Did TNG take itself too seriously?

[Egger]

I loved TNG the way it was.

TNG is like that neighbor that's been recycling before the city mandated it and every FUCKING time you go over they show you their damn mulched in the backyard but please don't step on the grass use the Fair Trade stone path that we bought from Costco because YOU KNOW we don't go to Walmart because have you seen the way they treat their employees?

1) That neighbour is a leader. They lead the way to doing something that is now accepted as the right thing to do, before it was cool.
2) Fair Trade is good.
3) Costco is fantastic, they are a great company to work for and an example of how you can be a decent company to your employees and still make a profit, a stark contrast to the entirely unethical behaviour of Walmart and its evil owners.

So, basically, I agree with everything you said, only I see it as a good thing.

@Bisz

I think your quote exemplifies a lot of people's problems with TNG. The problem with the neighbor isn't that they're recycling and buying free trade, the problem is that they're being smug about it. That's how a lot of people feel about TNG, that they mostly say things they agree with but they say it with a superior tone.

Yeah. And rightly so, because they're doing something right. And what does the other guy in this scenario do instead? He's only not doing the same thing because the neighbour is so smug about it. I think that is the real smugness, the real arrogance. It's like a defensive mechanism, like a rationalisation not to do the right thing. He (the neighbour) is so smug about it, smugness is bad, therefore I don't need to do what he does. Which is also ironic; hating smugness and being smug oneself.

On the other hand though, if that neighbour really wants to change other people's behaviour, he probably shouldn't just rub the right thing in their faces; he shouldn't use the "stick" too much, he should try the "carrot", find a way to get the message through without condemning them. That's a kind of manipulation, but a good one I think.

Although, to the original point again, this takes away every personal responibility of the "guy" to change his behaviour himself. After all, he still is smug about doing the wrong thing, and only because the neighbour is smug about doing the right thing.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I loved TNG the way it was.

TNG is like that neighbor that's been recycling before the city mandated it and every FUCKING time you go over they show you their damn mulched in the backyard but please don't step on the grass use the Fair Trade stone path that we bought from Costco because YOU KNOW we don't go to Walmart because have you seen the way they treat their employees?

1) That neighbour is a leader. They lead the way to doing something that is now accepted as the right thing to do, before it was cool.
2) Fair Trade is good.
3) Costco is fantastic, they are a great company to work for and an example of how you can be a decent company to your employees and still make a profit, a stark contrast to the entirely unethical behaviour of Walmart and its evil owners.

So, basically, I agree with everything you said, only I see it as a good thing.

@Bisz

I think your quote exemplifies a lot of people's problems with TNG. The problem with the neighbor isn't that they're recycling and buying free trade, the problem is that they're being smug about it. That's how a lot of people feel about TNG, that they mostly say things they agree with but they say it with a superior tone.

Yeah. And rightly so, because they're doing something right.

So doing the right thing means you should be an ass about it.

You can't just do the right thing you have to rub everyone's face in it.

 

[Egger]

So doing the right thing means you should be an ass about it.

So doing the wrong thing is right because those who do the right thing are smug about it?

I think you're more of an ass if you just don't do the right thing because those who do are smug about it.
If their smugness is enough of a reason for you to not also do the right thing, I believe that is worse than being an ass about doing the right thing.

I undersatnd why people react negatively to that. Nobody wants to be condemned. But still, if all their constant reminder to do the right thing does is giving you a reasong not to the right thing yourself, that might be pointless from their point of view if they want to change you, but you are behaving worse, because you take their ill-informed preachiness (and only that) as a reason to not do the right thing.

[I'm kind of redundant in my post it seems ^^]

 

[Lance]

One complaint I've heard people make about TNG is that it took itself too seriously. I'd say that it was more serious than TOS, but I think the claims of it being too serious and humorless are exaggerated. Hell, in one episode Picard drew a smiley face in a warp core breach! I thought it had plenty of classic Trek fun to go with the serious stuff.

Sure, TNG had enough moments of comedy and levity.

We all recognised it even at the time. The one-liners, etc. "Sir, I am *NOT* a merry man!!!"

I think when people talk about TNG being 'too serious', they really mean that it's... really kind of dry at times. It's not cheesy slap-your-thighs humour like TOS had from time to time, but it's definitely there. It just had a more subtle touch with how it went about it, especially in the later seasons.

