The only way one can find TNG not to be the best trek series is if
- Thread starter tobindax
- Start date
The only way one can find TNG not to be the best trek series is if...
Take into account:
• Great drama has conflict among it principal characters and TNG did not.
• TNG ran 7 years and produced only 4 out of the seven years of quality television (Season 1,2 and 7 sucked!).
• TNG is a rip-off of TOS (like VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE). Only DS9 forged new territory in the TREK franchise.
• A one-note, dimension-less, sexless character as captain. (Though played by a fine actor!)
• Could not do humor like VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE, and like them, produced no classic comedy episodes in the TREK canon or science fiction in general.
• Had flat, white-bread characters that didn't grow.
• Had characters with very little charisma and passion.
• Lacked the character/actor interaction of TOS and the broad, ensemble feel and success of DS9.
• No great dynamic between captain and first officer, unlike many TREK and similar type of story franchises, TV shows, movies, novels, etc.
• Already surpassed as great quality sci-fi and real drama by DS9, BABYLON 5, THE X FILES, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, FIREFLY and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (remake).
• Monumental failure as a movie series which showcased all the TV series weaknesses and demonstrated it a good TV series, but not as superior as the above mentioned series.
• Failure of movie series--along with VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE--almost and quite possibly did destroy TREK franchise.
• A good test of a show, franchise, movie, etc. and/or it character's is if it can be interesting, even if it is bad. TOS could do this, both as a TV series and a movie. TNG could not.
• TNG had no competition from quality science fiction (unlike DS9). This produced a warped sense of it's success--both quality and commercial.
• Viewing the TV series now, 2008, it already looks dated, soft and tame.
• Poor production design and FX. TOS had this problem too, but, it took this weakness and created it's own style, feel and made it it's own. Not TNG.
• Bridge of the ship looks like a hotel lobby and not a bridge on a ship. Dreadful and almost laughable decision. The exterior shape of the ship made it look like a "toy" traveling through space and not a mighty star ship.
Take into account:
• Great drama has conflict among it principal characters and TNG did not.
• TNG ran 7 years and produced only 4 out of the seven years of quality television (Season 1,2 and 7 sucked!).
• TNG is a rip-off of TOS (like VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE). Only DS9 forged new territory in the TREK franchise.
• A one-note, dimension-less, sexless character as captain. (Though played by a fine actor!)
• Could not do humor like VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE, and like them, produced no classic comedy episodes in the TREK canon or science fiction in general.
• Had flat, white-bread characters that didn't grow.
• Had characters with very little charisma and passion.
• Lacked the character/actor interaction of TOS and the broad, ensemble feel and success of DS9.
• No great dynamic between captain and first officer, unlike many TREK and similar type of story franchises, TV shows, movies, novels, etc.
• Already surpassed as great quality sci-fi and real drama by DS9, BABYLON 5, THE X FILES, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, FIREFLY and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (remake).
• Monumental failure as a movie series which showcased all the TV series weaknesses and demonstrated it a good TV series, but not as superior as the above mentioned series.
• Failure of movie series--along with VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE--almost and quite possibly did destroy TREK franchise.
• A good test of a show, franchise, movie, etc. and/or it character's is if it can be interesting, even if it is bad. TOS could do this, both as a TV series and a movie. TNG could not.
• TNG had no competition from quality science fiction (unlike DS9). This produced a warped sense of it's success--both quality and commercial.
• Viewing the TV series now, 2008, it already looks dated, soft and tame.
• Poor production design and FX. TOS had this problem too, but, it took this weakness and created it's own style, feel and made it it's own. Not TNG.
• Bridge of the ship looks like a hotel lobby and not a bridge on a ship. Dreadful and almost laughable decision. The exterior shape of the ship made it look like a "toy" traveling through space and not a mighty star ship.
Yes. Biased in favor of quality and substance.
No shock here that this thread says absolutely nothing. Like TNG.
This doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Maybe 1st did, but season 2 and 7 definitely didn't sucked.
And every, every St series had at least one season that "sucked".
They all had a ship and a crew, but they were very different in many other ways.
That is not true, Picard is one of the greatest ST characters ever. He is better known than any DS9, VOY or ENT character. And he is definitely not sexless (Vash, Bev, Anij...).
Deja Q.
Maybe other characters were weaker, but Picard, Data and Riker definitely grew. They had interesting relationship. The whole cast had a great chemistry.
And they had bigger success than any other ST series.
I haven't watched Babylon and Firefly, but Buffy and DS9 are not better than TNG.
BSG is neither, and it's much more drama, than a sci fi show.
The X Files are the best series ever.
It had at least one great film and big success (FC), and 2 were pretty good.
Only Nemesis is a big failure.
ENT was the one that was cancelled. And TNG opened the door for DS9 and every other series because of its success. DS9 ratings were always dropping, too, despite that "real drama and quality".
It does not.
It has a real message in it, it's about something, and it's not only about "what will happen next" like many shows today.
Enterprise D has the most beautiful bridge ever.
And only Ent E has better exterior design.
What's interesiting or not, is in very big part a matter of opinion.
I find TNG always interesting, and TOS too, while DS9 was always boring.
..........................................
I don't think that you have to be insane to think that TNG is not the best. It's a matter of opinion, taste. But TNG definitely has quality, and it's one of the highest points in ST history, with some of the best characters and episodes.
That success was principally due to the guest actor though.
But Q is a originally TNG guest charactor, and it is a classic TNG comedy episode.
People are always praising DS9 because of their guest characters (and I agree that they were great, especially Garak), but TNG had them also. Not so much, but they were very memorable, especially Q and Guinan.
And although TNG doesn't have much comedy episodes, it has many funny moments, especially with Data and Worf. Data is one of the funniest ST characters.
the most important probably.
that statement alone shows that reply is clueless.
a 1950s mentality, chauvinist, poser, compared to picard.
TNG is great...and while it is probably my favorite trek, I still have to say that ds9 is probably the best one out there.
TNG was absolutely horrible for seasons 1 + 2.. while ds9 was consistently good, had the best episodes.. (if i were to pick top 10 best trek episodes.. 7 would probably be from ds9).
TNG was absolutely horrible for seasons 1 + 2.. while ds9 was consistently good, had the best episodes.. (if i were to pick top 10 best trek episodes.. 7 would probably be from ds9).
Generally true, but Worf had some good lines and actions that made me laugh out loud.
Like when he realized he, along with every one else, has been transformed into on of Robin Hood's men, he says to Picard, "I protest! I am NOT a Merry Man!" (BTW, thankfully Worf had actually heard of Robin Hood, and didn't need to ask anyone who he was.)
And in an homage to Animal House, Worf snatches Geordi's instrument that he had been playing badly, smashes it, and says, "Sorry."
RR
Agreed! They should be in a rubber room somewhere! But wait, what if it's the two of us who are in that rubber room instead? OH NO! -- RR
You're talking about Q-Pid not Deja Q,
S1 is the best and only true Trek of TNG
The only thing being "proven" here are people's opinions.
its a matter of personal opinion. People have their favorite series based on factors such as the characters, the species featured in the series, the acting, the theme. Everything goes into factor.
I'd say seasons 1 and 2. I often say they were the worst seasons of Star Trek -- and the last seasons of Star Trek.
Wow, that's a pretty bold statement. Opinions CAN be wrong, however everyone is entitled to them. In this I do agree with you. STNG was a show that doesn't feel like anything else on the TV landscape before or sense. It had the most evolved sense of its own milieu, the best combination of both drama and production of all the ST series. It was the most consistent in quality. It had the best single actor of any ST series. On top of that it was the most popular, had the best ratings, won the most awards and expanded the ST fan base more than any other ST series.
RAMA
Similar threads
