Because poorly worded posts existed in 90’s.
Opinion circa 1987: TNG is NOT Star Trek
- Thread starter Thomas Elliot
- Start date
Did the TOS have episodes that undercut their own set up just to drive home a social/poltical message?
I'm watching "Force of Nature" it's ridiculous that they altered warp drive capabilities just to send a message about the environment. It's kind of a big deal for ships Star Trek to be able to travel at warp speed.
I know that TOS was try to drive social messages at times but I can't see doing something with such huge ramifications for just the benefit of one episode about the ozone layer.
TNG forgets at times that it's about adventure in space, not being a public service announcement.
I'm watching "Force of Nature" it's ridiculous that they altered warp drive capabilities just to send a message about the environment. It's kind of a big deal for ships Star Trek to be able to travel at warp speed.
I know that TOS was try to drive social messages at times but I can't see doing something with such huge ramifications for just the benefit of one episode about the ozone layer.
TNG forgets at times that it's about adventure in space, not being a public service announcement.
Is that the warp speed limit one? Which they then promptly forgot?
It sounds more like they were concerned that DS9 would repeat TNG's (perceived) overuse of Klingons and other "stagnating cultures," not that it already had.
Ah, okay.
I thought the Klingon aspect of TNG was all good except for the return of Khaless episode.
The quote was from 1992. TNG had gone through the Sins of the Father-Reunion-Redemption storyline, I suppose the commenter thought that should be enough of the Klingons. Little did he know...
Those comments were grabbed from this thread, if anyone's interested to see how the fandom hasn't changed in 28 years.
Was TOS as preachy as TNG? I love TNG overall, but quite often it felt like I was being lectured to or a "Special Episode" felt more common than it should be.
"Errand of Mercy" was definitely an anti-war message, but I liked that it wasn't Kirk and his crew lecturing to someone else, or the audience on the proper thing to do. Kirk was just as bad as Kor in the end. I supposed that in itself might be a criticism that they had Kirk be too gung ho in order to go to war when he doesn't have to. But I still thought it was handled better, in that it shows that Kirk is flawed. And even Kor is like, yeah, too bad we couldn't go to war, "it would have been glorious."
I really like the episode "Suddenly Human." Excellent. But holy crap, we don't need Picard to spell out to the alien father just how wrong he is, and how giving the teenager back to him was the only right thing to do.
If anything it still doesn't seem cut and dry. You're telling me they gave him back without even consulting the Admiral who's his grandmother? There were no repercussions for that? Was it really the right thing to do. At least have Picard have some reservations about it in the end.
Was the holodeck really a good introduction to the Star Trek mythos? It's bad enough that money doesn't exist in the future of TOS films, and TNG is already doing away with conflict and materialism in the Federation, but having a fantasy world too? Why wouldn't more people just live their life in a holodeck life of their choosing? There's no drugs, but I can easily see this as an addiction getting out of control. It's getting too much like Brave New World. They've made everything too easy.
Star Trek, while aspirational and inspirational, still has a flawed, human element at its core and TNG seems to ignore that in order to create an unrealistic perfect society. Why would people drink synthetic alcohol in the first place if you can't get drunk? It seems like it's done more for novelty and set-up gags than having a realistic in-universe application.
"Errand of Mercy" was definitely an anti-war message, but I liked that it wasn't Kirk and his crew lecturing to someone else, or the audience on the proper thing to do. Kirk was just as bad as Kor in the end. I supposed that in itself might be a criticism that they had Kirk be too gung ho in order to go to war when he doesn't have to. But I still thought it was handled better, in that it shows that Kirk is flawed. And even Kor is like, yeah, too bad we couldn't go to war, "it would have been glorious."
I really like the episode "Suddenly Human." Excellent. But holy crap, we don't need Picard to spell out to the alien father just how wrong he is, and how giving the teenager back to him was the only right thing to do.
If anything it still doesn't seem cut and dry. You're telling me they gave him back without even consulting the Admiral who's his grandmother? There were no repercussions for that? Was it really the right thing to do. At least have Picard have some reservations about it in the end.
Was the holodeck really a good introduction to the Star Trek mythos? It's bad enough that money doesn't exist in the future of TOS films, and TNG is already doing away with conflict and materialism in the Federation, but having a fantasy world too? Why wouldn't more people just live their life in a holodeck life of their choosing? There's no drugs, but I can easily see this as an addiction getting out of control. It's getting too much like Brave New World. They've made everything too easy.
Star Trek, while aspirational and inspirational, still has a flawed, human element at its core and TNG seems to ignore that in order to create an unrealistic perfect society. Why would people drink synthetic alcohol in the first place if you can't get drunk? It seems like it's done more for novelty and set-up gags than having a realistic in-universe application.
