Agreed 100%. The lighting and cinematography in that movie is first class.
How was season 1 received at the time?
- Thread starter TalkieToaster
- Start date
There seems to be a lot of rediscovered or new found love for the first two seasons since the Blu-ray releases. As far as I can tell, they've always been considered the bastard children of the series by many fans, and I'll admit to those feelings myself, although as with all the seasons, 1 & 2 have good and bad episodes, making them really no worse than the rest.
I'm interested in any views people here may have as to why this is. After all, aside from far superior picture and sound quality, the episodes are the same.
I suppose for me, 1 & 2 are less "comfort blanket" viewing than seasons 3-7, and are thus more challenging as a viewer. 1 & 2 just feels like it's far more adult.
I'm interested in any views people here may have as to why this is. After all, aside from far superior picture and sound quality, the episodes are the same.
I suppose for me, 1 & 2 are less "comfort blanket" viewing than seasons 3-7, and are thus more challenging as a viewer. 1 & 2 just feels like it's far more adult.
Seasons 1 & 2 sometimes feel... I don't know the word I'm looking for. They feel more "raw"?
The parameters haven't been nailed down yet so there's a frisson of genuine 'anything goes' with them. Whereas later seasons had found their niche and tended the slide comfortably into it, the first two seasons (season 1 especially) feel kinda like they're willing to take more risks, because they're still throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.Later seasons are undeniably more consistent in their quality, but I think a lot of the re-evaluation that the first two seasons have been undergoing is because people do tend to notice that difference. We all take seasons 3-7 for granted, but in a lot of ways 1&2 feel 'fresher' because they're more easily open to being re-appraised.
Season 2 is a lot better than season 1 but even season 2 has some real stinker episodes like "The Outrageous Okona" and "The Dauphin".
Season 3 onwards not only felt better and less 1960's ish but I also think the writers managed to mostly eliminate the real stinker episodes. From seasons 3 to 7 there are bad episodes but none that make me cringe like some episodes in season 1 and 2 do.
Season 3 onwards not only felt better and less 1960's ish but I also think the writers managed to mostly eliminate the real stinker episodes. From seasons 3 to 7 there are bad episodes but none that make me cringe like some episodes in season 1 and 2 do.
"Cost Of Living", "Phantasms", "Sub Rosa"?!!! Beyond the really bad episodes between 3-7, there's a slew of downright tedious, overly safe and, frankly, just plain bland episodes.
This is something even the worst installments from seasons 1 & 2 are never guilty of. For me, blandness is the most heinous crime an entertainment property can perpetrate!
I honestly never thought 1 & 2 were too similar to be lumped together. With "The Child" the show already took a real shift in presentation that would become consistent with the rest of the series. There's still the uniforms and lighting, but it's already having a more subdued vibe to it. I always count this as the season where TNG truly found its identity, while the third season finally hit its stride as far as consistency in quality. "The Measure of the Man" is the real game changer for the show, displaying all the qualities that the writers and producers recognized as the show's strengths with the now famous Picard speech at the end of an episode, a more cerebral story that didn't require phaser fire, and then there's other bits such as the debut of the poker table. With all this said, it makes the first season feel like an extended pilot, sharing the basic elements of TNG but not quite refined as what came after.
I disagree with those comparisons, at least in the case of "Cheers" and "24." (I'm much less familiar with L&O and X-Files.)
Cheers and 24 may have taken a while to hit their stride in the ratings, but that was a matter of taking time to develop a good reputation, which in turn attracted viewers and led to ratings. It was not matter of taking time to get good. Both of those series had excellent first seasons, even if people weren't yet watching them in large numbers. In the case of 24 in particular, the first half of the first season was the series at its best.
Back to TNG. I was 17 when EAF premiered. I remember my friends and myself being disappointed in the first season. Mostly we criticized the writing. A common refrain for some of my friends was, "If they didn't call it 'Star Trek' and use words like phaser and tricorder, it never would have survived the first season." I don't know whether that's true, but I did share in the disappointment.
If something had to stink, it may be good that the worst offender was the writing. My friends and I liked to play script doctor. (You show me your rewrite, I'll show you mine.)
It was kind of weird how quickly things could turn around for the franchise. After the Genesis trilogy, the franchise was at or near an all-time high. This led to the greenlighting of a new series. Then came TNG S1-2 and TFF, and the credibility of the franchise was at a low point that would not be reached again until sometime around NEM. Then, just as quickly, along came TNG S3, BOBW, and TUC, the franchise was well regarded again, and another new series was greenlit to run concurrently with the flagship series.
