While TNG action scenes aren't always expensive movie quality, I think there's no need for supercool CGI effects in action scenes.
Do you wish TNG had been better with the action scenes?
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
The thing that often irked me during starship battles is when Picard would order Worf to fire the phasers, Worf would do it and we’d just hear a few sound effects but not actually see the ship firing or the enemy take the hit. Even as a kid I could tell it was a cheat to save on effects budget. 
Gene Roddenberry was always pushing the action-adventure aspect in his memos to the TOS writers. Lots of his notes on scripts emphasized that Trek was an action-adventure first and foremost.
I've always thought that the second ship encounter in "The Survivors" as one of the best ship-to-ship battles that TNG has to offer.
Nevertheless, the scene suffers from Picard being too laid back, and precious seconds ticking by while characters report the situation. Worf's delivery is best. The scene works somewhat better being a contrast to the first encounter than on its own.
All of the engagements in both parts of "The Best of Both Worlds" deserve mention.
Also, Worf's stun setting was laughably too weak.
Nevertheless, the scene suffers from Picard being too laid back, and precious seconds ticking by while characters report the situation. Worf's delivery is best. The scene works somewhat better being a contrast to the first encounter than on its own.
All of the engagements in both parts of "The Best of Both Worlds" deserve mention.
Regarding this scene from "The High Ground," it's alright, but the biggest weakness it has is pretty glaring, which is that the bomb has a very looong fuse, giving Geordi plenty of time to get it off the warp core.
Also, Worf's stun setting was laughably too weak.
You have to remember the era in which the show was produced. Phaser battles were hard to set up and expensive to do. Each phaser effect was ridiculously expensive; each one cost thousands of dollars (today, you could do it with a smartphone app) For the shots in space, they were still using physical models and each element had to be photographed separately; a very time-consuming process and not really possible to do on a large scale when you had to put out 26 episodes in 9 months. And as far as the badly staged hand-to-hand combat scenes? Well, for one thing the actors weren't hired based on their ability to do those kinds of scenes. Also, those Starfleet costumes weren't easy to move around in. The women were stuck in those spandex jumpsuits from the first season (they were modified with the mandarin collar in Season 3) and the men's 2-piece costumes had a vest under the jacket that snapped into the waistband of the pants to hold them up, so it was like your torso was in a sling.
I used to think TNG was pretty tame with the action sequences and space battles. After watching Discovery, I'm pretty happy with tame.
My only issue with the fight scenes in the sequel series were they started to look the same. This was really a DS9 problem, because TNG was primarily a drama. I don't mind drama over action when it's legitimate. The technobabble was annoying to me because it felt like nearly every solution was to throw made up "space technology" words at it. That makes the situations dramatically inert. At least a fistfight is honest.
I feel like I was a bit disappointed with TNG's action scenes when I first watched it and I was comparing it to other series like Babylon 5, but the quality of the effects made up for it to an extent. (Though Deep Space Nine could match both of them.)
On my rewatch however the lack of action has kind of become part of its charm, especially as I'm alternating with Enterprise, which is wearing me out with its constant repetitive shoot outs. I feel like TNG's got just enough action to suit its tone. Or maybe TNG's tone is a result of action being too difficult and expensive for them. Either way it works for me.
On my rewatch however the lack of action has kind of become part of its charm, especially as I'm alternating with Enterprise, which is wearing me out with its constant repetitive shoot outs. I feel like TNG's got just enough action to suit its tone. Or maybe TNG's tone is a result of action being too difficult and expensive for them. Either way it works for me.
I sometimes wondered if they choose to depict space battles in the way they did to differentiate further between a Star Wars type of universe and a Star Trek type of universe. In SW, though made earlier, we see lots more individualized spaceship fight scenes with lots more action, while in ST there is usually more discussion, more lead-in, more thinking their way out of situations.
Both are good and exciting in their own ways (I prefer ST, I think they were extremely successful in what they did).
Both are good and exciting in their own ways (I prefer ST, I think they were extremely successful in what they did).
I think efficient and effective action is more interesting than excessive. Babylon 5 had a scene in the episode "Point of No Return" where in-universe they are watching a news report about a firefight between Earthforce ships taking place at Io and ends with General Hague's ship going on the run, and it's all up on a little screen in a bar in the Zocalo, and I probably enjoyed it more than the huge space battle on the following weeks episode. On DS9 I enjoyed the runabouts and Odyssey vs the three Jem Hadar ships way more than any battle of the Klingon War or the Dominion War. Even in Trek XI the Federation fleets warps off to confront Nero and we never see anything except the aftermath. I wish there was some other way to say "Shields are down to X%" because what the hell does that even mean? I did like the graphics in Trek VI which showed the shields weakening and then failing.
Similar threads
