Either you haven't read the thread at all or you just want a reaction...'cause I'm not seeing the kind of talk you claim is always there.
How do Niners feel about TNG?
- Thread starter TheGodBen
- Start date
Don't lie, Tosk, you know we're all haters. I mean, even I said how much I hate TNG in my own post in this thread.
Yeah, but you're a hater, so I have to assume you were lying just to rile people up. But if you were lying, then you're not really a hater...and if you're not a hater, you could be telling the truth...about being a hater.
I'm so confused.
I love TNG. It's what got me hooked on Trek in the first place. I would say I like TNG and DS9 about equally, and for very different reasons, but if pressed to choose, I might actually pick TNG, for purely sentimental reasons. As it stands, FWIW, I have all of TNG on DVD, but only one season of DS9.
We're the ones with the complex? So far, in a poll of 61 Niners only two have voted against TNG. 87% of respondents either like or love TNG. Perhaps you shouldn't malign entire groups of people based on encounters with only a handful of them, especially in a thread that proves you to be 87% wrong.
Yes, I do think that DS9 was a better show than TNG, and I preferred that it was darker and had more shades of grey. That's not a criticism, when I say those things I'm not denigrating TNG, I still love that show. I just happen to love DS9 more for those reasons.
AND, TGB, I should add (to reinforce your point) that even though yes, I voted against TNG and I have lost pretty much all of my kind feelings towards the show, that still doesn't make me truly what a hater is--which is someone who can't let others have their fun. I will say what I want in the DS9 forum, but that's why I don't go in the TNG forum and crap all over everybody else, nor do I think TNG fans are stupid or anything else. I don't like it when people do that in the DS9 forum and it's not right to do it in return.
Curious.... what "Repugnant Philosophy" would that be?
Added:
And in regard to The Original Series, Voyager and Enterprise, I always found it hard to get into the Original Series.... it was just way to over-dramatic with the acting, the explanations of space and science at the time is very dated, and the effects and props, while I completely understand were from back in the 60's, being born in 1980, I always found it all pretty dated and hard to relate to.
Voyager had the disadvantage for me in that I was still watching TNG episodes on a regular basis and trying to get updated in the DS9 series, there just wasn't any time to get involved into Voyager.... that and I found the character development was really lacking, which made it even harder for me to relate to them.
Enterprise took the worst of my approvals and I never even given one episode a full watch through until about half a year ago.
Since I have yet to watch Voyager all the way through and I've only gotten through the first season of Enterprise, I can not state my official stance on either of the shows, but I know they both fall behind TNG and DS9.
When I do get through both seriesezezez, I'll give a detailed and more honest view on them.
Last edited:
I was a confirmed Niner from the moment Emissary first aired. I grew up watching reruns of TOS after school and watched all of TNG in first run on TV...but DS9 to me was something special. Different, and special. I knew it was going to be a darker show - a less 'squeaky clean Federation' show, right from the start, and I liked that.
That said, I really liked TNG a lot when it first aired. Much more than I do now. As I said, I watched every episode and really loved it at the time...but I think a few things conspired to put me off of TNG slightly, to where I now consider it 'okay...but nothing special'. And those things are:
1. TNG has aged very poorly - especially the first two seasons, but really, the whole show. And I am not talking here about just special effects and costume styles, although those are certainly at issue. I'm talking here about the 80's PC mindset that permeated the show - a mindset that was not prevalent in TOS...and was not prevalent in DS9 either. That whole "We have evolved and as the superior society, we are now out to teach the universe our ways" is just nauseating to watch now. So I have to pick the TNG episodes I watch very carefully, so that I watch ones that are devoid, or nearly devoid, of that nonsense. When I do that, I enjoy the show much more.
2. The movies - specifically, Nemesis, but to an extent, Insurrection too. Nemesis was one of the worst movies I have ever seen - bar NONE. If it hadn't been Star Trek and therefore an ending I probably needed to see, at the very least to post here at TrekBBS, I'd have walked out of the theatre, it was so terrible. I can't even believe that movie MADE it to the big screen, it was so bad. Giant plot holes that you could steer a starship through were, incredibly, completely overlooked. I mean, we are talking major issues like...say...the motivations of the central characters! WTF?!!! And because it was perhaps the worst-written movie I have ever seen, it was, frankly, an insult. Because the message I got from B&B was "Yes...those dopey ST fans will watch ANYTHING with 'Star Trek' in the name - we don't even have to TRY to make a good movie", just slap "Star Trek" on a pile of steaming shit, and we can watch the Benjamins stack up. Screw those dumb nerds! We can throw them any old bone, and laugh at them all the way to the bank!" That, to me, is what Nemesis screamed. And it didn't help that I was sick and tired of Data's ongoing drama, LONG before they killed him off, to the point I was GLAD when he finally died.