Had a few friends that were Star Trek fans so we all got together and watched the two hour premiere. The comments after was:
"They had two years pre-production and that was the best they could come up with to kickoff the new show?"
and
"I never cared for 'Squire of Gothos' - so, what? Is this Q creature supposed to be Trelane all grown up now? Ugh."
And it didn't help that the promo for the first new episode AFTER the pilot was "The Naked Now" (aka a reuse of the original TOS script of the episode, "The Naked Time"
Again, we were left wondering why this new Star Trek show set 80 years later was rehashing original Star Trek characters and plots out the gate; and were wondering why they couldn't really come up with new stuff.
There was also the fact that, in all honesty, many of the the characters were all retreads from "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", or other stuff GR had a hand in previously:
Riker = Dekker
Troi = Ilia
Data = Humanoid android from an earlier failed pilot Gene L. Coon and GR collaborated on called "The Questor Tapes".
And also during then first two seasons, the channel I watched TNG on sandwiched it between two episodes of the original Star Trek series each week (one TOS episode before, and one after) -- so yeah, the vartious affiliates probably noticed that Star trek fans were NOT warming up to the new show at all, and those of us who wanted to support it at the time did so because:
- It was new Star trek on TV after 18 years.
- We HOPED it would get better and didn't want to see a Star Trek revival attempt go done in flames.
And honestly, in my opinion, the first two TNG seasons are GOD AWFUL, with 2 being worse as they tried to add a McCoy/Spock dynamic with Pulaski/Data -- and Pulaski was just a 100% female version of Dr. McCoy down to not liking the transporter, and being "an old country doctor". GR got a lot of heat for that in that many fans were wondering if they thought we were too dumb not to notice; not to mention the fact that unlike Spock, Data was often more innocent and naïve, so Pulaski cutting into him the way she did just came across as being downright abusive - which is probably why they stopped the direct exchanges after a couple of episodes.
But, yeah, TNG didn't start catching on for a lot of viewers and older Star Trek fans until the Third season, around the time of "Yesterday's Enterprise". "Best of Both Worlds" basically cinched the deal and got a lot of older Star Trek fans taking a look at TNG again.
"They had two years pre-production and that was the best they could come up with to kickoff the new show?"
and
"I never cared for 'Squire of Gothos' - so, what? Is this Q creature supposed to be Trelane all grown up now? Ugh."
And it didn't help that the promo for the first new episode AFTER the pilot was "The Naked Now" (aka a reuse of the original TOS script of the episode, "The Naked Time"
Again, we were left wondering why this new Star Trek show set 80 years later was rehashing original Star Trek characters and plots out the gate; and were wondering why they couldn't really come up with new stuff.
There was also the fact that, in all honesty, many of the the characters were all retreads from "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", or other stuff GR had a hand in previously:
Riker = Dekker
Troi = Ilia
Data = Humanoid android from an earlier failed pilot Gene L. Coon and GR collaborated on called "The Questor Tapes".
And also during then first two seasons, the channel I watched TNG on sandwiched it between two episodes of the original Star Trek series each week (one TOS episode before, and one after) -- so yeah, the vartious affiliates probably noticed that Star trek fans were NOT warming up to the new show at all, and those of us who wanted to support it at the time did so because:
- It was new Star trek on TV after 18 years.
- We HOPED it would get better and didn't want to see a Star Trek revival attempt go done in flames.
And honestly, in my opinion, the first two TNG seasons are GOD AWFUL, with 2 being worse as they tried to add a McCoy/Spock dynamic with Pulaski/Data -- and Pulaski was just a 100% female version of Dr. McCoy down to not liking the transporter, and being "an old country doctor". GR got a lot of heat for that in that many fans were wondering if they thought we were too dumb not to notice; not to mention the fact that unlike Spock, Data was often more innocent and naïve, so Pulaski cutting into him the way she did just came across as being downright abusive - which is probably why they stopped the direct exchanges after a couple of episodes.
But, yeah, TNG didn't start catching on for a lot of viewers and older Star Trek fans until the Third season, around the time of "Yesterday's Enterprise". "Best of Both Worlds" basically cinched the deal and got a lot of older Star Trek fans taking a look at TNG again.
Not exactly. Yes, it told a deliberately similar story as an homage, but it was not the same script. John D.F. Black, the author of the original, did get a story credit because his script was the inspiration, but it was a distinct script written by D.C. Fontana (although she used the pseudonym J. Michael Bingham after rewrites altered her intent).
There is nothing that all Trek fans can be said to agree on collectively. The show had both its fans and its detractors, just like any other incarnation of Trek.
^ And John D.F. Black was also contributing a script to TNG season 1 himself of course, so I doubt he would have been too bothered at the time about his original TOS story being 'homaged'. 
