M
Marth22
Guest
I like TNG but overall I prefer Deep Space Nine overall as a series, you can't beat this classic sorry it was too well made and the story is really compelling.
How do Niners feel about TNG?
- Thread starter TheGodBen
- Start date
M
Mr Cool Dude
Guest
I prefer to see TNG and DS9 as one long continuous story. It is true that there is much of TNG season 1 that is very idiosyncratic (to say the least). However, TNG season 1 did manage to establish what was happening in the 24th century - in terms of treaties, new threats, and so on. It established the new technology, how humanity had developed, and what had happened since the time of Kirk and Spock. An awful lot of what went on in DS9 was built on the foundation that TNG laid down in season one.
TNG improved, and by season 3 it really found its rhythm. For some reason, certain very bizarre falsehoods developed about the show. I think Praxius wrote a really great post earlier, and as well as exploding those falsehoods, he articulated the spirit of TNG.
TNG carries on, and then we are introduced to DS9 and Benjamin Sisko. In Emissary we see what happened to Sisko and his family at Wolf 359 - and the very personal connection he has with Picard. TNG ends and DS9 continues the story on its own.
From Encounter At Farpoint to What You Leave Behind is one long narrative. There is a definite shift in tone about midway through as the war starts, and the values that were espoused in TNG are tested in DS9. In my opinion, for the most part, they held up.
TNG improved, and by season 3 it really found its rhythm. For some reason, certain very bizarre falsehoods developed about the show. I think Praxius wrote a really great post earlier, and as well as exploding those falsehoods, he articulated the spirit of TNG.
TNG carries on, and then we are introduced to DS9 and Benjamin Sisko. In Emissary we see what happened to Sisko and his family at Wolf 359 - and the very personal connection he has with Picard. TNG ends and DS9 continues the story on its own.
From Encounter At Farpoint to What You Leave Behind is one long narrative. There is a definite shift in tone about midway through as the war starts, and the values that were espoused in TNG are tested in DS9. In my opinion, for the most part, they held up.
Excellent post overall, and I think this point is particularly perceptive. DS9 puts Trek overall and TNG in particular to the test. Creatively speaking, it uses the world that TNG established as a kind of constraint that it stretches, turns inside out, unravels, deconstructs and examines.
Having TNG's idealistic world to work with (and against) is a resource that DS9 had that most comparable shows do not have: there is a past history there that grants the show a historical and moral depth that is more compelling than any simple "backstory" that a show might come up with from scratch to shape its characters and storyline.
I compare this to the LotR, which is pretty much the reference as far as world-building is concerned. These novels attain a sense of depth and "reality" of the fictional world that has rarely been equaled since, imo for one simple reason: the world already existed when Tolkien wrote the LotR. He had invented the languages and mythology of Middle Earth over the course of many years since childhood as a pastime that he never even intended to publish. Then he wrote a story for his nephew (The Hobbit) that his brother suggested he publish. Its popularity led to the LotR.
So, by the time the LotR was composed, Tolkien had this pre-existing universe to work with and build upon that he didn't just invent on the spot to serve as backstory for the novels. This is a dynamic that can't really be created from scratch because at that point, by definition, you are creating the backstory with your current story in mind.
TNG provides that pre-existing world for DS9 to work with as a resource, which is why the show has a depth that it couldn't have created all by itself. DS9 certainly would not have been possible without what TNG had established. However, what DS9 did right (that Voyager unfortunately did not do) was take the established universe and send it in a new direction, subvert it, analyse it, create something new with that resource.
Last edited:
That it is.
I have no problem with the idea that Earth is a paradise of sorts, and even if a group of people don't like living on what pretty much amounts to a socialist Earth, there's hundreds of habitable planets in Federation that those people can settle on to get away from Earth. The near-utopian Earth isn't a problem for me, Earth is but one planet, we hardly ever see it in the shows. So long as the frontier of deep space has interesting things going on then Earth can be the most boring planet in the universe for all I care.
What's a problem for me is that Gene took his ideals to crazy extremes. For example, I've heard that in the original script for BOBW Picard was going to have his arm lopped off and replaced with a Borg arm, and once he was rescued he would get a replacement arm that would be indistinguishable from his real arm. Gene shot it down on the basis that in the future people's limbs wont be amputated.
What the hell?!
