Yes, good point. Definitely Twin Peaks ranks high up as far as influential and ahead of its time. I haven't seen Northern Exposure but I have heard good things.
But I would still say that TNG doesn't do badly for the time at all.
Has TNG Aged Well?
- Thread starter KirbyHawk
- Start date
But I would still say that TNG doesn't do badly for the time at all.
TNG was not ahead of its time in terms of format, cinematography, acting, or (usually) writing. It was competent, not ground-breaking in these areas. Where it did excel was technical presentation (effects) for a TV show, and the thing Trek has always provided a good venue for: thought-provoking concepts and ideas. It didn't always make use of that possibility, but it did enough to make it worthy of its place in TV history. This is, of course, a continuation of what was started (and even more unique for its time) by TOS.
This is a fair point - in terms of visual effects and make-up, the show was on the cutting edge.
Definitely agreed that it was important for raising the bar on visual effects, technical presentation. As I mentioned, I think music comes under that too in terms of using an orchestra.
Now, of course, that could be used against the show - some aspects probably seem a little dated by today's standards. But I find they generally hold up.
Something that really doesn't date is the use of ideas though, the big, thought-provoking concepts that still provoke thought today. Except from in a few episodes where it is glaringly of its time ('The Game' comes to mind, but even then it is more the outward presentation of the story rather than the issues at hand that feel dated.
Of the other sci-fi/fantasy/adventure shows around prior to TNG, I can't think of any that was anywhere near as cerebral, generally not relying on cheap action gimmicks or cliches. This makes it stand out for me still and means that it was an important show (though yes, I think that TOS in the 60s was likely more 'cutting edge' than TNG was in the 80s).
Now, of course, that could be used against the show - some aspects probably seem a little dated by today's standards. But I find they generally hold up.
Something that really doesn't date is the use of ideas though, the big, thought-provoking concepts that still provoke thought today. Except from in a few episodes where it is glaringly of its time ('The Game' comes to mind, but even then it is more the outward presentation of the story rather than the issues at hand that feel dated.
Of the other sci-fi/fantasy/adventure shows around prior to TNG, I can't think of any that was anywhere near as cerebral, generally not relying on cheap action gimmicks or cliches. This makes it stand out for me still and means that it was an important show (though yes, I think that TOS in the 60s was likely more 'cutting edge' than TNG was in the 80s).
This is kind of what I meant. One day after watching some TNG and DS9, I noticed a few things:
By the end of the series and in Nemesis, characters like Geordi, Beverly, for example, are almost exactly the same people living the same life as they started out. No marriages, relationships, career changes, moves, etc. Just the same people, filling out the background.
In contrast, in DS9 a character like Damar started out as a simple adoring assistant to Gul Dukat, and a big jerk. It started out as a small almost forgettable spot.
He was a super nationalistic, all for Cardassia conquering the Alpha quadrant ect. He then was made the puppet leader of Cardassia, then he turned against them when he saw what they were all about, and became a ragged underground freedom fighter working with the Federation. At the end of the series he was killed fighting to free Cardassia.
It was complete 180 degree turnaround that actually made people like this guy. (And you wonder when you've seen the things he's done if you're supposed). But all it depended on the events in the previous episodes that made him this way.
Last edited:
For me TNG holds up mostly because of Micheal Pillar. The show is very well written and has a unique voice that wasn't 80's or 90's speech. Plus Picard as a hero who thinks with his brains more than his fists is also something you just didn't see that often unless it is Trek or Doctor Who.
Not to mention they were able to solve problems in ways other than fighting was something that makes it feel unique. It does make it feel a little naive but that isn't that same as feeling dated.
Jason
Not to mention they were able to solve problems in ways other than fighting was something that makes it feel unique. It does make it feel a little naive but that isn't that same as feeling dated.
Jason
Yes! Totally agree. I think it was that recent re-watching of DS9 that really brought the differences between episodic and serialized formats into sharp relief for me. I understand there are a number of benefits to the more episodic format, but it now feels like I'm being cheated out on a bigger picture compared to serialized TV. It really makes the TV we were used to decades ago seem threadbare.
