Humanoid Versus Not-Quite-So-Humanoid Alien Species

[Dr. Crusher]

Recently, I started rewatching the first season of TNG, and one of the things I think they did well was the presentation of alien races. As later seasons progressed, more and more (if not all) of the alien races that the ship encountered were essentially human-like people with either some kind of an unusual ability (Betazoid ability to read minds, for example) or with some slightly odd pattern of colors or ridges on the head. In the first season, and at least part of the second, many alien species were far less human-like. For example, I just watched "Lonely Among Us," and it struck me that we were seeing two alien species that were very much unlike humans, and that appeared somewhat realistic in such a vast universe.

Any thoughts on this from other viewers?

 

[MikeS]

I think that is why some people prefer early TNG. It is less homogenous than the latter stuff. More alien, more exploratory and less "soapy".

 

[Mr_Homn]

I think that is why some people prefer early TNG. It is less homogenous than the latter stuff. More alien, more exploratory and less "soapy".

I absolutely agree.

Season one is not without it's glaring problems, but it's definitely a breath of fresh air when it came to creativity with alien species IMO.

 

[Doug Otte]

I loved those aliens in Lonely Among Us, too. But, they probably discovered how costly and time consuming it was to have such elaborate costuming. Not only that, but it's very hard to have the alien characters appear real with those masks on...the audience has a hard time discerning their emotions, etc.

Doug

 

[SonicRanger]

I disliked those "snake aliens" and "dog aliens" because I don't like when aliens simply look like talking versions of animals (like the shark alien in "Lilo & Stitch" or numerous aliens in "Andromeda").

 

[Mojochi]

I'm for a healthy mix of both. I think they went too far into the rubber forehead of the week, but doing it often does allow there to be more expression from the actors

I get the expense issue. It's very costly to continue to make extravagant alien costumes or FX. What's missing is the brilliance of TOS. A damn blue or green guy. That's an alien race too. Cast a midget, or a giant. TNG tried too hard to distinguish itself from TOS that way

They did do these things with like Mr. Homn, or Mott the barber, but they slowly got away from everything but rubber foreheads

The problem was with NEW alien races. All these inexpensive tricks had been used previously, & there was a lack of interest in telling stories about these pre-established races

Ultimately, you want to find a balance of all the various types of creature

 

[NEUR0M4NCER]

I think after the first couple of seasons the make-up became more like shorthand; the physical properties of each new species (big baddies notwithstanding) didn't matter. It was enough to just signpost for the audience "This is an alien, so will behave differently".

The Borg and Cardassians differ slightly, in that they needed a more compelling appearance to be convincing bad guys, but still - Trek's kinda about how we treat each other, and that theme needs you to be able see the opposing forces as different parts/facets of humanity.

 

[Maurice]

TNG and forward got lazy because the foreheads were such a crutch. The aliens were generally not very alien at all, and most might as well have been human colonies that had gone their own way for a few hundred years.

 

[NEUR0M4NCER]

Agreed Maurice, but I'm not sure of the alternatives;

• More extensive make-up/prosthetics
• Puppetry
• VFX
• Extreme behaviour differences

The first three are more expensive/time consuming, and the final one prevents the viewer from relating to the character. They have all played a small part in the aliens of TNG though - I think the right balance was found between budget, storyline and plain old logistics.

 

[T'Girl]

Extreme behaviour differences

This is likely the best way (imho) to show that aliens are in fact aliens. What made Klingons aliens wasn't 1960 grease paint, or later more extensive make-up, it was the Klingons culture, and the more "Klingon" they became over time, the more "alien" they became as a people.

 

[NEUR0M4NCER]

It is the best way, but has to be limited in its use - the audience needs a visual cue as to who is alien and who isn't.

 

[Kegg]

For example, I just watched "Lonely Among Us," and it struck me that we were seeing two alien species that were very much unlike humans,

I love the Anticans and the Selay, always have. (The leader of the Anticans? Marc 'Gul Dukat' Alaimo, in his first Star Trek role.)

...but they're clearly humanoid aliens. They still are bipedal and have a physiology roughly equivalent to ours. It's far removed from TNG's many 'humans with minimal face paint' aliens in later years, true, but actually non-humanoid aliens from its first year would include the Farpoint aliens and the god of the Edo people and so on.

 

[T'Girl]

actually non-humanoid aliens .

TOS might have been a bit better at this, hortas, the companion, shapeshifters (TAS), red jack, those guys from Spectum of the Gun, the flying pancakes.

 

[Sindatur]

actually non-humanoid aliens .

TOS might have been a bit better at this, hortas, the companion, shapeshifters (TAS), red jack, those guys from Spectum of the Gun, the flying pancakes.

There's actually quite a few Non-Humanoid aliens in Voyager S1 and S2 (Only up to episode 3.09, so can't comment off hand if the trend continues)

 

[Warped9]

I think that is why some people prefer early TNG. It is less homogenous than the latter stuff. More alien, more exploratory and less "soapy".

Definitely.