The Eternal Question: TNG or DS9

[fireproof78]

There’s something falsely condescending when the differences between series are described like that.

Not meant as a condescension, because I certainly appreciate that TNG and VOY had their consequences. What stood out to me more was the frequency, I guess, that created that feeling. It is certainly not meant as a criticism.

Certainly, one of my favorite showers of all time in MASH was highly episodic, yet if one watches it from end to end there is a huge level of character growth that is incredibly fascinating. But, it requires a larger investment to see end to end.

It's a weird balancing act, and I don't think TNG is somehow the lesser. I think that it's a matter of preference.

 

[WebLurker]

Yeah, they are so few and far between that I cannot recall one, aside from Quark's observation regarding human's away from their creature comforts. Except, in that same episode Quark demonstrates similar qualities to the humans he condemns-that when faced with an existential threat he would kill just as easily as the humans he despises.

We'll, there's also the root beer scene with Garak and several comments in the Roswell episode.

What interests me far more in the Ferengi is episodes which show them trying to grow past the stereotypes often lobbed at them. Quark works hard for a time to explore alternatives to what is usually expected of them. And it's living up to the Roddenberry ideal, in a way, of growing past your limits and becoming more.

Seem to recall either the actor or some of the writers pointing out that, if you watch the show carefully, despite claiming to be a Ferengi's Ferengi, Quark is consistently shown to value and want respect more then profit.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Yes it did. Viewership was dropping across the board in television and it spooked them. They went for the low-hanging fruit of war. The complaint you heard again and again from TPTB was that the show was that the show was limited by its stationary setting. That's BS. Most television series are set in one place. Besides, they jumped around everywhere; they didn't need the war to do it.

We have to remember that the TNG movies also suffered an eventual decline. Which suggests the general audience were beginning to have the same attitude (or even worse) towards TNG post 1996 that they had towards the later Trek series. Maybe it's just hype, but they were credited with almost ending the franchise.

I think the movie themselves generated a lack of interest because finally, it became how obvious the format from TV had limited the characters. Geordi, Crusher, Worf, even Picard, were the same people doing the same things they did 15 years ago.

How can you grow as a character if you jump from adventure to adventure, relationship to relationship when everything is reset without ever mentioning them again? And the stories were written to fit that format.

Ultimately, no one really wanted to see a story about Picard rescuing a colony of beautiful looking people from ugly villain.

No one wanted to see Picard fight against another "evil villain" out destroy earth (who was his clone and sounded like an English poet). Both these movies had "ugly" villains with some sort of disfigured or twisted features, mano el mano showdowns, and big ship battles with explosions at the end.

The studios could no longer stick the words "The Next Generation" on a movie (or anything else) and expect a Star Wars response. Fans were beginning to want more.

 

[Arpy]

^ TNG movies declined because they sucked. They weren’t like the series, the characters weren’t like the series (Picard the action hero, Data the idiot), and they still made four of them over what 8 years? The stuck part, that was 1) some of the characters 2) some fans main criticism of NEM (just a bad movie overall), and 3) how was TOS much different? It isn’t even that the characters did/didn’t evolve, but they weren’t their interesting selves by the end, phoning it in, overweight, and regressed if anything.

 

[Prax]

The main reason I'd argue that people claim DS9 is more adult is because of the different way that it dealt with moral issues.

In general, TNG was very simplistic and didactic in its moral reasoning. If it was going to be a "message" episode, then some sort of conflict was set up where the other party (alien race, admiral of the week, etc) will be proven completely, totally, inexcusably wrong, and Picard & Co. will be right - possibly with some monologue given by Patrick Stewart at the end. The TNG style is honestly fairly didactic at times - as if it was purposefully set up to educate young people about issue X.

In contrast, DS9's style was more to ask questions rather than give answers. The protagonists of the series have very different moral frameworks - from Odo's need for order, to Quark's focus on greed, to Kira's religiosity. This brings them into inter-personal conflict, but the show is generally keen to present things in an evenhanded way, which allows for interesting critiques of aspects of the Federation we didn't see elsewhere. Also importantly, the main characters are allowed to be wrong. Not just wrong as in a temporary setback over the course of an episode, but wrong in a manner which has lasting repercussions - costing lives and wounding relationships. The show often really isn't interested in telling us what to think, so much as it is showing us an "issue" and having us draw our own conclusions.

but that's not really true. On DS9, with very few exceptions, the main characters were always right. Conversely, on TNG, they still explored complex moral dilemmas without easy answers all the time

Why the assumption of resentment on the part of the writers? Even Michael Piller lamented the "Roddenberry box" in terms of writing and yet was able to work in side of it.