One thing I actually like about Seasons 1 and 2 is that they weren't afraid to have that TOS-style cheesy humour. Something like "The Naked Now" comes in for a lot of criticism with the fans, but the one thing we can all say it's got going in it's favour is it proves TNG can do broad comedy. Parts of that episode are like a parody of those teenage sex comedies that were so popular back at the time it was made.

 

[Anwar]

I loved TNG the way it was.

TNG is like that neighbor that's been recycling before the city mandated it and every FUCKING time you go over they show you their damn mulched in the backyard but please don't step on the grass use the Fair Trade stone path that we bought from Costco because YOU KNOW we don't go to Walmart because have you seen the way they treat their employees?

1) That neighbour is a leader. They lead the way to doing something that is now accepted as the right thing to do, before it was cool.
2) Fair Trade is good.
3) Costco is fantastic, they are a great company to work for and an example of how you can be a decent company to your employees and still make a profit, a stark contrast to the entirely unethical behaviour of Walmart and its evil owners.

So, basically, I agree with everything you said, only I see it as a good thing.

@Bisz

I think your quote exemplifies a lot of people's problems with TNG. The problem with the neighbor isn't that they're recycling and buying free trade, the problem is that they're being smug about it. That's how a lot of people feel about TNG, that they mostly say things they agree with but they say it with a superior tone.

Yeah. And rightly so, because they're doing something right. And what does the other guy in this scenario do instead? He's only not doing the same thing because the neighbour is so smug about it. I think that is the real smugness, the real arrogance. It's like a defensive mechanism, like a rationalisation not to do the right thing. He (the neighbour) is so smug about it, smugness is bad, therefore I don't need to do what he does. Which is also ironic; hating smugness and being smug oneself.

On the other hand though, if that neighbour really wants to change other people's behaviour, he probably shouldn't just rub the right thing in their faces; he shouldn't use the "stick" too much, he should try the "carrot", find a way to get the message through without condemning them. That's a kind of manipulation, but a good one I think.

Although, to the original point again, this takes away every personal responibility of the "guy" to change his behaviour himself. After all, he still is smug about doing the wrong thing, and only because the neighbour is smug about doing the right thing.

So a person isn't allowed to appreciate their self-worth and has to always act less than they are to make their wastrel neighbors feel better?

If they manage to pull off the cool stuff they do and be better because of it...then their arrogance is a deserved arrogance.

Hell, no one cared this is all the Vulcans ever did in TOS. Blather on and on about stupid illogical humans.

 

[Makarov]

Is Picard pompous? Hell yeah he is, like that episode where the entire bridge crew beams down on to give a planet's government a little lecture in "The Hunted." Usually he's not that bad though. I guess that's what I want future humans to be like because I enjoy the smug enlightenedness of the TNG crew.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

So doing the right thing means you should be an ass about it.

You can't just do the right thing you have to rub everyone's face in it.

You're a "words speak louder than actions" backwards type of person, aren't ya?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

So doing the right thing means you should be an ass about it.

You can't just do the right thing you have to rub everyone's face in it.

You're a "words speak louder than actions" backwards type of person, aren't ya?

No, I just don't think people should be self important dicks to other people.

 

[Grathon Tolar]

I'm with the guy earlier in the thread who said the humor in TNG usually made him groan. It really didn't do long-episode humor well. At best, the humor episodes were forgettable and mildly annoying (e.g. Rascals, Fistful of Datas). At worst--the one with Joe Piscopo, anything having to do with the Ferengi and/or Lwaxana Troi--they were a recipe for what MST3K called DEEP HURTING.

The best humor in TNG consisted of measured moments of levity in otherwise serious episodes: Data offering to find out when Worf first banged Troi in Parallels, for instance. Or Riker's interplay with Picard in Captain's Holiday. Or any time Q was being playful rather than menacing.

 

[Anwar]

No, I just don't think people should be self important dicks to other people.

So yes, you do have a problem with people being proud of their accomplishments and that they should all act less than they are to appease their wastrel neighbors.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Then you must have HATED Ron Moore's BSG. If ANY show said that, it certainly did.

Big difference:

*BSG was about the end of one civilization and the beginning of a new one-Star Trek: TNG was as is spoken by Stewart at the beginning of every episode.

