In praise of TNG’s vision of the future

[stembolt]

I for one am grateful for TNG's optimistic view of humanity's future.

I completely disagree that the lack of "tension" between the characters was a mistake. This was a show about a group of people who heroically always did the right thing AND worked well and enjoyed working with one another. Teamwork. There was plenty of tension as soon as other starfleet "outsiders" were brought in (Shelby, Jellico, Ro, Nachaev, "Lower Decks" ). The magnificent seven just happened to really like and respect what each character brought to the table. Besides, I can point to plenty of instances where the main cast had tense moments. Are you telling me Picard was never pissed at Worf? Beverly at Picard? Riker at Troi?.

The edicts that Roddenberry laid out forced the writers to not be lazy and fall back on conventional devices (i.e. conflict) to develop the characters. At the time TNG aired, the common consensus among people may age (I'm 33) was that TNG had taken Star Trek to a new and superior level.

It may have been King once, but Paramount knows what side its' bread is buttered on. Star Trek (2009) has made just about what all four TNG films made. Star Trek: The Original Series is the one Paramount rolled out the High-Definition carpet for.

Apples and oranges.

Star Trek 2009 cost about as much to make as all four TNG movies combined. I would also guess Paramount spent and additional 100-150 million on promotion (i.e. more than it cost to make Nemesis, Insurrection, and FC). It's not a level playing field when there's that kind of support behind a project. TNG (the TV show) earned it's popularity and place in pop culture by connecting with people.

As for HD - Of course Paramount started with TOS. I'm not sure how that is a slight against TNG. TOS came first. There are only 79 episodes of TOS compared to 178 episodes of TNG. TNG's final edits are also on tape, making a true HD transfer impossible (unless the original film is used and every effects shot is redone).

Just remember competition was a lot more brutal in the sixties and when TNG hit the ground it had little in the way of competition (it could be placed anywhere on the schedule by any station that purchased it) and no network interference (and yet was still tepid). I would be interested how the numbers would've looked if it had to face something like Roseanne week in, week out?

I'm sorry, but according to your theory every crap syndicated show should have been a blockbuster. The way television worked in TNG's day, it was unheard of for a syndicated drama to get the kind of ratings it garnered. Seasons 6 and 7 aired in New York on Thursday nights in primetime and ALWAYS came in first - beating even NBC's popular comedy lineup.

This I agree with. I love TNG, but it was King of nothing. The only thing I loved in terms of impact was it was part of the Golden Age of Scifi which was the 90s. Shows like DS9, Farscape, Babylon 5, X-Files were just all awesome. I'm sure there were more but these were the shows I watched.

...and what do you think ushered in this golden age? TNG was the reason these shows were made. With the exception of X-Files (which was on a network), none of them were even remotely as popular.

 

[BillJ]

I for one am grateful for TNG's optimistic view of humanity's future.

I completely disagree that the lack of "tension" between the characters was a mistake. This was a show about a group of people who heroically always did the right thing AND worked well and enjoyed working with one another. Teamwork. There was plenty of tension as soon as other starfleet "outsiders" were brought in (Shelby, Jellico, Ro, Nachaev, "Lower Decks" ). The magnificent seven just happened to really like and respect what each character brought to the table. Besides, I can point to plenty of instances where the main cast had tense moments. Are you telling me Picard was never pissed at Worf? Beverly at Picard? Riker at Troi?.

The edicts that Roddenberry laid out forced the writers to not be lazy and fall back on conventional devices (i.e. conflict) to develop the characters. At the time TNG aired, the common consensus among people may age (I'm 33) was that TNG had taken Star Trek to a new and superior level.

It may have been King once, but Paramount knows what side its' bread is buttered on. Star Trek (2009) has made just about what all four TNG films made. Star Trek: The Original Series is the one Paramount rolled out the High-Definition carpet for.

Apples and oranges.

Star Trek 2009 cost about as much to make as all four TNG movies combined. I would also guess Paramount spent and additional 100-150 million on promotion (i.e. more than it cost to make Nemesis, Insurrection, and FC). It's not a level playing field when there's that kind of support behind a project. TNG (the TV show) earned it's popularity and place in pop culture by connecting with people.