There is a lot of assuming and black and white thinking coloring the opinions here. And, honestly, it makes very little sense so it is hard to take seriously.

There's no assuming at all. One only needs to be familiar with comments/interviews by/of various DS9 writers, especially its eccentric and arrogant showrunner, as well as various production notes such as those found on memory alpha to get an idea of how they felt about the 24th century as depicted in TNG. For example:

Much consideration went into the line "It's easy to be a saint in paradise." According to Ira Steven Behr, the line was a result of him having always wanted to dig deeper into Starfleet, to see what Earth was really like, and to examine the paradise that Gene Roddenberry had envisioned. Indeed, Behr had wanted to do this on Star Trek: The Next Generation but had never been allowed; "I'd been waiting to say that line in Star Trek for a long time. We need to dig deeper and find out what, indeed, life is like in the twenty-fourth century. Is it this paradise, or are there, as Harold Pinter said, 'Weasels under the coffee table.'" (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion) This episode finally allowed Behr a chance to raise such a point. "We were able to give a speech about how it's easy to be safe in paradise [….] We thought it was a fundamental thing to state," he recalled. (Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages, p. 340) In Behr's own words, he felt featuring this line was so important "because, yes, it's a paradise – but so what?" (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion) Robert Hewitt Wolfe commented, "It's easy to be a saint in paradise, but this ain't paradise! It's easy to be a saint on the Enterprise, but it's a little bit harder to be a saint on DS9. Sisko is still kind of a saint, but he's a saint that just has to work a lot harder."

The problem with this is, on TNG, they never call Earth a paradise. They don't even like going there. They also never claim to live in a perfect system. DS9's writers are presenting a false dichotomy and then using it to say "look at the hypocrisy."

As I've mentioned numerous times in the past, Deep Space Nine had higher ratings than Voyager during its entire run (both comparing season-for-season and chronologically) though both series basically had continual ratings decline, with fourth-season attempts to shake them up (Worf/Dominion War in DS9, and Seven in VOY) basically not accomplishing anything in terms of boosting ratings.

Given the two shows were about as far apart as could be reasonably expected during the era for Trek shows, I think it's hard to argue that anything intrinsic to either scared viewers away. How could DS9 have been hurt by serialization when Voyager wasn't rewarded for doubling-down on episodic adventure? How can DS9's dark tone have been bad for it, when VOY's sunny tone didn't help? How can DS9's stationary setting have mattered, when VOY's roaming setting didn't help?

Exploring the rating for these two shows cannot be simplified in this way. There are dozens of factors going on here. If TNG had been on from 93-99, it likely would have had similar ratings to DS9, and if it had been confined to UPN, it likely would have had similar ratings to VOY. TNG came out at the perfect time for it to enjoy a wide audience, be widely accessible, and get good time slots. DS9 came out in a changing era for TV, and didn't get all the opportunities TNG had. Voyager had it even worse, and was not only less widely available than even DS9 to begin with, the number of places carrying UPN shrunk during its last few seasons.

That all three shows enjoyed steady and consistent numbers is more important. They were all successful.

Also, saying DS9 had a "dark tone" and Voyager a "sunny tone" is ridiculous, or that VOY "doubled down on episodic." Both shows employed a variety of tones all depending on the episode. VOY could go every bit as dark or dark than DS9, and vice versa. They were both more serialized than TNG, and ENT was more serialized than DS9 or VOY, even in its first season.

 

[Prax]

The studios could no longer stick the words "The Next Generation" on a movie (or anything else) and expect a Star Wars response. Fans were beginning to want more.

None of the TOS or TNG movies got or expected a Star Wars response. They were all low-med budget films hoping for a relatively respectable return. Star Wars are big budget films with big returns. I would imagine that the lowest grossing SW film made multitudes more than the highest grossing Trek film(prior to the reboot; the first big budget Star Trek blockbuster)

^ TNG movies declined because they sucked. They weren’t like the series, the characters weren’t like the series (Picard the action hero, Data the idiot), and they still made four of them over what 8 years? The stuck part, that was 1) some of the characters 2) some fans main criticism of NEM (just a bad movie overall), and 3) how was TOS much different? It isn’t even that the characters did/didn’t evolve, but they weren’t their interesting selves by the end, phoning it in, overweight, and regressed if anything.