That's a great question.
Humans introduced root beer to the Ferengi. Synthehol was their revenge for it.
From a production standpoint, yes. It's a better way to save money by recycling historical props, costumes, and set pieces than the old "parallel worlds" gimmick TOS so often used.
The idea is that synthehol replicates the pleasurable "buzz" of alcohol but in a way that doesn't cause the impairment and negative effects. It feels the same, but you can shake it off if you need to think clearly, and there's no hangover afterward and no risk of addiction. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want something that has the upsides of alcohol with none of the many, many downsides.
The behind-the-scenes explanation was that the Ferengi invented synthehol as a way to get an edge over competitors in business, gambling, or the like by making others think they were drunk when they were actually still able to think clearly.
That would seem unlikely. If the replica were perfect, there would be no need for a hidden stash of the original. Also, there's no need to put buzz in scare quotes.
I never put any thught into the title before but ya your right what an awful name for the show.
I was only a child when i saw it first and I did think it was lame compared to the the movies but by seeason 3 it had converted me into a full Trek nerd and it was my favorite show growing up until later season DS9 came along.
I gave ENT and DIS a go but couldnt warm to ENT crew or Burnham nothing got to do with the canon which has always been all over the place. Picard Im lovin and I dont care if its just cause of the memberberries
One thing I'll give The Next Generation as a title -- it's the only Trek sequel series title that isn't just the name of the featured station, vessel, or main character. Though on the other hand, it's woefully inaccurate, since it's at least several generations after TOS.
I felt the same way, until I thought about "The Next Generation" as a substitute for "Phase II," which itself was clearly a reference to Star Trek as a show, and so its likely that "The Next Generation" is also referring to Star Trek and not the ship's crew. It could have just as easily been called "Star Trek: The Next Iteration" but that lacks the clever double entendre. I've always liked clever names that could reference more than one thing, like "Salem's Lot," which could mean at least three things. So can DS9-- it could be seen to reference the station itself, or the nine main cast members, or the nine orbs of the wormhole.
Not to be overly literal, but the title of the Stephen King book is actually 'Salem's Lot (with an initial apostrophe), which is a nickname for the town of Jerusalem's Lot, where the story is set [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem's_Lot_(Stephen_King)]. It's pretty unambiguous that the setting is what the title is referencing.
For the title Deep Space Nine to reference nine objects or nine people, it would have to be something like The Deep Space Nine Nine, which it isn't, ergo it doesn't. It's also the name of the setting.
If you really want to start wondering what is Star Trek and what is not....
Star Trek series and movies based on the work of Gene Roddenberry.
Naturally everything with "Star Trek" on it has something to do with it, but the series created by Roddenberry could be called real Star Trek, if that is necessary.
Others simply continued his work. For examply Michael Piller, he was around with Gene in making TNG and later he developed DS9 with Rick Berman who also worked on TNG. Basically if it says 'series created by Gene Roddenberry', it's Star Trek, other series are spinoffs but carry the name Star Trek with them. We can all decide what we think is official, if that matters to someone.
Gene created Star Trek but there were a lot of people who helped him developing it further.
Star Trek series and movies based on the work of Gene Roddenberry.
Naturally everything with "Star Trek" on it has something to do with it, but the series created by Roddenberry could be called real Star Trek, if that is necessary.
Others simply continued his work. For examply Michael Piller, he was around with Gene in making TNG and later he developed DS9 with Rick Berman who also worked on TNG. Basically if it says 'series created by Gene Roddenberry', it's Star Trek, other series are spinoffs but carry the name Star Trek with them. We can all decide what we think is official, if that matters to someone.
Gene created Star Trek but there were a lot of people who helped him developing it further.
Except that later in life, Roddenberry himself considered parts of the shows with his creator credit on them to be apocryphal. His definition of "real" Star Trek got narrower and narrower as he aged, and it seemed like it was more of an ideal he aspired to get closer to over time than something he believed he'd accomplished in the past.
Roddenberry's ideas of apocryphal never cease to be funny. Sorry, Gene, you didn't get to decide that once you no longer had control of the franchise.
The ironic thing is that he did have complete creative control and approval over the animated series, more so than he ever had over TOS or TNG, yet that's the series he later chose to dismiss as "not real." (Although I've come to suspect that his campaign to declare TAS non-canonical was part of his battle to deny D.C. Fontana co-creator credit to TNG. He was advancing the narrative that nobody was an authentic Trek creator except himself. If so, that was damned hypocritical, since he was the one who'd entrusted TAS to Fontana in the first place.)
Similar threads
