The NEXT Generation?

[Whill]

I have three related observations/questions to bring up for discussion regarding my favorite Trek series:

(1) Why did they name it The Next Generation? The name only has real-world meaning by being the next Trek TV series about 20 years after the original one started. DS9, Voyager, and even Enterprise are appropriately named by having in-universe meaning.

I guess it bothers me a bit that the title TNG doesn't have any in-universe meaning. Kirk was saving the galaxy while Picard's grandfather was in diapers. TNG is a few human generations into the future from even the TOS movies. The ship is three Enterprises after A.

It's not the "next" of anything in-universe, is it? Would The New Generation have been any better? It would have been more accurate at least.


(2) Conversely, why was TNG set so far in the future from the TOS movies anyway?

I remember first reading about the show in the fan club magazine in early 1987 and Rodenberry was going to have it set 150 years in the future into the 25th century! Then they pulled it back to 78 (exactly that # for some odd reason) years after the TOS. By the end of Season 1 they settled on a master timeline incorporating the TOS, movies and TNG which pushed TNG even farther into the future by stating that it was instead set 78 years after TVH.

24th century, ok, cool. But why not maybe early 24th century? I don't think they can say they did it to distance the franchise from the original characters because they made McCoy still alive in the very pilot of the series. If the show had been set earlier, they could have still not mentioned the fate of the original characters, so we still wouldn't have had to know whether Kirk was still alive or not. Maybe it could have at least been the Enterprise C instead of D.

Why did TNG have to be so far in the future?


(3) I am well aware that Phase II was going to be a second TV series with the original crew and that got canned after the success of Star Wars to instead make TMP out of the pilot episode. Then of course TNG was another form of Phase II by eventually being the second Star Trek series.

So I understand that Will Riker was based on Will Decker, and Troi was based on Ilia. Why wasn't Will Riker's name changed a bit more so it wasn't so obvious that he was based on Decker?

But my real question is, why are so many things in TNG seem to repeat the TOS?

Many situations got reset to be like they were in TOS. In the both series, the Romulans reappear as an enemy of the Federation after being absent for many years. Spock's human mother couldn't possibly be alive that far into the future so Sarek was remarried to another human. Spock and Sarek have another falling out so aren't taking to each other again. I don't see the necessity for these trends.

Don't get me wrong. I love TNG and of course they did do a lot of original things. But sometimes it seems that a better name for it would have been Star Trek: The Regeneration...

 

[Finn]

You are over thinking this

 

[Shazam!]

a better name for it would have been Star Trek: The Regeneration...

You're shitting me.

 

[Admiral Shran]

TNG is a few human generations into the future from even the TOS movies.

Actually, from an in-universe perspective, it's at MOST two generations into the future from the TOS movies. Given that McCoy lived long enough to be around in Encounter at Farpoint, and given that Human lifespans are roughly 120 years, it doesn't seem too far fetched that it could be considered the NEXT generation.

24th century, ok, cool. But why not maybe early 24th century? I don't think they can say they did it to distance the franchise from the original characters because they made McCoy still alive in the very pilot of the series. If the show had been set earlier, they could have still not mentioned the fate of the original characters, so we still wouldn't have had to know whether Kirk was still alive or not. Maybe it could have at least been the Enterprise C instead of D.

Maybe it was done so that there was a distance between TNG and TOS. The possibility still existed to mention the fates of the original characters if they wanted, but it was far enough in the future that they really didn't need to do so.

But my real question is, why are so many things in TNG seem to repeat the TOS?

Many situations got reset to be like they were in TOS. In the both series, the Romulans reappear as an enemy of the Federation after being absent for many years. Spock and Sarek have another falling out so aren't taking to each other again. I don't see the necessity for these trends.

Here the problem is that in the early years, that's exactly what Roddenberry was attempting to do - recapture and reimagine TOS, not create a brand new version of Trek.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I have three related observations/questions to bring up for discussion regarding my favorite Trek series:

(1) Why did they name it The Next Generation? The name only has real-world meaning by being the next Trek TV series about 20 years after the original one started.

And that's really all there is to it.

(2) Conversely, why was TNG set so far in the future from the TOS movies anyway?

To be roughly 100 years after TOS. Purely a creative decision on Roddenberry's part. He could have easily set the show in the 26th-Century if he truly wanted to. The series would still have been written the way he wanted it.

(3) I am well aware that Phase II was going to be a second TV series with the original crew and that got canned after the success of Star Wars to instead make TMP out of the pilot episode. Then of course TNG was another form of Phase II by eventually being the second Star Trek series.

So I understand that Will Riker was based on Will Decker, and Troi was based on Ilia. Why wasn't Will Riker's name changed a bit more so it wasn't so obvious that he was based on Decker?

Because the majority of people didn't see, know, or even cared about the connection between Willard Decker and William T. Riker. I remember more people at the time TNG debuted calling Riker "Re-Kirk" more than anything else.

But my real question is, why are so many things in TNG seem to repeat the TOS?

TNG was as much a continuation as it was a sequel to TOS, IMO. There was a big time jump, but many elements and themes that first started in TOS continued into TNG and even into all the later Trek shows...

 

[Whill]

a better name for it would have been Star Trek: The Regeneration...

You're shitting me.

Yes, I was. That was an attempt, perhaps a poor one, at humor.

Here the problem is that in the early years, that's exactly what Roddenberry was attempting to do - recapture and reimagine TOS, not create a brand new version of Trek.

