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

[TV's Frank]

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

I'm actually happy that there is so much variety in the 7 season of TNG and that it grew in different direction, sometimes came back to the high concept sci-fi idea (such as "Cause & Effect" and "The Nth Degree") and also took time to flesh out the characters all in an episodic yet slightly serialized series format. DS9 has great variety in its 7 years as well, though it found its political/religious/war groove early on and rode it well to the end. I just don't find as much wild variety in VOY and ENT.

Part of this unique variety in TNG is that it was the first to dive back into the Trek universe on a weekly basis plus with so many new aspects and much of the time early on the writers & producers were, metaphorically speaking, driving in the dark with only a half-drawn TOS map to use as reference. I really wouldn't have it any other way and thus would not trade a "11001001" for more episodes like "The Outcast" or trade "The Inner Light" for three more episodes like "Datalore". Each season has its own high points and low points, both on its own and when compared to the overall 7 seasons. It's great to dive into a series which had such range and something to offer to many audience members.

 

[ALF]

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

It certainly seemed like a lack of imagination to me when the season of "kids" and "family" (season 7) plowed through high concept episodes with very little science fiction packed in there.

Homeward, Dark Page, Interface, First Born, Bloodlines...

 

[sonak]

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.

I'd have less of a problem with this critique of the Next Gen movies if Generations were more popular and FC less so.


In Generations, the Next Gen characters are very close to the way they are in the series-Picard is the diplomat, Data and Geordi are good friends, Troi gets to be a counselor, etc.

Yet Generations wasn't well-received. And FC is a straight action movie which was hugely popular with fans.

So..... yeah.

 

[TV's Frank]

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

It certainly seemed like a lack of imagination to me when the season of "kids" and "family" (season 7) plowed through high concept episodes with very little science fiction packed in there.

Homeward, Dark Page, Interface, First Born, Bloodlines...

No argument from me about how top-heavy season 7 was with stories of those type, but I can understand how it happened, what with the writers and producers experience fatigue from running two series simultaneously, gearing up for VOY, writing GENERATIONS and trying to meet the actors' various needs to do more with their respective character arcs.

 

[ALF]

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

^^ I wondered in they listened to the actors too much and not enough to the fans.
A good example may lie in the weird flatness of Reunification.
"Great! We've got Spock. Let's do next to nothing with him in some dark Romulan caves."

 

[brian577]

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

Picard was likely to shoot and ask questions later and he had never been like that.

You don't think his encounter with the Borg could've have changed his perspective when dealing with them? This was quite clear in "I Borg". And for a guy who places such great value in the Prime Directive, you don't think he would do everything in his power to protect the Ba'ku? Keep in mind he also a spent 2 years fighting in a war, that kind of experience would probably change any person.

 

[sonak]

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

Picard was likely to shoot and ask questions later and he had never been like that.

You don't think his encounter with the Borg could've have changed his perspective when dealing with them? This was quite clear in "I Borg". And for a guy who places such great value in the Prime Directive, you don't think he would do everything in his power to protect the Ba'ku? Keep in mind he also a spent 2 years fighting in a war, that kind of experience would probably change any person.

the Prime Directive had nothing to do with the Ba'ku, Dougherty even says so explicitly. They weren't pre-warp, pre-alien contact, or native to that planet. Picard's decision in that movie was out of character for him, as just a couple of years before, he was defending the opposite side of the policy in "Jouney's End." But I guess there wasn't anyone that Picard found as hot as Anij in that colony in the DMZ.

 

[brian577]

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

Picard was likely to shoot and ask questions later and he had never been like that.

You don't think his encounter with the Borg could've have changed his perspective when dealing with them? This was quite clear in "I Borg". And for a guy who places such great value in the Prime Directive, you don't think he would do everything in his power to protect the Ba'ku? Keep in mind he also a spent 2 years fighting in a war, that kind of experience would probably change any person.

the Prime Directive had nothing to do with the Ba'ku, Dougherty even says so explicitly. They weren't pre-warp, pre-alien contact, or native to that planet. Picard's decision in that movie was out of character for him, as just a couple of years before, he was defending the opposite side of the policy in "Jouney's End." But I guess there wasn't anyone that Picard found as hot as Anij in that colony in the DMZ.

Interfering with their way of life is not a violation of the Prime Directive?
Just because the "evil admiral" is willing justify it doesn't mean Picard would or should.
They we're planning to relocate them, isn't that exactly the kind of exploitation the Prime Directive is supposed to prevent?

