Old? Stewart was in his 40s when TNG started
Picard pulled off the bald look well, and was sorta good looking for a old guy.
Riker on the other hand was hands down f--ing hot.I personally think when he got older on the set he aged like fine wine.
What used to make me cringe I now see as an asset. What about you?
- Thread starter Cepstrum
- Start date
Here's some pics of what Patrick looked like in his even younger years:
^ Ok the last one I just stumbled upon and found funny.
Anyways, back on topic a bit, in earlier TNG episodes, you can see the dated'ness of the first two series, but I found once you get into season 3 and beyond, the dated looks seem to die down. DS9 and Voyager for the most part have an ageless feel to them, where the time's fashion trends didn't exactly span over into the show (Poofy hair, platform shoes, big gold chains with clocks on them, etc.)
Though the comment earlier about Q's outfit at one time showing off his man-bits, I guess there was an episode my wife caught where when Picard was heading to Risa, you could see his package flopping around in the pants as he made his way to the transporter.... it happens I guess.....
But upon reflection, one of the episodes we watched last night, "The Ensigns of Command" ~ The scene where Troi and Picard were transported to the alien vessel to work out their issues, Troi and Picard walked towards the Sheliak and it was pretty obvious Troi had a seriously bad Cameltoe going on.
^ Ok the last one I just stumbled upon and found funny.
Anyways, back on topic a bit, in earlier TNG episodes, you can see the dated'ness of the first two series, but I found once you get into season 3 and beyond, the dated looks seem to die down. DS9 and Voyager for the most part have an ageless feel to them, where the time's fashion trends didn't exactly span over into the show (Poofy hair, platform shoes, big gold chains with clocks on them, etc.)
Though the comment earlier about Q's outfit at one time showing off his man-bits, I guess there was an episode my wife caught where when Picard was heading to Risa, you could see his package flopping around in the pants as he made his way to the transporter.... it happens I guess.....
But upon reflection, one of the episodes we watched last night, "The Ensigns of Command" ~ The scene where Troi and Picard were transported to the alien vessel to work out their issues, Troi and Picard walked towards the Sheliak and it was pretty obvious Troi had a seriously bad Cameltoe going on.
You're right about me: I was conflating youth and athletic-appearance for handsomeness. But there's another thing: Hollywood gets us used to expecting everyone to look extremely attractive. Compared to most people, even the "uglier" characters look much, much, better.
I guess what I was trying to say is that I appreciated TNG using more mature, traditionally good-looking actors that still look real compared to the incredibly youthful, toned/sculpted, clearly artificial actors that are increasingly prevalent now. ST:Enterpise was trending towards that, and I hope very much that if a new series is launched, they'll not cave-in to the current Hollywood trend in actors' looks. Even DS9 and Voyager, despite them running to 1998 and 2001, respectively, had the fortitude to go against the trend and stuck to "normal" handsome/beautiful instead of the insanely young actors who looked like they stepped off the covers of teen muscle/beauty magazines.
Of course, I must not neglect to mention the unfortunate, notable exception of Seven of Nine. I like Voyager and her character, but I can't stand her disproportionate body and the production crews' flagrant attempt to play it up by having her wear bizzarre, skin-tight suits. (I'd say the same about Troi's outfits, but at least they weren't as gratuitous, and she did look a little older.)
Anyone agree? I can't recall too much of the new Trek movie (I always prefer the TV shows to the movies.). How'd they handle this issue there? *
I agree about the genitals.
As for Patrick Stewart being "kinda good looking", he was voted Sexiest Man on Television in 1992 (TV Guide). My mom LOVED him. I remember getting my first Picard action figure and wondered if he was the first action figure with male pattern baldness. ;-)
As for Patrick Stewart being "kinda good looking", he was voted Sexiest Man on Television in 1992 (TV Guide). My mom LOVED him. I remember getting my first Picard action figure and wondered if he was the first action figure with male pattern baldness. ;-)
Rett Mikhal
Captain
That's not always true. There's such thing as "Art from Adversity."
Original Star Wars vs Prequels?
I like it when they don't have an unlimited budget. It means when they do that special effect, it means so much more. It means they REALLY needed it, and they really worked hard at it (unless they cheated and recycled stuff, but it happens).
There's something much more wonderful about seeing a fine model like the Enterprise D vs the NX-01 which lives entirely in a computer. You could argue we're just spoiled and times have to change.
I couldn't agree more. To me, CGI is best used as an assist to the real thing (eg, allowing DS9 to have larger scale battles). Perhaps as the tech. improves, CGI closeup spaceships will look as real as models. For now, though....
Hello, there. First time poster, long-time lurked. Sometime I'll introduce myself. But I must make a comment and then ask for you TNG viewers to respond. It's been so compelling to me I went through the laborious process of registering/posting from a mobile device! Here it is:
It's clear TNG's SFX are way behind that of VOY (which is the first series that hooked me enough to start obtaining DVDs and taping it off tv until I'd seen most episodes many times). I later discovered TNG to be equally (if not more so) compelling than VOY. This often caused me to regret the state of the art of SFX and overall visual production quality in the TNG era. "If only TNG could look as good as VOY," I would say to myself.
(An aside: I don't wish to embue too much importance to visual quality. ENT clearly had by far the best, but I really don't care for the show much.)
Nevertheless, I found certain visuals of TNG so bad to the point of distraction. For example, too-obvious sets on away missions, the cardboard-looking type 5 (?) shuttle seen closeup in Time Squared, and the recurring 1980s' hair and clothing styles. Worst, the show's visual identity and style dramatically changed as the series progressed, yet another barrier to suspending disbelief and immersing myself in this alternate reality.