As for HD - Of course Paramount started with TOS. I'm not sure how that is a slight against TNG. TOS came first. There are only 79 episodes of TOS compared to 178 episodes of TNG. TNG's final edits are also on tape, making a true HD transfer impossible (unless the original film is used and every effects shot is redone).

Just remember competition was a lot more brutal in the sixties and when TNG hit the ground it had little in the way of competition (it could be placed anywhere on the schedule by any station that purchased it) and no network interference (and yet was still tepid). I would be interested how the numbers would've looked if it had to face something like Roseanne week in, week out?

I'm sorry, but according to your theory every crap syndicated show should have been a blockbuster. The way television worked in TNG's day, it was unheard of for a syndicated drama to get the kind of ratings it garnered. Seasons 6 and 7 aired in New York on Thursday nights in primetime and ALWAYS came in first - beating even NBC's popular comedy lineup.

This I agree with. I love TNG, but it was King of nothing. The only thing I loved in terms of impact was it was part of the Golden Age of Scifi which was the 90s. Shows like DS9, Farscape, Babylon 5, X-Files were just all awesome. I'm sure there were more but these were the shows I watched.

...and what do you think ushered in this golden age? TNG was the reason these shows were made. With the exception of X-Files (which was on a network), none of them were even remotely as popular.

- Name an instance where Paramount put as much cash behind the feature films for the "wildly" popular TNG as they did for Star Trek (2009).

- TNG did not come into the TV world as some poor sibling. First season episodes cost $1.3 million dollars each to produce.

- Would like to see proof that TNG was beating NBC's Thursday Night lineup with regularity (in any market).

- People like to think that TNG existed in a vacuum. Remember, it wasn't "star trek: THE NEXT GENERATION", it was "STAR TREK: the next generation". Paramount was absolutely desperate for people to make the connection between this and the original series. If it had been called "Space Search" it wouldn't have made it thirteen episodes.

- HD: Paramount went where they knew they could make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[stembolt]

Sorry, double post. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/newsday...HSE+STARDATES)+(SEE+END+OF+TEXT)&pqatl=google

 

[stembolt]

- Name an instance where Paramount put as much cash behind the feature films for the "wildly" popular TNG as they did for Star Trek (2009).

Please reread my post, as I never claimed they did. I said Paramount spent more money making ST:2009 than all four TNG movies combined. In addition, they spent more on promotion than it cost to make the last 2-3 TNG movies. When all is said and done, FC actually put more money in Paramount's pockets than ST: 2009.

Paramount did the TNG movies on the cheap - production and promotion. They suffered because Paramount banked on TNG's huge popularity without really putting the cash needed to carry a film franchise. Generations managed to make $120 million despite being a mediocre movie and despite its low ($35m) budget. It pulled this off because of TNG's massive popularity at the time. FC managed to make $150m (1996 dollars) despite being a low budget production.

- TNG did not come into the TV world as some poor sibling. First season episodes cost $1.3 million dollars each to produce.
-People like to think that TNG existed in a vacuum. Remember, it wasn't "star trek: THE NEXT GENERATION", it was "STAR TREK: the next generation". Paramount was absolutely desperate for people to make the connection between this and the original series. If it had been called "Space Search" it wouldn't have made it thirteen episodes.

Yes, and it came on the heels of the breakout success of ST:IV. My point is, it grew in popularity because it was good and people liked it. It wasn't a carbon copy of TOS and was actually quite different in many ways. Even in syndication it garnered ratings equal to that of top 20 network shows and managed to get nominated for an Emmy for Best Drama Series. As you pointed out, its success ushered in a golden age of sci-fi TV.

If it had been called "Space Search," but had the same cast, writers, and production values, I'm sure it would have done fine.

- Would like to see proof that TNG was beating NBC's Thursday Night lineup with regularity (in any market).

I apologize, but my memory from 16 years ago was playing tricks on me. It was the TNG finale and the DS9 premiere that came in first place in the New York City market when they aired on Thursday nights. In 1993-1994, TNG and DS9 aired on Mondays 8-10 on WPIX and TNG consistently came in first place - beating all 4 networks.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/24/a...=star+trek+the+next+generation+ratings&st=nyt

""Next Generation" was one of the most popular weekly shows on television and easily one of the most profitable."

