This thread is about something that some TNG fans might agree with and DS9 and VGR fans disagree with (or the orher way around) but I just want to say it.
The wonderfulness of Trek Democracy (Treknocracy?)
As I'm a huge fan of TNG and not so much of the spin-offs that take place roughly the same time, I'm not completely happy with how they treat TNG.
I'm not saying that what those other shows affect the quality of TNG but some storylines are weird. When watching TNG you might think of something that happens later in DS9 or VGR, even if you don't want to. Somehow that kind of spoils some (perhaps small) things in TNG.
Like what amounts to continuity? TBH, in any long running series, at some point, it is increasingly probable that continuity gets altered or forgotten - often to or in attempt to tell something new of interest, to keep the show alive and not dragged down. Which is both good and bad, at the time and in the future as one looks back.
Few examples. These are my opinions, not facts.
I don't like the fact that Worf joined the crew of DS9. I don't think he was the Worf we knew on the Enterprise. Sure, different surrounding, different people around him but his behaviour changed and he felt like a different character and I don't think Worf character needed that, he was the safety officer on Enterprise and that's it. He should have stayed there.
I can agree and disagree simultaneously. In DS9, Worf is still doing his Klingon stories - but they didn't feel as bland and preachy as they ultimately became in TNG. They did a retread of the "Worf is torn between Statfleet and the Klingon Empire", which was good but not quite as strong as the original, despite the mess "Redemption II" became. I also suspect Worf might have risen up against Sisko in "For the Uniform" when he orders trilithium torpedos to be launched into enemy territory, though he did at least get taken aback by the unusual request - and as Sisko had hounded Worf for disobedience in the past, I had no real issue. But Worf, from recollection, did stand up against "the bad admiral trope" on cue to defend Picard. And, of course, ditching Troi for a comparatively sensible Dax, who also acts a lot like Troi to keep him grounded. But Troi's pairing felt forced and cheap (but to me, most "shipping" tends to come across as being bawdy and tacky to begin with, generally to get ratings and it rarely works anyway.)
Ugh, ambivalence. I hate it, at least when I don't like it...
Kurn. Worf's brother was now a suicidal wreck after being an awesome character in TNG.
"Sons of Mogh", for me, was an extremely compelling story. The inclusion of Worf and all of the subplots orbiting him allowed some development, of the likes one would not expect from most dramas. DS9 allowed new ideas to take place, based on existing ones.
Voyager and the Borg. Voyager was a brand new ship with new weapons and all that. Still, sometimes it felt that Voyager was a bit too strong when fighting the Borg. Enterprise-D got few shots in before the Borg adapted. After that no matter how much the Enterprise fired, it worked only once when Commander Shelby had an idea with the phasers.
TNG mucked up the Borg - twice - even before VOY got there. I've never particularly liked how "I Borg" changes characters to suit the one-dimensional preached narrative. The Borg Queen upends what was told (more than once) about the Collective. Prior to that, "Descent" implies the entire Collective has gone schizo. Fan canon, fanon, can allow some juggling and say that a Queen may have come about internally to the Collective in order to regroup, but 90s Trek was playing a bit fast and loose and using silly lines like "Oh, your silly three dimensions, just look how small you've become" - which translate to "We're scribbling around this plothole and don't you prefer TNG when it was cerebral, Q made promises we ditched after one rushed movie, and not the John McLane in space trope we're latching on to forevermore?"
Here's the actual movie transcript to explain the Queen's retroactive introduction into canon when she was hot for Locutus: "You think in such three-dimensional terms. How small you've become."
But I digress. VOY, at the time, felt like it was bypassing the I Borg/Descent/Queen treatment as if they never took place, at least in "Scorpion". No worries, the Queen would return later in VOY, played by two actors who really made the role their own. More wonderfully vile ambivalence, the concept of the Queen I never cared for but the acting sold me on it. Each and every time.
And the Hansen story. TNG made the first contact with the Borg. Until VGR robbed that. Hansens knew of cube shaped ships and few things about the Borg before meeting the Borg. If there was some knowledge about the Borg during season 2 of TNG one might imagine that Starfleet had told something about the Borg to the flagship. But no.
While the Borg had scooped up bases along the Neutral Zone, the franchise would be a bit woolly and loose with that as well. Not to mention, VOY needed to be a bit more consistent with its own worldbuilding: The Hansens flip-flopped more than a model 555 Integrated Circuit chip. But at least we all got to cry on cue. "Dark Frontier" did upend what little was robustly told in "Raven", but most of 'Raven" was sufficiently woolly to allow wiggle room. But some of it all still upended continuity that was established too sternly. But even in TNG, the Borg went from wanting only others' technology no matter how inferior it was for whatever reason (read "Pakleds on steroids AND crack") but then they wanting others, starting with Jean-Luc Picard as a figurehead. "I Borg" goes back to the "they're a single species" thanks to Dr Crusher's whinging, which slightly upends their desire to assimilate humanity (and by extension other species) as the Collective is a gestalt comprised of numerous species, which VOY was very consistent on throughout its run. In other and fewer words, sadly, had the same problems and for the same general reasons I adumbrated above: Worldbuilding and keeping the show fresh and exciting.
Writers shouldn't borrow too much. Don't ruin TNG ”legacy”.
With Worf, they - I felt - usually did put in more care and thought into the arcs and storylines. Enhancing but not blatantly altering or retconning.
At least it's not a prequel; ENT and others really drive me up the wall as it's too easy to fudge continuity for fanwank and general audiences aren't going to care. Otherwise they would have done "Caprica" before "Battlesta Galactica". The ongoing saga always feels more interesting than a saga followed by "Are there any plotholes that fans may or may not be thinking of? Let's explore those" and then write in stuff that breaks the already established saga, which the established fans are going to find annoying, depending on how they perceived the saga's buildup from its actual start and not the retconned prequel one. That's just how fans are. Imagine if Shakespeare did a prequel to "Romeo and Juliet", something I certainly would not want to read. We know the families had their little feud but was it important and worthy of its own story? Not necessarily, we already know it's sufficiently big that it makes us focus far more on Romeo and Juliet having the hots for one another and their struggles. Writing a prequel retroactively had better be a robust entry to enhance the material it's leading up to, as well as keeping continuity issues minimal.
That is not an easy task, even for those who created the main show and the prequel as an afterthought. And now do I fathom it, should there be a sequel? Again, what's to tell; the Capulets and Montagues will probably make up after the tragedy or their hate for each other will increase because they're two lots of nutters and nothing more. Just be glad they don't have semiautomatics or nukes. Then again, Bonanza The Next Generation almost worked and Star Trek TNG
did work (albeit after a year or so) so who knows. They're also several centuries too early for a very special installment of
The Jerry Springer Show, which is probably unfortunate. Never mind reboots, which nowadays generally have no clue what they're utilizing beyond the more superficial aspects...
While I type this I realize that some of the things I find annoying might feel the exact opposite to others. But hey, opinios can't be wrong, right? At least opinions about television series.
Even if you don't agree with any of the things I mentioned, try not to hate me.
It's all good and why would anyone hate you?! Differing opinions gets some of us to think and/or think differently. And/or the same, it depends on the facet(s).