Now, however, my opinion of the aforementioned has completely changed. I still don't deny the changing visuals, but now I see it as adding to the realism. After all, styles and technology changes rapidly in our era, so why not expect the same in TNG? For example, seven years ago, the iPod touch that I use to compose this would seem out-of-place. Hair and clothing preferences change.
People age, too. This was most apparent on TNG, probably more so than most shows (except for ones with kids). It's easy to make fun or chastise the characters for such things as weight gain (Riker), but I think it makes it appear more realistic. While the actors were all above-average in looks, none would be mistaken for a model as in so many shows today (even Archer's physique is suspiciously chiseled for an aged starship captain, and Travis on ENT looks more like a NFL safety than a starship pilot. And don't get me started on Seven and T'Pol! They certainly don't add to the immersion quality.). I liked the "homeliness" (by Hollywood standards) of the Enterprise-D crew, though I much preferred Ms. Troi covered-up.
So now I view the visual evolution of TNG as a strength--much in the same way the characters developed/changed (viz., Worf) over the series.
Now what's your opinion? Do you appreciate it for the reasons I listed, or do you wish it could've been done with today's vastly improved visuals?
I'm hoping for some answers, for this took me an hour to do on my little iPod! (And also for that reason, please forgive in advance the undoubtedly present typos, etc. Proof-reading and correct are extraordinarily difficult on this device.)
--Cepstrum
I don't think I've agreed so much with a OP on this site before.
I watched a few season 1 eps last ngiht for the first time in ages and I noticed a few low production value moments. Overly reflective dirty window in conference room. Microphone boom hovering slightly. And sometimes on the bridge in Encounter at Farpoint you can see extra piece of carpet covering a wire that is powering the Ops console. Its quite endearing to see how this was smoothed out as it progressed. I watched Where no one has gone before and forgot just how good the fx was when the Enterprise was travelling faster than warp 10. It was beautiful too. I wonder if it was hand drawn or computers.
I love the physical models used in TNG. They have a grace that CGI can't capture. NX-01 never looked real to me ever. Voyagers CGI was ok. Theres a DS9 ep- Valinat I think -where the ship attacks a huge DOminion battle ship and half way thru the attack it looks like they ran out of money to pay for the detailing of textures on the CGI model. That makes me cringe!
At the time of watch TNG in its first run the fx was amazing. And I still think they look ok. Its just as someone else mentioned- the way it was transferred to DVD is not kind to it. ON a 50 inch tv it looks like there's a film of dirt over it. Which is very sad. I cringe more at how the producers could do that to my fave show!!! Cheapskates.
You have a point about sets. Birthright set is appalling. And it got boring seeing the episode underground in another cave set. I thoguht the old city and the space jelly sets from Encounter at Farpoint to be far more impressive than later seasons.
I never really noticed the 80s hair do tbh, although after watching 110110101010101010101 wother its blooddy called, Minuette definitely had a an 80s almost tranny makeup and hair don't.
TNG is deifniftle the most stylised series and you are right you can tell what season it is just by watching.
Whereas Voyager and DS9 looked the same all the way through. WIth myabe just Janeyway's and Banana's hair length as a giveaway.
Part of the cringe factor has put me off revisiting something I love watching, however it wasn't half as bad as I remembered visually. It definitely looked better on a tube set 28" screen in the 90s
Kira, Jadzia, Bashir, Ezri, Sisko "ugly as sin"? Um, nope. 
(And that's without mentioning recurring characters like Leeta, Bareil, or certain Cardassians in those tight-pants uniforms... 
)He didn't say they weren't handsome/beautiful, I understood it to mean that they weren't all cookie-cutter model gorgeous with perfect bodies, as casts of many TV shows are.
Which, however, really isn't a sign of TPTB being particularly into realism, but a simple consequence of the TNG cast's aging. Jonathan Frakes was clearly cast partly because he was meant to be the cookie-cutter gorgeous hunk (because TPTB were worried that the captain was too intellectual, too foreign, too bald, and that thought they'd need a Kirk-like second lead). It's just that Frakes gained a lot of weight as he got older. But by that time, everyone had figured out that Patrick Stewart had a really good body and stayed fit whatever his age, so they started having Picard go to Risa and take his clothes off whenever possible.
I used to have a little crush on Riker when I first watched TNG... that was when I was 13-14, and I just saw season 1 since that's all out TV showed. I did find his acting a bit silly even back then, but he was certainly handsome. Now that I watch those early seasons, I am too put off by that silly acting and his embarrassing romantic scenes to find him hot. In later seasons, his acting got much better... he was still quite attractive for a few more years before he put too much weight. I always thought Data was cute, and his body looked really good in Starfleet uniforms. For some reason I was never really attracted to Picard, but I can see why people would be - he has a really nice fit body, great voice, striking features and a lot of presence. I know some women who find Worf attractive, but the Klingon forehead is a bit too much for me... Michael Dorn is very good-looking in real life though.
That rounds up the list of TNG males I find more or less attractive. I never found Geordi attractive, and as for Wesley, I never even remotely thought of him that way, not even when I was 13.
Last edited:
Is it me or does that pic look more like Ian McKellen?
Yeah, but the OT and the Enterprise-D looked great. By bad special effects and poor production values I don't mean old or cheap. Sometimes low budget can look far better than high budget, and the PT movies prove that. All I meant is that, regardless of how good Blake's 7 is, I'm not going to regard the special effects or production values as a strength of the show. Poor production values rarely ruin a show, but I'm not going to like them just because I like the show. And TNG looked horrible in its first two seasons.