As for Insurrection, I'm mainly just mad at the slight to DS9, like it didn't even exist....and the fact that the flagship crew of the Federation was off on this silly little mission when the entire AQ was about to fall to the Dominion....a conflict which barely registered a blip on the radar of this film.
3. Marina Sirtus. Jesus, is this woman annoying! And Frakes isn't far behind. First, she makes those nasty remarks about DS9 in the press (this coming from an actress who, by all accounts was the weakest link in the TNG cast!)...and then her and Frakes, in coordination with B&B, co-opt the Enterprise finale and turn it into a TNG episode. Not that ENT was all that great of a show...but they DID deserve their own finale, fer cryin' out loud - especially given the fact that the actors on ENT were great - it was the writing that normally was the problem on that show. What B&B, Frakes and Sirtus did to that cast was abominable and completely undeserved (especially given that the fault for ENT's failure rests squarely WITH B&B - the same guys who punished the ENT cast for their own lousy mistakes!). And yes - while I do chiefly blame B&B for the ENT fiasco, Frakes & Sirtus were certainly greedy enough and arrogant enough to participate without reservation in this massive insult to the ENT cast. Sirtus is by far my LEAST favorite Trek actor - she's a terrible actress who can barely get a job outside of Trek...but who still, incredibly, has the arrogance to diss DS9 en masse...and steal the ENT cast blind. I can barely stand to look at her. Seriously.
Anyway, the bottom line for me is that TNG sat alot better with me when it was on than it does now. I love DS9 & TOS and I quite like VOY most of the time. But TNG - I really love certain episodes...but the items above have sort of ruined a lot of the show for me...so on average, I rate it as 'okay'.
That said, I really liked TNG a lot when it first aired. Much more than I do now. As I said, I watched every episode and really loved it at the time...but I think a few things conspired to put me off of TNG slightly, to where I now consider it 'okay...but nothing special'. And those things are:
1. TNG has aged very poorly - especially the first two seasons, but really, the whole show. And I am not talking here about just special effects and costume styles, although those are certainly at issue. I'm talking here about the 80's PC mindset that permeated the show - a mindset that was not prevalent in TOS...and was not prevalent in DS9 either. That whole "We have evolved and as the superior society, we are now out to teach the universe our ways" is just nauseating to watch now. So I have to pick the TNG episodes I watch very carefully, so that I watch ones that are devoid, or nearly devoid, of that nonsense. When I do that, I enjoy the show much more.
2. The movies - specifically, Nemesis, but to an extent, Insurrection too. Nemesis was one of the worst movies I have ever seen - bar NONE. If it hadn't been Star Trek and therefore an ending I probably needed to see, at the very least to post here at TrekBBS, I'd have walked out of the theatre, it was so terrible. I can't even believe that movie MADE it to the big screen, it was so bad. Giant plot holes that you could steer a starship through were, incredibly, completely overlooked. I mean, we are talking major issues like...say...the motivations of the central characters! WTF?!!! And because it was perhaps the worst-written movie I have ever seen, it was, frankly, an insult. Because the message I got from B&B was "Yes...those dopey ST fans will watch ANYTHING with 'Star Trek' in the name - we don't even have to TRY to make a good movie", just slap "Star Trek" on a pile of steaming shit, and we can watch the Benjamins stack up. Screw those dumb nerds! We can throw them any old bone, and laugh at them all the way to the bank!" That, to me, is what Nemesis screamed. And it didn't help that I was sick and tired of Data's ongoing drama, LONG before they killed him off, to the point I was GLAD when he finally died.
As for Insurrection, I'm mainly just mad at the slight to DS9, like it didn't even exist....and the fact that the flagship crew of the Federation was off on this silly little mission when the entire AQ was about to fall to the Dominion....a conflict which barely registered a blip on the radar of this film.