IMO, the TOS movies(exception being maybe TMP), operate the same way as the TNG movies. The TNG movies are basically a continuation of them, and made in the same spirit. They're a little bit dumbed down compared to the show. They usually focus on revenge. They are more action oriented, etc. They all feature people too old to be doing what they are doing

There are probably many complicated reasons why Nemesis flopped. It could have been a great film and still flopped.
A Star Trek movie(even a pre-2009 ST movie, with a smaller budget) doesn't depend on Star Trek fans for it to be successful.

 

[WebLurker]

A Star Trek movie(even a pre-2009 ST movie, with a smaller budget) doesn't depend on Star Trek fans for it to be successful.

No movie depends solely on its' franchise fans. If only the fans show up, the movie fails (see Serenity).

 

[Arpy]

There's no assuming at all. One only needs to be familiar with comments/interviews by/of various DS9 writers, especially its eccentric and arrogant showrunner, as well as various production notes such as those found on memory alpha to get an idea of how they felt about the 24th century as depicted in TNG. For example:

The problem with this is, on TNG, they never call Earth a paradise. They don't even like going there. They also never claim to live in a perfect system. DS9's writers are presenting a false dichotomy and then using it to say "look at the hypocrisy."

IMHO it's worse than that. A paradise isn't a paradise, a saint isn't a saint, if they don't make a conscious, earned, effort to be so. It's like if you'd said Cardassians are better than everyone because they don't do drugs. Yeah, but only because there are no drugs on the planet; otherwise, half the population would have serious addiction problems to try to escape their miserable existences. Well, if you're going to suggest that Earth is a paradise, then it's beholden on you not to cynically undermine that but to best-attempt show how the hell they're accomplishing that.

Regarding the scene in which the line was said, to me, it's completely incongruous that Earth would be a paradise, the amazing place that produced our amazing heroes, yet can't get the basic political realities Sisko was frustrated by. Is it a paradise filled with complete idiots? Ergo, again, not paradise?

Finally, it's problematic that the problem is Earth specifically and not other coreworlds too. What, only humans are so awesome as to be capable of achieving paradise?

 

[fireproof78]

Well, if you're going to suggest that Earth is a paradise, then it's beholden on you not to cynically undermine that but to best-attempt show how the hell they're accomplishing that.

Which is usually why TOS avoided showing us Earth itself. It left the idea of a more positive existence for humanity entirely to the imagination of the audience, with only small hints at what the world might be like for the nonheroes.

We are told in TOS that the environments are highly structured and controlled. In TNG we are shown a variety of activities but never told exactly how Earth got or continues to function save for the post-scarcity aspect. Earth simply is.

Regarding the scene in which the line was said, to me, it's completely incongruous that Earth would be a paradise, the amazing place that produced our amazing heroes, yet can't get the basic political realities Sisko was frustrated by. Is it a paradise filled with complete idiots? Ergo, again, not paradise?

This is a highly black and white assessment of the people of Earth-that they either are completely politically savvy or complete idiots. Isn't it more likely that such paradise produced a kind of naivete that didn't recognize the full dangers of the situation? That's actually a very human thing to do. So, I struggle to see the black and white interpretation here.

Finally, despite all of this, this is still just a point of view. Sisko's is not more valid, or less valid, than Picard's when it comes to Earth and the Federation. They both suffered experiences at the hands of the Borg and that informs their point of view. That doesn't make the writers aiming for a "gotcha" moment against Star Trek's Earth. It offers up the potential to discuss this optimistic future, rather than just take it for granted.

To quote Picard, "Ah, well, now we're all a little less secure in our moral certitude."

I think the fact that we are still discussing these aspects of DS9 25 years later speaks to its ability to invite discussion. And I would say the same about TNG.

 

[Arpy]

This is a highly black and white assessment of the people of Earth-that they either are completely politically savvy or complete idiots. Isn't it more likely that such paradise produced a kind of naivete that didn't recognize the full dangers of the situation?

