I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imagination..

[The Rock]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

I'll give them credit for trying something different the first couple of seasons. Owing to the photography, it feels like you're looking at a set, later it just felt more like you seeing the inside of a spaceship.

Yep true. Did they get a huge increase in budget when season 3 started? Cause the look of the show looked completely upgraded when season 3 started. Even picture quality got better.

 

[Ziriath]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

I kinda liked the earlier years, when the stories and ideas were big and the character bits added to the main plot (like TOS).

Of course DS9 was very heavily a character-driven series, but it was so very well done and was the focus of the series anyway, so that's different.

When you have a big ensemble cast like TNG/DS9, A/B plots are the best way to go. TOS only had three central characters, so major plots for the entire episodes worked better. And even TOS had their A/B plots sometimes.

Oh I can deal with the A/B plot style in any series.
What I got tired of is having the Big Idea or Mission or Science Fiction Concept take a considerable backseat to the antics of Alexander or Riker's Amorous Alien Encounters and so on.

I'd like to see the Space Exploration story be a focus rather than the crew's quirky interactions. Sometimes. You know, just switch the A/B stories once in a while.

That's what I think. All the TNG would be better, if it had less cotton wool stuffing.

Somewhere in 3rd season it lost Star trek main premise: To boldly go, where no one (man) has gone before. After tenth or so encounter with Lwaxana Troi (even when I like Majel), some Worf's 'brother' or exactly the same looking Rommies and with a physical problem in background solved by Geordi's treknobabble the 'boldly go' opening seems to be quite pointless.
I almost quit watching TNG, when there was a time when in every episode was a family meeting (somewhere after The best of both worlds). TOS has only one 'family meeting' episode, but I found it to be one of the best TOS episodes. But in TNG it doesn't work for me.

 

[Trek Survivor]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Completely agree. Actually, season 2 is my fave season.

Season 3 onwards stumbled across a successful formula then drove it to death (season 5 being the worst culprit).

Season 1-2 show some really cool ideas that producers just shied away from later on; sure, some worked, some didn't, but the experimentation was fantastic.

For sheer variety, the 22 episodes of season 2 are excellent!

Not quite so many "soapy" stories as later years either.

 

[Anwar]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

When you have a big ensemble cast like TNG/DS9, A/B plots are the best way to go. TOS only had three central characters, so major plots for the entire episodes worked better. And even TOS had their A/B plots sometimes.

Oh I can deal with the A/B plot style in any series.
What I got tired of is having the Big Idea or Mission or Science Fiction Concept take a considerable backseat to the antics of Alexander or Riker's Amorous Alien Encounters and so on.

I'd like to see the Space Exploration story be a focus rather than the crew's quirky interactions. Sometimes. You know, just switch the A/B stories once in a while.

That's what I think. All the TNG would be better, if it had less cotton wool stuffing.

Somewhere in 3rd season it lost Star trek main premise: To boldly go, where no one (man) has gone before. After tenth or so encounter with Lwaxana Troi (even when I like Majel), some Worf's 'brother' or exactly the same looking Rommies and with a physical problem in background solved by Geordi's treknobabble the 'boldly go' opening seems to be quite pointless.
I almost quit watching TNG, when there was a time when in every episode was a family meeting (somewhere after The best of both worlds). TOS has only one 'family meeting' episode, but I found it to be one of the best TOS episodes. But in TNG it doesn't work for me.

TOS also only lasted three seasons TV-wise. If it had lasted longer, odds are the same types of stories would have happened there as well.

 

[sonak]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Oh I can deal with the A/B plot style in any series.
What I got tired of is having the Big Idea or Mission or Science Fiction Concept take a considerable backseat to the antics of Alexander or Riker's Amorous Alien Encounters and so on.

I'd like to see the Space Exploration story be a focus rather than the crew's quirky interactions. Sometimes. You know, just switch the A/B stories once in a while.