Because Earth is a paradise that means that accidents can't happen? People can't lose their limbs in combat? The Borg, a soulless entity determined to assimilate the galaxy, would adhere to Roddenberry's utopian principles as well? That makes absolutely no sense. It's idealism gone mad. It's also one of the reasons why Ira Behr had to fight Berman for Nog to lose his leg, because Berman was trying to protect Gene's vision and Ira Behr was trying to tell a good story.
How did DS9 contradict this? There's still no poverty or war on Earth in DS9.
I guess I was just balancing the discussion lol.
DS9 did have over TNG that it had better character development and continuity, but all of Trek is based on the idea that humanity is evolved/different in the future. DS9 did depart from this.
TOS was not all kum-bye-yah and harmony. Bones, whilst being one of Spock's best friends on the ship, often made speciesist/racist comments to Spock but it showed that humans had overcome many of our faults in the present. One point is that Gene was looking at 1960s America and making a reference from that. This to me is part of the appeal of Trek as a franchise.
Saying that the Roddenberry vision is unrealistic or that human nature can never change is by the by, but DS9 in my opinion did go against it somewhat.
A
Amaris
Guest
I started watching TNG when it premiered in 1987. Up until that time I had been a hardcore TOS fan (I was only 7), but when TNG made it's way into our living room, I had to watch, and was always held at rapt attention. As I grew older, the show still resonated with me. In 1993, Deep Space Nine premiered, and I watched the first couple of episodes and didn't really feel interested. Where were the bright lights? Where was the feeling of comraderie between Officers and crew? I didn't watch it consistently until about 2002/2003, and got a hold of some DS9 VHS tapes. I found that I enjoyed the series now, and that I understood it's context. I started recording episodes on TV, watching as many as I could, and over time, I felt myself started to sway from being a TNG fan to being more of a DS9 fan. I believe "In the Pale Moonlight" triggered my switch in allegiance. I became a Niner after that episode (about 2004/2005 is when I saw it).
Today, I consider myself a Niner, but I think TNG is still an excellent show.
Today, I consider myself a Niner, but I think TNG is still an excellent show.
What I like about DS9 is that they took this idea of a utopian society seriously and not try to undermine it, never questioned the ideals of the Federation.
They did question the ideals and integrity of Starfleet, but that is another matter (and a wise choice).
They did question the ideals and integrity of Starfleet, but that is another matter (and a wise choice).
I second that, although I didn't quite read all of Praxius' post.
And, if we look at the poll, the "hating on TNG" are a very small minority. Who are welcome of course to let their feelings be known.
As for me, I just don't buy the overly simplified cliche interpretation of TNG as uber-PC, or holier-than-thou. Yes, the future in Star Trek is supposed to show a generally more enlightened society. That is a PRIMARY ingredient of ST and you DO see it in DS9 as well - only then it is against a different backdrop. ST without an optimistic vision of our future simply is not ST.
Nor do I buy the false assertion that this aspect is not present in TOS - the hell it isn't. If anything, it's even stronger. Not that humanity is perfect, but that it is striving towards betterment, individually and as a whole. TOS regularly asserts those humanistic and uplifting values that are central to the ST theme.
As for being a "Niner", I suppose I am by some margin. I haven't seen VOY or ENT yet, so I can't address those. But DS9 to me felt like it hit the ground running. It built on the foundations of TNG - writing, production-wise, you name it. I can't really say I prefer DS9 that strongly, but the overall quality of DS9 is consistently higher from the getgo. Amazing show.
In the 7 years I've been here, I've never really seen the superiority complex that others saw in TNG other than in the first two seasons. Granted, maybe it's there, and maybe I just look at TNG in the whole "rose-colored glasses" (Since I grew up with it) but in the later seasons I didn't really see much of it. What I did see is a series that expanded on the universe that Star Trek created, and really gave the federation more teeth.
With DS9, the same can also be said, and I think both TNG and DS9 compliment each other very well. If TNG gave us that federation utopia, than DS9 expanded it to give us the other side. Ira Behr always brings this up and I agree with it, but the quote in Maquis, "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise" really is what DS9 wanted to accomplish. If someone asked me what is one thing that you would say DS9 is about, I was say that quote. It's the underlying theme of the show, it was just really awesome to see it explored.
DS9 also expanded the universe that TNG continued. It made it more organic, more real, and a lot more interesting. This is really why I absolutely love 90's Star Trek. It was a progression of the entire universe, covering all the basis and I was very interested in that. I like that the studio's brought Star Trek back to the masses with a reboot, and the whole debate on what Abrams did still continues, but I miss the 24th century universe. Star Trek was always about moving forward, and for 16 or so glorious years, it did just that. I miss it so much.
