10 reasons why TOS is better than TNG

[AdmiralScreed]

Yeah I mean its not like TOS was the basis of a recent successful movie or anything....

They had to modernize it and throw a lot of the dated nonsense out to make it work, of course. We can be grateful for that.

While still keeping it close to the spirit of the show. TNG I don't see that happening much, just becuase of all the changes that would probably need to be made, and thats if by the time the JJverse is finished there is any interest in doing TNG.

Close to the spirit of the show in what way?. I personally thought ST09 was loads more fun and exciting than even the best episodes of TOS, and that's coming from someone who didn't think ST09 was all that great......it doesn't say much for TOS.

And I don't understand why anyone would ever want to remake TNG. The original show is as close to perfect as it's ever going to be. No remake/reboot would ever do the original show justice.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

meh. Whenever I see an episode of TOS on TV, I'm bored and I change the channel. I watch TNG, I'm engaged. Nuff said.

Sure if you like main characters who led billions of people die becuase of a Starfleet guidline that is now religious dogma apparently.

And an unbelievable future. There is no way in hell religion and capitalism are going bug off just because we meet aliens, and humans aren't going to become saints. Sorry but TOS's version of humanity is probably more likely.

Wait, there's still money in TOS? What about that line in "the voyage home"?
Whale keeper lady: "Don't tell me there's no money in the future"
Kirk: "There isn't."

Yes thats generally what you can take using credits to buy things to mean.

They had to modernize it and throw a lot of the dated nonsense out to make it work, of course. We can be grateful for that.

While still keeping it close to the spirit of the show. TNG I don't see that happening much, just becuase of all the changes that would probably need to be made, and thats if by the time the JJverse is finished there is any interest in doing TNG.

Close to the spirit of the show in what way?. I personally thought ST09 was loads more fun and exciting than even the best episodes of TOS,

You know that fun space adventure thing I keep mentioning, sure they updated it but is was still true to that. Which is far closer than the TNG films were to their show.

 

[BillJ]

They had to modernize it and throw a lot of the dated nonsense out to make it work, of course. We can be grateful for that.

What exactly did they "throw out"? A woman using sex as a weapon? We saw Uhura do the exact same thing in Mirror, Mirror. We also saw Uhura abandon her post to chase her man around.

Star Trek 2009 really didn't do women any favors.

As far as the "no women starship commanders" line... There are no gay starship commanders in the twenty-fourth and a half century. Looking at Modern Trek in general, it seems they "washed the gay away" as we don't see a single gay character in six-hundred plus hours. Which is disappointing as Gene had no network censors to appease.

TNG actually ended up being less socially relevant and more openly racist (Code of Honor and Up the Long Ladder) than its predecessor.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

While still keeping it close to the spirit of the show. TNG I don't see that happening much, just becuase of all the changes that would probably need to be made, and thats if by the time the JJverse is finished there is any interest in doing TNG.

Close to the spirit of the show in what way?. I personally thought ST09 was loads more fun and exciting than even the best episodes of TOS,

You know that fun space adventure thing I keep mentioning, sure they updated it but is was still true to that. Which is far closer than the TNG films were to their show.

I wasn't defending the TNG films. As far as I am concerned we would be better off without them (with the exception of FC which I enjoyed). TNG should have pretty much ended with All Good Things. It was a perfect finale that ended the series on a high note.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

TNG actually ended up being less socially relevant and more openly racist (Code of Honor and Up the Long Ladder) than its predecessor.

TNG had a couple episodes that could be considered offensive, but they were few and far between.
On the whole I thought the messages/morals in TNG were very socially relevant. The High Ground dealt with terrorism and The Outcast dealt with gay rights, to name a couple episodes.
Ona major difference between TOS and TNG is that a lot of the messages in TNG are still relevant today. You can't say the same for TOS.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Close to the spirit of the show in what way?. I personally thought ST09 was loads more fun and exciting than even the best episodes of TOS, and that's coming from someone who didn't think ST09 was all that great......it doesn't say much for TOS.

Actually, it says a lot, but only about your feelings for the original series, not for the quality of it. Not for anything, they didn't remake TOS because it SUCKED or people thought it was stupid and could be done better. Otherwise, they would have given it the BSG treatment. Instead they updated it and tried very hard to respect what came before.

You didn't think much of it? Okay, cool, we can't all like the same stuff. But again, you don't have to like it to admit it's good. There are lots of good shows I don't like. Taste and program quality are two different things.

