The One Thing That Annoys Me About "Star Trek Next Generation"
- Thread starter LJones41
- Start date
How can they be both ideal & pretentious? Some of them do come off as pretentious, especially Riker & Bev Crusher at times. That means they're not ideal, or the other word people criticize them with... Perfect.
In fact there's episodes that shine a light on that stuff, as well as many episodes that shine light on their flaws & foibles. They just aren't as overly melodramatic about is as they are on the TV shows that play that stuff up
Picard is stuffy & isolated
Riker is arrogant & close minded at times (& overcompensating for self esteem issues IMHO)
Geordi is rather lacking in confidence in some ways
Beverly is full of herself & prone to bullheadedness
Troi is living in a princess bubble most of the time
Worf's whole perspective is very often at odds with everyone
& Data almost doesn't qualify as a legitimate person, by some accounts
All of them have had episodes that feature their flaws. It's just as valid to start your characters out looking like idols, because then you can break them down for drama. Writing everyone broken from the start is just lazier, imho
I think the problem is that people find it dull that they most often work well, without much conflict, as a team, but hey... That's what Starfleet is supposed to be
In fact there's episodes that shine a light on that stuff, as well as many episodes that shine light on their flaws & foibles. They just aren't as overly melodramatic about is as they are on the TV shows that play that stuff up
Picard is stuffy & isolated
Riker is arrogant & close minded at times (& overcompensating for self esteem issues IMHO)
Geordi is rather lacking in confidence in some ways
Beverly is full of herself & prone to bullheadedness
Troi is living in a princess bubble most of the time
Worf's whole perspective is very often at odds with everyone
& Data almost doesn't qualify as a legitimate person, by some accounts
All of them have had episodes that feature their flaws. It's just as valid to start your characters out looking like idols, because then you can break them down for drama. Writing everyone broken from the start is just lazier, imho
I think the problem is that people find it dull that they most often work well, without much conflict, as a team, but hey... That's what Starfleet is supposed to be
Furthermore, I actually think a number of those traits are present from the very beginning.... completely contrary to the myth that they were presented as 'too perfect' under Roddenberry and only got fleshed out with flaws later on under Berman, Piller and Taylor.
The only one who even qualifies as 'too perfect' in the beginning is Wesley. And we all know how that turned out (he finally collapsed from all the pressure he had been under to overachieve his entire life and told Starfleet to go screw themselves.)
The "one" thing that annoys me about TNG is that, in contrast to all of its fellow series in the franchise, it swings way too far towards a stereotypical, unrealistic, and silly 'utopian ideal' that ultimately detracts from its overall quality and gives us characters that, while iconic, really aren't all that 'good' as characters.
TOS does present a utopia, but it presents a realistic utopia where the characters, such as they are, still represent and are a commentary on the frailties of humanoid existence, which is what DS9, VOY, and ENT do as well.
With TNG, Roddenberry got completely away from that idea, and did so to the series' detriment in the end because he basically painted himself and his writers into a corner that they only got themselves out of following the end of the show's broadcast run and his death , which is unfortunate.
With TNG, Roddenberry got completely away from that idea, and did so to the series' detriment in the end because he basically painted himself and his writers into a corner that they only got themselves out of following the end of the show's broadcast run and his death , which is unfortunate.
Don't disagree about his self-esteem issues -- probably a result of his relationship with his dad and feeling inadequate. However, I do think Riker is one of the most open-minded and liberal characters in all of Star Trek. He embraces other cultures and traditions (the man nearly relished eating gagh), he fell for an androgynous alien, he is completely comfortable wearing a skant and scolds Worf for having a "backwards" point of view about skants, he has what is essentially an open relationship with Troi for most of TNG, etc. He's definitely a little arrogant sometimes, but I don't think he's close minded.
Regarding the original post subject matter, the thing that bothers me about TNG (much as I love it) is possibly related to the OP's issue. My problem is that so many of the stories are reactive -- too many plots are the crew stumbling into a problem or a problem coming to them, and the crew reacting to it. Other shows like ENT have more active stories, where the crew intentionally and consciously addresses the problem du jour. Sometimes TNG feels passive.