It's a hard question to answer. Visually? Yes. In the generation since TNG ended, their visual look held up pretty well, especially when you consider how poorly the visual look of TOS held up by a generation after it ended
Culturally? As in its sensibilities etc? I think it struggles a little, more so than TOS did actually. The problem is directly because of how well its visuals hold up. It was so much easier to see the look of TOS and be accepting of how outdated it is, even a decade later, because it is literally staring you in the face, with its old 60's style. So, when other parts of the show strike you as culturally antiquated as well, you don't struggle with that, because, well duh... Just look at it! It is OLD
TNG created a whole franchise of Trek series that emulated it's style for the better part of the next 2 decades, & can still be watched today with very little production quality issues that would take you out of the moment, for being so old fashioned. SO, when some other aspect of the show seems outdated, it is not as glaringly obvious that it's because of its age, & people judge the show more harshly over it, as if it were a show that should better live up to modern sensibilities, like it is modern, even though it really isn't anymore.
For example, TNG is essentially an episodic show, with a formula damn near devoid of character arcing, which it inherited from TOS. That was the nature of the beast back then, & no one ever sat around condemning TOS for that, but I do see TNG get put down over it a lot, or considered weaker than it's successors etc... There's other more nuanced examples, but well... there you have it
Culturally? As in its sensibilities etc? I think it struggles a little, more so than TOS did actually. The problem is directly because of how well its visuals hold up. It was so much easier to see the look of TOS and be accepting of how outdated it is, even a decade later, because it is literally staring you in the face, with its old 60's style. So, when other parts of the show strike you as culturally antiquated as well, you don't struggle with that, because, well duh... Just look at it! It is OLD
TNG created a whole franchise of Trek series that emulated it's style for the better part of the next 2 decades, & can still be watched today with very little production quality issues that would take you out of the moment, for being so old fashioned. SO, when some other aspect of the show seems outdated, it is not as glaringly obvious that it's because of its age, & people judge the show more harshly over it, as if it were a show that should better live up to modern sensibilities, like it is modern, even though it really isn't anymore.
For example, TNG is essentially an episodic show, with a formula damn near devoid of character arcing, which it inherited from TOS. That was the nature of the beast back then, & no one ever sat around condemning TOS for that, but I do see TNG get put down over it a lot, or considered weaker than it's successors etc... There's other more nuanced examples, but well... there you have it
With "Twin Peaks" and "Northern Exposure" I think it had to do with eccentric characters. I also think the fear was not that they might offend people like a modern HBO show but instead might confuse people. TNG never felt overly complicated in it's stories. They found ways to ground even the wildest idea into a easy to digest story. Plus it was aimed mostly at families and wanted to be square enough for that audience to get it as oposed to trying to win over a more hip and sophisticated audience.
Speaking of which I just thought of another groundbreaking show of that time and it was "The Gary Shandling" show and maybe even "The Simpsons" and "Married With Children." Possibly "Roseane." I think those shows also started in the late 80's.
Jason
Speaking of which I just thought of another groundbreaking show of that time and it was "The Gary Shandling" show and maybe even "The Simpsons" and "Married With Children." Possibly "Roseane." I think those shows also started in the late 80's.
Jason
And St. Elsewhere only the twist in the final episode kills the whole series.
In fact I would love to know why they ended it that way?
In fact I would love to know why they ended it that way?
I wonder if that was before or after the end of "The Bob Newhart" show I think it was called. The one were he works at a Inn and it had the "Darryl and my other brother Darryl" family involved with the show. That is the one were he wakes up in the final episode and he is a character from a previous show and it turns out that whole show was just a dream.
Jason
Yep it's like that.
At the end of St. Elsewhere we find out that the whole TV series was just a dream in the mind of an autistic child.
I really like this comment, completely agree that there is something (maybe) naive but definitely not dated about the rational, cerebral way that they solve problems on TNG. This is absolutely what makes it stand out amongst most genre TV/movies of the time and even still, I would say (maybe now more than ever??).
But it is also the speech. Many writers coming into Star Trek found it difficult to get the hang of the way people had to speak on TNG. It wasn't necessarily natural or contemporary. It was 'staged' and 'neutral' in a way - and the whole thing comes across a little more like theatre than television. But to me this actually helps to keep it less of its time and therefore less dated.
I like this post.
I'd never thought of TNG in that way and yeah you're right its like live action theatre for TV. I like that.
There is one visual flaw... the color schemes. We see late 80's style coloring in the sets, chairs, etc. It's a dead giveaway.
or... 2360s?
Similar threads
