would probably have been cancelled after its first season, and definitely by its second, and it would have been all thanks to the Great Bird of the Galaxy. But in 1987-88, TNG had two huge things going for it:

1. it was syndicated.

2. It was the first time ever that Star Trek was back on the small screen, and EVERYBODY wanted it back, no matter how great or shitty it was.

These two things allowed it to survive to the point where new producers came on board and turned things around. And demoting Roddenberry to a "consultant" helped too.

 

Transfigurations kinda sucks.

When I first saw this back when it was brand new I thought this was the "space jesus" episode and even back then it felt sucky.

 

For me, TNG is summed up.

The first few seasons had shambolic and strong episodes.

The 2nd half of TNG is characterised by dull and strong episodes.

 

I have a special problem with the episode where Riker becomes a Q. And I think it's a good summary of the problems with season 1-2 compared to 3+. In that episode, Riker has the powers for a few minutes and immediately becomes a douche, with the lesson being power corrupts *blah*...which is not how that would happen. If that episode were made in season 3 or later, it would have been Riker getting those powers early in the episode, with their grandeur as a major plot point, with Riker gradually becoming more and more corrupt, egotistical, and otherwise Q-like, with the lesson being that those powers are too much for even the best human because of what they do to your soul, the overall concept of power, and it would be a nice window on why Q is like he is allowing the audience to empathize with him. That's the different between the first two years and the remaining five. The latter would show and tell, and make it believable because it is how real people act and think. The former would show something unbelievable, and then say what it meant, and it was all unbelievable because it is not how anyone would behave and it was so superficial and shallow.

 

I'm probably the only person on Earth that likes Q. But I like the Q character.

 

Chaos on the Bridge alluded to it being because of Rodenberry and his vision for Trek.

 

I had the epiphany that TNG seemed to initially be taking a television version of reality and making it the way the world really worked in the future, which gets kind of meta since it is a television show itself. And I think that is from Roddenberry working in television. Everything is perfect, everyone gets along, there's no dirt or dust, or even a toilet. It's like the Waltons.

 

Shock horror...... The Waltons never used the toilet. They're aliens