However kind or unkind the years have been to it, and no matter what retroactive slamming the show gets from people who can't resist pummeling it, the plain and simple truth is nobody's opinion matters anymore (not even mine). The votes have been tallied already. Star Trek is one of the most popular, culturally ingrained TV shows in history and it's the only reason TNG was ever proposed. I mean, who would want a continuation of a TV show that stank? No amount of negative comments will ever take that away, team.

And, I disagree, there were plenty of VERY exciting episodes of the original series, but it's my favorite show, so of course I'd feel that way.

However, none of this takes away from the great stuff TNG brought to the mythos. It was a damned fine show that improved on the original in a lot of ways, but fell short in others. But it earned every bit of its acclaim.

And I don't understand why anyone would ever want to remake TNG. The original show is as close to perfect as it's ever going to be. No remake/reboot would ever do the original show justice

LOL and you don't think a lot of TOS fans feel the same way about the original series?

Because people don't generally remake turds, they go with a success and see if they can bring it up to date. TNG has dated you know and will continue to do so as time goes on, just like the orignal series. And you'll be having these same conversations defending your show when people who prefer the Next Gen remake are cracking on how stited the effects were and how Troi was annoying as all hell. When that happens, join me in the bar and we'll have a round toasting our favorite, disrespected old TV shows.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

^ Fair enough. Oh, and I'll be taking you up on that offer of yours in a couple decades. Save me a seat in the bar.

 

[Ssosmcin]

TNG had a couple episodes that could be considered offensive, but they were few and far between.
On the whole I thought the messages/morals in TNG were very socially relevant. The High Ground dealt with terrorism and The Outcast dealt with gay rights, to name a couple episodes.
Ona major difference between TOS and TNG is that a lot of the messages in TNG are still relevant today. You can't say the same for TOS.

Well of course. Time passes and subjects change. Issues can be resolved or replaced by others (Nuclear war, for example, is no longer a constant fear inducing threat in our lives). Also, TOS remained socially relevant for years after it ended. Sooner or later TNG will be just as passé. You think Twilight Zone is still spot on relevant? Of course it's not. Were these shows good for their time? Absolutely! If nothing else, judge them on that level - of their time.

Actually, social relevance is the least important factor in Trek nowadays, and it has little to do with how good a show is in reruns. It has to be, above all else, entertaining. The Original Series succeeded in that regard without qualification. The issues may have become less important, but I don't watch TV to teach me social lessons. I watch TV for entertainment. Maybe that's why I'm more forgiving, and I realize that it's "just me."

Also remember that TOS and TNG were created when discussion of certain subjects were taboo. With so many channels to watch and with so many issues tackled on any number of them, the need for "thinly disguised commentary" is over. You don't need a sci-fi show to hide behind "Martians and zap guns" to talk about race issues, AIDS, the government, etc. It's all out there, whether it's on Showtime or CBS. There's no need for socially conscious Star Trek. A lot of people wonder when a Trek movie will tackle "an issue." Why should it when the envelope has not only been pushed, but shredded and discarded?

Admiral, the first round is on me. Just wake me up when you get there.

 

[RandyS]

Also, I can pee farther than you can.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the REAL point of this entire thread.

Good job Kelso my friend. You may now have the rest of the day off.

 

[Navaros]

....
TOS is much harder to write for, because each of those three characters makes a unique and useful contribution to the show.

On TNG, they can just write blurbs of dialogue, divide it up into random portions, then randomly dole those portions out to any character. That is very easy to write.

This statement doesn't make sense to me and doesn't hold up: the idea that a group of a very few "unique" characters are difficult to write for, as opposed to writing for a larger group of characters.

I wasn't as clear as I should have been in the comment of mine quoted above.

The point I was trying to make is this: as it was actually written, TNG was surely much easier to write than TOS, because the TNG writers did not bother to, or simply were not able to, write unique dialogue for each character. Instead, they mostly wrote in one generic voice.

On the other hand, TOS's writers did give each character unique dialogue with at least three distinct voices, which requires writing with a lot more thought and creativity than in TNG's case, as written.

If the TNG writers had instead made an effort to give each character unique dialogue, yes, that would harder than writing for three characters. But they didn't, so their writing jobs were a lot easier.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's true that Lester was completely batsh*t but I think that conversation was evidence of women being barred from being captain.