I guess so. But if that was the intention, then it still seems to me that it would have made more sense to make it closer in the future than it was.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Would The New Generation have been any better? It would have been more accurate at least.

Most people I knew back then actually did call it that. Everyoe but the real hardcores (of which I knew about two). Everyone else would ask "have you seen the new generation?"

 

[Whill]

I remember more people at the time TNG debuted calling Riker "Re-Kirk" more than anything else.

I remember that too, but I was always cool with that. It was very good of them to create the Picard character as the captain, so it was nice to have a more Kirk-like XO. And I really enjoyed how Data was the logical science officer like Spock yet with the twist of him being completely non-human and yearning to be more human, as opposed to Spock suppressing (and eventually coming to terms with) his human side.

 

[Hober Mallow]

It's well-known that Roddenberry originally wanted virtually no connection with TOS -- no familiar aliens like Vulcans and Klingons, no mentions of old characters.

 

[Timo]

Actually, from an in-universe perspective, it's at MOST two generations into the future from the TOS movies. Given that McCoy lived long enough to be around in Encounter at Farpoint, and given that Human lifespans are roughly 120 years, it doesn't seem too far fetched that it could be considered the NEXT generation.

But our 24th century heroes still have their first kids in their thirties at the latest, not when they turn sixty or 120. So the classic definition of "generation", that is, average age difference between parents and children, would have crept up a bit from the 20 that may still be the global average today - but not enough to eliminate all intervening generations between the 2260s and 2360s. A nit ripe for picking, then, I guess.

It's well-known that Roddenberry originally wanted virtually no connection with TOS -- no familiar aliens like Vulcans and Klingons, no mentions of old characters.

...Which would make it easier for him to retell the TOS stories and otherwise recycle every possible aspect of TOS without getting caught. But apparently, he saw the shortcomings of such an approach early on, so he agreed to having a Klingon and a TOS character in the pilot episode already!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[A beaker full of death]

(1) Why did they name it The Next Generation?

I remember thinking when they started what a dumb name that was. I asked, "what'll they call the next one? 'The Generation After That?'"

 

[Pseudo]

I have three related observations/questions to bring up for discussion regarding my favorite Trek series:

(1) Why did they name it The Next Generation?

The real question is: Why didn't they continue with inaccurate generation references in subsequent series?

Deep Space Nine could have been "The Same Generation", Voyager could have been "The Lost Generation" and Enterprise could have been "The Antecedent Generation".

 

[EnsignRicky]

I can only speak for myself, but I would have had a tough time tuning in to a show called Star Trek The Fourth Generation Twice Removed On Their Uncle's Side.

 

[Sharla]

Oh my god, i've never laughed so hard in my life. It was the 80's. can we just chalk it all up to that? Nobody was in their right mind.

Given the choice of other available programming, I might have watched it if it were "Star Trek The Fourth Generation Twice Removed On Their Uncle's Side". LMAO

 

[USS Kongo]

Oh my god, i've never laughed so hard in my life. It was the 80's. can we just chalk it all up to that? Nobody was in their right mind.

We weren't in our right minds? That explains a lot about some of the weird stuff I saw back then.

Given the choice of other available programming, I might have watched it if it were "Star Trek The Fourth Generation Twice Removed On Their Uncle's Side". LMAO

This is a good point. For SF fans, TNG was the only game in town on TV for a long while.

Sean

 

[T'Girl]

(1) Why did they name it The Next Generation?

But generations do not simply refer to Human generations, how long it take for one group of adults to produce another group of adults. The series definitely shows the next generation in terms of evolution of thought (evolution of Roddenberry;s thought), the mission of Starfleet is different, Picard is profoundly not Kirk, the role of the first officer has changed, the political structure of the galaxy seems different (the alliance with the Klingons). So next generation in those terms? Sure.

 

[Whill]

"That will be up to the next generation."

I'm dreaming up a fan fiction short story that will make an ironic in-universe reference to the title. I'm thinking it will be stated by the Alternate-Tasha Yar from the 'Klingon War timeline' in "Yesterday's Enterprise" who went back in time to 2344 and was captured by Romulans...

Alt-Tasha: "That will be up to the next generation."

 

[Hober Mallow]

Other titles considered for the series included "Star Trek: The New Generation" and "Star Trek: The Second Generation." I don't think anyone meant to suggest that the series featured the second generation in all human history. You're putting too much thought into it. The title was simply meant to distinguish it from the previous series. Nothing more.

 

[Whill]

..."Star Trek: The New Generation"

...The title was simply meant to distinguish it from the previous series. Nothing more.

Yes, I agree with you. You are definitely correct. "Next" accomplishishes distinguishment and nothing more. That was my point. However, I wish the title did more. I think the The New Generation would have served the same exact purpose of distinguishing it from TOS ("original" vs. "new"), but it would have also had more meaning because it would not be as incorrect from an in-unverse stand point. Why not kill two Romulans with one photon torpedo?

Either that, or they should have not set TNG so far in the future. There doesn't seem to be any real reason why it absolutely had to be so far in the future anyway, no matter what we call the series. But it is what it is and it is still my favorite Trek series anyway.

 

[Hober Mallow]

The first TNG series Bible mentioned at several points that TNG took place in the 25th Century, so they actually ended up placing the series closer to TOS that Roddenberry was going to originally.

One possibility Robert Justman toyed with was simply leaving the title "Star Trek" and letting the obvious differences speak for themselves. That miht not have been a bad idea, especially since during its original run, fans often simply called it Star Trek.