With DS9, the same can also be said, and I think both TNG and DS9 compliment each other very well. If TNG gave us that federation utopia, than DS9 expanded it to give us the other side. Ira Behr always brings this up and I agree with it, but the quote in Maquis, "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise" really is what DS9 wanted to accomplish. If someone asked me what is one thing that you would say DS9 is about, I was say that quote. It's the underlying theme of the show, it was just really awesome to see it explored.
DS9 also expanded the universe that TNG continued. It made it more organic, more real, and a lot more interesting. This is really why I absolutely love 90's Star Trek. It was a progression of the entire universe, covering all the basis and I was very interested in that. I like that the studio's brought Star Trek back to the masses with a reboot, and the whole debate on what Abrams did still continues, but I miss the 24th century universe. Star Trek was always about moving forward, and for 16 or so glorious years, it did just that. I miss it so much.
I can readily agree that we need to get rid of corrupt governments, uncaring politicans, religious hatred, wars, and racism. But capitalism?
Capitalism is what gave us the comfortable world will live in today.You say it's simply unsustainable. Well, hasn't history proven that the alternatives to capitalism are what's really unsustainable?
As much as I love Star Trek, I would never want to live on the Trek-verse Earth. It's WAY too socialistic.
That is an excellent analogy and one I can completely agree with. I'm currently in the process of watching Babylon 5 for the first time. While I've heard so many others talk about how wonderful the show is - I just don't see it as anything special. Yes, it's entertaining, but nothing great. Maybe it's because of something like this. It has nothing to build on like DS9 did, and that hampers it somewhat. However, I'm only into season two right now, so I'll reserve my final judgment.
Well, B5 dramatically improves in season 2 so don't be too quick to judge. However, IMO B5 is the text book definition of a show that's aged badly (the irony that I've said that in a thread about TNG is not lost on me
), so YMMV.
Well, B5 dramatically improves in season 2 so don't be too quick to judge. However, IMO B5 is the text book definition of a show that's aged badly (the irony that I've said that in a thread about TNG is not lost on me
Why do you say B5 has aged badly. Perhaps because I just saw it and it's still quite fresh, I do have a different perspective, but I would love to hear yours.
This is always a difficult question for me to answer. At the time of TNG's run, I loved the show. DS9 gradually edged it out as my favorite but I still really enjoyed the show. What makes answering the question hard now is that I can barely bring myself to rewatch a TNG episode unless it's a stand out episode like Yesterday's Enterprise, Chain of Command, or maybe Best of Both Worlds. I rewatch DS9 episodes regularly, even episodes that some would consider to just be filler, like the Ferengi stuff. If I had to rank overall the frequency in which I rewatch Trek it would be:
DS9
ENT
TOS
TNG
VOY
DS9
ENT
TOS
TNG
VOY
Well, B5 dramatically improves in season 2 so don't be too quick to judge. However, IMO B5 is the text book definition of a show that's aged badly (the irony that I've said that in a thread about TNG is not lost on me
Why do you say B5 has aged badly. Perhaps because I just saw it and it's still quite fresh, I do have a different perspective, but I would love to hear yours.
Personally, I think it's aged at least as well as DS9.
Capitalism could not work in the TNG-verse. Capitalism only works in a world with limited resources and we assign value to that resource based on the quantity of it available and how difficult it is to make. However, in TNG it appears that energy is near-limitless, and replicators can create whatever you desire in a matter of seconds. As a result, there's no value to anything, everything is practically in infinite supply. In the TNG-verse, capitalism is simply obsolete.I can readily agree that we need to get rid of corrupt governments, uncaring politicans, religious hatred, wars, and racism. But capitalism?
You say it's simply unsustainable. Well, hasn't history proven that the alternatives to capitalism are what's really unsustainable?
As much as I love Star Trek, I would never want to live on the Trek-verse Earth. It's WAY too socialistic.
Personally, of all the fantasy and sci-fi universes I know of, the TNG-verse is the one I would most like to live in. It's not perfect, and the laws of physics say that it's impossible, but I would love to live in a world where there's no war or poverty, and whatever I want I can have. A universe where a man like Joseph Sisko runs a restaurant because he enjoys it, not because he feels he has to pay off his mortgage. It's not quite paradise, but it's better than what we have now.
