Anybody Notice The Increase In TNG Bashing?

[Jayson]

Anna Yolei said:

Vulcanian said:
I think we're all paranoid that our favorite show is one no one likes. There's a thread about ppl not liking Deep Space Nine on the DS9 boards.

...

No matter how overrated people find TNG, I'm sure the the number of fans will ALWAYS outnumber the amount of loyalist ENT and VOY fans combined. I doubt TNG will ever be in danger of being the show no one likes.

I don't think it will be seen as bad show but more likely a show that simply doesn't hold up to time. I can think of several shows like that such as "Dragnet" or "Miami Vice." It is a show that will play better in people's memories than it will by simply watching it over and over. Basically the audience has moved on because because it's not gritty enough to have much to say about society of today that isn't being said by better shows yet it's not campy enough to have kitsch value to it such as "Lost in Space." The show is just kind of their. Not dumbed downed entertainment but not really anything remarkable about it either. It will just be this show people have fond memories of watching but not something they will want to revist again.


Jason

 

[Trubinator]

WeAreTheBorg said:

Trubinator said:

slappy said:
It's almost starting to be a trend since Trek's "decline". People coming out of the woodwork to take shots at TNG and it's legacy. Especially since they're dusting off Kirk and pushing those guys back into the mix.

All of a sudden, Picard and crew were always stodgy, stiff, uber-perfect and unrelatable. It was all technobabble and lacked drama. The 24th century was uptight and too advanced and convoluted to go forward. Where'd all this come from?

I blame BSg (and yes, the capitalization was intentional) for the declining interest in TNG. It revived the genre of "dark and sexy" where everything has to be new, vulgar, and completely uninteresting. But it doesn't matter to me because I KNOW TNG was a smash hit for a long time. No amount of slamming will ever change this for me, and that is all that matters.

Not to change the topic, but BSG is not "dark and sexy" its "dark and ugly". Its realistic and has none of the idealism TNG had. You don't have to like it but you miss the point, methinks. To me, blatant idealism isn't as interesting as muddy ambiguous morality and unpredictable outcomes that don't always ally themselves with "the good guys".

Hate to break it to you, but BSg ain't realistic. It has:

-unrealistic ship movement: note how the vipers use WAY too much thrust to maneuver. the producers don't seem to understand the concept of inertia at all.
-a laughable chain of command that despite the cirumstances, would be more of a hindrance to everyone. in real life, Starbuck would have been put away for suicidally risking the lives of her crewmembers, regardless of her skill as a pilot.
-a world without any happiness: humans adapt to their circumstances and the one thing you can never extinguish is hope. having everyone at each other's throats constantly is not only unrealistic, but it's dishonest.


I could go on for hours, but I've got other things to do.

 

[Anna Yolei]

Jack Bauer said:
I think people are just less forgiving of it's flaws and plus they've had years and years to see the episodes over and over and people just notice flaws they may have missed previously.

Probably so. TNG got a lot of attention simply for being the first Trek series in two decades, but tastes have changed, and not in TNG's favor, it seems.

 

[WeAreTheBorg]

Trubinator said:

WeAreTheBorg said:

Trubinator said:

slappy said:
It's almost starting to be a trend since Trek's "decline". People coming out of the woodwork to take shots at TNG and it's legacy. Especially since they're dusting off Kirk and pushing those guys back into the mix.

All of a sudden, Picard and crew were always stodgy, stiff, uber-perfect and unrelatable. It was all technobabble and lacked drama. The 24th century was uptight and too advanced and convoluted to go forward. Where'd all this come from?

I blame BSg (and yes, the capitalization was intentional) for the declining interest in TNG. It revived the genre of "dark and sexy" where everything has to be new, vulgar, and completely uninteresting. But it doesn't matter to me because I KNOW TNG was a smash hit for a long time. No amount of slamming will ever change this for me, and that is all that matters.

Not to change the topic, but BSG is not "dark and sexy" its "dark and ugly". Its realistic and has none of the idealism TNG had. You don't have to like it but you miss the point, methinks. To me, blatant idealism isn't as interesting as muddy ambiguous morality and unpredictable outcomes that don't always ally themselves with "the good guys".

