10 reasons why TOS is better than TNG

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

''Not enough people agreed with you the first time around, you had to start it again?''

Who said I was looking for agreement? Civilized debate is the goal of this ''ten reasons'' thread. I put in ten reasons, and you can put in ten reasons, or more, or less, pro or con, civilly. Those born 1975 or later have equally valid opinions, so let the record show my original ''misguided'' remark was unfortunate snark-seepage.

The thread had to be started again in General Discussion after things got unnecessarily uncivil, and I rebutted in turn. The otherwise positive feedback, whether pro-TNG or pro-TOS, is all civil and is reason enough to restart this thread.

''Peace and tranquility and civility be until you.''

 

[Count Zero]

You should learn how to quote. There are the quote button (if you just want to quote one post) and the multi-quote button (if you want to quote multiple posts) at the right bottom of every post. It makes posts easier to read and it also includes a feature that allows people to go back to the quoted post and read it in its entirety if it has been shortened by clicking on the arrow.

As for this topic, I always find these contests bizarre. I love almost all Trek equally and couldn't decide whether TOS is better or TNG. They were both good, in their own ways. But of course, all Trek is inferior to Doctor Who.

 

[Disruptor]

10 reasons they are pretty much the same.

1. Guest star Diana Muldaur

2. Majel Barrett in annoying recurring role.

3. Sometimes heavy handed morality/social allegory plots

4. Encountering god like beings who have nothing better to do than harass humans.

5. Both the actors playing the captain were bald.

6. THE WOMEN!! (Eye candy!)

7. Facing danger in fake old western towns (Spectre of the Gun/Fistful of Datas)

8. Cybernetic race wanting on enslaving humanity (I, MUDD's androids/the Borg)

9. Captain disguises himself as a Romulan.

10. Guest star Mark Leonard

 

[Finn]

^ like

 

[BillJ]

10 reasons they are pretty much the same.

1. Guest star Diana Muldaur

2. Majel Barrett in annoying recurring role.

3. Sometimes heavy handed morality/social allegory plots

4. Encountering god like beings who have nothing better to do than harass humans.

5. Both the actors playing the captain were bald.

6. THE WOMEN!! (Eye candy!)

7. Facing danger in fake old western towns (Spectre of the Gun/Fistful of Datas)

8. Cybernetic race wanting on enslaving humanity (I, MUDD's androids/the Borg)

9. Captain disguises himself as a Romulan.

10. Guest star Mark Leonard

^ like

 

[AdmiralScreed]

All Trek is good.

I politely disagree. TOS may have been revolutionary for its time, but it hasn't aged well. The writing and acting pale in comparison to TNG, as do the special effects, music, and practically anything else you can think of. I tried watching it, but after a few dozen episodes I had to give up because it was such a bore...

 

[BillJ]

I tried watching it, but after a few dozen episodes I had to give up because it was such a bore...

You obviously haven't watched the vast majority of TNG then. Paramount created the cure for insomnia when they started producing TNG.

I love TNG but I found it to be the one that can be a chore to sit through.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

music,

Before or after the switch to "sonic wall paper"?

 

[Harvey]

Star Trek has better music, cinematography, and the most iconic characters. It tended to get worse as it went along.

Star Trek: The Next Generation has better direction, a better overall cast, better visual effects, and actually bothered to use and develop its secondary characters. It tended to get better as it went along.

I don't really favor one over the other.

 

[sonak]

All Trek is good.

I politely disagree. TOS may have been revolutionary for its time, but it hasn't aged well. The writing and acting pale in comparison to TNG, as do the special effects, music, and practically anything else you can think of. I tried watching it, but after a few dozen episodes I had to give up because it was such a bore...

interesting. I suspect most who compared the two series would find TNG much more of the "bore" between the two series. As I've pointed out in comparison before, TOS didn't have episodes like "cost of living," "lessons," etc. TOS was much more action-oriented and less soap opera-esque.

You're of course right about the special effects and the "look"(with toggle switches and floppy disks and such), but that's inevitable for a sci-fi series from the past. TNG's and even DS9's effects will look just as ridiculous someday. I don't use that as a fair comparison between the two series.

 

[Harvey]

I suspect most who compared the two series would find TNG much more of the "bore" between the two series. As I've pointed out in comparison before, TOS didn't have episodes like "cost of living," "lessons," etc. TOS was much more action-oriented and less soap opera-esque.

It's true that Star Trek was an action-adventure series, while Star Trek: The Next Generation was more of a drama, but I don't think one genre is inherently more of a "bore" than the other. I'd also draw exception to labeling Star Trek: The Next Generation "soap opera-esque." As a highly-budgeted, episodic series that favored the restoration of equilibrium among the regular characters at the end of each week's episode, it shares little in common with the soap opera format (especially daytime soaps, but also the more expensive prime-time soaps such as Dallas or Dynasty).