That's what I think. All the TNG would be better, if it had less cotton wool stuffing.

Somewhere in 3rd season it lost Star trek main premise: To boldly go, where no one (man) has gone before. After tenth or so encounter with Lwaxana Troi (even when I like Majel), some Worf's 'brother' or exactly the same looking Rommies and with a physical problem in background solved by Geordi's treknobabble the 'boldly go' opening seems to be quite pointless.
I almost quit watching TNG, when there was a time when in every episode was a family meeting (somewhere after The best of both worlds). TOS has only one 'family meeting' episode, but I found it to be one of the best TOS episodes. But in TNG it doesn't work for me.

TOS also only lasted three seasons TV-wise. If it had lasted longer, odds are the same types of stories would have happened there as well.

I disagree. TOS was just not that kind of show. It wasn't a character-driven, "soapy" show. It was an episodic, story-driven sci-fi premise show. A sci-fi version of "Law and Order" if you will.

Even had TOS lasted seven seasons, I can't imagine them doing stuff like the Worf-Alexander episodes, Llwaxana Troi coming to visit, "Lessons," "In Theory," stuff like that.

 

[Anwar]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Why not? The TOS movies had Kirk meeting his long-lost son, Spock's family showing up more and more, Spock's long lost brother showing up, etc.

 

[Harvey]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Somewhere in 3rd season it lost Star trek main premise: To boldly go, where no one (man) has gone before.

It's a nice part of the opening narration, but even the original Star Trek had a hard time delivering. Let's look at the first ten episodes of the original series.

"The Cage" -- The Enterprise encounters Talos IV. The SS Columbia has already been here.

"Where No Man Has Gone Before" -- The Enterprise encounters the Galactic Barrier. The SS Valiant has already been here. Later the Enterprise will stop at Delta Vega, a dilithium cracking station built by humans.

"Mudd's Women" -- The Enterprise picks up some human passengers. Later they visit a mining colony run by humans.

"The Enemy Within" -- The Enterprise visits Alfa 177. This may be mankind's first visit, although I don't believe it's clear in dialogue. Mostly, it's a ship-based episode.

"The Naked Time" -- The Enterprise orbits Psi 2000, where a research station manned by humans already exists.

"Charlie X" -- The Enterprise picks up Charlie (a human) from the SS Antares. They get Charlie because they are headed towards an Earth colony.

"Balance of Terror" -- The Enterprise does battle with the Romulans in the Neutral Zone, the border of which features several listening posts manned by humans, and of course was the site of the Earth-Romulan War a century before.

"What Are Little Girls Made Of?" -- The Enterprise visits what they believe to be the human, Roger Corby, although we later find out that he's an Android that Corby had his consciousness transferred into. Still, Corby has already been here.

"Dagger of the Mind" -- The Enterprise visits an insane asylum...in space! (Run by humans from Earth, of course)

"Miri" -- This one might actually count, which is amusing, since it involves visiting a planet that is an exact duplicate of Earth!

So, just for those keeping score, that's 2/10 episodes where the Enterprise visits somewhere where "no man has gone before."

 

[Kelthaz]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Yep true. Did they get a huge increase in budget when season 3 started? Cause the look of the show looked completely upgraded when season 3 started. Even picture quality got better.

Actually it just had to do with replacing their cinematographer. According to Memory Alpha:

Cinematographer Edward R. Brown retires and is replaced by Marvin V. Rush, who continues to work on Star Trek for the next sixteen years. Rush's preference for a bright, vibrant color scheme (as opposed to the more subdued lighting used by Brown) heavily alters the look of the series from this season onwards.

Compared to the other Trek television cinematographers, Brown's shooting style was completely different, featuring muted color tones and extensive use of shadows. While perhaps more dramatically pleasing (and earning him an Emmy nomination for "The Big Goodbye"), his tendency to completely hard-light scenes could often end up showing the deficiencies of the set construction, and necessitated his infamous practice of sticking cardboard and tape onto the LCARS screens in order to prevent too many reflections off the studio lights. Brown also refused to adopt a single visual style, often drastically altering his visuals between episodes to best fit the mood of the piece.

