45.
Comparing TNG's first season to Discovery's first season
- Thread starter Admiral Archer
- Start date
See, I tend to agree with this wholeheartedly. I don't find DSC particularly "dark" or "angsty" at its core. It has character drama and it has difficult things happening and examines the characters reaction to those difficult things. I guess if that's dark and angsty, then so be it. To me, it's just engaging drama.
I also agree with the assessment of what's "fun." I find TNG, for the most part, to be very dull. It's not "bad" at all...but it's very rarely action-adventure oriented, and it's not always nearly as clever as it pretends to be such that the lack of thrills is made up for on an intellectual level. That said, when it's hitting on all cylinders, it's virtually perfect. But, with 25+ episodes per season, that's not as often as we pretend. It often feels very self-conscious and contained. It lectures more than it shows. It's characters are cute on the surface, but quickly become Trek stereotypes with very little substance. Really none feel like real people, maybe with the exception of Riker or Ro.
DSC on the other hand is a blast. Even when it's ridiculous and wanky, it at least GOES FOR IT in an over-the-top, glorious and exciting way. Jason Isaacs is awesome in every single way. Michelle Yeoh is a model Starfleet Captain, and then 10 weeks later is chewing scenery and engaging in awesome fight scenes as the Terran Emperor. Michael Burnham is a mess, just like a real person in real life, and not the polished and irritatingly perfect Starfleet Officer we've dealt with since "Encounter at Farpoint" aired. Mirrorverse, Klingons, Sarek, the Enterprise. It's kinetic, and it rushes in where angels fear to tread regardless of the risk (with mixed results admittedly). But...I like that kind of spirit.
I hate when Star Trek plays it safe and uses the same frigging playbook from 1987. That's what chased me away from VOY and ENT quickly. It's what keeps me from caring beyond surface amusement about "The Orville." Maybe for me part of the the fun is the changes and departures from what we've all become accustomed to.
I've gotten more than enough of the old playbook. I'm having fun watching new plays get run finally. And, when teams run new plays, the execution always suffers at first. So, I'm cool with it. Things will only get better!
Last edited:
Meanwhile, we've had how many debates about "Fucking cool!" which was less than minute.
Tilly is the best!
That is straight-up fact.
Her and Stamets were the best thing about the show.
Lorca??
Isaacs was better in The Death of Stalin.
Yeah, but until the final "LORCA IZ TEH EEVAL!!!1!1!" reveal, that was a GREAT character.
Even then, after the reveal, we still managed to get great lines like "Poetic justice...a scientist destroyed by his own creation. Just kidding, I hate poetry."
TNG season 1 is hot garbage. I mean, it's got a couple episodes that are worth rewatching, but when I return to TNG I can just move right on to S2.
DSC has pacing issues. That's my major problem with it. But it also has a consistent vision. It already knows what it's about and the kind of stories it wants to tell. And that storytelling was pretty damn consistent for a first season. Not every episode was a home run, but it had far more hits than misses. TNG S1 had waaaaay more misses than hits.
DSC has pacing issues. That's my major problem with it. But it also has a consistent vision. It already knows what it's about and the kind of stories it wants to tell. And that storytelling was pretty damn consistent for a first season. Not every episode was a home run, but it had far more hits than misses. TNG S1 had waaaaay more misses than hits.
Just because it's one of the biggest facepalms in the episode doesn't mean it's the only problem. I already named some other glaring issues with the episode, and I'll just add that it's entire approach to 'exploring' drug issues feels completely ridiculous and artificial from start to finish and it frankly doesn't have any decent acting from the main cast or the guest stars.
As for what makes this speech in particular that bad: it feels like it was lifted directly from a cheap DARE video. None of the characters are actually in character, the dialogue is clunky as hell, and they're not so much even having a conversation with each other as they are talking at the audience (which they seem to think is filled with six year olds). It is just so blatantly obvious that the entire scene was inserted into the story for no other reason than because someone said that if they were doing a drug episode they would have to tell all the kiddies at home to Just Say No!
They literally aren't even talking about the actual situation taking place in this episode, because they're blathering about drugs as escapism when the Ornarans have explicitly been manipulated into becoming addicts by an evil pharmaceutical company.
^I like Symbiosis because I think the aliens provide a lot a tension and surprises and a good ethical dilemma for Picard and Crusher. I found the plight of the Onarans very gripping and there was some real great scenes with the actor who plays Kirk's son, including one where he almost kills Riker with his electrical energy. I thought the guest stars were topnotch and the episode has some of my favorite scenes between Picard and Crusher. But to each his own.
But I understand what he's saying.
The main plot was about people who had been lied to about having a disease by a drug manufacturer. They were conned into becoming addicts. They were victims of a medical-type business enterprise.
The Yar/Wesley scene was completely unrelated to that dynamic, and was so painfully shoved in there it was like a bad Public Service Announcement.
If Wesley had asked about why do evil people exploit others for profit, at least it would have been on topic.
You pretty much beat me to it. A big part of the problem with that scene is the context of the times...Nancy Reagan might as well have beamed aboard and given that Afterschool Special talk to Wesley.
(Or maybe an Excalbian pretending to be Nancy Reagan...?)
DSC had plenty of issues, but the first half of TNG is barely watchable it's so bad. It gets better in the second half, but it's still below DSC. Barely any character had a distinct personality, except Picard who was really unlikable. Troi and Riker felt like a replay of Decker and Ilia. As for the Ferengi... Yeesh.
Context. TNG to me captures the joy of Star Trek and I've always seen it on TV. I only realised how ordinary the acting was just recently. I mean for the first couple of seasons. I miss the childlike (even being no longer one) appeal.
Discovery is a paid for product now in a sea of almost hardcore competition and I analyse things to death now.
Discovery is a paid for product now in a sea of almost hardcore competition and I analyse things to death now.
Nostalgia plays a big part here. I feel the same way about TOS, which is the show I grew up on. By the time TNG debuted I was well past college, editing books for a living, and far more critical in my tastes. It had no "childlike" appeal to me and I was all too conscious of how weak that first season was.
Which suggests that modern viewers will someday regard the first season of DISCO with the same fond nostalgia.
To quote an old saying: "The golden age of science fiction is twelve."
I have never heard that saying, but I love it. I will be adding it to my 'personal phrases' bank, as my wife hints at.
(I am apparently a phrase/saying master, because virtually every phrase/saying I have ever used, it's apparently a new one to her.)
Similar threads