I always liked Fontana's original drafts of 'The Naked Now'. Seemed more dramatically pleasing than what we got. The trouble with the finished version is how much it feels like A) a knock-off of the original; and B) a cheesy teenage sex comedy of the type that was common in the mid-1980s. Fontana's original version was much more distinct from its predecessor, IMO; and (dare I say it) more emotionally mature than what ended up on-screen in it's place.
I always liked Fontana's original drafts of 'The Naked Now'. Seemed more dramatically pleasing than what we got. The trouble with the finished version is how much it feels like A) a knock-off of the original; and B) a cheesy teenage sex comedy of the type that was common in the mid-1980s. Fontana's original version was much more distinct from its predecessor, IMO; and (dare I say it) more emotionally mature than what ended up on-screen in it's place.
Where can I learn more about her original version?
^ And John D.F. Black was also contributing a script to TNG season 1 himself of course, so I doubt he would have been too bothered at the time about his original TOS story being 'homaged'.
I always liked Fontana's original drafts of 'The Naked Now'. Seemed more dramatically pleasing than what we got. The trouble with the finished version is how much it feels like A) a knock-off of the original; and B) a cheesy teenage sex comedy of the type that was common in the mid-1980s. Fontana's original version was much more distinct from its predecessor, IMO; and (dare I say it) more emotionally mature than what ended up on-screen in it's place.
I like the filmed version. More "emotionally mature" usually means less fun.
There are a lot of good points here from the various perspectives that make us all unique creatures.
I too was excited for a weekly TV series called STAR TREK. It had been a lot of years since we'd been treated to that, and my expectations were both high and tempered. High, because technology would allow for more fantastic effects, and tempered because we'd all been spoiled by the big-budget motion-pictures and we really couldn't expect that in a syndicated TV series.
The effects on the Farpoint premiere, I thought, were pretty good. My initial reaction to the new Enterprise was the saucer looked to uncomfortably big for the size of the nacelles. It looked unbalanced.
I was immediately put off by the stiff, stuffy and format Captain Picard. He was too different from what I wanted (Kirk) as a captain. Riker seemed like a more genial character and my initial hopes were that this stuffy Picard guy would get knocked off and Riker would become the Kirk-like captain of the ship. Some of those early episodes almost brought that to fruition ("Lonely Among Us", for example) but Picard kept surviving.
The Data character was intriguing, even though I recognized his character roots from THE QUESTOR TAPES. I enjoyed that pilot, so here was an attempt to explore that character.
I didn't know what to make of Worf or Troi. Troi was annoying with her constant whining, and Worf was just an unknown background-type character.
Dr. Crusher was OK. She wasn't McCoy but I liked her nonetheless. Her son Wesley, however was an unwelcomed echo of the "smart-kid-on-the-scifi-show" syndrome that plagued series since LOST IN SPACE. I began to hope that his role would be minor.
The show continued week after week, and I stuck with it, always hoping the writers and actors would begin to gel, and to some extent they did. "The Big Goodbye" was an early fun episode, but the first one that really grabbed me and the wife was "11001001". That one intrigued us and boosted our faith in this new series.
Some of those early episodes are real yawners by today's standards, but it was a series in development right before our eyes. The second season brought some changes that were good: Geordi as Chief Engineer for one. It was a mistake not to cast someone regular in that role in Season One, so it was a welcomed correction for us.
I didn't mind Dr. Pulaski at all. I liked the echo back to her roles on STAR TREK in the '60s, and she was had that crustiness that was lacking in any of the characters (except Picard). Picard himself had grown on me over the course of Season One so that by Season Two, I was no longer rooting for him to get bumped off.
I'd gotten used to the look of the Enterprise, and find some of the Season Two episodes quite good - better than most, I suspect, based on what I read on the Internet.
Since there was no Internet back then, all we had to go by was discussing the show with friends and watercooler talk at work. Most that I talked to seemed to think the show was just OK. I guess I was more forgiving and could see the improvements as the show wore on.
I'm happy that CBS has gone to the trouble of remastering the series from scratch, as it makes watching some of those more painful early episodes a little more palatable. At least we can enjoy how good it looks.
Harry
I too was excited for a weekly TV series called STAR TREK. It had been a lot of years since we'd been treated to that, and my expectations were both high and tempered. High, because technology would allow for more fantastic effects, and tempered because we'd all been spoiled by the big-budget motion-pictures and we really couldn't expect that in a syndicated TV series.
The effects on the Farpoint premiere, I thought, were pretty good. My initial reaction to the new Enterprise was the saucer looked to uncomfortably big for the size of the nacelles. It looked unbalanced.