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Well I've gone on record (because this is a very serious topic) in saying TNG is my least favorite series and that's because of the slower pace, preachiness and all out boring element. But I find it weird to compare TOS to anything that followed it. It's a product of its era so there's all the unfair factors but it's also the origin of the whole franchise. I don't know why Trek fans of later series wouldn't want to see what Worf's embarrassed about in the ridges, or see Vulcan marriage and pon farr as they were first presented to us. How can you watch all the Romulan machinations of TNG and DS9 and not want to see the Federation's very first (official) contact with Romulans? The shock or realizing they are apparently of Vulcan origin? Sure the Andorians look dorky but you will certainly recognize their almost delicate slyness that you see in ENT in Journey to Babel.

I just don't get it. Why would anyone not want to watch TOS if you are a huge fan of any one of the other series?

 

[Nightdiamond]

All Trek is good.

TOS was my first Trek, I was a young teenager when I watched it. When I watch it today the music alone evokes powerful emotions in me. I experience it the same intense way I did originally much of the time.

Very true--you can't beat the music from series. Or the science fiction writing, they're both classic.

I think one problem may be that the other shows reminded us of where TOS couldn't go. TOS had those limitations in the 60's that really stand out.

Example, the part about women never being allowed to become Starship captains, when 23rd century humans were supposed to be evolved beyond that type of thing--it never made sense.

Or -- The captain disappears from the bridge, Uhura screams--because thats what experienced scared female officers do

Or the one dimensionality of some of the characters.

At first Uhura did seem like the modern woman, equal with the crew, strong character--later upon seeing what could have been done, she's seen to some as just a glorified secretary.

Kirk's past loves and guest stars often had more dialog and expression than some of the main characters.

The other shows got to spend more time on its characters.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Teacake wrote:

''I just don't get it. Why would anyone not want to watch TOS if you are a huge fan of any one of the other series?''

Perhaps the original show's lack of CGI and/or un-politically correct '60s sexual attitudes are major negatives for them.


11. Nobody ever called Uhura, Chapel, Rand or any other woman ''Mister.'' I know Saavik started the trend....and TNG later on occasion continued it. Is ''Ms.'' so offensive?

12. No horrible clip show of flashbacks interspersed with repetitive dialogue on the order of ''He's fighting to get conscious'' every three minutes.

13. Denevan pancakes. Still creepy after all these years.

14. No ridiculous ban on non-humanoid alien antagonists.

15. THE NAKED TIME cannot be remade or improved on.....especially in the second episode of a new series.

 

[plynch]

I like TNG fine, first of all.
But several people upstream prefer the acting in TNG. "Better overall cast"?

I am just . . . stunned. Are we watching the same things?

Shatner - "wooden?" Never heard him called THAT before.

In TOS, the cast had three, veteran bona fide actors plus Doohan. TNG was Patrick and the kids, several of whom were lousy.

 

[Harvey]

I like TNG fine, first of all.
But several people upstream prefer the acting in TNG. "Better overall cast"?

Star Trek has the big three. Star Trek: The Next Generation has Stewart (a better lead, overall, than Shatner in my opinion), Levar Burton, Michael Dorn, Brent Spiner, and (in a recurring role) Colm Meaney. That gives it the edge, overall.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Teacake wrote:

''I just don't get it. Why would anyone not want to watch TOS if you are a huge fan of any one of the other series?''

Perhaps the original show's lack of CGI and/or un-politically correct '60s sexual attitudes are major negatives for them.

Those being both "of the era". Does it rule out everything of that era if those things are major stumbling blocks?

As to Shatner's acting, he is usually described as overly theatrical, not wooden, so I'm not sure where that comes from. TOS had a lot of excellent guest stars such as Montalban.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

Shatner - "wooden?" Never heard him called THAT before.

You've seriously never heard anyone criticize Shatner's acting? You're right, we must be watching two different shows...

 

[sonak]

I suspect most who compared the two series would find TNG much more of the "bore" between the two series. As I've pointed out in comparison before, TOS didn't have episodes like "cost of living," "lessons," etc. TOS was much more action-oriented and less soap opera-esque.

It's true that Star Trek was an action-adventure series, while Star Trek: The Next Generation was more of a drama, but I don't think one genre is inherently more of a "bore" than the other. I'd also draw exception to labeling Star Trek: The Next Generation "soap opera-esque." As a highly-budgeted, episodic series that favored the restoration of equilibrium among the regular characters at the end of each week's episode, it shares little in common with the soap opera format (especially daytime soaps, but also the more expensive prime-time soaps such as Dallas or Dynasty).

I meant "soap opera-esque" in terms of plots, not episode structure. It wasn't serialized, but it had a lot of "romance of the week" or "Data explores what it means to be Human" for the umpteenth time that TOS would never have had.

 

[Harvey]

Star Trek had plenty of romance-of-the week stories. In fact, it exclusively had romance-of-the-week stories -- just not to the exclusion of action-adventure elements like episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation such as "Lessons" or "In Theory." But, as I said, Star Trek: The Next Generation wasn't an action-adventure series. It was a drama. (Both series, of course, have heavy science fiction elements)

In any event, I still think it's a mistake to label this kind of storytelling "soap opera-esque." In those programs, I would think it would be exceptionally rare for a romantic relationship to play out in the confines of a single episode. If you're just looking at episodes that primarily deal in romance, that's by no means solely the confines of soap operas.