She says the world of Starfleet captains didn't admit women and it was unfair. And Kirk agrees with her that it was unfair, sort of acknowledging that sort of thing existed.

Plus, why would she switch bodies with Kirk after all those years, just so she could later take command of the ship?

The conversation went like this:

JANICE: The year we were together at Starfleet is the only time in my life I was alive.

KIRK: I never stopped you from going on with your space work.

JANICE: Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair.

KIRK: No, it isn't. And you punished and tortured me because of it.

She says she and Kirk were at "Starfleet" for a year. Starfleet what though? Headquarters? Academy? She might not even be in Starfleet,but was a civilian consultant. Even if is was the Academy, she seems to have washed out.

She also says "Your world of Starfleet Captains". Which can be interpreted as a grudge against Kirk and not a Starfleet policy. Kirk putting his ship and career ahead of relationships is well established.

I think the grudge angle works since she "punished and tortured" Kirk. Supports the batshit insane thing too.

Turnabout Intruder contradicts the role of women in Starfleet established in the The Menagerie

Also true. Either they're saying that XO is the farthest a woman could ever hope to reach in Starfleet, or it's a blatant contradiction.

Notice that beside that episode, you don't see women ranked any higher than lieutenant cmder or in XO roles (unless I'm mistaken).
.

You might not understand the role of the XO. They are second in command. At any moment they could become the Captain through death, incapacitation or numerous other reasons. You don't put someone in that position if they can't be the Captain.

I'm pretty sure Spock and Number One are the only XOs we ever see in TOS. Commanders are a rare beast.

I expect Kirk's telling the truth. Even Uhura in CATSPAW was denied the center seat command the one live-action time she was the highest ranking officer on ship. So they give it to DeSalle from SQUIRE FROM GOTHOS instead, who's suddenly fifth in command instead of Uhura...then he vanishes forever after CATSPAW is over and the top four oficers return aboard.

Rank has little to do with taking command. The lowest ensign can take command if he was in the chain of command, while an admiral who wasn't would have to sit on his hands. Any "gold shirt" no matter what their rank or sex would probably have a shot at taking command before Uhura.

 

[Nightdiamond]

She also says "Your world of Starfleet Captains". Which can be interpreted as a grudge against Kirk and not a Starfleet policy. Kirk putting his ship and career ahead of relationships is well established.

But the thing is, she switches bodies with Kirk, in order to command the ship, which is strange if she was just angry that Kirk left her behind to pursue his career.

The dialog gives further clues :

KIRK: Love? Him? I love the life he led. The power of a starship commander. It's my life now.

And this one tells a lot;

KIRK: Can you, can you tell me why Doctor Janice Lester would agree to this ludicrous exchange?

JANICE: Yes. To get the power she craved, to attain a position she doesn't merit by temperament or training.

It's all about being captain, something she couldn't get because of her gender. Either she was already nuts, and the fact that Starfleet barred women from becoming captain drove her completely off the edge.

Something ain't quite right about TOS Starfleet policy here.

Even Uhura in CATSPAW was denied the center seat command the one live-action time she was the highest ranking officer on ship. So they give it to DeSalle from SQUIRE FROM GOTHOS instead, who's suddenly fifth in command instead of Uhura...then he vanishes forever after CATSPAW is over and the top four oficers return aboard.

We know it's really so they wouldn't enrage 1960S Southern viewers, but it's still insulting.

With TOS, If you expect to see women taking command and sitting in the chair, a lot of liberal inter cultural mixing and such, you're going to have to prepare to be a little disappointed.

 

[Nerys Myk]

She also says "Your world of Starfleet Captains". Which can be interpreted as a grudge against Kirk and not a Starfleet policy. Kirk putting his ship and career ahead of relationships is well established.

But the thing is, she switches bodies with Kirk, in order to command the ship, which is strange if she was just angry that Kirk left her behind to pursue his career.

The dialog gives further clues :

KIRK: Love? Him? I love the life he led. The power of a starship commander. It's my life now.

And this one tells a lot;

KIRK: Can you, can you tell me why Doctor Janice Lester would agree to this ludicrous exchange?

JANICE: Yes. To get the power she craved, to attain a position she doesn't merit by temperament or training.

It's all about being captain, something she couldn't get because of her gender. Either she was already nuts, and the fact that Starfleet barred women from becoming captain drove her completely off the edge.

Something ain't quite right about TOS Starfleet policy here.