I felt the same way when I was watching season 2, I found the show mostly enjoyable but it didn't appear to be anything special. However, season 3 was very good and I awarded it the highest score of any season I've reviewed so far, and season 4 is off to a very strong start. It's not a perfect show by any means, but for its time it was leading the way for science fiction, and looking at the sci-fi produced over the last decade it seems that it was a major influence.
I suppose if there was literally no limit on the production of resources, then socialism might work. However, I personally would still have problems living in the Trekverse, even though it would indeed be a comfortable life.
For example, it seems to me that the UFP government exerts a vast control over the lives of citizens - given what little we've seen of the government or civilian life. In one episode of TOS, Mudd's Women, miners who live out in the boondocks still have to submit to regular Starfleet examinations and health check-ups simply because they're told to. If they don't, they lose their mining license. The episode plays it like the miners are essentially their own independent group which sells dilithium crystals to the Federation. So, the government can insist on overseeing the work environment and health status of people who don't even work "for" them and live, by all accounts, outside the Federation?
In one episode of DS9, Doctor Bashir, I Presume, Starfleet exercises legal authority over the crimes of a civilian, Richard Bashir. The military operates civilian courts? I guess I'm just too much of a limited government supporter. After all, that's why I didn't vote for either Obama or McCain - they're both supporters of massively big government.
I have to say, it was your review thread that got me to watch it.
I've just finished the fourth episode of the second season and am racing through them as fast as I can on Hulu.com to catch up (I'm watching four or five a day). It really helps to have next to no social life sometimes. 
I'm not even sure if the TNG-verse qualifies as socialism, the realities of that universe are so different from what we know now that our current economic concepts couldn't apply. I mean, if socialism is about redistributing wealth then it doesn't apply because there is no concept of wealth on Earth. Without wealth crime would diminish, especially since the Federation has the ability to cure the criminally insane. So there's not much of a need for a authoritarian regime.
That's a problem with a lot of Star Trek, I didn't even realise there was a difference between Starfleet and the Federation until I was around 13 because of this. For example, in TVH a lot of the people sitting on the UFP council were Starfleet officers, and in Rapture the Federation sent admirals to sign the treaty accepting Bajor into the Federation. One could almost make the case for the Federation being some sort of military regime.In one episode of DS9, Doctor Bashir, I Presume, Starfleet exercises legal authority over the crimes of a civilian, Richard Bashir. The military operates civilian courts?
I wholeheartedly apologise that I am the cause of you watching Infection.I have to say, it was your review thread that got me to watch it.
I know, I'm half-way through Red Dead Redemption after only 2 days of playing!I've just finished the fourth episode of the second season and am racing through them as fast as I can on Hulu.com to catch up (I'm watching four or five a day). It really helps to have next to no social life sometimes.
If you're only up to 204 then that explains why the show hasn't gripped you yet. There's a brilliant episode coming up soon that should convince you about the show's potential, at the rate you're going you should see it in a day or two.
That's a problem with a lot of Star Trek, I didn't even realise there was a difference between Starfleet and the Federation until I was around 13 because of this.In one episode of DS9, Doctor Bashir, I Presume, Starfleet exercises legal authority over the crimes of a civilian, Richard Bashir. The military operates civilian courts?
That's one of my major problems with all of Trek - there's next to no attempt to define what the structure of the Federation is? Is it a constitutional republic? What's the relationship of the UFP President to the Federation Council? Is it similar to the U.S. system, or is it more of a parlimentary-based government?
For that matter, there's also really no attempt to define what the organization of Starfleet is beyond the level of the individual ship/station. Who exactly do the captains respond to in the chain of command? (At one time they answer to whatever rank of admiral is present for the episode. At another, they answer to the highest possible ranking officer, a Fleet Admiral. At other times, most notably in DS9, they answer to a Vice Admiral. It appears that Ross is Sisko's direct superior. Shouldn't a One-Star Rear Admiral be his immediate superior?) How it Starfleet organized in terms of it's upper echelons?
In your ENT review thread you said how you would have liked to see an episode in the third season based on Earth - showing how the public was preparing for the possible destruction of Earth. I would have loved to see something like that on any of the shows. For instance, how about showing how the Federation government decided to formally declare war on the Dominion?
Infection was pretty bad. However, I have to say that Soul Hunter was the worst of the season, IMO. And that comes from a guy who believes in souls.I wholeheartedly apologise that I am the cause of you watching Infection.
For me, Soul Hunter would get a 0 and Infection would get ½*.
Similar threads