 

[BillJ]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Brown also refused to adopt a single visual style, often drastically altering his visuals between episodes to best fit the mood of the piece.

This right here is why seasons 1 and 2 are more visually interesting. The story dictated the style instead of every script being shoe-horned into a single style.

 

[WNMHGB]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

I understand and respect this POV, but I ultimately have to disagree. There was more experimentation and "sense of wonder" especially in season 1 that faded, IMO, from season 4 and on. Still, by the end of season 2, I was about ready to write off TNG despite a few brilliant episodes. Outside of standouts like Q Who and Measure of a Man, season 2 seemed kinda "blah" to me compared to season 1; TNG seemed like a noble failure. Season 3 felt like a rebirth, even though some of the early shows were average. Even when the plot or story wasn't the best, the writing was done well. The cinematography and production design (sets, uniforms, etc.) were greatly improved. Outside of a few episodes, mostly directed by Rob Bowman, seasons 1 and 2 look horribly dated to me while seasons 3 and later have held up remarkably well.

 

[sonak]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Why not? The TOS movies had Kirk meeting his long-lost son, Spock's family showing up more and more, Spock's long lost brother showing up, etc.

I agree that the movies went in that direction, but the movies took place in a time and context so far removed from the series(not to mention different writers who wouldn't have been writing for the show) that you can't really use them as an example of how TOS was going to go.

I was basically commenting on how TOS would have gone from 1969-1973. IMHO, it would have been more of the same, not a radically new direction that would be like seasons 3-7 of TNG.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

I remember watching TNG during its first run, and I would always check out the short preview for the next episode. I remember the preview for an episode that wound up being the horrible "Force of Nature." I was REALLY looking forward to it based on the preview because it seemed to actually have a non-family and non-politic a problem to solve, something that concerned the Enterprise, being in space, and anamolies... I love character development just as much as anyone else but I started to miss the adventure and exploration, like when Kirk would beam down somewhere and wouldn't know what would happen next.

Oh, I posted a thread recently on "The Royale," it's a favorite of mine because it is out there and it has a true puzzle to solve.

 

[Mark 2000]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Why not? The TOS movies had Kirk meeting his long-lost son, Spock's family showing up more and more, Spock's long lost brother showing up, etc.

I'm not saying those are good things, but how much time was spent on that? Thinking about a TNG New Ground, the action plot is an afterthought compared to the Alexander/Worf plot. David Marcus is a blip on the radar in TWOK. Sybok is the antagonist of TFF, but he's not sitting around talking with Spock trying to work things out. He's stealing the ship.

I don't really see these as equivalent. And it's also not really a change in direction. We saw Spock's parents in TOS. We saw Kirk's brother and his family. We saw lots of old girl friends. But their relationships were motivators of the action. They weren't THE action.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

But there was some really imaginative and "out there" stuff that were in those first two seasons that seasons 3-7 seemed to not have as much of.

Anyone know where I'm coming from here?

I felt more of a sense of being in a future time with seasons 1 and 2 than I did with the rest of the series.

 

[Kelthaz]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Personally I've always disliked those "out there" sci-fi concepts. Energy beings that adhere even less to the law of physics than a Bugs Bunny cartoon or random space anomalies that cause you to speak backwards or grow mushrooms on your head. It just comes across as rather silly to me.

I much prefer the more mundane, realistic episodes that focus on the characters. I love episodes like "Journey to Babel" or "The Balance of Terror", but find episodes like "Where No Man Has Gone Before", or "The Squire of Gothos" to be painful to sit through. If Star Trek hadn't moved away from it's hardcore sci-fi origins I doubt I would be a Trekkie today.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

To my mind, TNG didn't really get good until "The Measure of a Man."