 

[sonak]

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

You don't think his encounter with the Borg could've have changed his perspective when dealing with them? This was quite clear in "I Borg". And for a guy who places such great value in the Prime Directive, you don't think he would do everything in his power to protect the Ba'ku? Keep in mind he also a spent 2 years fighting in a war, that kind of experience would probably change any person.

the Prime Directive had nothing to do with the Ba'ku, Dougherty even says so explicitly. They weren't pre-warp, pre-alien contact, or native to that planet. Picard's decision in that movie was out of character for him, as just a couple of years before, he was defending the opposite side of the policy in "Jouney's End." But I guess there wasn't anyone that Picard found as hot as Anij in that colony in the DMZ.

Interfering with their way of life is not a violation of the Prime Directive?
Just because the "evil admiral" is willing justify it doesn't mean Picard would or should.
They we're planning to relocate them, isn't that exactly the kind of exploitation the Prime Directive is supposed to prevent?

Well, the PD has changed so much throughout Trek and been used to justify so many different policies it's hard to know what it means. However, if "interference in a way of life" were a PD violation, the Federation could never contact other civilizations at all. Certainly the way the Federation has acted towards the Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, etc. would constitute "interference." If you're going to define the PD that broadly as to constitute any "interference" then Starfleet should abandon their mission and stay home.

Secondly, if you think relocation always means exploitation, then Picard was wrong in "journey's end." So which is it, was he wrong in that episode or wrong in INS?

 

[brian577]

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

the Prime Directive had nothing to do with the Ba'ku, Dougherty even says so explicitly. They weren't pre-warp, pre-alien contact, or native to that planet. Picard's decision in that movie was out of character for him, as just a couple of years before, he was defending the opposite side of the policy in "Jouney's End." But I guess there wasn't anyone that Picard found as hot as Anij in that colony in the DMZ.

Interfering with their way of life is not a violation of the Prime Directive?
Just because the "evil admiral" is willing justify it doesn't mean Picard would or should.
They we're planning to relocate them, isn't that exactly the kind of exploitation the Prime Directive is supposed to prevent?

Well, the PD has changed so much throughout Trek and been used to justify so many different policies it's hard to know what it means. However, if "interference in a way of life" were a PD violation, the Federation could never contact other civilizations at all. Certainly the way the Federation has acted towards the Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, etc. would constitute "interference." If you're going to define the PD that broadly as to constitute any "interference" then Starfleet should abandon their mission and stay home.

Secondly, if you think relocation always means exploitation, then Picard was wrong in "journey's end." So which is it, was he wrong in that episode or wrong in INS?

The Ba'ku we're not actively threatening the Federation or interested in contact with the Federation like the above cultures. Furthermore the people in Journey's End were Federation citizens and subject to Federation laws which is why they gave up citizenship so they could stay on the planet.

 

[CoveTom]

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

You don't think his encounter with the Borg could've have changed his perspective when dealing with them? This was quite clear in "I Borg".

What was clear from "I, Borg" is that Picard faced his personal demons from his Borg experience, started out taking the perfectly understandable "kill them all; they're monsters" attitude, but ended up discovering that even with the Borg and the hideous things they did to him, he could not abandon his fundamental morals and principles.

That was some serious character development and said a lot about Picard's strength of character. And it was all tossed out the window when First Contact came along.

 

[brian577]

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

You don't think his encounter with the Borg could've have changed his perspective when dealing with them? This was quite clear in "I Borg".

And it was all tossed out the window when First Contact came along.

Not necessarily, quote from FC

We've made too many compromises already.Too many retreats.They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back.Not again! The line must be drawn here, ...THIS far, NO further! And I will make them pay for what they've done."

What compromises do you think he's talking about? By not using Hugh as a weapon he may have endangered not only the safety of Earth but history itself. He's regretting that decision and feels responsible and vows he will not let morality compromise his resolve again.

 

[CoveTom]

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

^ I don't read the line that way. But even if you do, I still say that's not Picard. To make himself determined not to let morality get in the way of his decision? That is undermining everything we know about Picard's character.

 

[brian577]

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

^ I don't read the line that way. But even if you do, I still say that's not Picard. To make himself determined not to let morality get in the way of his decision? That is undermining everything we know about Picard's character.

Perhaps your right, but think about this. Picard is always preaching about how humanity is "better" and how humans work to better themselves and evolve as a species. He has an almost religious like opinion of the human species. Now what if that future is threatened? The Borg are threatening his values and I think that could push him over the edge.