"The series finale drew a huge 17.4 rating, which translates into more than 31 million viewers. If it had been a network show, it would have ranked second for the week, right between "Home Improvement" and "Seinfeld.""

You'll have to pay for the article: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/newsday/access/101806784.html?dids=101806784:101806784&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+19%2C+1994&author=BY+DIANE+WERTS.+STAFF+WRITER&pub=Newsday+(Combined+editions)&desc=BON+VOYAGE+STAR+TREK%3A+THE+NEXT+GENERATION%27+LOGS+ITS+LAST+STARDATE+ON+TV+AFTER+GOING+WHERE+BUT+ONE+TV+SERIES+HAD+GONE+BEFORE-AND+BEYOND.+Sidebar%3A+COUNTDOWN+TO+THE+FINALE+(SAVE+THSE+STARDATES)+(SEE+END+OF+TEXT)&pqatl=google

Can you name another Sci Fi show that has achieved this level of success? This is why TNG is indeed king.

 

[JarodRussell]

TNG on Bluray would need some extensive restoration. All the visual effects would need to be redone, and there's a lot of cover ups (like black cardboard on computer displays to get rid of reflections) that would be clearly visible in HD that would need to be digitally removed. But it would greatly deserve that, since it's an excellent show.

 

[ALF]

Did someone say Star Trek would be in a sticky spot in a time slot against Roseanne?

Wouldn't the demographics between Roseanne viewers and TNG viewers be the difference between night and day?

John Goodman would have been amazing guest starring on TNG. I admit the potential for crossovers is kind of intriguing.

Anyway, I remember well those days in the early 90s when TNG reigned supreme in terms of sci fi. It was a good time to be into Trek.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

And you can just as easily argue that TOS ripped off "Forbidden Planet".

Star Trek definitely "borrowed" alot from Forbidden Planet.

It may have been King once, but Paramount knows what side its' bread is buttered on. Star Trek (2009) has made just about what all four TNG films made. Star Trek: The Original Series is the one Paramount rolled out the High-Definition carpet for.

You know, I would LOVE to see what JJ and his crew would have done with the TNG cast.

The TNG characters or the TNG actors? One of my major problems with Nemesis was how old and uninterested the cast seemed. And I guess the second piece would be: Could the TNG characters carry a "Big Summer" tentpole movie? Would "I got you gun!" or the big fight between Kirk and Spock translate well to TNG? TNG was very sedate... and the only time it really seemed to click (for me) was when they had a great guest star to play off of.

Though I agree it would've been interesting to see JJ Abrams take on TNG.

The strange thing is, the people who hate the movie (and there are a lot) now love TNG and the TNG movies as well (some have even compared Nemesis favorably to the new movie, saying that the new movie isn't as good!) So take that as you will.

I still love TNG, warts and all.

 

[BillJ]

Did someone say Star Trek would be in a sticky spot in a time slot against Roseanne?

Wouldn't the demographics between Roseanne viewers and TNG viewers be the difference between night and day?

I actually watched both when they were on.

 

[stembolt]

[/QUOTE]

The strange thing is, the people who hate the movie (and there are a lot) now love TNG and the TNG movies as well (some have even compared Nemesis favorably to the new movie, saying that the new movie isn't as good!) So take that as you will.

I still love TNG, warts and all.[/QUOTE]

I didn't hate the movie. I thought it was fun. The plot has holes the size of Jupiter, but it is what it is - a big dumb expensively produced fun summer movie. It's in a completely different category from the TNG films and it's almost pointless to compare the two.

I love TNG, but all the TNG movies were horribly flawed missed opportunites. The biggest problem was that they were (mostly) dumbed down action oriented versions of the TV show. They look CHEAP. Non effects dramas got bigger budgets. Maid in Manhattan, which came out the same year as Nemesis, had a comparable budget. If Paramount had thrown a $250 million at TNG and made real event movies I'm sure they would have been pretty great.