 

[Kelthaz]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

"Measure of a Man" was the first great TNG episode, but I'd have to go with "The Survivors" as the Growing the Beard episode.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

I think the adventure wasn't what I missed. The first season is about command and the burden of being responsible for the entire crew. Season 3 was more about the adventure and it's my least-favorite season. Kirk versus the Romulan Commander in Balance of Terror and Spock's commitment to fire phasers (get the task done), seeing Kirk lose his decisiveness in Enemy Within, Spock's style of command in Galileo Seven, the danger of being irresponsible on the Enterprise in Naked Time, Kirk's hand-wrining over losing a crewman in The Man Trap, etc, etc, etc. It was all about leadership and the capabilities of the Enterprise crew (not just the main characters). That's what was so unforgiving about Star Trek '09. Because the characters acted, not just in the best interest at expense of regulations, they were reckless and it paid off.

I think TNG was about respecting life. That's what made the movies so unforgivable. Picard was likely to shoot and ask questions later and he had never been like that. Also, Q's poetry at the end of Season 7 about the uncharted mind never showed up (unless you count Anij in Insurrection) in any of the movies. They were action flicks, dark ones, and it was difficult to watch them throw out the characters.

I don't buy they didn't have enough time to have these people act the way they did in the series. I point to little comments like "What do you think, Data? A long-lost relative?" from Geordi in Nemesis. Or the opening sequence on-board the E (minus the humor) in Insurrection (about 3 minutes). We spend A LOT of time with our enemies in these movies. It's not always important to give them equal screen time to the Enterprise crew. And all the enemies in Next Generation movies want the same thing--to do evil. There are no misunderstandings. They want to kill and they don't care who they kill to achieve their goals. They are souless. It wasn't that way in Star Trek I-VI. Chang was a pragmatist. V'GER just wanted to know God and misunderstood the universe. The Probe in IV was just looking for their old friends. They didn't know they were destructive. They didn't try one script like that in these movies. All of the enemies are like Khan and they get Khan's screen time.

It makes it like regular science fiction and there's no exploration. There's no conundrum to figure out (like how to communicate with this thing causing destruction). That's where seasons one and two thrived. We found different life forms with varying and different powers and motivations. Some were evil, some were just unintentionally scaring us, some of them liked to explore like us, etc. The movies lost all that.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Personally I've always disliked those "out there" sci-fi concepts. Energy beings that adhere even less to the law of physics than a Bugs Bunny cartoon or random space anomalies that cause you to speak backwards or grow mushrooms on your head. It just comes across as rather silly to me.

I much prefer the more mundane, realistic episodes that focus on the characters. I love episodes like "Journey to Babel" or "The Balance of Terror", but find episodes like "Where No Man Has Gone Before", or "The Squire of Gothos" to be painful to sit through. If Star Trek hadn't moved away from it's hardcore sci-fi origins I doubt I would be a Trekkie today.

I happen to like it a lot. I like the use of the imagination. I enjoy watching the Enterprise figure out how to communicate with these aliens or finding life that doesn't look like us. I also enjoy what that entity represents to us. Is it how we deal with death? What would happen if we hadn't the time to grow up? What would happen if we had all this power and were still flawed? Things that are missing from us or added to us and then putting that into a form on-screen is mystical to me.

Science Fiction is supposed to stretch the limits of reason and possibility. If it doesn't, if it simply scares you, it's just horror. If all it does is interact with people who have bumpy foreheads, but our essentially us, who cares?

Don't get me wrong, I like the political intrigue. But I come to Star Trek because it promises me "Strange, New Worlds" and explorers that "Seek (them) out."

 

[Doug Otte]

Re: I hate to say it but seasons 1 and 2 seemed to show more imaginati

Those were two thoughtful and well-written posts, HaventGotALife. They encapsulate exactly what enthralled me about TNG when it first aired, and what disappointed me in the TNG movies.

Doug