The NG shuttlecrafts props looked like the nacelles were just placed next to them and not even attached. Also, shouldn't the nacelles have looked like small versions of the 1701-D nacelles as TOS shuttlecraft and TFF shuttlecraft nacelles looked like the 1701 and 1701-A nacelles?
Last edited:
An irritant I found was that they seemed to get confused with what should be the A story, and what should be the B story. For example, in the episode called The Emisarry (I think) they spent 3/4 of the episode all about Worf's relationship with Kehlar, and just the last little bit actually dealing with the main story problem of the Klingon ship coming out of suspended animation and being a threat to the Federation. While I agree that character development and relationships are important to the series, they should be told in such a way as to enhance the plot and advance it, not to slow the story down.
I seem to remember this happening a number of times. Outrageous Okona, or Manhunt, anyone?
I seem to remember this happening a number of times. Outrageous Okona, or Manhunt, anyone?
I think they weren't confused in the specific case you mention, or in Outrageous Okona. I don't remember Manhunt. I think that's more to do with audience expectations. Outrageous Okona is titled after the A story, as indeed is The Emissary. Do you consider this a problem also with Datas Day, which exemplifies the fact that sometimes the show is about the characters, not the events, as ultimately it's these characters who we see the universe through week after week.
It's more jarring when the opposite happens, and we see a part of the story not witnessed by a main player in the plot, such as Selas first appearance. But then that is because this week, the story is about events in which the characters are, as opposed to about the characters experiencing an event.
The NG shuttlecrafts props looked like the nacelles were just placed next to them and not even attached. Also, shouldn't the nacelles have looked like small versions of the 1701-D nacelles as TOS shuttlecraft and TFF shuttlecraft nacelles looked like the 1701 and 1701-A nacelles?
Those are smaller shuttles running off contained fuel for short hops...the bigger shuttles did have starship styled engines with Bussards etc.
I don't think that holds true. The idea that humans don't improve over time, particularly if the tech is helping them do that, is more unrealistic.
IMO, it seemed that in each of these cases, they went with the weaker plot, rather than focusing on what would be the more interesting story.
As for Manhunt, the simplified plot of that one was "Mrs. Troi is horny."
Ah yes. That may explain why I forgot about it. Did it have a B plot?
To be fair, without that, a lot of the later better Lwxana stuff isn't as powerful. And she's menopausal HRT fears made incarnate, which probably appealed to part of the audience.
I'm trying to feel empathy for this position, on some level ... but I can't. I just can't! The cast of TNG is over 99% of its appeal. Now, there were missteps, some right out of the gate. For example:
I've come across some hatred of Riker on the boards, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. Some take exception to how he's frequently seen with high-heeled women. Like he's supposed to be The Talk of the Town, or something. I don't get that. Others just think he's an arse. He doesn't suffer fools lightly, otherwise, he's a fine XO ... and a good Man. He's well-liked and respected amongst his peers, I mean ... what do these Riker-haters want???
I agree with the above that Riker was open-minded and tolerant. I could've done without "The Outcast," myself, but I admire Jonathan Frakes attitudes, as a performer. There was no road he was afraid to take on TNG. He flew without a safety net, in that regard. Just look at "Skin of Evil," when Riker's sucked into a tar pit. That's not a double ... or a mannequin ... that's Jonathan Frakes, in-over-his-head in sticky slime. Sometimes, I wish he'd have been more discerning, instead of just running to the battle, as it were. But the Man is an Artist.
I liked the TNG cast, I think they had a lot of chemistry with each other. And I think 90% of people who use the word 'Pretentious' use it pretentiously. It's basically an ad hominem way to attack ideological themes you don't connect with.
I agree. Barclay was the first character that I found sympathetic and relatable. Deanna Troi was particularly annoying with her constant melodrama.
The B plot was about shipping these aliens who were in stasis to some conference, but it turns out they were really terrorists. It was literally handled in about 5 minutes.
I agree that the more light-hearted episodes where Lwaxana was more comedic really made later episodes more powerful, like Dark Page and Half a Life. But I just never felt Manhunt worked in any way.
She was one pain in the butt character.
Similar threads
