How come season 3 had a consistently high quality?

[indolover]

Season 1 was poor largely, season 2 improved, but I think season 3 was where it was at.

So how come with episodes such as The Defector, Sins of the Father, Booby Trap, The High Ground, Captain's Holiday, etc. the quality of the show markedly improved?

 

[Anwar]

Michael Piller?

 

[Alrik]

^

Coupled with the fact that both the writers and the actors had gotten comfortable with who the characters were and the directions that they were heading.

 

[Spirit]

^

Both of the above. Particularly Michael Piller.

 

[tomalak301]

I think it's a combination of Michael Piller and Ron Moore joining the creative staff. However, I kind of feel that Maurice Hurley got a short shrift.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

I'd have to guess it's a combination of getting better at doing the show through trial and error and the arrival of new blood like Piller, Echevarria and Moore. But really, who can adequately explain creative success? It... happens.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I prefer Season One to Season Two.

That said, the difference in the third year was quite simply Michael Piller.

The writing operation had been mismanaged for two years, leading to the proverbial "revolving door" of writers coming on staff and then leaving after - in some cases - one or two weeks out of sheer frustration. Feuding, petty back-biting and a severe lack of trust had made a mess of the whole thing. Piller changed the culture there.

 

[Tulin]

Couple with the above, season three just had this different look(maybe something to do with the lighting?)to the first two seasons.

Add in the new, more official looking uniforms that didn't look like one piece spandex body suits and the show just seemed to "arrive".

 

[BillJ]

I thought season 3 was as 'hit and miss' as any other season of Star Trek.

 

[Dukhat]

I would say both Michael Piller and the increasing irrelevance of Gene Roddenberry's influence.

 

[RyuRoots]

It was a lot of things just all coming together perfectly at the same time. The actors had grown more comfortable with their characters (and the worthless Dr. Pulaski was given the boot to bring Crusher back, whoo), film quality and the Ent-D computer screens were actually better technically IIRC, and Michael Piller was no small part of it. Not to mention ditching the fucking goofy-looking spandex uniforms from the first two seasons. If not for eps like Q, Who and The Measure of a Man I'd be willing to ignore the existence of the first two seasons entirely, personally.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I thought season 3 was as 'hit and miss' as any other season of Star Trek.

Well it's all subjective, depending on what we mean by hit and miss. Hitting what? Missing what?
The subjective (and for some, ever-changing) answers to those questions determines which seasons/episodes are preferred.
For me S4-6 of TNG is best, but with a number of standouts from the other seasons.

 

[RAMA]

Early on Michael Wagner also seemed to have an impact, but he left the show.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Michael_Wagner

RAMA

 

[KHAAAN!]

I always make it a rule with TV, that if it makes it into the third season then it's probably worth watching. By that I don't mean that any show that has less than three season is necessarily not worth watching or that every show with more than three seasons is a winner. There are plenty of good shows that only have one or two seasons, but I end up watching those and then I am left heartbroken when they are cancelled by the studios. There are dozens more that have at least twenty seasons for which I can find no redeeming values. Season three seems to me to be where a show stands on its own and continue on.

 

[JarodRussell]

To quote Picard: "Just lucky, Admiral."