No, because Nechayev was telling Picard about the complexities of the situation before they even introduced the Maquis. They know the complexities. Earth was retconned into a phony Pleasantville so that they could poopoo it.

Finally, despite all of this, this is still just a point of view. Sisko's is not more valid, or less valid, than Picard's when it comes to Earth and the Federation. They both suffered experiences at the hands of the Borg and that informs their point of view. That doesn't make the writers aiming for a "gotcha" moment against Star Trek's Earth. It offers up the potential to discuss this optimistic future, rather than just take it for granted.

Yet as Prax quoted above, Behr's issue was that he never liked the idea of Roddenberry's better future (wanting to "dig deeper" to find "weasels under the coffee table") and was looking for ways to subvert it as early as he could. You can't say that it's just a matter of characters' opinions whenever you want to hide the intent of the writers who speak through their characters, and we could all tell when they did. The saints in paradise line, Quark's speeches about the nature of humans/Ferengi, the mocking of the no-money economy, etc...they're jibes at TNG/Roddenberry, and, as a fan, they made me wince – not only at the incongruity with the Trek I knew and loved, but at the pettiness of the writers. Dudes, you have an entire (very popular) universe of which you are gods. Tell your stories without shitting on others'.

I think the fact that we are still discussing these aspects of DS9 25 years later speaks to its ability to invite discussion. And I would say the same about TNG.

Yup

 

[fireproof78]

Yet as Prax quoted above, Behr's issue was that he never liked the idea of Roddenberry's better future (wanting to "dig deeper" to find "weasels under the coffee table") and was looking for ways to subvert it as early as he could. You can't say that it's just a matter of characters' opinions whenever you want to hide the intent of the writers who speak through their characters, and we could all tell when they did. The saints in paradise line, Quark's speeches about the nature of humans/Ferengi, the mocking of the no-money economy, etc...they're jibes at TNG/Roddenberry, and, as a fan, they made me wince – not only at the incongruity with the Trek I knew and loved, but at the pettiness of the writers. Dudes, you have an entire (very popular) universe of which you are gods. Tell your stories without shitting on others'.

Except, we've seen the weasels under the table for a while in Star Trek, from TOS onward. I don't see it as "shitting on" or some impossible incongruity. It simply is another perspective.

And, even if the writers are doing that, that doesn't somehow make them right. It makes it open for discussion.

 

[Prax]

Finally, despite all of this, this is still just a point of view. Sisko's is not more valid, or less valid, than Picard's when it comes to Earth and the Federation. They both suffered experiences at the hands of the Borg and that informs their point of view. That doesn't make the writers aiming for a "gotcha" moment against Star Trek's Earth.

Ahhh, but that's exactly what it is. The line wasn't created for Sisko. It's what Ira Behr wanted to say, to start taking a look at the "weasels under the table."

From the horse's mouth:

I'd been waiting to say that line in Star Trek for a long time."

He'd been trying to do this in TNG, but wasn't allowed to. It's not a "baseless assumption" when we have access to the motivation behind this and other story ideas that were carried out.

 

[fireproof78]

But that's exactly what it is. The line wasn't created for Sisko. It's what Ira Behr wanted to say, to start taking a look at the "weasels under the table."

From the horse's mouth:

Yes, I saw that after I wrote it. You make a fair point.

That doesn't make the writer right or wrong in this instance, nor the line incongruous with Sisko as a character. It invites discussion, not black and white moralizing.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Yet as Prax quoted above, Behr's issue was that he never liked the idea of Roddenberry's better future (wanting to "dig deeper" to find "weasels under the coffee table") and was looking for ways to subvert it as early as he could.

True, but there may have been a backlash because TNG did have a tendency to lay it on thick, even exaggerate . The list of things they say they don't do or fear anymore, the things they do or believe is almost bizarre at least from our point of view. It had too much of a holier than thou aspect that many fans misinterpret.

Even the way they admitted they still had flaws had a self congratulating tone to it.

Seriously though, then there's the unreal behavior--as I said before about the ending of a certain episode where Yar just told Picard that one of the alien ambassadors may have been killed and prepared to be eaten by its enemy ambassadors. Picard shrugs says he should take a break and that Riker can take care of it. The background music is indicating this is a funny moment, while Troi smiles.

