Season 1 and the first 4 episodes

Having recently started watching Season 1 again, I noticed that the first 4 episodes, Encounter at Farpoint, The Naked Now, Code of Honour and The Last Outpost, are on a very steep learning curve.

The acting in particular is extremely poor, with the actors often bursting out randomly in a fit of over-acting, especially Denise Crosby.

It's also the dialogue as well, nothing seems natural in these episodes.

I am aware that the entire first season is a learning curve, as it would be in any television series, but the rest of season 1 feels a lot more like TNG to me than these first 4 episodes. The acting and dialogue seem to be vastly improved by the 5th episode, Where No One Has Gone Before.

Anyone else notice this.

 

Personally I feel like almost the entirety of the first season is facepalm-worthy in regard to its acting and its dialogue doesn't get a hell of a lot better for a while, either. But yes, those first four... I noticed this as well. I really don't understand; there must have been a terrible, terrible case of failure in direction and overall cohesion with the production in the first several weeks, because yes, you're not imagining it at all.

 

I'd agree that while much of the first season feels 'off', the earliest episodes do feel even more so. I'd say it lasts longer than the first few episodes though. I'd say around The Battle is when the actors start to seem more comfortable.

Also, Where No One Has Gone Before was actually produced before The Last Outpost, even though it aired later. And Haven was produced before them both, even though it aired midseason.

 

I believe most of those scripts were written before the actors were cast. Also, IIRC Roddenberry was aggressively rewriting everyone, leading to much discord within the writing staff, and by then he'd reached a level of disconnection from reality we wouldn't see until George Lucas in 1997.

 

Every TV series needs time to find its "broadcast legs", so to speak and TNG had the added burden of the original series' incredible legacy. The producers and writers were caught between paying homage, leaning on that legacy for the sake of the fans and also branching out on their own. It was the difference of Justman and Roddenberry producing alongside Berman as supervising producing and finding a middle ground. TNG was a unique animal for its time, being a sequel series to a show that had run 20 years prior. It had to draw in new fans and please old ones. Until it was allowed to find its own style and voice, the show simply was an awkward 2-headed beast, yet still managed some high points in that first season ("11001001", "Where No One..." and "Coming of Age").

 

My memory was that the first two seasons of Star Trek TNG were bad, because of the show trying to get its "broadcast legs" the first season (as TV's Frank said) and the writer's strike the second season. So it was somewhat surprising to me when I watched the entire show again last year and discovered the second season isn't so bad (at least, that's my opinion... at the moment...) As for the first season? Yes, they definitely struggled, and nothing seemed to come naturally to the characters, unlike not only the later episodes but also the original series (which actually got off to a good start.)

jwb
(Kirk lives @ jwbraun.com)

 

The second season is commonly considered a significant step in the right direction, but it's still got plenty of real clunkers. Still, it's got several decent episodes and even a couple of downright good ones. It's nothing to brag about, but it kind of makes the whole 'third season was the first time the show was ever watchable' statements I've seen seem a bit silly.

 

I really love the whole series, but the first two seasons are easily the best for me - perhaps slightly more TOS-like in feel. I feel these seasons are woefully underrated and unfairly criticised.

 

I like the first two seasons....for the same reasons as you...

 

Just further proof that there's something for everyone in this franchise. I'm glad to hear there are those who think the opposite of what I do; it means the two seasons still get to be enjoyed.

 

We can all agree that the ratio of good to bad episodes increased by the 3rd season and beyond. But even season 2 gave us some winners such as Q-Who, Measure of a Man, The Emissary and Peak Performance.

 

Very well put. There were some very good stories in the first two seasons. Plus its fun to go back and watch the characters grow throughout the series.

 

I, too, appreciate the first two seasons. I'm quite glad, however, that things drastically improved later. It's kind of like getting two differrent shows!


But about Denise Crosby: I can't believe you didn't mention "Symbiosis". Her talk with Wesley about drugs was not among her best career moments.

 

Not to be pedantic -- well, yes, I guess that's exactly what I'm doing -- but "Haven" was actually the fourth episode produced. "The Last Outpost" was actually produced after "Where No One Has Gone Before," even though it aired before.

 

The Schizoid Man is actually an episode I like; a second season episode....

 

Denise suffered from some particularly woefully bad writing. None of the staff seemed to really 'get' her character, I'm not surprised she left to be honest. I do like her though and I think Denise did her best with what she was given.

The Naked Now was an embarassment as someone with Tasha's backhistory would not suddenly become nympho when effected by the virus.

 

She didn't "go nympho". She slept with one individual. An android. She obviously had issues forming close relationships with flesh and blood creatures, so she reached for a vibrator instead.

 

About the first two seasons, I agree that they are not as bad as some people make out, I think that it may be the sheer strength of the masterful third season that puts the first two seasons in it's shadow, they pale in comparison, but this does not mean that they are completely bad.

Season 2 especially is arguably just as good as season 7

And about Tasha Yar, I think she grows more as a character in Yesterday's Enterprise than she does in her entire run in the first season, and Crosby's acting is much better too.

 

And don't forget how significantly Worf grew and developed into such a complex and beloved figure, as Wil Wheaton noted. He got some very bad writing initially but stuck it out. I guess we'll never know how Tasha would have developed had she not quit.
Maybe her absence allowed Worf to flourish, though I think it was more Michael Dorn and writers such as RDM.

Can you imagine TNG-era Trek without Worf?


Geordi grew, as well. I think Burton was always great but got more opportunities perhaps because Tasha left. She really wasn't replaced by anyone (unlike Seven replacing Kes.)

Really, only Picard and Data, IMO, were well-used and acted from the start.

 

As episodes don't show you every moment, it could be open to debate. However if that's how you see it, fair enough. I will say though that she certainly didn't seem uncomfortable acting intimately in the corridor with the crewman.

To be honest, considering how both Crusher and Troi were affected in the episode too (with Picard and Riker respectively), I doubt there was much plan for The Naked Now other than "let's have all the women throw themselves at the men". The original draft of that episode was very much darker, making more of playing on each officer's professional and personal insecurities. By the time Gene Roddenberry finished "fixing it", it had Data making pratfalls and Crusher unzipping her top. This was outlined in the Lost Voyages of Trek book which delves into the scripting of TNG's first season a fair bit.