*BSG's characters were at the ends of their ropes emotionally and mentally; Star Trek's weren't. And they took themselves seriously because they were on what's ostensibly a naval ship (they did have fun moments, though, something that BSG never did.)

*The characters of BSG have to find Earth: Star Trek: TNG's characters have left Earth to explore space.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Yes, I think TNG took itself too seriously. TOS often had it's tongue ever-so-slightly planted in cheek, which is perfect for a show about people in brightly coloured pyjamas exploring space. It was sometimes goofy, but it was always fun. With TNG's more serious tone, many times it tried to be fun, it was like an impossibly out-of-touch Dad trying to be cool for his kids. Who ever thought Data and Joe Piscopo making those noises on the holodeck would be funny? Things did improve as it went on (Worf had some good quips, and the movie First Contact was amusing), but...

 

[ihno]

Yes, it did. I strongly agree to those, who also say that. Somebody wrote "dry" above and that's quite accurate.

It was also always a bit too conservative and dull for me. Don't know if that word is correctly chosen.

Especially Picard is such a stick up the ass and is a bit too qualified for me.

He didn't just become a high ranking officer, no he also had the time for a full study of archeology, in which he was the bestest student ever. Even after decades his former university-teachers stalk/follow him because they want his help.

Remember those scenes in which he speaks Latin with Wesley (as if there would be no other topics to learn at the Star Fleet Academy)? And of course he knows all Shakespeare has ever written and can quote it by command.

Or his squared(?) Nexus-phantasy? The cheesy christmas tree and the overly-perfect children calling him "father", not "Dad" or something familiar. And how he cried in another (or the same?) movie because his brother and nephew died? He was not crying about them as persons, he cried because his long and noble familie-tree with admirals and philosophers etc. pp. has died out. And really not a single chicken-thief in the long line of Picards?

I know he's written like that but to me it's goes too far. There is really no connection to plausibilty for me any more.

The others aren't really better, esp. Beverly.

Amercian TV - there's always a little bit of the Hays-Code in it.

 

[RAMA]

I like serious SF. Not that there isn't room for humor, but I never felt they needed a humor episode for the sake of it, like TOS, or the mostly horrible Ferengi episodes of DS9.

 

[T'Girl]

So yes, you do have a problem with people being proud of their accomplishments and that they should all act less than they are to appease their wastrel neighbors.

It's called being "humble," and it's an admirable trait in our culture.

YMMV.

 

[Anwar]

Wish someone told the Vulcans that. And every other "Godlike" species the Humans ran into.

 

[Kruezerman]

Yeah. And rightly so, because they're doing something right. And what does the other guy in this scenario do instead? He's only not doing the same thing because the neighbour is so smug about it. I think that is the real smugness, the real arrogance. It's like a defensive mechanism, like a rationalisation not to do the right thing. He (the neighbour) is so smug about it, smugness is bad, therefore I don't need to do what he does. Which is also ironic; hating smugness and being smug oneself.

On the other hand though, if that neighbour really wants to change other people's behaviour, he probably shouldn't just rub the right thing in their faces; he shouldn't use the "stick" too much, he should try the "carrot", find a way to get the message through without condemning them. That's a kind of manipulation, but a good one I think.

Although, to the original point again, this takes away every personal responibility of the "guy" to change his behaviour himself. After all, he still is smug about doing the wrong thing, and only because the neighbour is smug about doing the right thing.

I never mentioned "the guy," only the neighbor. For all you know, "the guy" does that too.

 

[Anwar]

In this case, "The Guy" is a wastrel who refuses to better himself just because his Neighbor refuses to debase himself.

 

[Egger]

I never mentioned "the guy," only the neighbor. For all you know, "the guy" does that too.

In this case, "The Guy" is a wastrel who refuses to better himself just because his Neighbor refuses to debase himself.

Now I'm confused.

I understand Kruezerman's point so that "The Guy" also does all the good things his neighbor does. In this case, I would say this neighbor is just an annoying person because he constantly tells "The Guy" things that he already knows and does.
The Neighbor may think that he can talk with him about his accomplishments because they have them in common.

I don't really understand what you, Anwar, mean. Are we talking past one another?

 

[trekshark]

too serious? no
sure there were scenes/speeches/episodes that got too preachy but overall the series wasn't "too serious"