Would TNG work today?

[USS Kongo]

I was looking at the threads about Stargate: Universe, and how it's been canceled. Fans of the series say that it was getting better, and have used The Next Generation as an example of a series that took its time to slowly improve.

I recall watching TNG back when it was first-run in the 1980s, and, at the time, while I thought the series had its lame moments, I stuck with it--mainly because I still enjoyed it. But a big factor for me back then was the fact that TNG was the only game in town, science fiction-wise.

When you take into account the far more choices that viewers have today (other TV shows, movies, video games), I can't help but wonder if TNG would survive past its second season, if it were first-run today. What do you think?

Sean

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

If you literally mean "as is" in its exact 80's construct - then no, it'd sink like a stone (I voted no on that basis). If you're referring to some kind of late 00's adaptation I guess it'd have as much chance as any other show.

 

[Scotty]

No, because it doesn't feature any zombies or vampires.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

No, because it doesn't feature any zombies or vampires.

 

[Satyrquaze]

Seriously, Data and or Worf would have to be recast as some strange vampire species.

 

[CoveTom]

I think TNG could still work today and, yes, as it was constructed back in its prime. Unlike Hollywood, I don't believe that the viewing public is monolithic nor do I think that they want every show they get to be the same. I believe that a well written, intelligent sci-fi show could still succeed even if it isn't "dark" and "gritty" and full of angsty characters fighting their own internal demons. Trek has done both sides of the coin successfully, such as TNG vs DS9, and I believe it still could.

 

[JarodRussell]

Get TNG remastered for HD and see how it'll rock the house.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

About as well as anything from the 80s would work today.

 

[C_Miller]

No, absolutely not, if done as is. TNG, while for the most part the writing was really good, it was extremely archaic. It wasn't living in the future, but trying to capture the 60s style of story telling while maintaining a modern 80s look. Also, a TV show today would not be allowed 2 and a half seasons for the show to find its feet. Today shows are barely given 13 episodes.

 

[CoveTom]

^ If you're correct that it was trying to capture a 60's style of storytelling, then TNG was already archaic by the time it aired in the late 80's and early 90's and yet it succeeded brilliantly. I can't understand how anyone could think that the style of storytelling used in TOS and that used in TNG have anything in common. And I'm not just talking about the obvious visual differences. I mean in the storytelling itself.

In any case, I still maintain that Hollywood, and many people in general, have a tendancy to underestimate the American viewing public. Once a certain "style" becomes popular in one or two arenas, it is assumed that every single production must mimic that style or fail. I went to see Tron: Legacy this weekend, and was amazed at how trailer after trailer for various superhero movies were showcasing the exact same movie with a different name pasted on it. Just carbon copy after carbon copy.

No, a show done in the TNG style today would be a refreshing change from what has become the conventional wisdom about what sci-fi, as well as entertainment in general, must be. And I think audiences would welcome such a change.

 

[Gary7]

No, because it doesn't feature any zombies or vampires.

Agreed.

 

[Alrik]

I had to reluctantly vote no. Mind you, not for content or style, but for the fact that Trek is now run by a studio who owns a network. TNG was allowed to come into its own because it didn't have 'big brother' constantly breathing down it's neck, and because in syndication it was able to find its way to a larger audience. Being tied down to one network, TNG would be lucky to last as long as Enterprise did.

 

[Scotty]

No, because it doesn't feature any zombies or vampires.

Agreed.

Star Trek: The Undead Generation.

Now there's a show I'd watch!

 

[Richard Baker]

GR created TNG as a version of the 60's TOS- it worked as that. Since then the different incarnations have tried to have new twists- DS9 was on a station with political issues, Voyager was stranded from all support, Enterprise treid to retrofit today into a pre-sixites mold. TNG had some excellent shows, it also had the most boring speaches. Gen ehld iron control over the show- no main character conflicts (which made things a bit boring). Worf helped spice things up, but I think the show would need to be tuned up some to compete in today's market.

 

[Anji]

No. TNG is too optimistic and too intellectual for the 21st Century. A pity!

 

[starfox]

No, because it doesn't feature any zombies or vampires.

Or gay characters.

Get TNG remastered for HD and see how it'll rock the house.

As I understand it, the way special effects were rendered in-situ on the original footage (same for DS9 and Voyager) makes an HD edition impossible.

 

[RandyS]

No. TNG is too optimistic and too intellectual for the 21st Century. A pity!

Exactly. Everything nowdays has to be end of the world-daddy-issue-angst driven bullshit.

In short, pointless.

 

[Neutral Zone]

Tough question, but I think it would still work the difference would be that the film sfx of today would have made the stories more colourful and flashy.

 

[Galileo7]

1987-1994 NG would need to be revised to 2011 television audiences tastes...not for better, just for the worse.

 

[USS Kongo]

No, because it doesn't feature any zombies or vampires.

Agreed.

I frakking love this!

Sean