Hate to break it to you, but BSg ain't realistic. It has:

-unrealistic ship movement: note how the vipers use WAY too much thrust to maneuver. the producers don't seem to understand the concept of inertia at all.
-a laughable chain of command that despite the cirumstances, would be more of a hindrance to everyone. in real life, Starbuck would have been put away for suicidally risking the lives of her crewmembers, regardless of her skill as a pilot.
-a world without any happiness: humans adapt to their circumstances and the one thing you can never extinguish is hope. having everyone at each other's throats constantly is not only unrealistic, but it's dishonest.


I could go on for hours, but I've got other things to do.

Its more realistic than TNG. The inside of the ship feels like it could be a modern day aircraft carrier.

 

[RAMA]

WeAreTheBorg said:

Trubinator said:

WeAreTheBorg said:

Trubinator said:

slappy said:
It's almost starting to be a trend since Trek's "decline". People coming out of the woodwork to take shots at TNG and it's legacy. Especially since they're dusting off Kirk and pushing those guys back into the mix.

All of a sudden, Picard and crew were always stodgy, stiff, uber-perfect and unrelatable. It was all technobabble and lacked drama. The 24th century was uptight and too advanced and convoluted to go forward. Where'd all this come from?

I blame BSg (and yes, the capitalization was intentional) for the declining interest in TNG. It revived the genre of "dark and sexy" where everything has to be new, vulgar, and completely uninteresting. But it doesn't matter to me because I KNOW TNG was a smash hit for a long time. No amount of slamming will ever change this for me, and that is all that matters.

Not to change the topic, but BSG is not "dark and sexy" its "dark and ugly". Its realistic and has none of the idealism TNG had. You don't have to like it but you miss the point, methinks. To me, blatant idealism isn't as interesting as muddy ambiguous morality and unpredictable outcomes that don't always ally themselves with "the good guys".

Hate to break it to you, but BSg ain't realistic. It has:

-unrealistic ship movement: note how the vipers use WAY too much thrust to maneuver. the producers don't seem to understand the concept of inertia at all.
-a laughable chain of command that despite the cirumstances, would be more of a hindrance to everyone. in real life, Starbuck would have been put away for suicidally risking the lives of her crewmembers, regardless of her skill as a pilot.
-a world without any happiness: humans adapt to their circumstances and the one thing you can never extinguish is hope. having everyone at each other's throats constantly is not only unrealistic, but it's dishonest.


I could go on for hours, but I've got other things to do.

Its more realistic than TNG. The inside of the ship feels like it could be a modern day aircraft carrier.

Its a matter of storyline...BSG is not a far future storyline with very advanced technology, the fact that it looks like a 20th century aircraft carrier makes it LESS realistic, since a starship from 400 years in the future (like the Enterprise), or a Battlestar that is built by a starfaring species like the Capricans most likely would not have a lot in common with a contemporary seagoing ship. Does a modern cruiser look ANYTHING like the USS Olympia from even a century ago? Or a frigate from the just 150 years ago? BSG in unrealistically retro....phone lines with cords?? But that was the producers intention, so it just makes it different, not better.

RAMA

 

[Hippokrene]

slappy said:
It's almost starting to be a trend since Trek's "decline". People coming out of the woodwork to take shots at TNG and it's legacy. Especially since they're dusting off Kirk and pushing those guys back into the mix.

All of a sudden, Picard and crew were always stodgy, stiff, uber-perfect and unrelatable. It was all technobabble and lacked drama. The 24th century was uptight and too advanced and convoluted to go forward. Where'd all this come from?

A show that was great twenty years ago, won't necessarily be great to a modern audience. The show had flaws, and those flaws are more apparent as time goes by. Take Encounter at Farpoint: when I first saw it, I thought it was wonderful. Now I find myself giggling at Troi's breakdowns, noticing that the crew lines up in perfect formation when looking at the viewscreen, and getting bored when show indulges in showing off its 'state of the art' docking and saucer separation sequences.

It's still a good show. At its best, I'd say it's better Star Trek than any of the other series. But time is merciless, and even shows we love age.