3. Marina Sirtus. Jesus, is this woman annoying! And Frakes isn't far behind. First, she makes those nasty remarks about DS9 in the press (this coming from an actress who, by all accounts was the weakest link in the TNG cast!)...and then her and Frakes, in coordination with B&B, co-opt the Enterprise finale and turn it into a TNG episode. Not that ENT was all that great of a show...but they DID deserve their own finale, fer cryin' out loud - especially given the fact that the actors on ENT were great - it was the writing that normally was the problem on that show. What B&B, Frakes and Sirtus did to that cast was abominable and completely undeserved (especially given that the fault for ENT's failure rests squarely WITH B&B - the same guys who punished the ENT cast for their own lousy mistakes!). And yes - while I do chiefly blame B&B for the ENT fiasco, Frakes & Sirtus were certainly greedy enough and arrogant enough to participate without reservation in this massive insult to the ENT cast. Sirtus is by far my LEAST favorite Trek actor - she's a terrible actress who can barely get a job outside of Trek...but who still, incredibly, has the arrogance to diss DS9 en masse...and steal the ENT cast blind. I can barely stand to look at her. Seriously.
Anyway, the bottom line for me is that TNG sat alot better with me when it was on than it does now. I love DS9 & TOS and I quite like VOY most of the time. But TNG - I really love certain episodes...but the items above have sort of ruined a lot of the show for me...so on average, I rate it as 'okay'.
I always thought the "superior human society" aspect of early TNG (which I agree was a bad idea) was largely one of Gene's brainchildren at that point in time. I think one of DS9's best aspects was showing that humans are still fallible, even when they think they're doing the right thing. We're not done learning yet, and we never should be.
I know that sometimes when DS9 is mentioned to her in interviews she calls it "Deep Sleep Nine", which doesn't make much sense considering the fact that DS9 is the epic war series while her show was the one about that stuffy English guy that flies around the galaxy giving speeches.
(No, that was not a slight against TNG, I happen to enjoy many of Picard's speeches.)
(No, that was not a slight against TNG, I happen to enjoy many of Picard's speeches.)
It was, which is exactly why I do not worship Gene Roddenberry to the extent a lot of Trek fans do.
Over the years, I have heard a lot of Trek fans (particularly TNG and VOY fans, but others also) bitch about how certain aspects of DS9 (particularly the darker parts, the war, etc) were 'not in keeping with Gene Roddenberry's vision' and are therefore abhorrent on their face.
And my response to that has always been "And not keeping with Gene Roddenberry's vision is a problem, WHY, exactly?"
Now, Gene Roddenberry was a great man who gave us TOS - a show that has turned into one of the most profitable cult followings in the history of TV and has made possible all the other Trek shows, including DS9.
But the man is NOT god.
He made mistakes - the grossest one being to make the TNG characters all 'evolved' - evolved well past the point of 'tedious and pompous' and into the realm of "I wouldn't even want to KNOW these people, they are so arrogant and annoying!". And in doing so, ignoring one of the key factors that made TOS (and in particular, James T. Kirk) so great!
The best thing about Kirk, after all, was that he was a flawed hero. He was a womanizer, a guy who cheated at the Academy, a guy who by all accounts lived by a sort of 'wild west' mentality and more than sometimes played fast and lose with the rules. Shatner's Kirk was certainly like this...but if any doubt remained, Chris Pine's Kirk makes it blatantly clear.
And those flaws are EXACTLY what makes him interesting and lovable. And I'm talking here about Shatner's Kirk as well as Pine's - both of whom I adore. And as a woman, I have to also state that these 'bad boy' components of his personality don't exactly hurt him in the sexiness arena either!
Then TNG comes along and Gene decides to go all Kumbaya on us. The result - Patrick Stewart's Picard. Who is an interesting character to the extent we knew him, I suppose (I never thought much of the character development on TNG - we knew more about some of DS9's recurring characters than we did about Picard!), but NOTHING like the 'technicolor' personality and presence James T. Kirk.
James T. Kirk was FUN. He's the guy you'd want with you in a bar fight. Or even hangin' out in the bar BEFORE the fight. Or if you are a woman, even going home with AFTER the fight, if you get my drift.
Picard is the guy you'd want to be your lawyer if you ever went to tax court or something.
The fun factor for Picard is WAAAAAAYYYY down.
Instead, we had the speeches. The endless speeches made to countless, hapless races about how they all needed to be like HIM! Or like 'us'. "Us" being "the Federation". You get the idea.
Bleh!
You know, I never realized it until this very moment, but I think Trek XI was yet another factor in my diminishing enjoyment of TNG. Because I REALLY loved Chis Pine in that movie. Or more accurately, Chris Pine's Kirk. Don't get me wrong, Zach and the rest of that cast did a bang-up job also, and they deserve mega-props for that. But Chris Pine's Kirk just made me fall in love with that adorable rogue of a character all over again. He was FUN to watch. More fun to watch than any character I have seen in any TV show or movie in a VERY long time.
Flawed? Absolutely. Evolved? Not so much.