I was immediately put off by the stiff, stuffy and format Captain Picard. He was too different from what I wanted (Kirk) as a captain. Riker seemed like a more genial character and my initial hopes were that this stuffy Picard guy would get knocked off and Riker would become the Kirk-like captain of the ship. Some of those early episodes almost brought that to fruition ("Lonely Among Us", for example) but Picard kept surviving.
The Data character was intriguing, even though I recognized his character roots from THE QUESTOR TAPES. I enjoyed that pilot, so here was an attempt to explore that character.
I didn't know what to make of Worf or Troi. Troi was annoying with her constant whining, and Worf was just an unknown background-type character.
Dr. Crusher was OK. She wasn't McCoy but I liked her nonetheless. Her son Wesley, however was an unwelcomed echo of the "smart-kid-on-the-scifi-show" syndrome that plagued series since LOST IN SPACE. I began to hope that his role would be minor.
The show continued week after week, and I stuck with it, always hoping the writers and actors would begin to gel, and to some extent they did. "The Big Goodbye" was an early fun episode, but the first one that really grabbed me and the wife was "11001001". That one intrigued us and boosted our faith in this new series.
Some of those early episodes are real yawners by today's standards, but it was a series in development right before our eyes. The second season brought some changes that were good: Geordi as Chief Engineer for one. It was a mistake not to cast someone regular in that role in Season One, so it was a welcomed correction for us.
I didn't mind Dr. Pulaski at all. I liked the echo back to her roles on STAR TREK in the '60s, and she was had that crustiness that was lacking in any of the characters (except Picard). Picard himself had grown on me over the course of Season One so that by Season Two, I was no longer rooting for him to get bumped off.
I'd gotten used to the look of the Enterprise, and find some of the Season Two episodes quite good - better than most, I suspect, based on what I read on the Internet.
Since there was no Internet back then, all we had to go by was discussing the show with friends and watercooler talk at work. Most that I talked to seemed to think the show was just OK. I guess I was more forgiving and could see the improvements as the show wore on.
I'm happy that CBS has gone to the trouble of remastering the series from scratch, as it makes watching some of those more painful early episodes a little more palatable. At least we can enjoy how good it looks.
Harry
I've only formed this opinion in recent years, but I think it would've been a better show if they'd made Geordi the security chief and Worf the chief engineer. Geordi's VISOR -- and his lie-detecting ability that was mentioned in "Up the Long Ladder" and then never referred to again -- could've been really useful in security. Plus making Worf an engineer would've avoided a characterization that became basically an extended "Klingon warrior" stereotype. Anyway, I feel that a security chief should be more like a police officer and peacekeeper than a "warrior."
I don't know if they were "switched" so much as that they originally auditioned for each other's parts. And the security chief was going to be "Macha" Hernandez -- a direct knockoff of Vasquez from Aliens -- until Denise Crosby was cast and they decided a Russian heritage would fit her better.
It seemed weak, pathetic, and embarrassing at the time. I kept watching only because it had Star Trek's name on it. Early to middle first season episodes were competing with the worst of TOS season 3 for the bottom. Thankfully, it started picking up towards the end of first season, ever so slightly, but noticeably.
Second season showed even greater improvement, until it finally started taking off. By the third season, they were rolling.
I've got an extensive synopsis of it somewhere. I think it's in one of those Mark Altman/Edward Gross books.
The characters generally seem stronger and richer, a lot more like how they eventually evolved. The premise also stays truer to the premise of allowing an insight into the inner core of each character (prime examples: Deanna Troi going insane because she can't get a moment's peace within her own head; Riker worrying that he is placing a career above a family; Tasha more overtly regressing to a child-like state of mind and reliving the troubles of Turkana IV... I think that later plot point was actually ripped wholesale out of this and put instead into another season 1 script, but it would have made more sense here). The eventual plot, by comparison, just uses the idea as a means for everybody to act drunk, goofy, and/or horny.
One of the most striking things about the Fontana drafts is this difference in tone. When the crew of the Tchaikovsky contact the Enterprise crew, it's a tense scene where it appears they've all murdered each other and the 'last one standing' is frantically trying to hold themselves off from commiting suicide... then, woosh, the sound of the hatch opening, and silence. Compare this with the television version, with the lady talking about "pretty boys on the Enterprise" and the like... it's just less interesting, dramatically speaking. IMHO.
(I'm not trying to rag on 'The Naked Now'. I actually like the transmitted version a lot, and I really appreciate its sense of humor, unlike others. But I do also think that, from a dramatic perspective, Fontana's version is clearly the superior one in nearly every way.)
^That was actually the Tsiolkovsky, after the Russian scientist who was pretty much the father of rocketry and astronautics.
Similar threads