Wtf? It's not easy to see it as a mature show when you remember these scenes.

Both of the rival alien ambassadors had either a heavy reptilian or primate like appearance. If they looked more like humans, and the crew acted like this, the characters and the fans would have been horrified.

TNG is a classic, but it had somewhat of a hollow fantasy aspect to it.

Troi, who wears a cleavage revealing outfit everyday instead of a uniform. Ships that carries children and families aboard that end up getting wiped out by some disaster. A service that says its not the military and yet it is the only service being sent to protect against invasion.

There were a lot of things TNG was naïve about, avoided, ignored . Behr made some good points about it too in some episodes of DS9. It bought up topics that TNG never bothered to think about but could have.

 

[Prax]

True, but there may have been a backlash because TNG did have a tendency to lay it on thick, even exaggerate . The list of things they say they don't do or fear anymore, the things they do or believe is almost bizarre at least from our point of view. It had too much of a holier than thou aspect that many fans misinterpret.

Even the way they admitted they still had flaws had a self congratulating tone to it.

Seriously though, then there's the unreal behavior--as I said before about the ending of a certain episode where Yar just told Picard that one of the alien ambassadors may have been killed and prepared to be eaten by its enemy ambassadors. Picard shrugs says he should take a break and that Riker can take care of it. The background music is indicating this is a funny moment, while Troi smiles.

Wtf? It's not easy to see it as a mature show when you remember these scenes.

Both of the rival alien ambassadors had either a heavy reptilian or primate like appearance. If they looked more like humans, and the crew acted like this, the characters and the fans would have been horrified.

TNG is a classic, but it had somewhat of a hollow fantasy aspect to it.

Troi, who wears a cleavage revealing outfit everyday instead of a uniform. Ships that carries children and families aboard that end up getting wiped out by some disaster. A service that says its not the military and yet it is the only service being sent to protect against invasion.

There were a lot of things TNG was naïve about, avoided, ignored . Behr made some good points about it too in some episodes of DS9. It bought up topics that TNG never bothered to think about but could have.

Those are all ideas from season 1 that were totally abandoned. Behr is writing during season 7. By the second and third season, TNG is not that show that you are describing.

As for Troi's uniform, she's a counselor and can apparently wear what she wants. What's Kira's excuse? Did she design her own personal uniform, and pay garak to create it? Her fellow Bajorans must think she's quite the Diva.

 

[Tosk]

What's Dax's excuse? Did she design her own personal uniform, and pay garak to create it? Her fellow Bajorans must think she's quite the Diva.

Dax is a Trill, not a Bajoran. I'm asuming you mean Kira Nerys, who did receive a more feminized outfit after a while...but it never displayed cleavage, so I'm not sure if it really qualifies as a rebuttal to the Troi thing. (For the record, I don't care what Troi wore, except in cases where the outfit was decidedly unflattering. The entire cast deserve to at least look their best.)

 

[Prax]

Dax is a Trill, not a Bajoran. I'm asuming you mean Kira Nerys, who did receive a more feminized outfit after a while...but it never displayed cleavage, so I'm not sure if it really qualifies as a rebuttal to the Troi thing. (For the record, I don't care what Troi wore, except in cases where the outfit was decidedly unflattering. The entire cast deserve to at least look their best.)

Yes, I meant Kira. She wears her own unique uniform

 

[Tosk]

Yes, I meant Kira. She wears her own unique uniform

That's right, as I said they feminized her outfit after a while. It's not the first time a character has gotten a variant uniform uniquely their own. (Kirk and Picard both had them.) But the clothing Deanna wore up until season 6 (not counting Encounter at Farpoint) was not a uniform, so it's not really a valid comparison.

 

[Prax]

Is Kira's uniform a uniform if she is the only one in Bajor that wears it? Having Troi in a catsuit and high heels, and Kira in a catsuit and high heels is functionally the same situation. At least with Deanna, she went from the catsuit to the uniform, while Kira went from the uniform to the catsuit.

 

[Tosk]

Is Kira's uniform a uniform if she is the only one in Bajor that wears it?

You'd have to show that she actually is the only Bajoran who wears one before I can answer that.

It's a uniform, just as Kirk's wraparound and Picard's jacket-combo were. Deanna demonstrably wore her casual wear to work. (Again, I have no beef with that.)