But what a GREAT character. And one which I continue to enjoy watching, no matter how many times I see that movie.
And the thing is, guys like Kirk really have no place in the TNG universe. They do in the DS9 universe - kickin' ass and takin' names with The Sisko. But Kirk would be pitched off the Enterprise-E for not making proper hospital corners so fast he wouldn't even have time to pack his bag.
Last edited:
I do still hear that sometimes, but to be fair, a lot of Trek fans seem to recognize that DS9 is much closer to TOS in spirit as far as character interactions are concerned, and in its portrayal of space as the frontier. So, both opinions are out there and, in a sense, I think both are true.
DS9 is closer to TOS in certain important respects, but no doubt further from the original premise of the five year mission than other Trek series. That combination is one of the things that makes it great. DS9 takes many of the best aspects of the original Trek idea, turns other aspects inside out, and adds additional layers of character and story development.
As for the new movie, I'm most grateful that they ditched some of the TNG-era stuffiness that continued to plague DS9 as well, especially the lack of musical variety. Modern Trek shows could have done so much with music, yet they are all incredibly bland from that point of view.
I can buy this and agree with it.
What I was really moving toward in my discussion, however, was one aspect of this. I feel that DS9 was more of a return to the flawed hero model - not just with the character of Sisko, but with all of the DS9 characters. None of them would win Citizen of the Month...but they were all interesting and for the most part, fun to watch.
And in that respect, more like TOS than TNG was.
Certainly, it is obvious that TNG 'wins' if we are talking about ' a spaceship flying around the universe' as a model. But I am not at all convinced that a space ship is what made TOS memorable. At least it didn't for me.
Even as a tiny kid (I was a toddler watching TOS when it first aired in the 60's) the coolest things about TOS to me were Kirk and Spock. I loved Spock because he made the concept of 'aliens' alot less scary to toddler PKTrekGirl...and I liked Kirk because even at that age, I sensed he was 'fun'.
Incidentally, to this day I can't seem to warm up to McCoy...because of my 3 year old's perception that 'he was always mean to Spock'.
See...I don't really have a problem with the music. Now, Babylon 5 or LOST it is not, when it comes to the score. But I quite like both of the DS9 themes as well as the VOY theme...and the episode background music, while not exactly memorable, is not terrible either. It sets moods - it does not take on a life of it's own, like it does in B5 or it does occasionally in LOST.
There is actually one scene in B5 that I like more for the music than I do for what actually happens in the scene. And in truth, I'm not really sure if that is a good thing or not. It means the music is good, obviously...but SHOULD the music take on a life of it's own? SHOULD it be in the forefront as opposed to the background, simply because it is so good?
I don't know the answer to that.
As to the repugnant philosophy embodied by TNG and Picard...I would say it is mainly characterized by hypocrisy and arrogance--but complicated by the fact that no credible character recognizes it for what it is and is able to call them on it. Picard's human superiority shtick got old really fast, and without going into much more detail, what he suggested about the way human society has become, and the sort of tolerance within humanity that has been lost in the interests of creating a "utopian" society is frightening to me.
I don't really see him that way in the later seasons, though, compared to how he was written early on in TNG. I mean, I see a lot of complaints about his comments in "Who Watches The Watchers?" and I'd probably agree that they were not worded as well as could have been. But in the context of the specific story, I do agree with Picard's reasoning that the Feds shouldn't allow themselves to become the basis for a new religion just because their attempt to study the Mintakans discreetly failed.
"Tapestry" is a good example of this - Picard had to relive one of the most painful events of his life, one which he believed was a great mistake, but realized that it ultimately represented a huge part of the leader he became. Without that flaw, he was not the same person.
No offense, Nerys - I hear what you're saying. But the perception I'm getting from your posts is that you think Picard's character didn't evolve much from his S1 portrayal and grow into a better character, and I would have to disagree with that assumption.
When it comes to the "superior humans" view, I agree with both you and PKTrekGirl that it's a bad idea. And I'm glad it was dropped to some degree later on in TNG and the writing improved.
"Tapestry" is a good example of this - Picard had to relive one of the most painful events of his life, one which he believed was a great mistake, but realized that it ultimately represented a huge part of the leader he became. Without that flaw, he was not the same person.
No offense, Nerys - I hear what you're saying. But the perception I'm getting from your posts is that you think Picard's character didn't evolve much from his S1 portrayal and grow into a better character, and I would have to disagree with that assumption.
When it comes to the "superior humans" view, I agree with both you and PKTrekGirl that it's a bad idea. And I'm glad it was dropped to some degree later on in TNG and the writing improved.Similar threads