Lester's comments sound like the ravings a person who's batshit crazy. She couldn't have Kirk so her revenge was to be Kirk. And there is the power. Maybe she was bounced like Merrick was. Good to know that Starfleet psych screenings actually works every once in a while.

 

[Anwar]

The point I was trying to make is this: as it was actually written, TNG was surely much easier to write than TOS, because the TNG writers did not bother to, or simply were not able to, write unique dialogue for each character. Instead, they mostly wrote in one generic voice.

So, the point is you have no real point?

On the other hand, TOS's writers did give each character unique dialogue with at least three distinct voices, which requires writing with a lot more thought and creativity than in TNG's case, as written.

The TOS trio were Freud Archetypes: Id (McCoy), Ego (Kirk), Superego (Spock). That's not exactly hard to understand.

If the TNG writers had instead made an effort to give each character unique dialogue, yes, that would harder than writing for three characters. But they didn't, so their writing jobs were a lot easier.

Nah.

 

[T'Girl]

The dialog gives further clues :

JANICE: Yes. To get the power she craved, to attain a position she doesn't merit by temperament or training.

It's all about being captain, something she couldn't get because of her gender.

Then why didn't Kirk (as Lester) just come right out and say that? Kirk said what kept Lester from the position was her temperament and her training, he never mentioned her gender. If it were standing Starfleet policy to bar females in general from command, why didn't Kirk just say so? It would hardly be a closely held secret.

Your world (of starship captains) doesn't admit women.

Not Starfleet "doesn't admit women," James Kirk's world doesn't admit women. I believe that the same decision that one day Will Riker would make between career and relationship, that resulted in Deanna Troi being kick to the curb, happen earlier in the relationship between Kirk and Lester.

Kirk at some point had to choose, he choice career. His relationship with Lester disappeared by the time we first see him. And maybe the relationship wasn't all that important to Kirk. In TWOK, McCoy knew who Carol Marcus was, he had heard of her, Lester was a mystery to him in Turnabout.

The Outcast dealt with gay rights

I'm gay, and no it didn't.



")

 

[plynch]

Originally wasn't "the crew" of TNG conceived as one character, more or less? I know I read that somewhere. And there was the no-internal-conflict edict from the Bird (Pulaski seemed to violate it, though). Still, the characters had differences, though I will concede much of the dialog early on could have been given to a different crew member to say. (Much like Sulu's and Uhura's. Coon wanted to give us the same faces week after week to relate to.)

I disagree that McCoy is Id (unadulterated survival urges; like Id-Kirk in "Enemy Within") and that Spock is Superego (conscience internalized from one's culture). McCoy is often a voice of conscience. Spock, though quite a moral being, can sometimes come off as amoral (setting off McCoy in the process), which is more like Ego, which operates according to the reality principle.

They are much closer to Jung's archetypes of anima and animus. Heart and head united in Kirk, the "individuated" (un-divided) man, who sits symbolically in the center of a squared circle.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

The Outcast dealt with gay rights

I'm gay, and no it didn't.

I agree that it could have tackled the issue more head on, but it's heart was in the right place. They at least tried to address the issue, which IMO is better than not trying at all.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The Outcast dealt with gay rights

I'm gay, and no it didn't.

I agree that it could have tackled the issue more head on, but it's heart was in the right place. They at least tried to address the issue, which IMO is better than not trying at all.

It embarrassed me it was so hamfisted.

 

[sonak]

The Outcast dealt with gay rights

I'm gay, and no it didn't.

I agree that it could have tackled the issue more head on, but it's heart was in the right place. They at least tried to address the issue, which IMO is better than not trying at all.

to each their own. My view is that if they were going to do an episode about it that was that cowardly, muddled, and half-hearted, they'd have been better off not doing it at all.

A "message" episode doesn't work when the message is whispered and lacking in any conviction.

 

[BillJ]

I'm gay, and no it didn't.

I agree that it could have tackled the issue more head on, but it's heart was in the right place. They at least tried to address the issue, which IMO is better than not trying at all.

It embarrassed me it was so hamfisted.

I'm gay, and no it didn't.

I agree that it could have tackled the issue more head on, but it's heart was in the right place. They at least tried to address the issue, which IMO is better than not trying at all.

to each their own. My view is that if they were going to do an episode about it that was that cowardly, muddled, and half-hearted, they'd have been better off not doing it at all.

A "message" episode doesn't work when the message is whispered and lacking in any conviction.