 

[Anwar]

It's the "Enterprise porn" effect. When TMP first came out that long long flyover of the refitted Enterprise worked because it had been 10 years since anyone had seen the Ent. Lose that period context and it just becomes long and boring.

For the record, I still love TNG.

 

[Noname Given]

Anwar said:
It's the "Enterprise porn" effect. When TMP first came out that long long flyover of the refitted Enterprise worked because it had been 10 years since anyone had seen the Ent. Lose that period context and it just becomes long and boring.

For the record, I still love TNG.

Speaking as a TOS fan primarily; I can tell you (as someone who saw ST:TMP on opening day in 1979); that 'long 1701 flyover' NEVER worked for the majority of fans - as a whol;e we ALL thought it wouls too long and coulf have used a bit more editing.

And anyone who thinks TNG wasn't being lambasted and torn apart when it premired is looking through rose-colored/revisionist glasses (and te ratings bear this out as TNG never saw a steady ratings increase until the tail end of season 3 going into season 4). It survived because there were enough hard core Star Trek fans who HOPED this series would one day get better; but even fan attitudes did not start to become more positive until Yesterday's Enterprise (which if you frequesnted BBSes and the fledgling Usenet in the day when just the promo for it aired) - EVERYONE thought "Man! They finally jumped the shark and are going to show an earlier Enterprise. I wonder if they'll name drop to Kirk and Co. here big time? This one's gonn a suck!"

So, no, TNG bashing is nothing neww, and during it's first 3 1/2 seasons some of the bashing makes te stuff heaped on VOY and ENT tame by comparison. Frome day one, the MAJORITY of fans have thought (and rightfully so) seasons one and two blew major chunks (and still do). And although fans now have the axiom that "All Star Trek series too 3 seasons to 'get going'..."; sorry, but TOS' first season WAS (and still is) the best written season of Star Trek, period, from the character and story perspective; and by Season 3 of TOS - the show had LOST a lot of that (Yes, while I think TOS is the best overall series, I c an recognize and accept all it's fault and continity issues across all of it's three seasons).

TNG from day one was GR believing all the hype fans had been pouring into his ears in the interim and it showed. In fact, some folks could make the argument that in MANY ways, it was "Star Trek:TMP fot T.V." with a few archtype character changes; and a character (Data) barrowed from a perious failed GR TV pilot ("Tghe Questor Tapes").

But again, TNG has been bashed from day one (a lot of it deserved, some of it not); the bashing hasn't changed or increased (imo); it's just that the 'hard core' TNG fanbase has waned; thus it's not as insulated from the bashing as it once was.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Noname Given said:

Anwar said:
It's the "Enterprise porn" effect. When TMP first came out that long long flyover of the refitted Enterprise worked because it had been 10 years since anyone had seen the Ent. Lose that period context and it just becomes long and boring.

For the record, I still love TNG.

Speaking as a TOS fan primarily; I can tell you (as someone who saw ST:TMP on opening day in 1979); that 'long 1701 flyover' NEVER worked for the majority of fans - as a whol;e we ALL thought it wouls too long and coulf have used a bit more editing.

And anyone who thinks TNG wasn't being lambasted and torn apart when it premired is looking through rose-colored/revisionist glasses (and te ratings bear this out as TNG never saw a steady ratings increase until the tail end of season 3 going into season 4). It survived because there were enough hard core Star Trek fans who HOPED this series would one day get better; but even fan attitudes did not start to become more positive until Yesterday's Enterprise (which if you frequesnted BBSes and the fledgling Usenet in the day when just the promo for it aired) - EVERYONE thought "Man! They finally jumped the shark and are going to show an earlier Enterprise. I wonder if they'll name drop to Kirk and Co. here big time? This one's gonn a suck!"

So, no, TNG bashing is nothing neww, and during it's first 3 1/2 seasons some of the bashing makes te stuff heaped on VOY and ENT tame by comparison.

I once used google to see what people had thought about TNG when it had first started and it was quite brutal. If people don't believe us they need to check it out. Just replace TNG with ENT and it hasn't changed much.